Orthodox dogmatic theology, understood as a science, must set forth Christian dogmas in a systematic order, with the greatest possible completeness, clarity, and thoroughness, and, moreover, in accordance with the spirit of the Orthodox Church.[1]

§2. The Concept of Christian Dogmas as the Subject of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

The term “Christian dogmas” refers to the revealed truths taught to people by the Church as indisputable and unchanging principles of the saving faith. That is, every Christian dogma is understood to possess three essential characteristics: a dogma is—

1) There is a truth that is revealed and, therefore, contained in Holy Scripture, or Holy Tradition, or both together: for there are no other sources for the Christian religion, and a teaching not found in these sources can never be a Christian dogma. In this very sense, the truths—brought to earth by Christ the Savior—are called dogmas in the very Word of God,[2] and among the ancient renowned pastors of the Church we find expressions such as: divine dogmas,[3] Christ’s dogmas,[4] the Lord’s dogmas,[5] evangelical dogmas, and apostolic dogmas;[6] even the entire Christian doctrine is generally referred to as dogma,[7] the Evangelists and Apostles are called teachers of dogma,[8] and Orthodox Christians—guardians of dogma.[9] This first characteristic distinguishes Christian dogma: a) from all non-Christian dogmas and truths in general, such as: the dogmas and truths of every other religion,[10] ; dogmas in the philosophical sense,[11] ; political dogmas,[12] ; and so on; b) from truths that are Christian but not contained in Divine Revelation, such as: most historical truths—for example, those concerning the life and works of this or that Church Father—as well as liturgical and canonical truths, i.e., those defining church worship and discipline. All these truths, simply because they are not contained in Divine Revelation—no matter how important they may be—cannot be called Christian dogmas.

2) — There is a truth taught by the Church. For although every single Christian dogma is contained in Divine Revelation, we, as individual believers, drawing each one directly from Revelation, can easily fail to understand one dogma or another, or understand it incorrectly, or—even if we understand it correctly—cannot be absolutely convinced that our understanding of the dogmas is entirely true,[13] — whereas the Church, among other things, was established by the Lord to be the guardian and interpreter of His Revelation for all people, to be the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and for this purpose is guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that it cannot err, deceive, or be deceived.[14] Consequently, in order for us to be fully convinced that certain revealed truths must be recognized as dogmas, and that they must be understood in this way and no other, we must hear these truths and their precise definition from the mouth of Christ’s Church—that is, of course, the true, Orthodox Church. In this very sense, even the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which represented the entire teaching Church, used the word — έδοξε (For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us... Acts 15:28), at the beginning of its brief decrees, which were subsequently made public to all believers as a guide; and the holy Evangelist Luke referred to these decrees as dogmas or decrees (δόγματα) established by the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). In the same manner, all the Ecumenical Councils that followed—which also represented the entire teaching Church—began their decrees, following the example of the Apostolic Council, with the word έδοξε (it pleased) and called these decrees dogmas; for example: the dogma of the 170 Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council concerning the two wills and actions in our Lord Jesus Christ.[15] Therefore, finally, in the writings of the ancient pastors , Christian dogmas are often referred to directly as the dogmas of the Church, the words of the Church,[16] , and Christians who consistently uphold these dogmas are said to belong to the Church.[17] This new characteristic distinguishes Christian dogmas: a) from private opinions, which believers themselves may form directly on the basis of Divine Revelation regarding the truths of the faith, and which, even if they were entirely correct, would forever remain merely opinions unless they are defined and taught to all by the Church.[18] On the other hand—b)—how do Orthodox, sound, and pious dogmas,[19] , differ from non-Orthodox dogmas or, in the words of the Holy Fathers, from the dogmas of impiety, perverse and heretical dogmas, held by particular churches or communities that have separated themselves from the true Church of Christ?[20]

3) — There is a truth taught by the Church as an indisputable and unchanging rule of saving faith: — this is the final essential characteristic of Christian dogma, distinguishing it from all other truths of Christian Revelation itself, as contained and taught by the Church. The truths of Christian Revelation, contained primarily in the books of Holy Scripture, are divided into two kinds: truths of faith, which believers must accept with their minds, and truths of practice, which must be accepted by the will and put into practice in life. The truths of faith are further subdivided into two classes: some pertain to the very essence of the Christian religion, as a restored union between God and man, and contain the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world and, in particular, to man, defining exactly what and how a person must believe in order to be saved: it is these that are taught by the Church as the indisputable and unchanging rules of the saving faith. Others do not directly pertain to the essence of the Christian religion and contain either historical accounts of the Church of God in the Old Testament and, in part, in the New Testament—about the judges, kings, rulers, and high priests of God’s people, as well as the holy Prophets, Apostles, and many other figures—or specific sayings of various individuals, prophets, apostles, and even Christ the Savior Himself, which do not pertain to the essence of the Christian religion (e.g., John 1:42, 47; 4:50; 6:8); or prophecies concerning the fate of God’s people, other nations, cities, and the like—and therefore, although worthy of our full faith, since they are set forth in Divine Revelation, they are not taught by the Church as necessary for salvation. The truths of conduct are also divided into two classes: those that specify exactly what a person, as a moral being called into a new covenant of grace with God, must do—these are, in fact, the moral Christian commandments; and those that show how a Christian should express his relationship with God in external worship, and how a Christian should conduct himself in the house of God (1 Tim. 3:15)—these are liturgical and canonical truths, of which, however, there are very few in the books of the New Testament. Of all these revealed truths, thus subdivided into four classes, only those in the first class are called dogmas in the strict sense—that is, truths that pertain to the very essence of the Christian religion, contain the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world and to humanity, and determine exactly what and how a Christian must believe in order to be saved. As truths of faith, they differ from all truths (rules) of conduct; and as rules of saving faith, they differ from truths of faith that do not relate directly to the essence of the Christian religion and the salvation of humankind.

In the strict sense, the term “dogma” in ecclesiastical language refers only to truths of faith, as opposed to all truths concerning Christian conduct—whether moral, liturgical, or canonical. This is evident from the example of the Ecumenical Councils themselves, which designated as dogmas exclusively their own definitions of faith, while referring to all their other decrees as canons or rules.[21] This is also evident from the writings of the Holy Fathers, for example:

a) St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in whose writings we read: “The essence of religion (or the manner of worshiping God) consists of the following two things: a precise knowledge of the dogmas of piety and good works; dogmas without good deeds are displeasing to God; nor does He accept deeds if they are not based on the dogmas of piety;”[22] b) St. Gregory of Nyssa, who, based on the Savior’s words to the Apostles: “Go therefore (μαθητεύσατε) and make disciples of all nations,.. teaching them to observe all (τηρείν πάντα) that I have commanded you (Matt. 28:19–20), divides the entire Christian teaching into two parts: the moral and the dogmatic (εις έθικον μέρος καί είς δογμάτων άκριβείαν); c) St. Chrysostom, according to whom Christianity requires, along with the dogmas of Orthodoxy, pious practice as well.[23] Finally, this is confirmed by the use of the word “dogmatic” (δογματικόν) in liturgical books, where the “dogmatics” refer to the hymns in honor of the Mother of God, which embody the doctrine of faith concerning the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, the Incarnation of the Lord, and the union of the two natures in Him.

Dogmas are defined as those truths of the faith set forth in Divine Revelation which, pertaining to the very essence of the Christian religion—as a restored union between God and humankind—contain the actual doctrine concerning God and His relationship to the world, and in particular to humankind, and which are taught by the Church, as the rules of saving faith, indisputable and unchanging. To prove this point, it suffices to point out: a) the brief statements of Orthodox dogmas or creeds, which indeed contain only truths about God and His relationship to the world, and in particular to humanity, and subsequently the Church’s explanations of these creeds in catechisms, where we see the same thing; b) the fact that from the very beginning the Orthodox Church has always excommunicated—and thus excluded from participation in eternal salvation—those who dared to reject or distort its dogmas,[24] and—c) the Church’s direct teaching on the indisputability and inviolability of its dogmas: “If anyone among all, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council say, does not hold and accept the dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach in accordance with them, but attempts to go against them, let him be anathema, according to the decree previously established by the holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be excluded and cast out from the Christian community as a stranger. For, in accordance with what has been decreed previously, we have resolutely decided neither to add anything to it nor to subtract anything from it, and we could not in any way” (Canon 1). This inviolability and immutability of Christian dogmas is based on the fact that they are all revealed by God Himself and taught to us by the Church, the divinely established and infallible teacher.

Consequently, Christian dogmas—if we consider only their distinctive character among other revealed truths—can also be defined as follows: “these are the essences of truth that are an essential part of the doctrine of the faith, as held and taught by the Christian Church.” Therefore, Orthodox dogmatic theology is nothing other than the system of Orthodox doctrine. If, however, we consider the very content of Christian dogmas as a whole, they must be defined as follows: “the essence of truth (contained and taught by the Church) concerning God and His relationship to the world, and in particular to humanity; or, in other words, concerning God in Himself and God as Creator, Provider, and Savior.” Consequently, the term “Orthodox dogmatic theology” should be understood to refer to the discipline that expounds the teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning God and His works, as this branch of theology is commonly defined.

§3. The Origin and Elaboration of Dogmas in the Church: Sources and Models of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

From the understanding of Christian dogmas presented above, it becomes clear that they all have a divine origin. Consequently, no one has the right to add to or subtract from their number, nor to alter or change them in any way whatsoever: just as many as were revealed by God in the beginning, so many must remain for all time, as long as Christianity exists. However, while remaining unchanged in Revelation itself—both in number and in essence—the dogmas of the faith must nevertheless be revealed, and are revealed, in the Church to the faithful.

Ever since people began to assimilate the dogmas taught in Revelation and to reduce them to the scope of their own understanding, these sacred truths have inevitably begun to vary in the understanding of different individuals (as happens with every truth when it becomes the property of people), — inevitably, various opinions, various misunderstandings regarding the dogmas, and even various distortions of the dogmas or heresies, both intentional and unintentional, had to arise and did arise. To protect the faithful from all this, to show them exactly what and how they should believe on the basis of Revelation, the Church from the very beginning offered them, according to the tradition handed down from the holy Apostles themselves, brief statements of faith or creeds.[25] Here, in a few words, the entirety of the fundamental dogmas of Christianity was set forth, and each clause had a twofold meaning: on the one hand, it indicated the truth of Revelation, which believers were to accept as a dogma of the faith; on the other hand, it protected them from any heresy against which it was directed.[26] This was the case throughout the first three centuries of Christianity: the Church did not have just one creed, but used several, which, while similar in spirit, differed in wording,[27] with almost each one having certain distinctive features aimed against the errors that arose in one place or another where a particular creed was used.[28] Among these symbols, the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker remains to this day held in special esteem in the Orthodox Church; it expounds the doctrine of the personal attributes and perfect equality of all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, in opposition to Sabellius and Paul of Samosata.[29]

From the fourth century onward, when the most destructive heresies—Arianism and later Macedonianism—arose, and when heretics began to particularly misuse the terms that had hitherto been used to denote various truths of the faith, and began to issue their own creeds modeled after the Orthodox ones, — the Church saw the need to compose and promulgate, as a guide for all believers, a single, definitive creed, unaltered even to the letter, and to establish, in general, the meaning of sacred terms and ecclesiastical-theological language.[30] Such a creed was, in fact, composed at the First Ecumenical Council, and, having been supplemented at the Second—under the name of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—in accordance with the rules of the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils, it became the unalterable standard of faith for the entire Christian world and for all ages.[31] This creed contains the same doctrine as the previous ones; but with the difference that certain articles of faith are set forth in it with greater clarity and detail against various new heresies, especially the articles concerning the divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity against Arius, Photinus, and Apollinaris, and concerning the divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity—against Macedonius.[32]

In the following century, the Monophysite heresy arose, and the Fourth Ecumenical Council (in 451) formulated a creedal definition regarding the two natures in the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, which (creedal definition) is nothing other than the most precise exposition of the meaning contained in the third article of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[33]

Around the same time, the so-called Athanasian Creed appeared, in which, in addition to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of the union of the two natures in the Lord Jesus is set forth with complete precision—a creed which, although not composed at Ecumenical Councils, is accepted and revered by the entire Church. Later, the Monothelite heresy arose, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council (in 681) issued a creedal definition regarding the two wills and actions in our Lord Jesus Christ, which can be regarded as a further elaboration of the Chalcedonian creedal definition. The heresy of the Iconoclasts arose, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (in 787) formulated a creedal definition regarding the veneration of icons. All these creedal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils—the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh—constitute a necessary supplement to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, although they have not been incorporated into it due to the rules of the Ecumenical Councils themselves regarding its absolute inviolability and immutability. In addition to the most important dogmas, which were included in the creeds from the very beginning and were elaborated upon at the Ecumenical Councils, certain other dogmas were simultaneously elaborated—in response to emerging heresies—at local councils, which were later confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trullo; for example: the dogmas concerning original sin, the workings of grace, the necessity of baptism even for infants (in Canons 123–130 of the Council of Carthage), and on the sacrament of confirmation (in Canon 48 of the Council of Laodicea), as well as by individual Holy Fathers in their numerous writings, among whom those named and approved (in Canon 2) by the very same Council of Trullo are worthy of special respect.[34] Thus was accomplished the second, most important period of the revelation or development of Christian dogmas in the Church—the most important because it was here that dogmas were revealed and defined at the Ecumenical Councils, which are infallible; and because fundamental dogmas—encompassing or subsuming all others—were defined, one unchanging model of faith was definitively established for all ages as the foundation of all dogmatic theology, and the precise ecclesiastical-theological language was defined and established. That is why the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly professes: “Our dogmas and the teachings of our Eastern Church have been handed down from ancient times, correctly and piously defined and established by the holy and Ecumenical Councils; it is impermissible to add anything to them or take anything away from them. Therefore, those who wish to agree with us on the divine dogmas of the Orthodox faith must, with simplicity and obedience, without any scrutiny or curiosity, follow and submit to everything that has been defined and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers and confirmed by the holy and Ecumenical Councils, from the time of the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers of our Church.”[35]

This does not mean, however, that with the cessation of the Ecumenical Councils, the further development of dogma in the Orthodox Church came to an end. It did not cease, because errors and heresies did not cease. The most significant of these errors were, first, the errors of the Roman Church, which separated it from the universal Church—and in the Orthodox East, councils were convened against them on more than one occasion, and precise statements of faith were written; and second, the errors of the Protestants in their various sects, which were also repeatedly subjected to conciliar review by the pastors of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who at the same time published the most precise statements of faith against these errors, in order to safeguard the purity of Orthodoxy. In this way, two most comprehensive confessions of the Eastern Orthodox Church were compiled, in which the doctrinal definitions of the ancient Ecumenical Councils are elaborated in detail as they apply to the errors and heresies that arose subsequently. We refer to: The Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East and The Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith.[36] Following the model of these creeds—and especially the first one—both in the Orthodox East and in Russia, other statements of faith or catechisms were subsequently compiled for the same purpose; among these, the following holds the foremost place in our homeland: The Orthodox Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, reviewed and approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod. It cannot be said that the exposition of Christian dogmas has ceased even now: it will not cease until errors against the dogmas cease, and consequently, until the Church’s need—in response to new errors—to define and explain its dogmas for the protection of Orthodoxy ceases.[37]

What, then, can be said in general about the significance of this development or revelation of dogmas in the Church? It does not involve any increase in the number of dogmas;—no: the Orthodox Church still holds just as many dogmas as were revealed by God Himself in the beginning. Nor is it any kind of change in the dogmas, which the Orthodox Church continues to observe and teach in all their inviolability and immutability. All this development is, in fact, nothing more than a more precise definition and explanation of the very same dogmas, which are unchanging in their essence, taking place gradually over the centuries in response to various errors and heresies that have arisen and continue to exist within the bosom of Christianity.[38] And by whom has this definition and explanation of the dogmas been and is being carried out? It has been and continues to be carried out by the Church, in which the Holy Spirit dwells constantly, preserving it from all errors. How is this done? Only on the basis of that very same Divine Revelation—that is, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition—in which God Himself taught the very dogmas from the very beginning. Consequently, in the development of dogmas, nothing new is introduced into Christian doctrine; rather, in response to heresies, what Orthodox believers have always professed—based on Revelation, though not as distinctly—is more precisely defined and explained for them. And so, both the dogmas themselves and their most detailed elaboration within the Church are worthy of our utmost respect: for both the dogmas and their elaboration are equally grounded in Divine Revelation; both the dogmas and their elaboration are equally derived from Revelation by the Church, the infallible teacher.

From what we have said regarding the origin and revelation of dogmas, we must draw the following conclusions:

1) The sole source of Orthodox dogmatic theology is Divine Revelation, that is, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

2) The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed must be recognized as the unshakable foundation of this theology; it has superseded all previous creeds and has been accepted by the universal Church as the unchanging model of faith for all ages, — and, together with this creed, as a supplement to it, all other statements of faith from the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the holy Fathers named by the Council of Trullo, as well as the creeds of St. Gregory the Wonderworker and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, which are accepted and revered by the entire Church.[39]

3) The following should be recognized as a constant guide, providing the most detailed exposition of dogmas in Orthodox dogmatic theology: 1) The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, 2) The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, and 3) * * (The Extensive Christian Catechism of the Catholic Eastern Church)—the first and the last, specifically in those parts that contain an explanation of the Creed.[40]

§4. Various Classifications of Dogmas and the Significance of These Classifications in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

To distinguish between different concepts of dogmas, they are usually examined from various perspectives, leading to different classifications of dogmas; however, not all of these classifications can be accepted in Orthodox dogmatic theology. And—

1) Focusing on the essential characteristics of dogmas, they are divided into biblical dogmas—since they are contained in the Bible or in Revelation in general—and ecclesiastical dogmas—since they are preached by the Church: this division is unjust. For there are no strictly ecclesiastical dogmas—that is, those that would be distinct from biblical ones; at least not in the Orthodox Church: it preserves with the utmost precision the very same dogmas found in Revelation, and merely defines and explains them for its children, instructing them in what and how they should believe, based on the Word of God. Dogmas not based on Revelation—or even contradicting it—can only be found in non-Orthodox churches or communities; for example, the Roman Catholic Church’s dogma regarding the primacy and infallibility of the pope.

2) When considering dogmas in terms of their revelation, a distinction is made between explicit dogmas (explicita) and implicit dogmas (implicita). This distinction is grounded in the nature of the matter itself; for indeed, there are dogmas in the Church that have been defined even in detail, such as the dogmas concerning the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, which have been subject to numerous distortions by heretics and have been defined at Ecumenical Councils; — and there are dogmas that have not been defined in detail, for example: the dogmas concerning the particular judgment and the fall of the evil spirits. The Church teaches that, upon the death of every person, a particular judgment takes place; but it does not clearly state exactly when, where, or how this judgment occurs; it also teaches that the evil angels were good in the beginning and fell of their own accord—but it does not precisely define how their fall occurred, when it took place, or how many fell. This distinction regarding dogmas must also be kept in mind in Orthodox Dogmatics: it will make room within it for so-called “opinions.” Everything that the Orthodox Church definitively teaches regarding a given dogma—Dogmatics must accept with unconditional submission and inviolability; but regarding matters about a dogma that the Church does not define, a theologian—like any Christian—may hold personal opinions, provided only that these opinions are consistent with the essence of the dogma as defined by the Church, with all other dogmas, and with the Church’s teaching in general, and are based, at least to some extent, on Revelation: such an exercise of opinion in the realm of Orthodox theology is sanctified by the example of the Holy Fathers. It should be noted, however, that some dogmas can be called “revealed” and others “unrevealed” only relatively; for just as there are no dogmas that are completely unrevealed in the Church (there is invariably some clear teaching about each one within it), so too are there no dogmas revealed down to the smallest details: regarding each one (even the dogma of the Holy Trinity), one can always raise questions for which we will find no answer in the Church’s positive teaching, and we will have to limit ourselves to particular opinions—whether our own or those of the ancient and renowned pastors of the Church.

3) When considering dogmas in relation to one another, they may be divided into general and fundamental dogmas, otherwise known as the articles of faith (άρθρα τής πίστεως), each of which encompasses several other dogmas or, at the very least, serves as a foundation for them; and particular dogmas (δόγματα τής πίστεως), derived from the former or based upon them. The collection of general dogmas, defined and affirmed at the Ecumenical Councils, constitutes the creed. “The articles of the Orthodox and Catholic faith,” states the Orthodox Confession (Part 1, answer to Question 5), “according to the creeds of the First Council of Nicaea and the Second Council of Constantinople, number twelve. They set forth so clearly everything pertaining to our faith that we must believe neither more nor less, nor in any other way, than in accordance with the understanding of those Fathers. However, some of these articles are clear and intelligible in themselves; while others contain something hidden, from which the rest must be understood.” The Holy Church presents to us the derivation and definition of particular dogmas, based on the Creed, in its extensive confessions of faith or catechisms. This classification of dogmas, being fully consistent with the Orthodox Church’s own view of them, must also be accepted in Orthodox dogmatics and is of great importance. It explains to us that, by accepting the articles of faith presented to us by the Church in the Creed, we thereby commit ourselves to accepting all the particular dogmas that the Church derives from them; and by rejecting any of the particular dogmas, we inevitably—albeit implicitly—reject the very article of faith from which that dogma is derived. It also explains why, on the one hand, many who know and sincerely profess only the Creed, without knowing all the particular dogmas of the Church, are considered her Orthodox children and have the hope of salvation; and why, on the other hand, other Christians, by stubbornly rejecting even one of the particular dogmas of the Orthodox Church—that is, one not literally contained in the Creed—are excommunicated from communion with the faithful and declared heretics. The former, by accepting the Creed with clear understanding, also accept—albeit without distinct awareness—all the specific dogmas derived by the Church from the Creed; while the latter, by opposing any particular dogma, thereby reject the very article of the Creed upon which that dogma is based, or, more precisely, reject the ninth article of the Creed, in which we confess: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

4) Considering the relationship of dogmas to our intellect, they are divided into dogmas that are incomprehensible to the intellect—or mysteries—and dogmas that are comprehensible to it. The former are also called pure dogmas (pura), since they are based solely on supernatural Revelation; the latter are called mixed dogmas (mixta), since they are known to us not only from supernatural Revelation but also from natural reason. This distinction is both valid in itself and useful in the field of Orthodox dogmatics. By keeping it constantly in mind, we will know with regard to which dogmas the use of reason in theology can and even must be permitted, and with regard to which it cannot, and how reason should generally conduct itself in both cases.

5) When considering dogmas in relation to the eternal salvation of man, some seek to distinguish between essential (fundamental) dogmas—which must be accepted and professed in order to attain salvation—and non-essential (non-fundamental) dogmas—which may be accepted but can also, as it were, be rejected without any detriment to salvation: a distinction invented by Protestants, which cannot in any way be accepted in Orthodox dogmatics.

First of all, it contradicts Holy Scripture. Christ the Savior, when sending His disciples out to preach to the whole world, said to them: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20), adding to this, without any distinction regarding His doctrines: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe—that is, who rejects the apostolic teaching altogether—will be condemned (Mark 16:16). And the Apostles, indeed, in accordance with the Lord’s command, did not fail to proclaim… the whole will of God (Acts 20:27), and, on the one hand, commended those who faithfully observed all their teachings: “I commend you, brothers, that you remember everything I have taught you and hold fast to the traditions just as I handed them on to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), while on the other hand, they pronounced anathema upon those who dared to distort or reject anything in this teaching: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8; cf. 2 John 9–10; Titus 3:10). The question arises: why, then, would the Apostles have set forth all these truths that we find in the Word of God, when only some—a few of them—are necessary for our salvation, and the rest are superfluous?

Second, this contradicts Holy Tradition and the practice of the Orthodox Church, which from its very inception has always recognized as heretics not only those who boldly rejected or distorted its fundamental dogmas, but also those who rejected or distorted even those dogmas that Protestants now consider non-essential: for example, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it excommunicated the iconoclasts for failing to venerate holy icons and the holy relics of God’s saints.

Third, it contradicts even common sense: nothing could be more inconsistent with common sense than if someone were to derive completely contradictory conclusions from the same premise—and this is precisely what happens when dogmas are divided into essential and non-essential ones. Why are we obliged to accept the former and consider them necessary for our salvation? No other ground can be devised except that God Himself has revealed these dogmas to us. But the dogmas of the latter kind are also revealed by God Himself and are contained in His Revelation: why, then, are we supposedly justified in not accepting these dogmas and not considering them necessary for our salvation?

Fourth, such a division of dogmas is a fanciful one, as yet unconfirmed by the experience of the Protestants themselves: for even to this day they and all their scholars have not agreed among themselves as to which truths of Revelation should be considered essential dogmas and which should not, and some consider one thing essential while others consider another; and they can never agree: both because of the very nature of the matter, which is arbitrarily contrived, and because of the nature of the individual minds engaged in this matter.

Finally, such a division of dogmas is extremely dangerous in its consequences. It—

a) leads to the complete overthrow of the Christian religion: for as soon as everyone is allowed to determine for themselves which dogmas are essential and which are non-essential—that is, which must be accepted and which may be rejected—soon there will not remain a single dogmatic truth in Revelation that anyone might not choose to reject, as the experience of Protestant rationalists has shown; b) leads to religious indifference: then everyone, assuring himself that he professes the essential dogmas of Christianity—no matter which church or Christian community he belongs to—will begin to regard all differences among Christian denominations as a matter of little importance; c) leads to despair regarding salvation: if, in order to attain eternal salvation, it is necessary to believe in essential dogmas; yet no Protestant has ever been able—nor is anyone able—to define these dogmas correctly and indisputably, then how can these people be convinced that they are on the right path to salvation—that is, that they believe in the essential dogmas, and specifically in all of them, while rejecting only the non-essential ones? Is peace of mind possible with such a way of thinking?....

6) Finally, we cannot fail to mention the division of dogmas into those shared by the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox churches and communities, and its own distinctive dogmas—namely, those which only the Orthodox Church has preserved in their entirety, inherited from the ancient Ecumenical Church, while other Christian communities have either distorted or completely rejected them. This distinction must be kept in mind so that, in Orthodox dogmatics, primary attention may be given to the latter category of dogmas, as they are most vulnerable to attacks from those who hold erroneous views.

§5. The Nature, Structure, and Method of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

The nature of dogmatic theology is determined by its concept of duty, its subject matter, and its models. In form, it must be a system; that is, it must set forth the dogmas of the Christian faith in a strict sequence, with the greatest possible completeness, clarity, and soundness. This constitutes its external character, by which it is distinguished—a) from all other forms and confessions of faith in which the Holy Church itself teaches the dogmas, and b) in general from any other unsystematic exposition of dogmas. In spirit—it must be imbued with Orthodoxy, and therefore, in setting forth dogmas, it must constantly be guided by the sound teaching of the Orthodox Church and must be subordinate to its creeds and confessions of faith. This is the intrinsic character of Orthodox dogmatic theology, distinguishing it from all non-Orthodox dogmatic theologies, such as those of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches, as well as all other sects that have separated themselves from the true Church of Christ.

It is possible to construct a system of Orthodox dogmatics and outline its structure only on the basis of its sole principle—a correct understanding of its subject matter—because a science must be a faithful representation of its subject; it must, therefore, correspond to it in its division into constituent parts. The subject of Orthodox dogmatic theology is known to us: it is the essence of the dogmas of the faith, or, if we consider their content, it is the essence of those truths of the faith which, relating directly to the essence of the Christian religion, contain within themselves the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world and, in particular, to man. But the Christian religion is not merely a union of God with humanity, such as the primordial union to which the Lord called humanity, together with all other spiritual beings, through their very creation, but rather a covenant specifically restored after the fall of humankind—a covenant to which only fallen humankind is directly called, and called through redemption in Christ Jesus. For this reason, Christian dogmas, which set forth the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world and, in particular, to humankind, are of two kinds. Some contain the doctrine of God and His relationship to humanity in general (naturali, ordinario)—the same relationship that God had and has toward all other beings in the world—and which is expressed in two of God’s actions: creation and providence. The others comprise the doctrine of God specifically as the Redeemer of humankind and of His special relationship (supranaturali, extraordinario) to the human race, known as the great work of our salvation.[41] The former truths belong to the Christian religion as a religion and would also be found in primitive religion, had humanity preserved it to this day; the latter belong exclusively to the restored Christian religion. This division of Christian dogmas was most commonly used by the ancient Church Fathers, who usually referred to the body of dogmas of the first kind by the word Θεολογία—theology—and to the body of dogmas of the latter kind by the word οίκονομία—the mystery of redemption or stewarding (Eph. 3:9).[42] It remained in common use in the Orthodox Church throughout the subsequent period: “It is her custom,” wrote Mitrofan Kritopoulos—who served as Patriarch of Alexandria toward the end of the 17th century—in his *Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East*, “to divide its dogmatic teaching into simple theology (θεολογία άπλή) and theology concerning redemption” (θεολογία οίκονομική).[43] As a result of all this, Orthodox dogmatic theology can still be divided into two main parts: I) the doctrine of God in Himself and His general relationship to the world and, in particular, to humanity—that is, creation and providence (θεολογία άπλή)—and II) the doctrine of God specifically as the Redeemer of humanity and His special relationship to the human race—that is, the mystery of redemption (θεολογία οίκονομική).

In particular, when expounding each dogma separately, Orthodox Dogmatics must:

1) First and foremost, provide a precise definition of the dogma from the Church’s brief or more extensive creeds, for the primary task of Orthodox dogmatic theology is to show how the Orthodox Church teaches regarding dogmas. The simplest way to achieve this is to present the Church’s teaching on several dogmas together at the beginning of each section or chapter in which those dogmas are to be discussed; then to break down the presented teaching into parts, in accordance with the requirements of the system, and, after this breakdown, to examine each part separately, one after another. Occasionally, in such cases, it may be necessary to provide an even more specific definition of a particular dogma when explaining it in detail.

2) Following the Church’s definition of a dogma, one should cite its very foundations from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. For the Church does not teach us her own doctrine, nor does she teach it of her own accord; her dogmas are divinely revealed truths, all of which she derives from the Word of God. The principal rules for Orthodox Dogmatics in this matter are as follows:

1) Regarding Holy Scripture: a) one should cite passages to support dogmas not only from the New Testament but, where necessary, from the Old Testament as well; for both together constitute, in essence, a single Divine Revelation, and although the ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Testament were set aside when the New Testament appeared, — nevertheless, the Old Testament law of faith and morality remains in full force even now, having merely been more fully explained and revealed in the New Testament Revelation; b) however, when passages from Old Testament Scripture are cited, they should be drawn primarily from the canonical books: for the testimony of non-canonical books cannot carry such weight in supporting dogmas; c) there is no need to cite every passage of Scripture that might pertain to a given dogma; rather, it suffices to cite only the clearest passages, the so-called “classical” ones; d) when extracting passages from Scripture and interpreting them to support dogmas, one must generally do so strictly in accordance with the rules of sound, Orthodox hermeneutics.

Regarding Sacred Tradition: a) Evidence from Tradition should be cited to confirm or clarify dogmas only after evidence from Scripture—the first and foremost source of the Christian religion—has been cited; b) it is necessary to cite evidence from Tradition in all those cases where the evidence from Scripture is either not sufficiently clear and complete, or is subject to various interpretations and disputes; c) but there is no need to cite passages from Tradition where passages from Scripture are completely clear and definite, such that they are not subject to any doubts or reinterpretations, either on the part of the Orthodox nor even by non-Orthodox, for example, in the teaching on certain attributes of God: in this case, passages from Tradition—preserved primarily in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Church—can at best only acquaint us with how the ancient, renowned teachers of the faith expounded certain dogmas; d) in general, however, passages cited from Tradition must bear the marks of their truly apostolic origin.[44]

Having fulfilled these two essential duties in expounding each dogma—that is, having shown how the Orthodox Church teaches it and having demonstrated, on the basis of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, why she teaches it this way—dogmatic theology may:

3) Allow for the considerations of sound human reason regarding the dogma under consideration (Rom. 12:2; 1 Thess. 5:20). If this dogma is a truth accessible to the mind, then the mind can find new explanations for it and even support for it within the scope of its own knowledge. If, however, the dogma is mysterious and incomprehensible, then the mind can, at the very least, show how this mystery, for all its incomprehensibility, is a source of light for the believer—how closely it is connected with other truths of Christian doctrine that are comprehensible to the mind—how the thought it expresses is worthy of God, consistent with His perfections, and at the same time beneficial to human morality—how unjust it is to reject this mystery simply because it is incomprehensible, and so on. Finally, it is well known that both dogmas comprehensible to reason and, especially, those that are incomprehensible have always been and continue to be subject to objections from freethinkers, which, for the most part, are derived from reason and therefore can be refuted only with the aid of reason. It is true that all such considerations— —whether based on human natural reason to explain, reinforce, or defend dogmas—cannot be of great value in the realm of Christian theology, which is positive and supernatural; yet they can greatly facilitate believers’ understanding of Christian dogmas by bringing them closer to the concepts of the sublime truths of Revelation, and in some cases, at the very least, are not superfluous (when elucidating incomprehensible dogmas), in others—useful (when elucidating comprehensible dogmas), and in still others—even necessary (when resolving objections). That is why the Holy Fathers and teachers of the ancient Church not only did not reject the legitimate use of reason and knowledge in the realm of faith, but even considered it necessary,[45] and when they explained Christian dogmas in detail, especially against those who held erroneous views, they by no means limited themselves to the testimonies of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition alone, but were in the habit of appealing to human common sense as well, calling upon dialectics, philosophy, natural science, and other sciences for assistance, and striving to find in them, each according to his own understanding, proofs or explanations of revealed truths.[46] And this is what the renowned teachers did not only in cases concerning comprehensible dogmas—when, for example, they proved the unity of God against polytheists, or the existence of Providence against Stoics and pantheists, or explained the origin of evil in the world as stemming from the abuse of human freedom against Gnostics and Marcionites,[47] —but also when, refuting the errors of heretics, they discussed the greatest mysteries of the Christian faith: the Trinity of Persons in God, the pre-eternal begetting of the Word of God, His Incarnation, His death on the cross, and so on. The works of the great universal teachers—Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom—and especially the works of St. Athanasius the Great and Blessed Augustine are filled with such intellectual reflections on all these incomprehensible truths.[48] And St. John of Damascus, the first systematic theologian, left us in his *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* an even more immediate example of how, in the field of dogmatic theology, one can combine proofs and explanations of truths from Revelation—whether comprehensible or incomprehensible—with proofs and explanations of those same truths derived from reason.[49]

When applying reason to the field of Orthodox dogmatics, one must simply adhere to the following rules: a) to use reason only as the ancient Holy Fathers did, and not as the modern champions of reason (ratio)—the rationalists—would have it; that is, one must constantly keep reason in submission to faith (2 Cor. 10:5),[50] which is both the foundation [51] and the source,[52] and the necessary condition (Isa. 7:9),[53] and the true judge (κριτήριον) of all theological knowledge,[54] — to ensure that the mind treats revealed truths with due reverence,[55] and does not strive to comprehend and explain that which is beyond its power,[56] does not presume to think of itself more highly than it ought to think (Rom. 12:3), — but by no means to recognize the mind as the judge of faith, which supposedly has the right to subject supernatural dogmas to its critical scrutiny, to pass judgment on their merit, and then to interpret them in one way or another: this would no longer be the use, but the abuse, of reason in the realm of revealed theology—an abuse that is so contrary to the very essence of Christian Revelation, which is divine and supernatural, and contrary to the intention of Christ the Savior and the Apostles, who demanded of people, above all, faith (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6, etc.)—an abuse against which all the ancient teachers of the Church so strongly protested;[57] b) to follow in this not any particular philosophical system or doctrine exclusively, but sound reason in general, and, following the advice of the Fathers, to make use of everything that can be found useful for the faith in all human knowledge, like a bee that, alighting on every flower, knows how to extract from it only that which is suitable for her;[58] c) all such rational considerations—even legitimate ones—in the field of dogmatic theology, whether they originate with us personally or are drawn from the writings of the Holy Fathers, must by no means be equated with the dogmas themselves, nor compared to the proofs or explanations of the dogmas, drawn from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition; nor should they be regarded as valid proofs in the strict theological sense: neglect of this rule, as the experience of the Roman Church has shown, has often led to the private opinions of certain ancient teachers or even later theologians being elevated to the status of dogmas;[59] d) not to delve into excessive dialectical subtleties when discussing dogmas, and all the more to avoid empty questions that do not directly pertain to the positive teaching of the Church; the example of medieval scholasticism has shown to what extremes such subtleties and questions can lead dogmatic theology.[60]

4) One may draw upon the history of dogmas. We have already noted that the dogmas of the faith, as divine truths, always remain unchanged in the teaching of the Orthodox Church: she continues to teach these truths today in the very form in which she received them from the Lord Jesus Himself, and will continue to teach them until the end of time. However, the way individual believers understood the dogmas has changed more than once over the centuries: there were people who held false views about the dogmas; there were also those who completely distorted or rejected the dogmas and fell into heresy. Consequently, the Holy Church convened Ecumenical and Local Councils, where it issued the most precise definitions and explanations of these dogmas to guide the Orthodox; and zealous pastors wrote entire treatises against heretics, and, depending on the nature of the heresy and the demands of the circumstances of place and time, each employed—according to his own personal understanding and reasoning—various interpretations or proofs in favor of the dogma being defended. From this arose the history of dogmas, which, when presented in Orthodox Dogmatics, can significantly contribute to a more precise understanding of the Church’s teaching on them. It is not necessary, however, for this history to be presented at length in Dogmatics: a detailed account of heresies and false opinions concerning the truths of the faith, as well as a detailed account of the teachings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church who defended these truths, are subjects for specialized disciplines, while Dogmatics should draw from them into its history of dogmas only as much as is truly necessary for a better understanding of them, and consequently—only when it is actually necessary. But since there are dogmas which, at least in their particular propositions, have never been subject to reinterpretations or heresies, or can be understood quite easily even without the aid of history, it is evident that Dogmatics should turn to history only in certain cases that truly require it, — for example, when expounding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the person of the God-Man, and so on. The place for the history of a dogma, when the doctrine concerning it is expounded in detail in theology, may—depending on what is most convenient—be at the very beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the exposition. And it is most appropriate to combine this history with the proofs for the dogma drawn from Tradition, given their close connection to it.

5) Finally, it may demonstrate the relationship between dogmas and the Christian life. It is well known that the dogmas of the faith and the laws of Christian morality are most closely connected with one another, by the very nature of the Christian religion—that they are inseparably communicated by God in Revelation and remain inseparable in the life of a true Christian; and therefore, even if in scholarship, for the sake of convenience in studying both, they are distinguished from one another and considered separately, scholarship is nevertheless obligated, when the occasion arises , to illustrate this living connection between them. Dogmatics will act very prudently if, after properly expounding each dogma, it concludes by demonstrating its moral application. However, since such an exposition will merely be a derivation of moral reflections and edifying rules from the dogmas already expounded—and does not pertain directly to their actual exposition and presentation, which is precisely what dogmatics is supposed to address—all these moral reflections in dogmatics, given the existence of a separate discipline expounding Christian moral teaching, need by no means be extensive, although they are by no means precluded by the existence of the latter.

In general, it should be noted that this discipline is absolutely obligated to fulfill the first two conditions of the true method of Orthodox Dogmatics that we have outlined—that is, to first show how the Orthodox Church teaches a dogma, and then to cite its very foundations from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition—whenever a dogma is expounded: otherwise, it would not be worthy of its name. However, it may fulfill the remaining three conditions at its discretion, as it deems best, or it may choose not to fulfill them at all, or to fulfill only some of them, depending on convenience, and this will not deprive it of the right to be called Orthodox Dogmatics.

§6. The First Period of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

The history of Orthodox dogmatic theology comprises three periods that differ considerably from one another: the first period—from the second century to the middle of the eighth, from the disciples of the Apostles to St. John of Damascus (770–754); the second period—from the mid-eighth century to nearly the mid-seventeenth, from St. John of Damascus to Metropolitan Peter Mohyla of Kyiv (1631–1647); the third period—from the mid-seventeenth century to the present day.

In the first period, we do not yet see dogmatic theology in the form of a science or a system; but we already see a scientific method of investigating dogmas, and we even see the beginnings of a systematic exposition of dogmas—albeit incomplete and imperfect—without a strict separation of these dogmas, as the subject of dogmatic theology, from the other truths of Christianity.

The scholarly method of investigating Christian dogmas—which Christ the Savior and His Apostles, and after them the men of the Apostolic Age, taught in the simplest and most accessible form—was brought about by the circumstances of the early Church. By this we mean—

a) the emergence of enemies of the Church in the form of pagan scholars, to whom it was not enough merely to show what Christianity teaches, but it was also necessary to prove its sacred dogmas and defend them through dialectic;[61]

b) the entry into the bosom of Christ’s Church of learned pagans—[62] —who, having previously been accustomed to thinking about everything according to the rules of science or a systematic framework, naturally applied the same method of inquiry to Christian truths;

c) the emergence of heretics who, applying the principles of one philosophy or another (especially Neoplatonism) to Divine Revelation, sought to explain the incomprehensible truths of the holy faith through their own reason, thereby distorting many of its dogmas, and then defending their errors by the power of dialectic, could not be refuted and overcome except by the very same weapon;[63]

d) the establishment of Christian schools, where future pastors of the Church, while studying not only the truths of the faith but also certain auxiliary sciences, imperceptibly acquired the skill of thinking about everything—and consequently about Christian truths—in a scientific manner; These schools—among which the Alexandrian school was particularly renowned ( )—already existed in the second and third centuries and multiplied even more in the fourth, fifth, and subsequent centuries;[64]

d) Finally, the love of many Holy Fathers for philosophy: calling it at times a path to Christ and a preparatory means for understanding Divine wisdom,[65] and at other times a bulwark and defense of the truths of the Gospel,[66] renowned teachers willingly engaged in this discipline and made use of it in elucidating and defending revealed doctrine: some of them primarily followed an eclectic philosophy,[67] others preferred Plato’s,[68] while still others favored Aristotle’s, which had already begun to gain strength among Christian scholars by the fifth century and had penetrated Christian schools.[69] For all these reasons, a scholarly approach to the study of Christian dogmas emerged very early: we find it already in the writings of Justin the Philosopher (†165), Athenagoras (†180), Theophilus of Antioch (†199), Irenaeus (†203), and Tertullian (†220); even more so among the renowned teachers and students of the Alexandrian school: Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), Origen (d. 254), Gregory the Wonderworker (d. 270), Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265), and others. In the fourth century, this method became widely used among the Church Fathers, especially by Athanasius and Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa; in the fifth century, it reached an even higher level of development—in the works of Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and, above all, Augustine. The essence of this method lay in the fact that the revered pastors of the Church, when expounding or defending a particular dogma, sought to define its meaning more precisely, elucidating it from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition,[70] and to this end they often pointed to the example of the apostolic churches,[71] to the sacred hymns, prayers, and rites that had been in use in the Church since ancient times,[72] or cited a series of testimonies from the writings of earlier teachers,[73] and drew upon sayings from the acts of the martyrs;[74] at the same time, they engaged in rational reflections on dogma, drew conclusions from revealed truths, constructed syllogisms, and even, at times, delved into dialectical subtleties, especially in disputes with heretics,[75] ; they made use, where they deemed it appropriate, of the testimonies of pagan writers themselves,[76] ; and in general, they did not disregard anything that earthly wisdom could offer in favor of one Christian teaching or another.[77]

The beginnings of a comprehensive exposition of dogmas within a certain system—albeit still incomplete and imperfect, and without a strict separation of these truths, as the subject of dogmatic theology, from all other Christian truths—can be found:

1) In Origen’s treatise On the Principles—*Perí Archón* ([78] ). It is divided into four books, the first of which discusses God the Father, the Son (the Logos), and the Holy Spirit, followed by a discussion of the higher spirits, their freedom, their fall, and the distinction between spirit and matter; the second book deals with the creation of the world and humankind and the things found in the world; it also discusses that there is one God of both the Old and New Testaments, the Incarnation of the Word, the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Prophets and Apostles, the soul, the resurrection, and rewards and punishments; in the third—on human free will, on the nature of man’s struggle against the devil and other hostile forces, showing how all this relates to the moral purpose of the world and to salvation; in the fourth—on the final end of all things, on the divine nature of Holy Scripture, and on how to read and interpret it. This work of dogmatic theology—which clearly lacks both strict coherence among the treatises and completeness (for example, it omits the doctrine of grace and the sacraments), and in which nearly the entire final section sets forth rules of hermeneutics rather than dogmatic truths—is remarkable to us only in that it is a pioneering work of its kind, the first of its time. But since the learned author set forth in it more his own philosophical thoughts on matters of faith than true Christian doctrine, and in expounding certain dogmas even deviated from the purity of Orthodoxy,[79] then, strictly speaking, this work ought not to be included in the history of Orthodox dogmatic theology.

2) In the catechetical teachings of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem.[80] There are two types: the catechetical discourses, numbering eighteen, addressed to those preparing for instruction or baptism, and the catecumenal discourses, numbering five, addressed to the newly instructed. In the catechetical sermons for the catechumens, after first explaining to his listeners—in accordance with their circumstances—the concepts of sin, repentance, and baptism, and subsequently the concepts of the fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith and its very essence, the holy father explains in detail, one by one, all the articles of the creed then in use in the Church of Jerusalem. In the “Catechetical Lectures on the Sacraments,” he discusses the sacraments—baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist—while also outlining the duties of the newly baptized. These discourses are precious to us in a different respect than Origen’s treatise on the Principles—they are precious as the first surviving example of a truly Orthodox exposition of dogmas in a systematic framework: here the holy archpastor expounds the truths of the faith on behalf of the Church, based on its creed, under its guidance, and thus conveys to us, in its broadest outlines, the entire body of the most ancient ecclesiastical doctrine, although he conveys it as a preacher rather than as a systematic theologian.

3) In two works by Blessed Augustine, one of which is known as the Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, written to a certain Laurentius (Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide, spe et charitate);[81] the other is titled *On the City of God* (de civitate Dei). The first is something akin to a modern catechism; it begins by briefly and concisely setting forth the articles of faith in accordance with the Creed, then speaks even more briefly about hope, and finally about love—remarkable only in that it represents the first attempt at a comprehensive and fairly systematic exposition of the dogmas of the Western Church. The latter work is far more important: it is founded on a profound reflection on the Kingdom of God or on the Christian Church in its struggle against paganism, and in relation to this central theme, which permeates the entire work, Christian dogmas concerning God, creation, angels, man and his fall, the Church—which has existed from the beginning and will continue to exist until the end of the world—the resurrection, the Last Judgment, and eternal rewards and punishments—are explained in great detail, in contrast to the false teachings of the pagans on these very same subjects. It must be acknowledged, however, that this extensive (it consists of 22 books) and exemplary work by Blessed Augustine is not so much dogmatic as it is historical in nature, and contains the foundations for a true philosophy of history.

4) In the “Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas” by Blessed Theodoret (†430), which constitutes the fifth book of his work against heresies and is divided into 29 chapters. This treatise differs from all those listed so far in that, in its first 23 chapters, it deals exclusively with the dogmas of the faith, separate from other Christian truths and without any other digressions; it is treated with greater consistency, clarity, and coherence, although it is shorter than the previous treatises and, like them, does not encompass all the truths of the faith.[82]

Among similar treatises are:

a) the Great Catechetical Discourse (Λόγος κατηχητικός ό μέγας) by Saint Gregory of Nyssa (†370), divided into forty chapters, in which—primarily with the aid of sound reasoning—the principal dogmas of the faith are examined in considerable detail against the pagans and Jews: the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation with its various aspects, Baptism, the Eucharist, the immortality of man, and eternal fire;

b) a book on ecclesiastical dogmas (de dogmatibus ecclesiasticis) by Gennadius, first a presbyter and later a bishop of Massilia (†495); This is nothing more than a list of the Church’s dogmas, presented with almost no order or explanation, intended to counter various heresies; yet the list is quite detailed and comprehensive (it is set forth in 88 brief chapters) and, in this respect, surpasses all previous attempts;[83]

c) Finally, a brief exposition of the Orthodox faith (έκθεσις σύντομος τής ορθοδόξου πίστεως) by Anastasius of Sinai, Patriarch of Antioch (†561), presented in the form of questions and answers (twenty-two of each) between a teacher and a student—the earliest example of a Greek catechism, albeit the briefest.[84]

However, it should be noted that although not a single work appeared during the entire period under consideration in which the dogmas of the faith were set forth in a truly scientific manner, that is, with the greatest possible completeness, clarity, and thoroughness, and within a rigorous system—this period is nonetheless the most important in the history of Orthodox Dogmatics: little was done then for its form as a science, but as far as its content is concerned, one might say that everything was done. It was then that its very foundations were investigated, affirmed, and safeguarded from all sides; it was then that all particular dogmas were examined in every detail, even the smallest; numerous and often most extensive dogmatic treatises and discourses were written, so that all that remained was to make use of these materials to construct from them a solid edifice of science.[85] That was the period of dogmatics of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers—a period that was both rich and exemplary.

§7. The Second Period of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

During the second period, encompassing the entire so-called Middle Ages, the first system of Orthodox dogmatic theology emerged from the very beginning; though still imperfect, it already possessed all the characteristics of a system. Consequently, it remained the dominant system throughout almost the entire period; very few other similar attempts were made, and all of them fell far short of it; few specific dogmatic studies and treatises were written as well, at least in comparison with what had been written previously—and, what is particularly noteworthy, all the works that appeared now were, for the most part, content with the materials prepared for Orthodox dogmatics during its first period.

It was the destiny of Saint John of Damascus to write the first system of Orthodox dogmatic theology; he can therefore rightly be called the father of this science. Filled with zeal for the true piety in which he was raised, having deeply studied the Word of God and the writings of the Holy Fathers, which he read incessantly, and being also experienced and skilled in philosophy, especially (Aristotelian) dialectics, as well as in other sciences, he resolved to make use of all these means to compose an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,[86] —and published a work that marks a turning point in the history of Orthodox Dogmatics. This work, consisting of several chapters and later—by an unknown hand—divided into four books for greater convenience,[87] , presents the most natural structure for organizing treatises. First (in the first book), the doctrine of God is expounded: His incomprehensibility, His existence, His unity in essence, His Trinity in persons, and His attributes; then (in the second book)—the doctrine: a) of God’s creation: the invisible world, or the good and evil angels; the visible world with its parts and elements; the microcosm—man with his manifold faculties, particularly his freedom and the Fall; and b) of God’s Providence, foreknowledge, and predestination.

Further (in the third book)—the teaching on God’s divine plan for human salvation, namely: a) the Incarnation of the Son of God; b) the two natures in the Incarnate One, and the unity of the Hypostasis; c) the consequences of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ—the mutual communion of the natures and properties, the fact that the Most Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, that in Christ there are two wills and two actions, and that in Him the nature of the flesh and the will are deified; d) the state of the humiliation of Christ the Savior, His death on the cross for our salvation, and His descent into Hades.

Finally (in the fourth book), the following teachings are expounded: a) on the state of the glorification of Jesus Christ—His resurrection, ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the Father—with certain related questions being resolved; b) the doctrine of receiving salvation: on faith, on the sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist, on the veneration of saints, their relics, and icons, on Scripture, virginity, and other related topics; c) the doctrine of the end of the world: the coming of the Antichrist, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal punishments and rewards.

In addition to this external characteristic—the natural and logical arrangement of the treatises—the work of St. John of Damascus under consideration here is also distinguished by the internal characteristics of a scientific discipline or system: the precision, clarity, and thoroughness with which the dogmas, taken as a whole, have never before been set forth in any single book. The method used in this work to expound the dogmas individually is also the most appropriate for the science of Orthodox dogmatic theology: the Holy Father, in explaining and proving the truths of the faith, draws not only on passages from Holy Scripture but also on the testimonies of the ancient and renowned teachers of the Church, and says almost nothing that has not been defined and sanctified either by the Ecumenical Councils or by the Fathers who preceded him; and at the same time he calls upon the aid of sound reason, enlightened by the light of Divine Revelation. Among the Fathers and teachers of the Church, he most frequently cites the thoughts of Saint Gregory the Theologian, followed by Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Nemesius, who served as Bishop of Nemesia in Syria, Saints Athanasius the Great and John Chrysostom, followed by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Maximus the Confessor, Epiphanius, and others. As a result of all this, the theology of Saint John of Damascus can be described as a treasure trove of the Fathers’ thoughts on the dogmas of the faith—thoughts with which, through his far-sighted insight, he penetrated to the very spirit of the teachers of the faith, reinforced and explained in many places with the Word of God, and harmoniously combined with his own reflections. One cannot, however, fail to note, on the other hand: a) that in this first system of Orthodox Dogmatics, not all subjects of faith are expounded with equal completeness, and some are not even mentioned at all,[88] certainly because the Holy Father paid special attention only to those dogmas that were being distorted by heretics in his time; b) that this work includes certain topics of a non-dogmatic nature,[89] although they are related to the dogmas; c) finally, that the actual dogmas of the faith—which constitute the true subject matter of dogmatic theology—are deliberately not separated here from specific theological questions and opinions.[90] But it must be remembered that the Holy Father wrote his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith not at all for the classroom, but for all Orthodox Christians, and therefore did not intend to strictly adhere to its conditions and requirements.

The appearance of St. John of Damascus’s *Theology* was a momentous event not only in the East but also throughout the entire Church of Christ: for at that time, the Christian East and West were still united in faith; and for the West, just as for the East, *The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* was the first system of Orthodox dogmatics. But, regrettably, this was also the last system common to both: soon, from the end of the 9th century and especially from the middle of the 11th century, the Western Church, carried away by a spirit of innovation and elevating certain particular opinions to the status of dogmas, altered the ancient Ecumenical Church and separated itself from the Orthodox East. Since then, the fate of theology in the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church has diverged. In the West, scholasticism arose and took root, becoming a worthy companion to the Church itself there, developing the principles it had newly adopted to their utmost extremes. Having forgotten due reverence for the Word of God and the Holy Fathers, they began to prove the dogmas of the faith not so much by passages from Holy Scripture and Tradition as by the subtleties of dialectics, and often by the sayings of Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, or Ovid, and other pagan writers—preferring them to the testimonies not only of Chrysostom and Basil the Great, but even of the Prophets and Apostles. Having lost respect for the true dogmas of the faith, after certain private opinions had been elevated to the status of dogma, they began to engage primarily in such theological opinions, striving to draw conclusions from the dogmas of the faith, breaking these conclusions down into the most particular propositions, inventing a multitude of questions—sometimes the most empty and trivial—debating according to all the rules of dialectics, and attaching the greatest importance to all of this. Numerous schools, academies, and universities sprang up, in which scholastic theology, over the course of five or six centuries, developed and flourished with all its oddities and deformities. In these schools, numerous theological systems were written in the same vein, causing the most ancient system of dogmatic theology of St. John of Damascus to be almost forgotten, even though the early scholastics had made use of it.[91] Theological sects emerged which, due to the views of their seraphic or divine teachers, clashed noisily with one another for centuries and flooded Western theological literature with countless works.[92] In the East—everything was different. Remaining entirely faithful to ancient Orthodoxy, here, as before, they continued to hold the Word of God in the highest regard, in both its forms—written and unwritten; as before, they continued to study the truths of the faith by following in every respect the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the holy Fathers. There were also schools in various places in the East where, as in the Western schools of that time, even the higher sciences were taught, at least until the Turks captured Constantinople (in 1453); Aristotelian philosophy, particularly dialectics ([93] ), also prevailed in the East—but it never encroached upon the realm of theology with such unwarranted force as it did among the Scholastics. In the East, no new theological systems were written under the predominant influence of Aristotle, where his sayings and those of other pagan writers would have been held in equal esteem with the texts of Holy Scripture and the testimonies of the Holy Fathers. Here, the ancient theological system of St. John of Damascus remained dominant, drawn entirely from the writings of the Church’s even more ancient teachers; and if some new works of a similar nature were written, they were based on the same principles of true Orthodoxy, under the guidance of the same reliable leaders in matters of faith.

Living proof of the fact that St. John of Damascus’s Theology remained dominant in the East at that time is provided by the numerous copies of this work in Greek, spanning a whole series of centuries up to the very fall of Constantinople to the Turks, and still preserved today in various libraries throughout Europe.[94]

No sooner had the Orthodox faith become firmly established among the South Slavs—about one hundred and fifty years after the death of St. John of Damascus—than his *Theology* was translated into the Slavic language by John the Exarch, or patriarchal vicar in Bulgaria, as one of the most important books for the newly enlightened Christians.[95] With the definitive establishment of Orthodoxy in Russia, this *Theology*, in its Slavonic translation, was also introduced to us, and from that time onward it was used continuously until later periods, as evidenced by copies dating from various centuries.[96]

Of other works written at that time in the East in the genre of a systematic Orthodox dogmatic theology, we know of only three:

1) *The Dogmatic Armory of the Orthodox Faith* by the monk Euthymius Zigaden or Zigaben. *[97] * It was compiled in the early 12th century by order of Emperor Alexios Komnenos and contains a collection of the teachings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church (primarily: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius the Areopagite, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Leontius of Cyprus, John of Damascus, and Photius) on the most important subjects of faith and against the most significant religious errors. Several of the finest theologians of that time worked on this collection, while Euthymius Zigaben merely organized the gathered thoughts, divided them into chapters or sections, and combined them into a single, fairly coherent whole. Here, in 27 or 28 chapters—which in some manuscripts are divided into two books—*[98] * first sets forth the doctrine of God, His unity in essence and Trinity in Persons, His creation, and His Incarnation; then it argues against the Jews, Simon the Magus, and Marcion, against the Manichaeans, Sabellians, Arians, the Spirit-fighters, the Romans, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Iconoclasts, the Armenians, the Paulicians, the Bogomils, and other heretics; and in this way, albeit from a more polemical perspective, nearly all the fundamental dogmas are covered. Euthymius Zigabenus’s work lacks both the internal unity and the consistency and clarity found in the Theology of St. John of Damascus, but it surpasses the latter in the breadth and thoroughness of certain treatises.

2) The Treasure of the Orthodox Faith (θυσαυρός όρθοδοξίας), by Nikita Choniates (d. ca. 1206)—is also a work in a dogmatic-polemical vein, directed against ancient and modern heresies, including, among others, the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Saracens, and demonstrating how to welcome the latter into the bosom of the Church of Christ. It differs from Zigabenos’s *All-Armed* in that it affirms the truths of the faith and refutes errors not only with testimonies from the Holy Fathers but also with evidence drawn from sound reason, and it examines many issues in much greater detail and with greater clarity. It consists of 27 books, of which, unfortunately, only the first five have been published.[99]

3) Ecclesiastical Discourses on the One True Faith of Christ—by Saint Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki (who lived in the early 15th century). They are divided into two parts: the first is directed against atheists, pagans, and Jews, and consists of ten chapters proving that God exists, that He is one in essence and triune in Persons; the second is directed against heretics, beginning with Simon the Magus and extending to later figures: the Bogomils, Barlaam, Akinidin, and others, as well as against the Muslims, and consists of twenty-three chapters, which set forth certain other features of Orthodox doctrine. This work is not extensive, but it is distinguished by its clarity, precision, and, above all, by the fact that it is drawn primarily from Holy Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers.[100]

We cannot pass over in silence here certain brief attempts at a comprehensive exposition of the dogmas that appeared at that time in the Orthodox Church. These include: a) The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, who lived in the mid-14th century;[101] b) Explanation of the Holy Symbol of the Orthodox Faith of Christ—by another Archbishop of Thessaloniki, Simeon—in the early 15th century;[102] c) The Confession of the Orthodox and Uncorrupted Faith of Christ—by Gennadius or George Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, composed in response to a question about it posed by the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II following the capture of Constantinople;[103] d) The Catechism (Κατήχησις) by Meletius Pegas, Patriarch of Constantinople, a distinguished scholar of the 16th century,[104] and especially—d) Three dogmatic epistles by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople to the Protestant theologians of Württemberg (written between 1576 and 1581), in which, based on the Word of God, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church is set forth in considerable detail, particularly with regard to those aspects that distinguish its confession from that of the Augustinians.[105] Among those published in Russia are the following: e) A Booklet on the One True Orthodox Faith and the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, directed against the Latins and published in Ostrog around 1588;[106] g) A book on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Hieromonk Zacharias of Kopysten, also directed against the Latins and published in 1619 in Kyiv;[107] h) A catechism attributed to Lavrenty Zizaniy, a Lithuanian archpriest, published in Moscow in 1627.[108]

As for the specific dogmatic studies and treatises written at that time in the East, they primarily address the distinctive dogmas of Orthodoxy that were distorted or rejected by the Papists and Protestants. The most notable of these works are: a) those directed against the Western Church’s teaching on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Son—written by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century; Eustratius, Metropolitan of Nicaea in the 12th century; Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 13th century; and two Archbishops of Thessalonica—Gregory Palamas and Nilus Kavassiles of the 14th century; b) those directed against the doctrine of papal supremacy—the same Archbishop Nilus Kavassiles of Thessalonica and the monk Barlaam of the 14th century; c) generally against the errors of the Latins—Nikitai Pektorat, an 11th-century presbyter of Constantinople; George, a 12th-century metropolitan of Corcyra; Gregory of Cyprus from the 13th century; and Macarius of Ancyra from the 15th century; and, among the Russians, Leontius Karpovich and Zacharias of Kopysten—from the early 17th century; d) against Protestant heresies—among the Greeks: Gabriel, Metropolitan of Philadelphia; and among the Russians: Zinovy, a 16th-century monk from Novgorod.[109]

§8. The Third Period of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

Thus passed the Middle Ages for Orthodox dogmatic theology—a period generally referred to as the “Dark Ages” due to the state of enlightenment throughout the Christian world. From the end of the 15th century and especially from the beginning of the 16th century, as a result of the invention of the printing press (1440), the spread of ancient Greek scholarship and its texts among the peoples of the West, the fall of Constantinople (1453), as a result of the Reformation (1517), and for other reasons, a new period of enlightenment in general—and, in particular, a new period in the development of theology—began for Western Europe. For the East, with its Orthodox Church, as well as for Orthodox theology, this period began much later—almost in the middle of the 17th century—although the groundwork had been laid during the two preceding centuries.

The circumstances that paved the way for it were as follows. Ever since their separation from the Ecumenical Church, the Roman pontiffs had been constantly preoccupied with the idea of subjugating the Orthodox East—and Orthodox Russia in particular—as evidenced by the unbroken series of attempts recorded in history. But never were these attempts as intense, as close to success, or as dangerous to Orthodoxy as they were from the sixteenth century onward. In Greece, they were aided by the fall of the empire (1453) and the ensuing decline in education; in Russia—by a lack of education and the annexation of its western part to Poland (1569). The main instrument in both places was the newly established (1540) Society of Jesus. They quickly penetrated Poland and western Russia, founding their own schools in Polotsk, Vilnius, and Volhynia to educate Orthodox children in their own spirit; everywhere they disseminated writings against the Eastern Church to lure into their nets even adults who had been considered its children from the cradle—and the unfortunate Union, which arose in the western region of Russia toward the end of the 16th century, was the first fruit of these efforts.[110] Likewise, Loyola’s worthy disciples quickly penetrated Greece, established their own schools in Galata and even in Constantinople, presented themselves as volunteer teachers of the youth, sought to serve as spiritual guides to the people, and disseminated writings harmful to Orthodoxy,[111] while outside Greece, in the renowned universities and academies of the West, where, for lack of their own schools, Greek youths eager for education flocked, they were imperceptibly imbued with the same spirit, ensnared by the same nets, and Pope Gregory XIII founded a Greek college in Rome itself, where he educated all Greeks and Russians who came there free of charge.[112] All this intense activity on the part of the Vatican can be explained by the Reformation: having lost, as a result of it, a countless multitude of their ancient flock, the popes sought to compensate for their loss by bringing the Eastern Church under their control, and spared no effort to achieve this. But the Protestants did not remain idle either: they too (especially the Lutherans and Calvinists) hastened to spread their teachings among Eastern Christians, and as early as the 16th century had their own churches in the provinces of Podolia, Kyiv, Galicia, Volhynia, and in Belarus; they penetrated Wallachia and established themselves in Greece, where, in Constantinople itself, they formed a powerful faction opposing the Jesuits;[113] they also sought to disseminate their writings among the Orthodox, and to convert the Russians, they translated their catechisms into the Slavic language,[114] and in Greece they published, under the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, a Confession of Faith thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Calvinism, which caused so much turmoil throughout the entire Eastern Church.[115] Thus, the Orthodox found themselves caught between two fires: the Papists strove to win them over to their side, arguing, among other things, that the Eastern Church had always been in agreement with the Western Roman Church in matters of doctrine; while the Protestants sought to draw them to their side, asserting, on the contrary, that it was not the Roman but their own Protestant doctrine that was in harmony with the Eastern Church.[116] What remained to be done under such circumstances to safeguard Orthodoxy? It was necessary, first and foremost, to compile as accurate and detailed a confession of faith as possible for the Orthodox Eastern Church, from which its children could clearly see how it had believed and taught others to believe from time immemorial, and how its true doctrine differed from that of the Papists and Protestants; it was then necessary to establish schools of their own for the Orthodox, where, among other things, Orthodox theology would be taught in all its breadth, and from which would emerge not only worthy teachers of the Orthodox faith, but also learned defenders of it against non-Orthodox. To both of these demands—which many in Greece and Russia were clearly aware of at the time—[117] , Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv, responded more passionately than anyone else. He found the means to compile the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, and was the first to introduce the teaching of theology at his Kyiv-Mohyla Academy to the same extent as it was taught in the schools of Europe at that time, thus laying the foundation (1631–1647) a new, third period in the history of Orthodox dogmatic theology.

The Orthodox confession, in truth, marks a new era in this history. Until now, the sons of the Eastern Church had no specific symbolic book in which they could find for themselves the most detailed, authoritative guidance on matters of faith—provided in the name of the Church itself— guidance in matters of faith regarding the scholarly exposition and defense of dogmas; instead, they had to content themselves with only the brief symbolic statements of faith from the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the rules of the Holy Fathers, as named by the Council of Trullum, and subsequently with all other patristic writings, which, however, could not carry such weight. Peter Mohyla’s Orthodox Confession, reviewed and revised at two councils—the Kyiv Council (1640) and the Yassy Council (1643)—and subsequently reviewed and approved by all four Ecumenical Patriarchs and the Russian Patriarchs, Joakim and Adrian—became the first symbolic book of the Eastern Church. Here, for the first time, all of its dogmas are set forth in its name with the greatest possible precision, and in such a way that they are directed not only against the heresies of antiquity but also against the new errors that have arisen in the West since its departure from universal Orthodoxy. Consequently, this work provides the most detailed and, at the same time, the most reliable guide in matters of faith for all Orthodox Christians, and in particular for Orthodox theologians, through a thorough exposition of the dogmas. The introduction of Orthodox dogmatic theology into schools also marks a turning point in the history of this discipline, for it is here that it truly becomes a science for the first time, joins the ranks of other sciences, and inevitably submits—as far as the nature of revealed truths permits— to all the conditions of science and schooling—whereas all previous works on theology, though possessing to a greater or lesser extent certain characteristics of science, were written for an entirely different purpose—not for the school, but for life.

Since the introduction of Orthodox dogmatic theology into our domestic schools, three distinct phases can be identified in its development.

First, during the initial eighty years (1631–1711), it was taught in the form of separate treatises, with almost no systematic connection between them and without a strict separation of the dogmas of the faith from other Christian truths. That is why it was called “Theology” in general, rather than “Dogmatic Theology,” even though it dealt primarily with dogmas. All of this is known from three or four textbooks of the Kyiv Academy that have survived in manuscript form. The oldest of these (taught from 1642 to 1646) follows, in the arrangement of its treatises, the order of Thomas Aquinas’s well-known *Summa Theologica* ([118] ), where traces of a certain system are still visible; in the second textbook (1693–1697), the treatises are no longer linked by any internal connection, but only by external verbal transitions from one treatise to another, placed at the beginning of each; in the third (1702–1706) and fourth (1706–1711) textbooks, even such external connections are lacking in places. While discussing God, the Incarnation, the Church, the sacraments, and other dogmas of the faith, all these textbooks also contain treatises on sins and virtues—that is, on topics of moral theology. The method used to elucidate these truths is purely scholastic. It consists of a series of disputations (disputatio), each of which is broken down into several questions; the questions are subdivided into further questions and expressed in the most specific propositions; these are followed by proofs, numerous objections, and refutations. The orientation of these textbooks is in the spirit of the Orthodox Church and strictly polemical, especially against the Papists and Protestants; consequently, controversial subjects are examined with the greatest thoroughness, and, after the truths have been expounded from a positive perspective, special polemical treatises (tractatus Theologiae controversae) are devoted to them. The reason why scholastic theology first appeared among us in such an unsystematic form and with such a method is that, in form, it was transplanted to us from Europe, where nearly all the first instructors of the Kyiv College had been educated, and where, in the best schools, scholasticism still prevailed.[119] As for its orientation, this is explained by the spirit and the circumstances of the Orthodox Church at that time, which—both in Greece and in Russia, in the southwestern as well as the eastern regions—was then subjected to the most severe attacks by Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Theophan Prokopovich, who taught dogmatic theology at the Kiev Academy from 1711 to 1716, was the first to distinguish it from moral theology—[120] —as a distinct discipline and to present it systematically; he is therefore rightly called the father of systematic theology in Russia. The outline of his Dogmatics is as follows: the first part discusses God in Himself (de Deo ad intra): 1) one in essence and 2) triune in Persons; the second part discusses God in relation to the outside world (de Deo ad extra), that is, in His actions, specifically: 1) His creation: a) the visible world and b) the invisible world, and 2) His providence: a) general in relation to all creatures and b) particular in relation to fallen humanity, consisting in the restoration of the human race through Jesus Christ.[121] The outline is, in general terms, clearly sound, although in the details (especially in the subdivision of the last section—on the restoration of humanity) it is not without flaws, and although the author himself did not manage to carry it out, having brought his notes only as far as the treatise on the fall of humanity.[122] The method in these notes still echoes Scholasticism, but now a more moderate form of it: truths are presented mostly in a positive form rather than as disputations; many idle questions have been excluded. Polemics still predominate in the notes, but they are directed primarily against the Papists. The author’s extensive theological erudition is evident. One cannot, however, fail to acknowledge that Theophanes, likely having prepared his notes in haste, did not always sufficiently reflect on the ideas he borrowed from existing textbooks, and subsequently had no time to either supplement or correct these notes—hence, as His Eminence Evien, Metropolitan of Kyiv, had already noted, direct quotations from Hergard and other foreign theologians remain in places.[123]

After Theophanes Prokopovich, for nearly a century (1715–1809), there was a noticeable fluctuation in the order and method of teaching dogmatic theology in our country. Some continued to follow the old path that had existed before Theophanes, that is, they compiled their notes in the form of separate treatises, unconnected to one another; others, on the contrary, following Theophanes, sought to present the dogmas within a certain system. Some retained the previous method—scholastic, though more or less moderate—and expounded the truths not only positively but also polemically, and moreover in a language foreign to us, Latin; others expounded these truths only in a positive manner, simply and in a way accessible to the general public, with almost no scholasticism or polemics, and in the native language.

Among the works on dogmatic theology, written in the form of separate treatises using a moderately scholastic and didactic-polemical method, the most notable are: a) The Theological Lectures of Archimandrite Silvestr Kulyabka, delivered at the Kyiv Academy from 1741 to 1745, though unfinished;[124] b) A Brief Dogmatic-Polemical Theology by Archimandrite Iakinf Karpinsky, taught at the Kolomna Seminary in 1771–1772 and organized into eleven chapters;[125] c) Finally, Dogmatic and Polemical Theology by Archimandrite Silvestr Lebedinsky, taught at the Kazan Academy in 1797–1799, and organized into sixty-eight chapters.[126] It should be noted, however, that although in the latter two works the treatises and chapters are not linked by any deliberate system, they follow one another in the most natural order, almost exactly as they are usually arranged in systematic works.

Among the works on dogmatic theology written in the form of a system—a) using the didactic-polemical and scholastic methods—the following are known: *Christian Orthodox Theology* by His Eminence George of Konissia [127] and *Dogmatic-Polemical Theology* by His Eminence Irenaeus Falkowski:[128] . Both of these textbooks were taught at the Kyiv Academy—the former in the mid-18th century (from 1751 to 1755), the latter toward the end of the previous century and at the beginning of the current one (1795–1804)—and both were composed according to a plan outlined by Theophan Prokopovich; b) using a purely positive method, without polemics or scholasticism—Dogmatic Theology by His Eminence Theophylact Gorsky—was taught at the Moscow Academy (from 1769 to 1774) according to a plan outlined by the author himself, which was not particularly rigorous.[129]

Finally, the following works were written in a simple, accessible style for the general public and in the native language, without a strict system but with sufficient consistency:

a) A Concise Christian Theology—by His Eminence Metropolitan Platon of Moscow, taught by him to the heir to the All-Russian throne, Paul Petrovich (1763–1765): it consists of three parts, and Dogmatics is actually presented in the second;[130]

b) Dogmatic Theology—by Archimandrite Makarii, taught at the Tver Seminary in 1764–1766 [131] ; and—c) Christian Theology—by Hieromonk Juvenalii Medvedskii, in which Dogmatics constitutes the first part, composed in 1797.[132]

Among all the works on dogmatic theology mentioned thus far, those by Archimandrite Macarius, His Eminence Irenaeus, and His Eminence Theophylact are rightly recognized as the best in terms of thoroughness and comprehensiveness.

Since the reform of our theological schools, which began in 1809—or more precisely, with the publication of the syllabus of theological sciences for these schools in 1812 and subsequently with the publication of the statutes for theological academies and seminaries in 1814— — dogmatic theology has been consistently taught here as a systematic discipline. A general outline has been established for it (in the aforementioned syllabus), and both its method and direction have been specified (in the syllabus and statutes). Since then, as is well known, several attempts at a systematic exposition of Orthodox dogmas have been written by professors at our theological academies and seminaries, although, unfortunately, all of this remains only in manuscript form, with the exception of a few treatises published in our theological periodicals. The only work to have been published is *Dogmatic Theology* by Archpriest Peter Ternovsky, a professor at Moscow University, which is distinguished by its clarity and conciseness.[133] The regulations issued by the former Commission on Theological Schools in 1838 concerning the teaching of seminary disciplines, and the new regulations on the same subject issued by the Holy Synod in 1840, increasingly define, among other things, the method and direction of truly Orthodox dogmatic theology. It is to be hoped that, based on these guidelines, systematic textbooks on dogmatic theology will finally be compiled in our country—textbooks worthy of the subject and fully suited to the needs of the youth being educated in theological schools and of the entire Church.[134]

It is not without reason that, when speaking of the development of Orthodox dogmatic theology as a science throughout the entire recent period, we have limited ourselves solely to our homeland. In Greece and throughout the East, since the fall of Constantinople, education has been in a state of extreme decline; schools were almost nonexistent, and even where they did exist, they were only elementary schools in which theology was not taught.[135] All those seeking higher education had to go to Western schools or devote their entire lives to intensive study at home.[136] It was not until the middle of the last century, in the time of the renowned Evienios Bulgaris—who, having successively served as rector of the gymnasiums in Ioannina, on Mount Athos, and in Constantinople, was the first to begin teaching the dogmas of the faith in a systematic manner—that this discipline became known in Greek schools;[137] but it was taught there consistently only from manuscripts, which remain unknown to us. With the restoration of Greece to the status of an independent kingdom, when a chair was established at the University of Athens—founded by the kingdom—for the teaching of theological sciences in all their breadth and completeness, and as education in general—both secular and spiritual—began to spread more and more among the Greeks, one may hope that they will once again take an active part in the development of Orthodox dogmatic theology, understood in the sense of a science.

Turning from dogmatic systems and textbooks to concise statements of faith and specific dogmatic studies, we find quite a few of both throughout this period, both in Greece and in our own country.

Among the concise expositions and explanations of the faith, the most notable are: I) in Greek—a) The Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East by the hieromonk Mitrofan Kritopoulos, who later became Patriarch of Alexandria, written at the request of foreign scholars during his travels through Europe;[138] b) The Confession of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheus, read and approved at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, and subsequently sent on behalf of all the Eastern Primates to our Holy Synod in 1723 as an accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith,[139] and c) The Orthodox Confession, or Exposition of the Faith of the Orthodox Apostolic Church—by Eugene Bulgaris, who ended his days in Russia as Archbishop of Slaven and Kherson;[140] II) in Russian—a) The Catechism of His Eminence Theophan Prokopovich, long used in schools;[141] b) The Catechisms—both the concise and the comprehensive versions—by His Eminence Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, which also served this purpose;[142] c) finally, the Catechisms—particularly the extensive one—by His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, now published both for teaching in schools and for use by all Orthodox Christians.[143]

Individual dogmatic studies, both in the present period and in the past, have primarily addressed those matters of faith that have been attacked by non-Orthodox groups and are therefore more polemical in nature. The best of these works are:

I) against the Papists: a) on the origin of the Holy Spirit—by George Koresius, Ioannikios Galyatovsky, and especially Adam Zernikov and Theophan Prokopovich; b) refuting the doctrine of papal primacy—by George Koresius, Ioannikios of Galyatovsk, and Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem; c) on the time of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist—by the Likhud brothers, Ioannikios and Sofronios, Saint Dimitri of Rostov, and Stephen of Yavorsk;

II) against the Protestants: a) on the seven sacraments of the Church, as well as on icons and intercession—George Koresia; 6) refuting Lutheran and Calvinist errors in general—Meletius Sirig, the Likhud brothers, Stephen Yavorsky, and Theophylact Lopatinsky;

III) Against schismatics: a) on the time of the coming of the Antichrist and the end of the age—by Stefan Yavorsky; b) in refutation of all schismatic errors in general—books published in the name of the Holy Russian Patriarchs, as well as the works of St. Dimitry of Rostov, Theophylact of Lopatinsky, Pitirim, Theotokios,[144] His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow [145] , and His Eminence Ignatius of Voronezh.[146]

Recently, many individual dogmatic studies and, more generally, works of varying lengths have been published in three religious journals published in our country: *Christian Reading*,[147] *Sunday Reading*[148] , and *The Writings of the Holy Fathers with Additions of Spiritual Content*,[149] , as well as in the occasional collections of essays by students of our theological academies: St. Petersburg, Kyiv, and Moscow.[150]

Section 1.
On God in Himself

For three bear witness in heaven:

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

and these three are one

(1 John 5:7).

§9. The extent of our knowledge of God, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church begins all its teaching about God in the Creed with the words: “I believe…,” and the first dogma it seeks to instill in us is as follows: “God is incomprehensible to the human mind; people can know Him only in part—to the extent that He Himself has deigned to reveal Himself for their faith and piety.”[151] This is an indisputable truth: it is clearly set forth in Holy Scripture and elaborated upon in the writings of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, and is supported even by sound reason.

The Holy Scriptures teach, on the one hand: a) that God dwells in unapproachable light, whom no human being has seen or can see (1 Tim. 6:16);[152] b) that not only for humans but for all created beings, His essence is unknown, His purposes are unfathomable, and His ways are inscrutable (Rom. 11:33–34; cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; Sir. 18:3,4), and c) that only God fully knows God: who among men knows what is within a man, except the human spirit that dwells within him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11), and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt. 11:27). But on the other hand, the sacred books reveal to us that the Invisible and Incomprehensible One Himself was pleased to reveal Himself to people—

a) in creation: His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and His divinity have been clearly seen since the creation of the world through the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:20; cf. Ps. 18:2–5; Wis. 13:1–5), and even more so—

b) through supernatural revelation, when God—who had spoken to the fathers of old many times and in many ways through the prophets—has in these last days spoken to us through the Son (Heb. 1:1–2; cf. Proverbs 9:16–19), and when this only-begotten Son of God, having appeared on earth in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), gave us light and understanding so that we might know the true God (1 John 5:20), and then preached His teaching through the Apostles, having sent upon them the Spirit of truth, who penetrates all things, and the depths of God (John 14:16–18; 1 Cor. 2:10). Finally, the sacred books affirm that, although in this way, the Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed to us God, whom no one has ever seen (John 1:18), yet even now we see the Invisible One only as it were through a dim glass, in a riddle, and even now we understand the Incomprehensible One only in part (1 Cor. 13:12), and now we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7).[153] The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church expounded this truth in detail, especially in response to heretical views that arose concerning it.

Some of the heretics taught that God is completely comprehensible to us, that we know Him just as He knows Himself, and that this is facilitated primarily by the known names of God, which express His very essence: such were precisely the second-century heretics Valentinus, Ptolemy, Carpocrates,[154] and, above all, Aetius and Eunomius with their followers, who lived in the fourth century.[155] St. Irenaeus took up arms against the first three;[156] St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and many others wrote against Eunomius and his followers.[157] All of them unanimously demonstrated the incomprehensibility of God’s essence to us using various arguments: a) that our spirit is finite, while God is infinite, and that the infinite would cease to be infinite if it were fully comprehended by a finite being;[158] b) because our limited spirit is still united with a material body, which, like a mist, lies between us and the purely immaterial Divinity, and prevents the spiritual eye from receiving the rays of divine light with complete clarity;[159] c) because, in addition to its own finitude and close union with the body, our spirit is darkened by sin—which has made it even less capable of rising to the pure contemplation of the Deity;[160] d) because we do not fully comprehend even the limited beings and objects that are always before our eyes; we do not comprehend the essence of matter and the elements at work in nature, the essence of our soul and the nature of its union with the body, or the nature of the Angels, Archangels, and other incorporeal powers;[161] e) they also pointed out the imperfection of knowledge about God even among those people who were granted special revelations from Him, such as Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Peter, and Paul, and in general all the Prophets and Apostles;[162] f) Likewise, they pointed out that God’s beings are incomprehensible not only to humans, but also to the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and, in general, to all the highest created spirits;[163] g) Finally, they noted that if God were completely comprehensible, He would cease to be God for us.[164] In calling God incomprehensible, the Holy Fathers also called Him the Unnamed, the Unuttered, the Inexpressible, and the Indescribable,[165] and said that all the names attributed to Him in Holy Scripture—such as Jehovah (the One), Elohim (plural of Eloah—the Strong One), Adonai (Lord), Shaddai (the Mighty One, the Almighty), God, the Lord, and others—do not express His very essence, but only that which pertains to His essence and nature (τά περί τήν φύσιν), or indicate His relationship to the world and to humanity,[166] and these names are more negative than affirmative,[167] for we are never able to find a name for God that would correspond to His very nature,[168] and it is precisely this namelessness (ánonymia) of God that is the reason for His many names (polyonymia), which we ascribe to Him.[169]

But while some heretics fell into one extreme, claiming that God is completely comprehensible to us, others, following certain pagans, were drawn into the opposite extreme. We are referring to the Marcionites and similar contemporary false teachers who claimed that God is entirely beyond our knowledge and is a completely unknown God, “[170] ”—relying primarily on the Savior’s words: “No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son.” “[171] ” In refuting these false teachers, Saint Irenaeus wrote that “the Savior by no means said that it is absolutely impossible to know God, but only that no one can know God without God’s will, without instruction from God, without His revelation (to whom the Son chooses to reveal Himself). But since the Father has deigned to allow us to know God, and the Son has revealed Him to us, we possess the necessary knowledge of Him. Otherwise, the coming of the Son of God into the world would have been in vain: why did He come? Surely not to tell us, as it were: “Do not seek God—for He is unknowable, and you will not find Him.”[172] Likewise, the subsequent Holy Fathers, who were engaged in refuting the Eunomians, although they demonstrated the incomprehensibility of God’s essence to us, did not in the least reject the possibility of our knowing God; on the contrary, they taught: a) that, while we cannot comprehend God in His essence, we can nevertheless know Him through His works: in creation and providence, in the visible world and in our conscience,[173] and especially in His supernatural revelation;[174] b) that, although there is not a single name among God’s names that expresses His very essence, nevertheless, taken all together and even each one separately, they give us a fairly clear and sufficient understanding of God—and this must be said not only of the affirmative names but also of the negative ones,[175] and—c) that, finally, if the knowledge of God were completely impossible for us, then the Gospel message would be in vain, our faith would be in vain, and this would provide a direct pretext for godlessness.[176] Only our present knowledge of God, said the defenders of sound Christian doctrine, compared to that which we will be granted in the life to come, is like the knowledge of an infant compared to that of a mature man—knowledge that is incomplete, unclear, speculative, figurative, or symbolic—[177] —knowledge that is both grounded in faith and culminates in faith.[178] Finally, let us cite, as a concise expression of the ancient Holy Fathers’ thoughts on the dogma we have examined, the words of St. John of Damascus from the first chapter of his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: “The Godhead is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt. 11:27). Likewise, the Holy Spirit knows the things of God, just as the human spirit knows the things within a person (1 Cor. 2:11). Apart from the first and blessed Being, no one has ever known God, unless God Himself has revealed it to them—no one, not only among humans, but even among the pre-eternal powers, the Cherubim and Seraphim. Nevertheless, God has not left us in complete ignorance of Him. For God Himself has implanted the knowledge of His existence in the nature of every person. And creation itself, its preservation and governance, proclaim the greatness (Wisdom 13:5) of the Divine. Furthermore, first through the Law and the Prophets, then through His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, God has communicated to us knowledge of Himself, to the extent that we are able to comprehend it. Therefore, everything entrusted to us by the Law, through the prophets, apostles, and evangelists, we accept, acknowledge, and honor, and seek nothing more. Thus, God, being all-knowing and providing for the good of each person, has revealed all that is useful for us to know and has remained silent about that which we cannot comprehend. We are content with this, and we will hold fast to it, without altering the eternal boundaries or transgressing the divine tradition (Prov. 22:28).”[179]

§10. The Essence and Division of the Orthodox Teaching on God in Himself.

The essence of all that God has deigned to reveal to us about Himself, apart from His relationship to other beings, is succinctly expressed by the Orthodox Church in the following words of the Athanasian Creed: “This is the Catholic faith: that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the One, neither confounding the Hypostases nor dividing the essence;” or, even more briefly, in the words of the Orthodox Confession: “God is one in essence and triune in Persons” (Part 1, answer to Question 10). Thus, the entire Orthodox doctrine concerning God in Himself is divided into two parts: I) the doctrine concerning God, who is one in essence, and II) the doctrine concerning God, who is triune in Persons.

Chapter 1.
On God, Who Is One in Essence.

§11. Structure and Approach of the Study.

The structure of the inquiry into God, who is one in essence, is clear: first, it is necessary to show that God is one in essence; and second, to elucidate the concept of God’s very essence.

1. On the Unity of God

§12. The Teaching of the Church and a Brief History of the Dogma

Following the words “I believe,” which point to the dogma of God’s incomprehensibility, we pronounce in the Creed the words “in one God,” and in this way profess another dogma of the Church—the dogma of God’s unity. This dogma has always been considered one of the most fundamental and essential dogmas of Christianity, as is evident from the fact that it appears in all creeds used by the Church even before the Nicene Creed—[180] —and in all private confessions of faith ever written by the teachers of the Church, both before and after the Council of Nicaea.[181]

From the very beginning, Christians rightly regarded this dogma as the primary distinguishing teaching of the true, God-given religion from all false religions—pagan religions that preached polytheism or dualism.[182]

Opponents of the Christian doctrine of the unity of God: a) first and foremost, of course, were the pagans or polytheists, whom it was necessary to convert to Christianity; b) then, beginning in the second century, Christian heretics known collectively as Gnostics, some of whom, under the influence of Eastern philosophy and theosophy, although they acknowledged a single supreme God, also posited many lesser gods or aeons that had emanated from Him and created the existing world, — while others, carried away by the same philosophy—which, among other things, sought to resolve the question of the origin of evil in the world—acknowledged two coeternal, mutually hostile principles: the principle of good and the principle of evil, as the principal causes of all good and evil in the world;[183] c) A little later, from the end of the third century and especially from the middle of the fourth, the new Christian heretics, the Manichaeans, also posited—with the same idea—two gods, the good and the evil, to the former of whom they ascribed the eternal kingdom of light, and to the latter, the eternal kingdom of darkness;[184] d) From the end of the sixth century, a small sect of tritheists who, failing to understand the Christian doctrine of the three Persons in the one Godhead, recognized three completely separate gods, just as, for example, three distinct individuals or indivisible members of the human race are separate, even though they all share the same nature, and just as the indivisible members of every kind and class of beings are generally separate;[185] d) Finally, from the seventh to the twelfth century—the Paulicians, whom many considered a branch of Manichaeism, and who, indeed, like the Manichaeans, recognized two gods: a good one and an evil one.[186]

In defending Orthodox dogma against all the errors listed above—polytheists, dualists, and tritheists—the pastors of the Orthodox Church consistently held the view that God is one, not in the same way that every thing is one among other things of the same kind or species, nor in the sense in which any pagan god, taken separately from the host of other gods, might be called “one”—but one in the sense that there is no other God, neither equal to Him, nor superior, nor inferior, and He alone is the one and only God.[187] To support this truth—both by virtue of the truth itself and by virtue of its opponents—Orthodox teachers have customarily employed two kinds of proof: from Holy Scripture and from sound reason.

§13. Proofs of the Unity of God from Holy Scripture

In Holy Scripture, the truth of God’s unity is set forth very clearly and in detail.

It constituted the most fundamental dogma of Old Testament revelation: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:2, 3)—such is the first commandment of the Ten Commandments, given by God to the Jewish people at Sinai and serving, as it were, as the foundation for the entire Old Testament.

God Himself repeatedly instilled this truth in the Israelites thereafter. “See, see,” He said to them through Moses when they were offering sacrifices to demons rather than to God… “and with their vanities they have grieved Me” (Deut. 32:17–21)—“It is I, I—and there is no God besides Me” (Deut. 32:39). Later, when the children of Israel again fell into idolatry, He reminded them once more through the prophet Isaiah: “I am the Lord; that is My name; and I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8); “I am the First and I am the Last, and besides Me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6); “And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me?” (Isa. 44:8); “Remember what happened long ago, from the beginning of time, for I am God, and there is no other God, and there is none like Me” (Isa. 46:9; cf. Isa. 45:5–6). It is remarkable that both in these and in many other passages of Holy Scripture, God, speaking of Himself as the one true God , calls all pagan gods vain[188] , idols[189] —false, speechless, carved, dead, and in general the work of human hands;[190] Consequently, He clearly forbids looking upon them, even as some kind of lesser gods.

At the same time, the prophets taught the Israelites the truth of God’s oneness—either speaking on their own behalf or solemnly proclaiming it—while at the same time declaring that the pagan gods were not gods. Thus—a) Moses, reminding the Jewish people of God’s special blessings and urging them to keep the commandments of the Most High, repeatedly states: “so that you may know that the Lord [your God] alone is God, [and] there is none besides Him” (Deut. 4:35); “So know now and take to heart that the Lord [your God] is God in heaven above and on earth below, [and] there is none else [besides Him]” (Deut. 39); and further: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength (Deut. 6:4–5); b) The psalmist exclaims in one passage: “For who is a God besides the Lord, and who is a Savior besides our God?” (Ps. 17:32); and in another: “There is none among the gods like You, O Lord, nor are there any works like Yours.” All the nations You have created will come and worship before You, O Lord, and glorify Your name, for You are great and perform wonders—You, O God, are one (Ps. 85:8–10); in a third: for the Lord is great and worthy of praise; He is more awesome than all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord created the heavens (Ps. 95:4–5); c) The prophet Jeremiah confesses before God: “There is none like You, O Lord! You are great, and Your name is great in power. Who will not fear You, O King of the nations? For this belongs to You alone; for among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like You. Every one of them is senseless and foolish; their teaching is but a tree. Silver, hammered into sheets, is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz—the work of an artisan and the hands of a smelter; their garments are hyacinth and purple: all this is the work of skilled craftsmen. But the Lord God is the truth; He is the living God and the eternal King. The earth trembles at His wrath, and the nations cannot endure His indignation (Jer. 10:6–10). Nor can we fail to recall here the prayer of the pious King Hezekiah, which shows how the other Jews, apart from the messengers of the Most High themselves, understood the truth of God’s unity: and Hezekiah, as the Fourth Book of Kings recounts, prayed before the Lord and said: “O Lord, God of Israel, who sits enthroned upon the cherubim! You alone are the God of all the kingdoms of the earth; You created heaven and earth. Incline Your ear, O Lord, and hear [me]; open Your eyes, O Lord, and look, and hear the words of Sennacherib, who has sent to blaspheme [You,] the living God! It is true, O Lord, that the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire; but these are not gods, but the work of human hands—wood and stone—and that is why they have destroyed them. And now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You, O Lord, are the only God (2 Kings 19:15–19).

After this comes a blatant and audacious slander—the claim that there are traces of polytheism in the Old Testament, and that the God of the Jews, according to their sacred books, was only one of many gods, a folk god, similar to the gods of other peoples of that time.[191]

To support the first view, reference is made to passages in Scripture where God is referred to as Elohim (Elohim—gods, from Eloah—God) in the plural, and where He is depicted as speaking: “Let us make man in our image [and] in our likeness” (Gen. 1:26); “Let us make a helper suitable for him (Adam)” (2:18), and so on. But—a) when that very same Moses, in whose books these passages are found, so frequently and so explicitly preaches monotheism, the foremost commandment of the entire Sinai legislation; when he directly calls all pagan gods vain and idols, and in every way strives to prevent the Jews from following them (Lev. 17:7; Deut. 32:21, etc.), then, without any doubt, in the passages in question he could not, contrary to himself, covertly express the doctrine of polytheism, — and therefore one cannot but agree with the Holy Fathers of the Church that, although God is referred to here in the plural, the idea conveyed is not of a multiplicity of gods, but of Divine Persons within the one and same God; that is, an allusion is made to the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity;[192] b) In particular, regarding the name Elohim, it should also be noted that, according to Moses’ own explanation, it does not at all mean many gods, but the one and the same God, who is also called the Lord: for in Moses we find the expression: “The Lord [your God] is God” (see Deut. 4:39 according to the Hebrew text)—which is why, both in Moses and in the subsequent Jewish sacred writings, these two names of God are often combined and used as a single name: Jehovah-Elohim—the Lord God (Exod. 9:30; Josh. 22:22; 1 Sam. 6:20; 2 Sam. 7:18–19; 1 Chron. 17:16–26; Ps. 83:9; Ps. 12; Jonah 4:6 according to the Hebrew text.). To support the second argument—that the Old Testament proclaims only the national God of the Hebrews as one among many gods—they point to passages where He is called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Ex. 3:6 and Ex. 15), the God of the Jews (Ex. 3:18), “The Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17). But—a) the first two titles are entirely explained by God’s special relationship with the Jews. Having chosen them for a lofty purpose—to preserve the true faith amid the widespread wickedness on earth—He established a special covenant with their forefather Abraham, which He later repeated on numerous occasions (Gen. 17:7–9; Ex. 19:4–6; Deut. 26:16–19)—a covenant to be with them, above all others, and to have them as His own people, a chosen people from among all nations (2 Sam. 7:24); consequently, He could naturally be called, in a special sense, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the God of the Jews. As for (b)—regarding Moses’ words to the Israelites: “The Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17); it is entirely unjust to assert that this passage admits the actual existence of other, lesser gods, when it is known that earlier in the same book of Deuteronomy, the Jewish lawgiver clearly stated to his people: “Know therefore today, and take to heart, that the Lord [your God] is God in heaven above and on earth below; there is none else” (4:39). Moses evidently refers to the Most High as God above the pagan gods themselves, in accordance with the pagans’ understanding, who were convinced that these gods actually existed, although he himself called them merely idols or imaginary beings (Lev. 19:4; Num. 33:52).[193]

Turning to the books of the New Testament, we find that here, too, the truth of God’s oneness is presented with the same high significance as it had in the Old Testament. The Savior Himself, when asked by a certain lawyer, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” replied: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord” (Mark 12:28–29). On other occasions, He expressed this truth just as clearly, or even more clearly—for example, when He remarked to a man who called Him “Good Teacher”: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:17–18), and in His prayer to His heavenly Father, He said: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God” (John 17:3). By calling the heavenly Father the one true God, Christ undoubtedly teaches us that all other so-called gods are false gods.[194]

The Holy Apostles, of course, proclaimed the truth of God’s oneness whenever it was necessary for them to lead polytheists—pagans—to Christ. “Men! What are you doing?” exclaimed Paul and Barnabas when the inhabitants of Lystra, having seen the miracle performed by Paul, took them for gods who had come down to earth, Jupiter and Mercury, and were ready to offer sacrifices to them—“We, too, are human beings just like you, and we are bringing you the good news so that you may turn away from these false gods to the Living God, who created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them” (Acts 14:7–15). See also St. Paul’s speech at the Areopagus in Athens ( —Acts 17:22–31, and the account of Paul’s preaching in Ephesus and other places—Acts 19:25–26). Later, the Apostles sometimes found it necessary to repeat this truth to newly converted Christians from among the Gentiles—for example, in response to a question about eating food sacrificed to idols, the teacher of languages wrote the following, among other things, to his disciples in Corinth: Regarding the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but the One. For although there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor. 8:4–6). Finally, the Apostles often pointed to the truth of God’s unity to explain or confirm other dogmatic and moral truths. Thus, in proving the point that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the ceremonial Jewish law, St. Paul writes: “Is God the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles?” Of course, He is also the God of the Gentiles, for there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (Rom. 3:29–30); elsewhere, urging Christians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling and to maintain the unity of the Spirit among themselves, he reminds them, among other things, that they have one God and Father of all, who is over all, through all, and in all of us (Eph. 4:1–6); thirdly, when urging believers to offer prayers for all people, he gives as a reason for this that there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:1–5).[195]

§14. Logical proofs of the unity of God, as used by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church

The proofs of God’s unity, as used by the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church on the basis of sound reason, are almost the same as those commonly used today for the same purpose. Some of these are drawn from the testimony of history and the human soul (anthropological), others from the observation of the world (cosmological), and still others from the very concept of God (ontological).

In presenting the proofs of the first kind, the Holy Fathers and teachers pointed to—

1) The ancient tradition of the unity of God, widespread among all peoples, as a result of which even the most uncivilized of pagans, no matter how deeply they fell into polytheism and idolatry, always retained in their beliefs the idea of a single supreme God, regarding their other gods as lesser gods, born of or even created by Him, and in any case subordinate to His power and authority.[196]

2) The consensus among pagan writers themselves in acknowledging the unity of God. To support this idea, defenders of Christianity cited Orpheus, Hesiod, Sophocles, Plato, Xenophanes, and others, or even quoted passages from their writings—passages that were, in fact, often quite clear and powerful.[197]

But there is no mediator for one, and God is one (Gal. 3:20)—whom in due time the blessed and only potent King of kings and Lord of lords, the only one who possesses immortality, will reveal (1 Tim. 6:15–16).

3) Finally, the idea of God—specifically, the one and only God—is innate to us. This innate idea was called the testimony of the soul, which every person carries within themselves, and which, no matter how much it is stifled by pagan prejudices and superstitions, is often involuntarily—as if by instinct—expressed by the pagans themselves in their everyday conversations. “Listen,” Tertullian would say to the pagans, “to the testimony of your own soul, which, despite the prison of the mind (apparently referring to diverse, not always properly organized scientific knowledge, which often hinders the development of a person’s spiritual intuition; ed. note) to prejudice and poor upbringing, to the fury of the passions, to slavery to false gods—when it awakens, as it were, from drunkenness or from a deep sleep, when it feels, so to speak, a spark of health, it involuntarily invokes the name of the one true God and cries out: ‘Great God! Good God! May God grant it! Thus, His name is on the lips of all people. The soul also acknowledges Him as Judge with the following words: “God sees,” “I trust in God,” “God will reward me.” O, the testimony of the soul, by nature Christian (naturaliter Christianae)! And as it utters these words, it turns its gaze not toward the Capitol, but toward heaven, knowing that there is the palace of the living God, and that from there—and from Him Himself—it originates.”[198]

Seeking to prove the unity of God through an examination of the world, the ancient pastors of the Church reasoned:

1) The world is one, and in the arrangement of all its parts, great and small—however numerous and diverse they may be—it presents perfect unity: by this it clearly testifies to the unity of the Creator.[199]

2) In the life of the world, there is a constant order and harmony; everything flows according to certain laws, strives toward certain goals, everything is sustained by one another and contributes to the good of the whole: an undeniable sign that there is one supreme Ruler of the world, who ordains all things according to His wise plans. If there were many rulers of the world, many gods, naturally different from one another, then there could be no such orderly flow and harmony in nature; on the contrary, everything would fall into disorder and turn into chaos; then each god would rule over his own part—or even the entire world—according to his own will and his own considerations, and there would be constant clashes and strife.[200]

3) One God—almighty and omniscient—is entirely sufficient to create and govern the world: what, then, is the purpose of all the other gods? They are, evidently, superfluous. To say that many gods together created and fashioned this world, and together govern it, is to imply that each of them, taken separately, is insufficient for this task, possessing neither the omnipotence nor the omniscience befitting God; and consequently, they are all imperfect and are not gods.[201]

Finally, the most important proofs, which the teachers of the Church have derived from the very concept of God, are the following two:

1) By the unanimous consent of all people, God is a being above and beyond which there is none higher or more perfect, nor can there be. But there can be only one being that is the highest and most perfect of all: for if there were others equal to Him, in that case He would cease to be the highest and most perfect of all—that is, He would cease to be God.[202] On the other hand, multiple most perfect beings are impossible also because there must necessarily be a distinction among them; otherwise, they would constitute a single being rather than many. If, however, we admit a distinction among them, where then would their equal in all perfection be found? One, without a doubt, must possess more or less of something than another, a third, a fourth, and all the others. If, therefore, each were to lack complete perfection—whether in goodness, power, wisdom, or any other attribute—then they would no longer be the most perfect beings; they would not be gods.[203]

2) God, as the most perfect being, is at the same time an infinite being who fills all things with Himself. Now, if there were many gods, how would their infinity be preserved? Where one existed, another—nor a third, nor a fourth, nor all the others—could certainly not exist.[204]

In presenting these and other similar proofs of God’s unity against the pagans and all heretics in general who rejected or distorted the Christian dogma concerning God, who is one in essence, the pastors of the Church also armed themselves with special arguments against dualists, who posited two coexisting, mutually hostile principles—good and evil. The essence of this latter type of argument rests primarily on two points:

1) That the dualist system contains within itself many inconsistencies. What are these two, mutually hostile, principles, the defenders of orthodoxy asked: are they equal in power, or are they not? If they are equal, they would completely neutralize one another, and there would be neither good nor evil in the world. If, however, they are not equal, then the stronger would destroy the weaker, and then there would be either only good or only evil in the world. How do these principles exist? They cannot exist within one another or alongside one another, as they are opposites that destroy one another. Therefore, we must admit that each of them occupies a distinct part of the universe. Who, then, assigned each of them its own domain? One cannot say that they themselves agreed to this and concluded a treaty among themselves: for just as evil is no longer evil when it is at peace and in harmony with good, so too good is no longer good when it is on friendly terms with evil. Consequently, we must admit that someone else—and indeed, the strongest, who has power over them—assigned a separate dwelling place to each of them. If so, there would be not two but three principles; or, more accurately, there would be one supreme principle to which the two lower ones are subordinate.[205]

2) The fact that the dualists’ system is entirely superfluous for the purpose for which it was devised. They claim that it is necessary to posit two principles—that is, in addition to the good principle, an evil principle—precisely in order to explain the origin and existence of evil in the world, for, they say, it is impossible for evil to arise from good. But evil is not some kind of essence (reality) or property of an essence, but rather something accidental; it is merely the absence of good and a deviation from the natural toward the unnatural. For there is nothing evil by nature: everything that He created, from the beginning of existence, is very good (Gen. 1:31), and all beings that remain as they were created are very good. That which arbitrarily departs from the natural and turns to the unnatural, however, becomes evil (morally). By nature, everything serves and obeys the Creator, but when any creature willfully rebels and becomes disobedient to its Creator, then it becomes evil. As for so-called physical evil (such as disasters, punishments, and the like), it is not evil in its very essence, but only in relation to us; moreover, it is a consequence of our moral evil and is sent or permitted by God for our own moral benefit. Consequently, there is absolutely no need to invent yet another evil principle: there exists only one good principle, from which all that is good proceeds; that which becomes evil does so subsequently, of its own free will, through a deviation from its nature and purpose.[206]

We consider it unnecessary here to show how, in particular, the defenders of Orthodoxy refuted the error of the Tribozhites: this heresy arose solely from their inability to correctly understand the Christian doctrine of the three Persons in the one God, and was based not on any rational considerations, but only on a misinterpretation of certain passages of Holy Scripture; and therefore we shall see its refutation in the exposition of the Orthodox doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, based on the Word of God.

§15. The Moral Implications of the Dogma

We can draw three important lessons for ourselves from the dogma of the unity of God.

The first lesson concerns our relationship with God. “I believe in one God,” every Christian proclaims at the beginning of the Creed—in one, not in many, or two, or three, as the pagans and certain heretics believed; therefore, we must serve Him alone as God (Deut. 6:13; Matt. 4:10); love Him alone with all our heart and with all our soul (Deut. 6:4 and 5); place all our hope in Him alone (Ps. 117:8 and 9; 1 Pet. 1:21), and at the same time guard against every form of polytheism and idolatry (Exod. 20:3–5). The pagans, while believing in one supreme God, also recognized many lesser gods, and among these gods they often included incorporeal spirits, whether good or evil (genii and demons), as well as deceased people who had distinguished themselves in some way during their lives: and we honor the good angels, and we also honor the holy people who distinguished themselves during their lives through faith and piety; but let us not forget that, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, we must honor them not as lesser gods, but as servants and friends of God, as our intercessors before God and helpers in our salvation—honoring them in such a way that all glory is attributed primarily to Him alone, as He is wonderful in His saints (Ps. 67:36; Matt. 10:40). The pagans made sculptures of their gods, set up their idols and graven images, and, in their utter blindness, recognized these sculptures and idols as the gods themselves, offering them divine worship: may no Christian ever fall into such idolatry. And we use and venerate the images of the true God and His saints, and we bow before them; but we use and venerate them only as images that are sacred and deeply instructive to us, and by no means do we deify them; and when we bow before holy icons, we do not worship wood or paint, but God Himself and His Saints, who are depicted on the icons; such is the true worship of holy icons, and it bears no resemblance whatsoever to idolatry. It is well known, after all, that the pagans personified all human passions and deified them in this form; we, however, do not personify the passions in order to deify them—we know their true nature; but, regrettably, Christians too often serve their passions as gods, even though they themselves do not realize it. One is so devoted to gluttony and sensual pleasures in general that, in the words of the Apostle, his god is his belly (Phil. 3:19); another is so zealous in acquiring treasures for himself and guards them with such love that his love of money, in truth, cannot but be called idolatry (Col. 3:5); a third is so preoccupied with his own merits and advantages—whether real or imagined—and holds them in such high regard that he, as it were, makes them into an idol for himself, which he worships and demands that others worship as well (Dan. 3). In short, any passion or attachment to anything at all—even something important and noble—becomes a new god or idol that we serve, provided we give ourselves over to it so strongly that we forget God and act contrary to His will; and a Christian must firmly remember that such idolatry can never coexist with the worship of the one true God, according to the Savior’s words: “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve both God and Mammon” (Matt. 6:24).

Lesson Two—concerning our attitude toward our neighbors. Believing in the one God, from whom we all have our being, in whom we all live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28), and who alone is the ultimate goal for all of us, we are naturally moved toward unity among ourselves: we must live as brothers, so that, bound together by the bonds of mutual brotherly love, we may form one great family on earth under the authority of one heavenly Father. It was to this unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace that the Holy Apostle called Christians, pointing out to them that they have one God and Father of all, who is over all, through all, and in all of us (Eph. 4:3–6). It was for this very unity of all people among themselves and with God that our Lord Himself prayed to His Father even before, when He said: “May they all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You; may they also be one in Us” (John 17:21). For the sake of this twofold reunification of all people, He came down to earth (John 10:16), taught them to know the one true God (John 17:3), tore down the wall of separation between Gentiles and Jews (Eph. 2:14–18), taught everyone—by word and example—a new commandment of perfect mutual love (John 13:34), and established this love as the first sign of His true followers: “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 35).

Finally, the third lesson concerns our attitude toward ourselves. Believing in God, who is one in essence, let us strive to restore within our own being the original unity that has been disrupted in us by sin. Now we feel a division within our being, a disunity of our strengths, abilities, and aspirations; for in my inner self I delight in God’s law; but at the same time, in my members, I see another law, opposing the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members (Rom. 7:22–23), so that in each of us there is now not one but two people—the inner and the outer, the spiritual and the carnal. Let us therefore take care, , to put off our former way of life—that of the old self, which is decaying in deceitful lusts—and to be renewed in the spirit of our minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Eph. 4:22–24), so that in this way we may once again become as one in our very being as we were when we came forth from the hands of the Creator.

And this unity will naturally lead us to another unity, which constitutes the chief purpose of our existence—to moral union with the Supreme Being, our Original Model, toward whom we strive by the very nature of our being: for the entire life of the new man will be devoted to God; and “he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord,” said the Holy Apostle (1 Cor. 6:17).

2. On the Nature of God

§16. A Brief History of the Dogma, the Church’s Teaching on It, and the Structure of This Teaching

The question of what God is in His very essence (ουσία, φύσις, essentia, substantia, natura), has been a subject of particular attention for the teachers of the Church since the earliest centuries of Christianity—on the one hand, because it is a question that is in itself very important and close to the mind and heart of every person, and even more so because heretics at that time devoted much attention to this question, naturally provoking defenders of Orthodoxy to oppose them.[207] But in ancient times, the teachers of the faith, refuting the errors of false teachers who claimed to know the very essence of God completely, sought primarily to reveal the idea that God’s essence is incomprehensible to us, that we not only do not know it but also cannot know it in this life.[208] And therefore, they deliberately did not concern themselves with seeking any single, definite concept of God that could be recognized as precisely corresponding to His essence; on the contrary, they defined Him in various ways, as convenience dictated, and by drawing on the various attributes under which He is portrayed in revelation: sometimes they said that God is by nature pure spirit;[209] sometimes they called Him the creative essence that produced all things visible and invisible;[210] sometimes they saw in Him supreme greatness,[211] or the most perfect [212] and highest good,[213] or a being that always exists.[214] And if at times some attempted to designate a single known name as denoting the very essence of God,[215] they expressed this only either as their personal opinion,[216] or on the basis of a single etymology,[217] noting at the same time that all names generally attributed to God— even those that seem most fitting for Him—do not fully express His essence.[218] In short, by calling God essentially incomprehensible and unnameable, the pastors of the early Church also called Him indefinable.[219]

We see something entirely different in the Middle Ages. While continuing to acknowledge God as incomprehensible, the Scholastics nevertheless sought to define precisely what His essence consists of. To this end, they distinguished between two essences in God: the physical and the metaphysical. By the former, they meant the very nature of God, which is all-perfect, or everything that is found in God; by the term “metaphysical essence,” they meant that attribute which first and foremost presents itself to us in God, which serves as the root and source of all His other attributes, and which decisively distinguishes Him from all other beings. It was this very attribute that they sought to identify by every means possible, and the question of it sparked the most heated debates in the schools, giving rise to a countless multitude of opinions. It suffices to mention the four main ones: some asserted that God’s metaphysical essence consists not in any particular attribute or perfection, but in the totality of all perfections; others placed it in the radical infinity (in infinitate radicali) or exigency (exigentia) of all perfections; a third group—in actual understanding (in intellectione actuali) or only in radical understanding (radicali), that is, in the very capacity for understanding; and finally, a fourth group—in God’s self-existence or being from Himself (in esse a se sev aseitate). The latter view had the greatest number of adherents and remains in use to this day among theologians of the Roman Catholic Church.[220] It is easy to see that all these views, though they do not concern the essence of the dogma, do not harm the true Christian teaching about God, but are also useless, since they do not explain in the least the incomprehensible subject, and that the very question of God’s metaphysical essence is a matter for academic debate, not for Christian faith or life.

Avoiding all such subtleties, the Orthodox Church has always held fast—and continues to hold fast—only to what God Himself has deigned to reveal to it about Himself in His revelation, without any intention of defining the essence of God, which it acknowledges as incomprehensible and, consequently, in the strict sense, also indefinable,[221] but, desiring only to impart to her children a concept of God that is as close as possible, precise, and accessible to all, she says the following about Him: “God is the eternal Spirit, all-good, all-knowing, all-righteous, almighty, omnipresent, unchanging, all-satisfied, and all-blessed.” Here she points out to us, first, the incomprehensible essence of God (or, in other words, His nature), insofar as it can be understood by our minds today, and, second, the essential attributes that distinguish this essence—or, more precisely, that distinguish God Himself from all other beings.[222]

§17. The Concept of God’s Being: God Is Spirit

The word “Spirit” indeed most clearly denotes for us the incomprehensible essence or nature of God. We know only two kinds of nature: material, complex, lacking consciousness and rationality; and immaterial, simple, spiritual, more or less endowed with consciousness and rationality. We cannot possibly admit that God possesses a nature of the first kind, since we see traces of the highest reason in all His works, both in creation and in providence. On the contrary, we are compelled by the constant contemplation of these traces to assume that God possesses a nature of the latter kind. And if, indeed, revelation itself presents God to us as a spiritual being—in that case, our assumption must already rise to the level of an indisputable truth.[223] And revelation indeed teaches us that God is the purest Spirit, unconnected to any body, and that, consequently, His nature is entirely immaterial, devoid of even the slightest complexity, and simple. This is evident:

1) From those passages of Scripture that deny in God all attributes necessarily belonging to matter or a body: a) every body is limited by space—God is unlimited by anything and is omnipresent: “Can a man hide in a secret place where I would not see him?” says the Lord. “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord (Jer. 23:24; Ps. 138:7–12); b) every body has a definite form and can therefore be depicted—God has no sensory form, and therefore the Old Testament strictly forbade depicting Him: “To whom will you liken God? And what likeness will you find for Him?” (Isa. 40:18, cf. Isa. 25); hold fast in your hearts that you saw no image on the day the Lord spoke to you at [Mount] Horeb from the midst of the fire, 16 lest you be led astray and make for yourselves graven images, representations of any idol depicting a man or a woman (Deut. 4:15–16);[224] c) every body, by its very nature, can be seen—God is called the God of the invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rom. 1:20), whom no one has ever seen (John 1:18; cf. John 6:46), and in particular—whom no human being has seen or can see (1 Tim. 6:16; cf. Exod. 33:18–23); d) every physical body is subject to change—every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17); e) every body, being composed of parts, is perishable and corruptible—God is the King of the ages, incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17), and the pagans are condemned for having exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image resembling corruptible man, birds, and four-footed animals (Rom. 1:23).

2) From those passages where, on the contrary, attributes are ascribed to God that essentially belong only to the spirit, such as: a) self-awareness and personhood: “See now, [see,] that it is I, I—and there is no God besides Me” (Deut. 32:39, cf. Exod. 20:2–3); “I am the first of the Lord, and I am the same to the last” (Isa. 41:4; cf. Isa. 48:12); “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,” says the Lord, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8; 22:13); 6) mind: “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” (Rom. 11:33–34);[225] c) free will: The Lord does whatever He pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the depths (Ps. 134:6), and in general, He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11);[226] d) eternal life and ceaseless activity: “I live,” says the Lord, (Jer. 22:24), “I live forever!” (Deut. 32:40); “My Father is still working, and I am working” (John 5:17); “Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), —accordingly, the true God is called the living God, in contrast to all false gods (1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:17; 2 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 12:22; John 6:57, 69).

3) Finally, from those passages where God is explicitly called the Spirit. There are only two such passages, but both are equally clear and definite. The first is found in the Savior’s conversation with the Samaritan woman: wishing to instruct her that God is to be worshiped not only at Mount Gerizim, as the Samaritans thought, or in Jerusalem, as the Jews believed, but that the hour is coming when true worshipers will worship Him in every place, Christ said: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:20–24); consequently, He used the word “spirit” to denote a being not bound to any place—an immaterial, omnipresent, rational, and moral being. We read another passage in the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians: “The Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), where, evidently, the term “Spirit” is also used in its strictest, literal sense, rather than figuratively. It is also noteworthy that the Apostle Paul calls God the Father of spirits, in contrast to our fathers according to the flesh (Heb. 12:9).

*******The Holy Church, the guardian of the apostolic tradition, has viewed this dogma from time immemorial—as clearly expressed by her teachers, especially in response to the error of the anthropomorphites,[227] who, basing themselves on God’s words: “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26), and on those numerous passages of Scripture where human attributes and members are ascribed to God,[228] claimed that God is indeed clothed in flesh and in every way resembles a human being. To refute such a notion, the ancient pastors—

1) First and foremost, sought to explain that the aforementioned passages of Scripture must be understood quite differently. The image of God, they said, should not be understood as referring to the human body—for this has no basis whatsoever—but rather to the human soul,[229] to its powers and abilities,[230] to its virtues, in accordance with the words of the Apostle—Eph. 4:24,[231] or—in man’s dominion over earthly creatures, in accordance with the very words of the Creator Himself, who, as soon as He had said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” immediately added: “and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, [and over the beasts,] and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26).[232] Likewise, “when we find in Divine Scripture a great many such passages in which something corporeal is symbolically attributed to God, we must understand that it is impossible for us humans, clothed in coarse flesh, to comprehend and express the divine, exalted, and incorporeal actions of the Godhead unless we employ images, types, and symbols. Thus, if anything corporeal is ascribed to God, it is spoken of symbolically and has a higher meaning; for the Deity is simple and incorporeal. Thus, in God, by “eyes,” “eyelids,” and “sight,” we must understand His all-seeing power, His all-encompassing knowledge; for we, too, acquire a more perfect and certain understanding through the sense of sight. By “ears” and “hearing,” we must understand His gracious attention and acceptance of our prayers; for when we are asked, we too graciously incline our ear toward those who ask, thereby showing them our favor through this sense. By “lips” and “speech,” we must understand the manifestation of God’s will; for we too reveal the thoughts of our hearts through our lips and speech. By “food and drink” we mean our conformity to God’s will; for through taste we satisfy the necessary demands of our nature. By “smell” we mean the acceptance of our thoughts, directed toward God, and of our heartfelt disposition; for through smell we perceive fragrance. By “face” we must understand His manifestation and revelation in deeds; for our own face also reveals who we are. By “hands”—His active power; for we, too, do all that is useful—and especially that which is most precious—with our own hands. By “the right hand” is meant His help in righteous deeds; for we, too, when performing deeds that are more noble, important, and requiring greater strength, more often act with our right hand. By “touch” is meant His precise knowledge and discernment of even the smallest and most hidden things, for nothing that we touch can remain hidden from Him. Under the feet and walking—His coming and appearing, whether to help those in need, to protect them from enemies, or for some other purpose; for we, too, go places on foot. Under the oath—the immutability of His counsel, for mutual agreements among us are also confirmed by oath. “Anger and fury” signify His aversion to and hatred of evil; for we, too, become angry when we hate what is contrary to our will. “Forgetfulness, sleep, and slumber” signify His delay in avenging His enemies and His postponement of His usual help for His own until the appointed time. In short, everything that is said about God in corporeal terms (σωματικώς) contains some hidden meaning and, through what is familiar to us, teaches us what is beyond our understanding.”[233] Not limiting themselves, however, to these explanations alone, the pastors of the Church—

2) Together, they sought to demonstrate positively that God is an immaterial and incorporeal being. To this end, they pointed to various attributes of God mentioned in revelation and equally acknowledged by sound reason, which are incompatible with corporeality, such as: a) His infinity and omnipresence: “Can you call the Deity a body?” asks St. Gregory the Theologian, “but how then can you call Him infinite, having neither limits nor form...? It is God’s attribute to permeate all things and fill all things, as it is said: ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the Lord (Jer. 23:24), and again: ‘The Spirit of the Lord fills the universe’ (Wisdom of Solomon 1:7)—how can this be preserved if God limits some things by Himself, yet is Himself limited by others?”[234] — b) on immutability: “Will God be immutable if He is definable and subject to suffering? And how can that which is composed of the elements and again decomposes into the elements not be subject to suffering?”[235] — c) His indestructibility, immortality, and eternity: “Complexity (consisting of constituent parts, ed.) is the beginning of struggle; struggle leads to division; division leads to destruction; and destruction is entirely foreign to God, as the first nature—therefore, there is no division in Him, otherwise there would be destruction; there is no struggle, otherwise there would be division; there is no complexity, otherwise there would be struggle;”[236] d) finally—on the fact that God, according to universal belief, is the most perfect being—which He would not be if His nature were not completely simple, because complexity always betrays a certain imperfection.[237] In this regard, it is particularly noteworthy to us that the ancient pastors, in denouncing the error of the anthropomorphists, —

3) called it a heresy,[238] a reckless one,[239] the most foolish heresy,[240] and constantly counted the anthropomorphists themselves, who stubbornly clung to their opinion, among the heretics,[241] sparing only those who were led astray by it out of simplicity and ignorance.[242] This is an indisputable sign that the Church did not consider this error to be of no consequence to the matter of faith, as the most recent freethinkers claim;[243] on the contrary, she condemned it as a matter of great importance and, taking into account the perfect simplicity of God’s being, recognized it as her immutable dogma.

From this it is evident how, from a Christian perspective, one must view the pantheists—both ancient and modern—who have emerged from within Christianity itself and who regard all that exists, and consequently the material world, as God or as the manifestation of the Divine. If, according to the judgment of the Church, it is wrong to openly ascribe to God only a material shell—the body—then it is all the more wrong to consider God to be the body itself or matter. That is why in the “Ordinance of Orthodoxy,” which the Orthodox Church performs during the first week of Great Lent, we hear, among other things, the following words: “Those who say that God is not spirit but flesh—anathema.”[244]

§18. The Concept of God’s Essential Attributes, Their Number, and Classification.

The essential attributes of God (τά ούσιώδη ιδιώματα, proprietates essentiales, or, in a word, άξιώματα, νοήματα, έπιτηδεύματα, attributa, perfectiones) are those that belong to the Divine Being itself and distinguish it from all other beings; consequently, these are the attributes equally proper to all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, who are one in essence—hence they are also called the General Attributes of God (ιδιώματά κοινά), in contrast to the particular or personal attributes (τά προσωπικά ιδιώματα, proprietates personales), which belong to each Person of the Godhead separately and distinguish them from one another.[245]

It is impossible to determine the number of God’s essential or common attributes. And the Church, while imparting to us a sound understanding of God and naming some of them (“God is an eternal Spirit, all-good, all-knowing, all-righteous, almighty, omnipresent, unchanging, all-satisfied, and all-blessed”), nevertheless observes that God’s common attributes are innumerable: for everything that is said in revelation about God, who is one in essence, all of this constitutes, in a certain sense, the attributes of the divine being.[246] Therefore, following the example of the Church, we will limit ourselves to considering only some of them—the most important ones, which best characterize the divine essence, encompass or explain other, less conspicuous attributes, and are more clearly described in divine revelation.

In order to have distinct concepts of God’s essential attributes and to present the doctrine concerning them in a systematic manner, theologians have, since ancient times, sought to divide them into classes; and a great many such classifications—especially during the medieval and modern periods—have been devised, all of which, though not to the same degree, have their own merits and shortcomings.[247] The main reason for the latter is quite clear: the attributes of God’s being, like the being itself, are entirely incomprehensible to us. Therefore, without striving in vain to find some perfect classification of them, we will choose the one that seems to us to be the most correct and simplest.

God, by His very nature, is Spirit; and in every spirit, apart from its spiritual nature (substance) proper, we distinguish in particular two principal powers or faculties: intellect and will. In light of this, the essential attributes of God can be divided into three classes:

I) the attributes of God’s being in general, that is, those that belong equally to God’s very nature (substance)—which is spiritual—and to both of its powers: intellect and will, and which distinguish God, as a spirit in general, from all other beings;

II) the properties of God’s intellect, that is, those that belong solely to God’s intellect; and finally—

III) the properties of God’s will, that is, those that belong solely to God’s will.

§19. The Attributes of the Divine Being in General.

God, as Spirit, differs from all other beings in general in that they are all limited both in their existence and in their powers, and are therefore more or less imperfect, whereas He is a Spirit who is unlimited or boundless in every respect—in other words, all-perfect. In particular, all other beings: a) are limited in the origin and duration of their existence: they all derive their existence from God and are in constant dependence on Him and, to some extent, on one another—whereas God derived His existence from no one and is dependent on no one in any respect: He is self-existent and independent; b) are limited in the nature or form of their existence; for they are inevitably subject to the conditions of space and time, and consequently are subject to change—God is above all conditions of space: immeasurable and omnipresent; He is above all conditions of time: eternal and unchanging; c) finally, they are limited in their powers, both in quantity and quality—for God there are no limits in this regard either: He is all-powerful and omnipotent. Thus, the principal attributes inherent in God by His very nature are: 1) infinity or perfection, 2) self-existence, 3) independence, 4) immeasurability and omnipresence, 5) eternity, 6) immutability, and 7) omnipotence.

1. Infinity.

When we call God infinite (άόριστος, infinitus), we mean that He is not only free from every limitation and deficiency in every respect, but also possesses all possible perfections (realities—realitatibus) to the highest degree—or without any degree or measure (ύπερτελής, ens realissimum seu infinite perfectum).[248]

Scripture depicts this attribute of God in two ways: sometimes speaking of God in an absolute sense, and sometimes comparing Him to other beings; but in both cases, it depicts it very clearly and powerfully.

It speaks of God’s boundlessness in an absolute sense when—a) it directly calls God perfect and free from any deficiency: “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5); “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48); b) calls Him great, and infinitely great: “Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; His greatness is unsearchable” (Ps. 144:3); “Great is our Lord, and great is His might; His understanding is beyond measure” (Ps. 146:5); Behold, God is great, and we cannot comprehend Him; the number of His years is unfathomable (Job 36:26); how great is the house of God, and how vast is the place of His dominion! He is great and has no end, high and immeasurable (Ps. 3:24–25); c) calls Him glorious, and even King and God— , the God of glory: the Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory (Ps. 23:10); the God of glory has thundered, the Lord over many waters (Ps. 28:3), His glory is above the heavens (112:4); the whole earth is full of His glory (Isa. 6:3)—and the majesty and glory in God are nothing other than His very perfections or the inseparable consequence and manifestation of these perfections; d) finally, He is called all-sufficient and blessed (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:15), who lacks nothing (Acts 17:25–26) and always has the fullness of joy in Your presence, bliss at Your right hand forever (Ps. 15:11), — and such complete contentment and bliss necessarily imply in God the fullness of perfections, in the awareness of which He alone can be all-sufficient and blessed.

When comparing God to other beings, Scripture a) finds no one among them to whom He might be likened: “O Lord, who is like You?” (Ps. 34:10; 17:19); “To whom, then, will you liken God? Or what likeness will you find for Him?” (Isa. 40:18); b) when addressing, in particular, those beings considered the greatest and most exalted in the world—for whatever reason—it grants Him complete superiority over them: “There is none as holy as the Lord; for there is none besides You; and there is no rock like our God” (1 Kings 2:2); Who is like Him, the Instructor? (Job 36:22); Who, O Lord, is like You among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, worthy of praise, the Creator of wonders? (Exod. 15:11)—and immediately afterward calls Him “the Lord, your God, is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, a great, mighty, and awesome God” (Deut. 10:17), “the King of kings and the Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). But that is not all: c) at times, it presents God’s perfections as so great that the perfections of other beings seem to pale in comparison—calling God, for example, not only mighty but the only Mighty One (1 Tim. 6:15), not only good but the only Good One (Mark 10:18), not only holy, but the one and only holy one (1 Kings 2:2), not only wise, but the one and only wise one (1 Tim. 1:17), not only immortal, but the one and only immortal one (1 Tim. 6:16), as if all other beings lacked every single one of these attributes. Finally—d)—in some passages it does indeed call other beings insignificant in comparison with God’s infinite greatness, asserting, for example, that before God all nations are as nothing before Him—nothingness and emptiness are considered even less in His sight (Isa. 40:17), that He reduces princes to nothing and renders the judges of the earth as nothing (23).

Sound reason has always recognized this infinite greatness and perfection of God.[249] Indeed, it cannot fail to recognize it, as long as it remains obedient to the voice of its own nature and of the external world.

We possess an idea of a Being that is most perfect and boundless—an idea that awakens in a person even before full consciousness is revealed, and as a result of which, as the ancient teachers of the Church observed, all people, no matter what stage of development they may be at, usually conceive of God as that which is higher and more perfect than anything else can be.[250] Judging by its universality, the time of its awakening, and its very content, we cannot explain the origin of this idea except by conceding, along with Christian and even pagan thinkers, that it is innate to human beings—that is, bestowed upon us along with the soul and inseparably united with the nature of our reason.[251] Consequently, reason must first alter its own nature in order to subsequently either deny God’s existence or conceive of God as not infinitely perfect.

Looking at the external world and observing in it, at almost every turn, traces of astonishing grandeur, beauty, and other innumerable and most diverse perfections, we cannot help but feel that the heavens are indeed proclaiming to us the glory—that is, the perfections—of God, and that all of nature speaks of them unceasingly, like the most eloquent preacher (Ps. 18:2–5). If such are the creations, what must the Creator be like ! If so many and such perfections are scattered across the face of all creation, then how many and to what degree must the One who gives life and breath to all things (Acts 17:25) possess them! “If there is a beautiful heaven—to use the words of one of our Russian saints—and in the heavens the visible sun, moon, and stars, oh, how much more beautiful is He who created these beautiful things. If the earth is beautiful, with its joyful vistas, mountains, hills, forests, oak groves, gardens, vineyards, fields, flowers, as well as precious things: silver, gold, priceless gems, and, moreover, beautiful people whose faces resemble those of angels—how much better, more precious, and more necessary is He who created all of this by His power and wisdom! Thus, through the Creator’s creation, we learn to know Him.”[252]

We must remember that, as we have already noted, God’s infinity or all-perfection is not some particular attribute of God, but a general one that encompasses all others: “God,” says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “is perfect in all things… perfect in knowledge, perfect in power, perfect in majesty, perfect in foreknowledge, perfect in goodness, perfect in justice, perfect in love for mankind.”[253] Now let us turn to the particular attributes of God’s being, which are:

2. Self-existence (αυτούσια, aseitas).

God is called self-existent because He does not owe His existence to any other being, but derives both His existence and all that He possesses from Himself.[254]

In Sacred Scripture, we find a clear depiction of God’s self-existence when we read:

a) that before God there was no other God from whom He could have received His being, and that, indeed, no one gave Him anything: “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me, and understand that it is I: before Me there was no God, nor will there be any after Me” (Isa. 43:10).

b) that He is the first God, the Alpha—the beginning of all things. Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last; besides Me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6); “I am the first of the Lord, and in the last days I am the same” (41:4; cf. 48:12). “I am the First and the Last, and the Living One; I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever” (Rev. 1:18).

c) that He has life in Himself and is the very source of life: just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26). (The sons of men) are satisfied with the fat of Your house, and from the stream of Your delights You give them to drink, for with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light (Ps. 35:9–10).

d) Finally, His very name is “The One Who Is”—ο ών, the One Who Is par excellence (κατ’ εξοχήν). And Moses said to God, “Behold, I will go to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ And they will ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Ex. 3:13–14).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church focused primarily on this last passage and noted that the name “I Am” is the most fitting name for God: a) because God encompasses all of existence within Himself, as it were, a boundless and infinite sea of being;[255] b) because God exists from Himself and through Himself, while all other beings derive their existence from Him;[256] c) because God exists in such a way that, in comparison with Him, all other beings are, as it were, non-existent.[257] Extending this attribute not only to God’s nature but also to all of God’s attributes, the Holy Fathers devised various expressive and significant names for God, such as: self-God—αύτόθεος,[258] self-Lord—αύτοκύριος,[259] Self-Life—αύτοζωή,[260] Self-Power—αύτοδύναμις,[261] Self-Truth—αύτοαλήθεια,[262] Self-Wisdom—αύτοσοφία,[263] Self-Holiness—αύτοαγιότης,[264] Self-Goodness—αύτοαγαθότης [265] , and so on. “We believe,” says St. John of Damascus, “in one God… in the power that is light itself (αύτόφως), the very goodness (αύτοαγαθότης), the very essence (αύτοουσία), since it owes neither its existence nor its properties to anything else, but is itself the source of existence for all that exists, the source of life for all that lives, the source of reason for those who possess reason, and the cause of all good for all.”[266]

Even sound reason cannot fail to acknowledge God’s self-existence. Seeing that everything in the world is contingent and accidental, and tracing back through an unbroken chain of causes and effects further and further, one cannot help but realize that this chain of contingent beings, arising one from another, cannot be extended to infinity (otherwise it would be absurd), and that one must ultimately postulate a first, self-existent being, which itself did not receive its existence from anyone else, but is the first cause of all that exists.[267] How such a being—one that has never had a beginning and exists of itself and through itself—is possible, we do not understand at all; yet we nevertheless feel that His existence is a necessary requirement of our reason. Yielding to this very requirement, even pagan philosophers acknowledged God’s self-existence.[268]

3. Independence.

By “independence in God,” we mean that attribute by which He, in His essence, powers, and actions, is determined solely by Himself and not by anything external, and is self-sufficient (αυτάρκης, άνενδεής), self-governing (αυτεξούσιος), and sovereign (αύτοκρατής).[269]

This attribute of God follows directly from the preceding one. If God is a self-existent being, and everything He possesses He possesses solely from Himself, then He is not dependent on anyone, at least in terms of His existence and powers. But in addition, Sacred Scripture describes God’s independence in distinct aspects—

a) when it states that God needs nothing from outside Himself, but rather bestows everything upon all: God, who created the world and everything in it, He who is the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by human hands nor does He require the service of human hands, as if He were in need of anything, He Himself gives life and breath and everything to all (Acts 17:24–25; cf. Isa. 40:28). And the first sense of dependence arises in us precisely at the moment when we realize that we are unable to manage without outside help.

b) when it asserts that nothing external can impart anything to God—neither regarding His being and perfections nor regarding His actions. Who has understood the Spirit of the Lord, or been His counselor to instruct Him? With whom does He take counsel, and who instructs Him and teaches Him the way of righteousness, and imparts knowledge to Him, and shows Him the path of wisdom? (Isa. 40:13–14); or who has given to Him in advance, so that He might have to repay? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:35–36).

c) when He presents God to us as the sovereign Lord over all other beings, whom, consequently, no one and nothing can compel to do anything. My universe and all that fills it (Ps. 49:12); O Lord, O Lord, King, Almighty! All is in Your power, and no one can oppose You when You choose to save Israel; You created the heavens and the earth and all that is wondrous under the heavens; You are the Lord of all, and there is no one who can stand against You, O Lord (Esther 4:17), for all serve You (Ps. 118:91).

d) when, finally, it testifies that God is indeed free from all external compulsion and acts according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also taught: a) that God lacks nothing and therefore needs nothing;[270] b) that “He is subject neither to the order of things, nor to the influence of the stars, nor to chance, nor to fate;”[271] c) that He is “a self-existent and self-governing Being, all-powerful, life-giving..., is a power that presides over all and reigns with an endless and immortal reign—a power that nothing can oppose..., which establishes all authorities and ranks, yet is itself above every authority and rank,”[272] and d) that He “does whatever He wills, whenever He wills, and however He wills.”[273]

Common sense, recognizing God as self-existent, and also as the Creator and Lord of all that exists, must necessarily acknowledge Him as independent.

4. Immeasurability and Omnipresence.

Immenseness is attributed to God in the sense that He, as the purest Spirit and, moreover, boundless in every respect, is not subject, in particular, to any limitation by space or place, but fills all things with Himself (άπερίγραπτος και τά πάντα πληρών — immensus); and omnipresence—in that, by filling all things with Himself, He is naturally present in every place and inherent in every being (πανταχού καί πάσι παρών omnipraesens).[274]

Faith in God’s omnipresence and the doctrine thereof have existed throughout all periods of divine revelation:

a) during the patriarchal period. This faith is expressed in the words of Jacob and Laban when they sealed their covenant: Then Jacob said to him, “Behold, there is no one with us; see, God is the witness between you and me” (Gen. 31:44; cf. 50); and later—in Joseph’s reply to Potiphar’s wife: “How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9).

b) during the pre-law period. We find a clear teaching on God’s omnipresence in Moses’ instruction to Israel: “Know therefore today and take to heart that the Lord [your God] is God in heaven above and on earth below, [and] there is none else [besides Him] (Deut. 4:39), and later in the words of the Lord Himself: “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; where then will you build a house for Me, and where is the place of My rest?” (Isa. 66:1); “Can a man hide in a secret place where I would not see him?” says the Lord. “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord (Jer. 23:24). And an equally clear confession of God’s omnipresence is found in David’s appeal to God: “Where can I go from Your Spirit, and where can I flee from Your presence ? If I ascend to heaven—You are there; if I go down to the grave—You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn and settle at the farthest ends of the sea, even there Your hand will guide me, and Your right hand will hold me fast (Ps. 138:7–10; cf. Amos 9:2–3), and in Solomon’s prayer: “Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built [for Your name];” (3 Kings 8:27; cf. 2 Chronicles 6:18).

c) during the Christian era. The idea of God’s omnipresence is clearly implied in the Savior’s remark to the Samaritan woman that worship of the true God cannot be confined to a single specific place, but must take place everywhere (John 4:21–23), and—is clearly expressed by the Holy Apostle Paul when he says that God, who created the world and everything in it, He who is the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by human hands, and that He brought forth the entire human race from one blood… so that they might seek God, in the hope that they might feel His presence and find Him, even though He is not far from any one of us: for in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:24,26–28), and as it is testified: “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:6).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church endeavored, as far as possible, to explain the very nature of God’s omnipresence, in order to prevent or refute various errors. To this end, they taught that God is omnipresent and fills all things with Himself a) not by the extension or expansion of His nature, as, for example, air or light does; for God’s nature is immaterial and entirely spiritual;[275] b) He is not omnipresent merely through the operations of His omniscience and omnipotence (τή ένεργεία, operative), as some ancient thinkers believed and as some modern freethinkers believe,[276] but through His very essence (τή ούσία — substantialiter)—for the first assumption inevitably leads to two inconsistencies: first, God is defined by a place in which He supposedly dwells and from which He acts upon all parts of the world solely by the power of His intellect and omnipotence; and second, God’s actions are completely separated and distanced from His essence, whereas actions can be performed only where the very being that produces them is located;[277] c) He is omnipresent, not in such a way that He is present in different parts of the world with different parts of His nature—more in larger places, less in smaller ones—but rather He is wholly present everywhere, or in every place, equally in the great and the small;[278] d) not in such a way that He is limited to or contained by any place; on the contrary, He is in all things and outside of all things,[279] and, consequently, He Himself encompasses all that exists, without, however, being any kind of place for the world and the beings dwelling within it;[280] e) finally, not in such a way that, while permeating all things, He Himself is permeated by anything, or mingled with anything, or becomes defiled by anything impure or sinful in the world.[281] However, in setting forth all such explanations of God’s omnipresence, the pastors of the ancient Church firmly kept in mind the idea of the incomprehensibility of this attribute of God. “‘We know,’ says St. John Chrysostom, ‘that God is present everywhere, but we do not comprehend how—because we are aware only of His sensible presence and are not given to fully understand the nature of God. Without delving into subtleties, we must acknowledge a mode of God’s omnipresence that would be both worthy of God and beneficial to our piety.’”[282]

Agreeing that God is the purest Spirit—and, moreover, a being who is infinite and most perfect in every respect—while at the same time observing everywhere the traces of His actions in the world, the mind cannot but acknowledge God’s omnipresence, just as even the pagans themselves and their sages acknowledged it—[283] —although the nature of this omnipresence is, in truth, be beyond our comprehension.

5. Eternity.

When it is said that God is eternal (αΐδιος — aeternus), this means that He has neither a beginning nor an end to His existence, and is generally free from all conditions of time.[284]

In Scripture, this attribute is

a) is repeatedly ascribed to God Himself: “I live forever” (Deut. 32:40); “I am the same, I am the first, and I am the last” (Isa. 48:12; cf. 41:4; 44:6); “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 1:8 and 17); “Before Me there was no God, nor will there be any after Me” (Isa. 43:10); “I am the One Who Is” (Exod. 3:14);

b) the prophets, such as David, attributed to Him: In the beginning, You, [O Lord,] laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You will remain; and all of them will wear out like a garment, and like a robe You will change them, and they will be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will never end (Ps. 101:26–28); before the mountains were born, before You formed the earth and the universe, from everlasting to everlasting You are God (Ps. 89:3); a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday (5); Isaiah: Do you not know? Have you not heard that the everlasting Lord God, who created the ends of the earth, neither grows weary nor faint? His understanding is unfathomable (40:28; cf. 57:15); Jeremiah: He is the living God and the eternal King (10:10);

c) New Testament writers also affirm this; among them, Paul calls God the incorruptible King of the ages (1 Tim. 1:17) and the only one who possesses immortality (6:16), and the Apostle Peter, echoing the words of the Psalmist that “with God a thousand years are like a single day,” adds that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a single day” (2 Pet. 3:8).

Furthermore, Scripture extends the eternity attributed to God from His essence to His very attributes and actions, and—

d) it says: “Your mercy, O Lord, endures forever” (Ps. 137:8), “Your righteousness is everlasting righteousness” (Ps. 118:142, 144); Your name endures forever (Ps. 134:13); or: His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will never pass away (Dan. 7:14); Whose kingdom is an eternal kingdom (27); the counsel of the Lord stands forever (Ps. 32:11), and the word of the Lord endures forever (1 Pet. 1:25; cf. Ps. 118:89).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church explain to us how to understand God’s eternity. It is not some kind of beginningless and infinite time, as is commonly imagined—composed of a countless multitude of parts successively following one another, and therefore necessarily consisting of the past, present, and future—but rather, it is a single, constant, unchanging present. “God always was, is, and will be—or rather, always is,” says St. Gregory the Theologian ( , “for the words ‘was’ and ‘will be’ denote the divisions of our time and are characteristic of a transient nature; but the One Who Is—He is always.” And by this name He Himself designates Himself when speaking with Moses on the mountain (Ex. 3:14); for He concentrates within Himself the entirety of being, which neither began nor will end. Like a certain sea of essence—indefinite and infinite, extending beyond the limits of any conception of time and nature—the mind (and even then very dimly and inadequately, not in regard to what is in Him Himself, but in regard to what surrounds Him), by sketching out certain outlines, He is set off in a certain form of reality, fleeing before it can be grasped and slipping away before it can be conceived by the mind, illuminating the eye of our mind—if it is purified—just as much as the swiftness of a flashing bolt of lightning illuminates the gaze.”[285] Dionysius the Areopagite, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Isidore of Pelusium, Augustine, Gregory the Great, and others explain the concept of God’s eternity in exactly the same way.[286]

Being ourselves confined within the bounds of time, and seeing nothing but the transitory around us, we are utterly incapable of conceiving the image of God’s eternal existence; yet our reason cannot fail to acknowledge this attribute in God: a) God is a self-existent being, that is, one who has never derived His existence from anyone else and possesses within Himself an inexhaustible source of life—therefore, He cannot have an end; b) God is the most perfect and boundless Being, free from all limitations, and therefore from all temporal boundaries: beginning, duration, succession, and end. Even pagan philosophers acknowledged God’s eternity.[287]

6) Immutability.

Immutability in God is that attribute by which He always remains the same (αναλλοίωτο, αμετάβλητος—immutabilis) in His essence, in His powers and perfections, and in His attributes and actions.[288]

In describing this attribute of God, Holy Scripture—a) excludes from God any mutability observed in human beings: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind” (Num. 23:19), and “the Faithful One of Israel will not speak falsehood nor change His mind”; for He is not a man, that He should repent (1 Kings 15:29); there are many plans in a man’s heart, but only what the Lord determines will come to pass (Prov. 19:21); b) — all changeability, observable even in the external world: in the beginning, You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You will remain; and all of them will wear out like a garment, and like a robe, You will change them, and they will be transformed; but You are the same, and Your years will never end (Ps. 101:26–28; cf. Heb. 1:11–12); heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away (Mark 13:31); and c) testifies that there is not even a shadow of change in God: every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17); d) finally, it presents God Himself as speaking: “For I am the Lord; I do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, who also attributed to God complete immutability in every respect,[289] offered the following arguments to explain their views: a) the mutability of a being is necessarily accompanied by succession or sequence of different states within it—yet in God there can be no succession or sequence: because God is eternal;[290] b) changeability can be either for the better or for the worse—but neither can be admitted in God: because God is all-perfect;[291] c) change can also occur either through an increase in the essence or through a decrease—but in God neither increase nor decrease of any kind is possible: for God is immeasurable and entirely immaterial.[292] In particular, to explain the immutability of God’s will and decrees in relation to free creatures—and especially to human beings—the Holy Fathers, based on Holy Scripture, devised a distinction within God’s will: into the first (θέλημα πρώτον) and the second (δεύτερον), or else the preceding (προηγούμενον) and the subsequent (έπο'μενον), or, as they later began to express it, into the unconditional and the conditional (voluntatem absolutam et conditionatam). The term “first will” refers to that by which God desires something without any external conditions—for example, He desires that all people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4); and by the latter is meant that by which He desires something in relation to free creatures, subject to some condition binding upon them; for example, He sent His only-begotten Son to humanity so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16; Mark 16:16). Thus, God’s will with regard to free creatures, as well as toward all in general, remains unchanging, and the freedom of creatures is in no way restricted by this will and its decrees.[293]

And sound reason cannot fail to recognize the justice of all these divine considerations, and consequently to confess God as an unchanging Being, just as the pagan sages of old confessed Him.[294]

7. Omnipotence.

Omnipotence is attributed to God in the sense that He possesses unlimited power to bring all things into being and to rule over all things—hence He is called, interchangeably, omnipotent or all-powerful (παντοδύναμος) and almighty (παντοκράτωρ).[295]

The sacred books contain countless passages depicting this attribute of God. They testify:

a) of God’s omnipotence in general: “I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2); “Abba, Father! All things are possible for You” (Mark 14:36); “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26); for with God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). At the same time, they call God “the Mighty One” (Ps. 88:9), “the Lord of hosts” (Ps. 23:10), “the only Mighty One” (1 Tim. 6:15), and “the Almighty”: the great and mighty God, the God who is great in counsel and mighty in deed, the Lord Almighty, the Almighty God (Jer. 33:18–19; cf. 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 16:7).

In particular, God’s omnipotence is depicted—

b) in creation: “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light” (Gen. 1:3); for He spoke—and it came to be; He commanded—and it appeared (Ps. 32:9; cf. 148:5); Our God is in heaven [and on earth]; He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 113:11; cf. 134:6); by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth—all their host (Ps. 32:6; cf. Jer. 32:17; Isa. 40:26–28); You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for You have created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created (Rev. 4:11).

c) in Your providence over creatures and Your dominion over them: They all look to You to give them their food in due season. You give it to them—they receive it; You open Your hand—they are satisfied with good things; You hide Your face—they are troubled; You take away their breath—they die and return to the dust; when You send forth Your Spirit—they are created anew, and You renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:27–30). Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the splendor, and all that is in heaven and on earth; Yours is Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom, and You are exalted as Sovereign over all. Both wealth and glory come from Your presence, and You rule over all; in Your hand are strength and power, and it is in Your power to exalt and strengthen all things (1 Chr. 29:11–12; cf. Deut. 10:17; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).

And even more clearly testifying to God’s omnipotence are—

d) in performing miracles: Who is a God as great as [our] God! You are the God who performs miracles (Ps. 76:14–15; cf. 85:10); He looks down on the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke (Ps. 103:32), Who created the Pleiades and Orion, and turns the shadow of death into the light of dawn, and makes the day as dark as night, calls forth the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the face of the earth (Amos 5:8). Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, the only One who works wonders (Ps. 71:18; cf. 136:4).

e) in the spread and preservation of the Christian faith and the Church: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18); but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise to shame, and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong to shame; and God chose the lowly things of the world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no flesh might boast before God (1 Cor. 1:27–29); For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25).

e) in His care for the salvation of believers: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:28); “and what is the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power” (Eph. 1:19); Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen (Eph. 3:20–21).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church considered the truth of God’s omnipotence so well known that they deemed it unnecessary to prove it. “Show me,” wrote Blessed Augustine, “not a Christian or a Jew, but show me a pagan who worships idols and serves demons, who would not confess that God is almighty. He may deny Christ; but he cannot deny the almighty God.”[296] As for the objections of some that both of these things are impossible for God, they observed: God certainly cannot die, cannot harm another, cannot deny Himself or lie (2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:18), nor can He sin or be evil in any way; but He is omnipotent precisely because He cannot do any such thing. For if He could die, or harm another, lie, or sin and be evil in any way, this would be a sign not of God’s omnipotence, but of weakness and powerlessness, whether physical or moral. God can do anything He wills, provided it is not contrary to His nature. But to die or to cease to exist is entirely contrary to His nature, and He, by His very nature, wills only good and desires no evil whatsoever.[297]

Delving deeper into the idea of a being that is most perfect and boundless in every respect, as well as a self-existent being who is the sole source of life,[298] and, on the other hand, seeing before us the striking grandeur and immensity of the world, created and ceaselessly sustained by God, the mind inevitably arrives at the thought of God’s omnipotence. That is why even pagan sages accepted it.[299]

§20. The Attributes of God’s Mind.

God’s mind can be considered from two perspectives: the theoretical and the practical—that is, in and of itself and in relation to God’s actions. In the former case, we arrive at the concept of one attribute of this mind: omniscience; in the latter, another: supreme wisdom.

1. Omniscience.

When we profess God to be an omniscient being (τά πάντα εϊδώς, omniscius), we mean not only that He knows everything, but also that He knows everything in the most perfect way.[300] The former refers to the objects of divine knowledge, the latter to its mode and properties.

Scripture describes the objects of divine knowledge in detail. It testifies, in general, that God knows everything, and, in particular, that He knows Himself and everything outside of Himself: everything possible and actual, everything past, present, and future.

a) God knows everything: God is greater than our hearts and knows everything (1 John 3:20); the Lord is the God of knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3), and His understanding is unfathomable (Psalm 146:5). You are the Lord of all, and there is no one who can stand against You, O Lord. You know everything (Esther 4:17).

b) God knows Himself. No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt. 11:27). For who among men knows what is in a man, except the human spirit that dwells in him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11).

c) God knows all that is possible. He is the One who calls what does not exist “existing” (Rom. 4:17), who knows the hidden things and is aware of everything before it comes to be (Dan. 13:42).

d) God knows everything that truly exists: for He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under heaven (Job 28:24)—and there is no creature hidden from Him, but everything is laid bare and open before His eyes (Heb. 4:13).

In particular, He knows everything—aa) in the physical world: He counts the number of stars; He calls them all by name (Ps. 146:4; cf. Sir. 1:2); He knows all the birds on the mountains (Ps. 49:11); His eyes survey the whole earth (2 Chr. 16:9); the underworld is laid bare before Him, and there is no veil over Abaddon (Job 26:6); bb) in the moral realm, such as: our lives and deeds, both good and evil: For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He weighs all his paths (Prov. 5:21); for His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He sees all his steps. There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where those who do iniquity might hide (Job 34:21–22); The eyes of the Lord are in every place: they see both the wicked and the good (Prov. 15:3); the moral condition of our hearts: for the Lord tests all hearts and knows every thought (1 Chr. 28:9; cf. 20:27); The human heart is more deceitful than anything else and is desperately corrupt; who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the heart and test the innermost being (Jer. 17:9, 10); You alone know the hearts of the sons of men (2 Chr. 6:30; cf. Ps. 7:10; Sir. 42:18); You, O Lord, the Knower of all hearts (Acts 1:24; cf. 15:8); our needs, desires, tears, and prayers: O Lord! All my desires are before You, and my sighing is not hidden from You (Ps. 37:10); You have counted my wanderings (Ps. 55:9); The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry (Ps. 33:16; 1 Pet. 3:12); pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you openly (Matt. 6:6).

e) God knows all that has happened in the past: for all His works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; cf. Sir. 23:29; 42:19–20), and a day will come when the Lord will judge the world with righteousness (Acts 17:31), when He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart (1 Cor. 4:5), and He will repay each person according to their deeds (Rom. 2:6).

e) God knows all that is present: the Abyss and Abaddon are [open] before the Lord, much less the hearts of the sons of men (Prov. 15:11); He reveals what is deep and hidden, knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him (Dan. 2:22). For He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens (Job 28:24).

g) God knows all that is to come: “I am God, and there is no other God; there is none like Me. I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times what has not yet come to pass” (Isa. 46:9–10; cf. 41:23; Dan. 13:42; Wis. 8:8).

And indeed—aa) the future is not only inevitable, but also contingent and free: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer. 1:5); “You discern my thoughts from afar.” Whether I walk or rest—You surround me, and all my ways are known to You (Ps. 138:2, 3); Your eyes saw my unformed body (16); your Father knows what you need before you ask Him (Matt. 6:8); For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29); bb) the conditional future, i.e., something that could have happened under certain conditions but did not happen because the conditions were not met. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Matt. 11:21).[301]

In its manner and nature, divine knowledge is entirely distinct from ours, as we can already conclude from the texts cited thus far:

a) we acquire knowledge—that is, we come to know what we did not know before—but this is not the case with God; He has known everything from eternity: “All His works have been known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18);

b) we come to know things gradually, first one, then another, then a third, and so on—God knows everything at once. God is greater than our hearts and knows everything (1 John 3:20);

c) We come to know things with the help of our senses, which convey impressions of objects to us; our imagination, which presents us with images of objects; memory, which preserves and brings to life for us past images; and, finally, reason, which delves into all of this and forms its own judgments and conclusions—God sees and knows everything directly—the past, the present, and the future—and therefore has no need for any of the aforementioned aids: He sees to the ends of the earth and observes everything under the heavens (Job 28:24);

d) We perceive only the outward appearance of objects, or mere phenomena—God penetrates to the very essence of things and of all that exists: “Can a man hide in a secret place where I would not see him?” says the Lord. “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jer. 23:24); “I, the Lord, search the heart and test the mind” (Jer. 17:10);

e) our knowledge is for the most part incomplete, unclear, speculative, and symbolic, so that we have access only to the lowest degree of truth—God knows everything fully and in the most perfect way: everything is laid bare and revealed before His eyes (Heb. 4:13); and that is why it is said that He Himself is the truth, “[302] ” and “Your truth surrounds You” (Ps. 88:9, 15), and all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth (Ps. 24:10; 118:151); All Your commandments are truth (Ps. 118:86); the works of His hands are truth and justice (Ps. 110:7);

e) Finally, our knowledge changes, improves, and often fades away: for we forget much of what we have learned—but God’s knowledge is unchanging and eternal: the Lord’s truth endures forever (Ps. 116:2). It should be noted, however, that God’s mode of knowledge is, in its very essence, incomprehensible to us, although, by comparing it to our own, we can understand the difference between them: “Your knowledge is too wonderful for me, — it is too high; I cannot comprehend it,” exclaimed even one of the God-enlightened men of the Old Testament (Ps. 138:6).[303]

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church not only repeat in their writings everything that Holy Scripture says about God’s omniscience. That is, they attribute to God knowledge of Himself and of all creatures,[304] knowledge of the past, present, and future,[305] of the necessary, the contingent, and the conditional,[306] and knowledge that is most perfect, distinct from our own,[307] — but at the same time they strive to explain the reasons for this omniscience of God. They attribute the first reason to the fact that God Himself is the Creator of all things and everything depends on Him;[308] the second—to the fact that He holds in His mind the ideas of all things;[309] the third—to the fact that He is present everywhere directly through His very being.[310] The ancient teachers of the Church also sought, as far as possible, to resolve a specific question concerning God’s omniscience—a question that has long been considered the most difficult—namely, the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will.

They maintained that this foreknowledge in no way restricts our freedom: for—

a) God foresees not only our actions but also their cause—our freedom—He foresees that we will perform these actions of our own free will, and that if we so choose, we will perform other actions instead, which He also foresees; consequently, if we decide to prefer certain actions over others, our choice will depend entirely on our own free will; [311]

b) God’s foreknowledge in this case can be compared to human foreknowledge: just as we, having learned in advance by some means that our neighbor has decided to do something, cannot thereby compel him to carry out the chosen act, so too God does not compel us to certain actions through His foreknowledge: He foresees them as our free actions, not as necessary ones; [312]

c) For God, there is neither past nor future, but only the present: therefore, He does not foresee, but actually sees our deeds just as we perform them; consequently, our freedom suffers no less here than does the freedom of our neighbor when we witness his actions.[313] This means—

d) it is not our actions that depend on God’s foreknowledge, but rather the opposite: it is precisely because we have decided of our own accord to perform them—and are performing them—that God foresees or sees them.[314]

For the mind, the truth of God’s omniscience must be beyond doubt, if only because it conceives of God as the most perfect and infinite being, as well as on the basis of those reasons (set forth by us above) by which the Holy Fathers of the Church explained God’s omniscience. Even the pagans themselves have always acknowledged this truth.[315]

2. Supreme Wisdom.

Based on the general concept of wisdom, God’s supreme wisdom (σοφία, sapientia) can be defined as follows: it consists in the most perfect knowledge of the best ends and the best means, and at the same time—in the most perfect ability to apply the latter to the former; consequently, it is nothing other than God’s omniscience itself, considered in relation to divine actions, or it is God’s very mind, viewed from a practical perspective.[316]

Scripture attributes this attribute to God with the utmost clarity when—

a) it presents Him as supremely wise, possessing wisdom and power; His counsel and understanding (Job 12:13), the one and only wise God (Rom. 14:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jude 25) and the source of wisdom for all: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5); For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding (Prov. 2:6; Dan. 2:21). In particular—

b) the Old Testament writers point primarily to the world as a mirror of God’s wisdom. How numerous are Your works, O Lord! “You have made them all with wisdom,” exclaims David, marveling at the perfection of creation (Ps. 103:24). “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens,” repeats the wise son of David in his proverbs (Prov. 3:19). “He created the earth by His power, established the universe by His wisdom, and spread out the heavens by His understanding,” we read in the book of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 10:12).

c) The writings of the New Testament primarily depict the work of our redemption as an act of God’s ineffable wisdom. “We preach Christ crucified,” says the Holy Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, “a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Greeks, but to those who are called—both Jews and Greeks—Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23–24); we preach the wisdom of God, a mystery, a hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the ages for our glory (2:7). “So that now, through the Church,” he writes elsewhere, “the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose that He has fulfilled in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10–11). And finally, in his third epistle, after reflecting on the wondrous plan of that same great work of God’s building, he exclaims: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, following the Word of God, also pointed out evidence of God’s supreme wisdom: a) in the structure of the world in general: in the structure of the sun, moon, and stars; of air, water, and earth; of stones, plants, and animals—great and small, noble and insignificant, useful and harmful—and they revealed all this in the greatest detail, not only in certain passages of their writings but also in entire treatises devoted to the subject:[317] “A single blade of grass or a single blade of weed,” they said, “is enough to occupy your entire mind with contemplation of the art with which it was created;”[318] b) in particular, in the structure of man, and specifically: in the structure of his eyes, eyelashes, eyebrows, brain, heart, hands, feet, and other parts and limbs: “If we turn our attention even to the fingernails,” notes St. John Chrysostom, “we will see here as well clear traces of God’s wisdom, both in the very shape of the fingernails and in their substance and position;”[319] c) finally, in the architecture of our salvation, when discussing the appropriateness of the Incarnation of God Himself for the redemption of humanity,[320] and the Incarnation specifically of the Son of God, rather than God the Father or God the Holy Spirit,[321] the reasons for the Redeemer’s delayed coming into the world,[322] the gradual preparation of humanity for His reception,[323] on the expediency of His death, and specifically His death on the cross [324] and , etc. “To desire to save,” says, for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, “is a sign of goodness; to ransom a captive is a sign of justice; and to make what is inaccessible to the enemy accessible is an act of the highest wisdom.”[325]

The idea of God’s omniscience and the view that the world is the work of God’s hands are entirely sufficient to convince the natural human mind of the Almighty’s supreme wisdom, which even the pagans acknowledged.[326]

§21. The Attributes of God’s Will.

God’s will can be considered from two perspectives: in and of itself and in relation to creatures. In the first case, it appears to us: a) by its very nature to be supremely free, and b) through its free activity to be all-holy. In the latter case, it is: a) first and foremost, all-good: since goodness is the first and principal cause of all God’s actions in relation to all creatures, both rational and irrational; b) second, specifically in relation to rational creatures—as true and faithful: since it reveals itself to them as a moral law for their will and as promises or moral incentives to fulfill this law; c) finally—as just: since it oversees the moral actions of these beings and rewards them according to their merits. Thus, the principal attributes of God’s will—or, more precisely, God’s principal attributes as they relate to the will—are: 1) supreme freedom, 2) perfect holiness, 3) infinite goodness, 4) perfect truth and faithfulness, and 5) infinite justice.

1. Supreme freedom.

God is called supremely free (έλεύθερος, άυτεξούσιος, liberrimus), because He determines His actions entirely independently of any necessity or compulsion, whether external or internal, and solely on the basis of the concepts (ideas) of His most perfect intellect and entirely according to the will of His own will (Eph. 1:11): He both chooses what He wills and carries out what He has chosen as He wills.[327]

Scripture attributes the highest freedom to God:

a) in general, in all His actions, affirming that He does everything according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11), and in particular—

b) in the creation of the world: “You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Rev. 4:11). Our God is in heaven [and on earth]; He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 113:11). The Lord does whatever He pleases, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the depths (Ps. 134:6).

c) in His declaration concerning him: “I created the earth, mankind, and the animals that are on the face of the earth by My great power and outstretched arm, and I gave it to whomever I pleased” (Jer. 27:5). “Whom I will have mercy on, I will have mercy on; whom I will have compassion on, I will have compassion on” (Rom. 9:15; cf. Exod. 33:19). And all who live on earth are of no account; according to His will, He acts both among the heavenly hosts and among those who live on earth; and there is no one who can resist His hand (Dan. 4:32; cf. Job 23:13). The Most High rules over the kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He wills (Dan. 4:14, 22, 29). The king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand, like streams of water: He directs it wherever He wills (Prov. 21:1). Are not two small birds sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father; and even the hairs of your head are all numbered (Matt. 10:29, 30).

(d) in the redemption of man: for the heavenly Father has predestined us to be adopted as His children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:5), having revealed to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Him beforehand (9); and Christ the Savior gave Himself for our sins, to deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of God our Father; to Him be glory forever and ever (Gal. 1:4, 5).

e) in our regeneration and sanctification: Having willed it, He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures (James 1:18); and to each is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit... Yet all these things are produced by the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually as He wills (1 Cor. 12:7, 8, 11).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, who mention God’s freedom in general very frequently in their writings, expressed their views on it with particular clarity on three occasions: a) when they argued against the ancient philosophers, who claimed that the world is eternal and originated from God not by His will but necessarily, like a shadow from a body or a ray of light from light;[328] b) when they refuted the error of the pagans and certain heretics, who claimed that everything in the world—including God Himself—is subject to fate,[329] and—c) when, seeking to define exactly what the image of God consists of within us, they placed it in man’s free will.[330] In all these cases, they asserted that God is not subject to any necessity and determines His own actions entirely freely;[331] that He created everything in the beginning exactly as He willed and in the manner He willed, and continues to bring about everything in the world according to His will alone,[332] and that He is, in general, by His very nature, self-ruling.[333]

Indeed, if God is the most perfect Spirit, an independent and omnipotent Spirit, then our reason must acknowledge that God is supremely free by His very nature—for freedom is the most essential attribute of a self-aware spirit, and He who is omnipotent and holds all things in His power, being Himself dependent on nothing, cannot be subject to any necessity or compulsion.

2. Utmost Holiness.

By calling God holy (άγιος, sanctus), we confess that He is completely free from all sin—He cannot even sin—and that in all His actions He is perfectly faithful to the moral law; therefore, He hates evil and loves only good in all His creations.[334]

Scripture indeed confirms that God is

a) completely free from all sin. God is faithful, and there is no unrighteousness [in Him] (Deut. 32:4); God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5); for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone (James 1:13); He is pure (1 John 3:3); everyone born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (9).

b) is entirely in accordance with the moral law. Accordingly, Holy Scripture—aa) very often refers to God as holy in general: “Holy is the Lord our God”;[335] also as righteous and reverent: “He is righteous and true”;[336] as the Holy One of Israel: “I will sing of You on the harp, O Holy One of Israel”;[337] bb) specifically, it is expressed that His holy name,[338] His holy word (Ps. 104:42), His holy law (Rom. 7:12), His holy arm (Ps. 97:1), His way is holy (Ps. 76:14), His throne is holy (Ps. 46:9), His footstool—it is holy (Ps. 98:5), and that He is good in all His works (Ps. 144:17); (b) testifies that the angels in heaven who glorify Him, surrounding His throne, ceaselessly cry out to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts! The whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isa. 6:3; cf. Rev. 15:4), and—gg) commands that we, too, on earth, should sanctify His name, imitating His most perfect holiness: “Be holy in all your conduct, just as the Holy One who called you is holy.” For it is written: “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15, 16; cf. Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7).

c) He hates evil in His creatures and loves only what is good: “Those who are deceitful in heart are an abomination to the Lord, but those who are blameless in their ways are pleasing to Him” (Prov. 11:20); “The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but He loves those who walk in the way of righteousness” (Prov. 15:9). For You are a God who does not love iniquity; no evildoer can dwell with You; the wicked cannot stand before Your eyes: You hate all who practice iniquity (Ps. 5:5,6). Your iniquities have created a separation between you and your God, and your sins have turned His face away from you, so that He will not hear you (Isa. 59:2). Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove your evil deeds from My sight; cease doing evil (Isa. 1:16; cf. Ps. 14:1–5; 23:3–6).

In the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, we find:

a) a most precise explanation of the concept of God’s holiness. God is holy not in the same way that created beings are holy: He is holy by His very nature, holy in Himself and through Himself, and He is the source of holiness for all; whereas other beings can become holy only through His cooperation, by His sanctification. Consequently, He alone is truly holy, the only One who is holy.[339]

b) the defense of God’s holiness against heretics who accused God of being the cause of the evil that exists in the world. Evil must be understood as sin alone, which is a transgression against God’s will; yet all else that we call physical evil—by which God punishes us for our sins—is not evil: for it contains within itself the power of good, contributing to our reformation and inspiring us toward the good.[340] But all sins arise from the abuse of the freedom of rational creatures, which God created as good, and, having granted it to them once and for all, He no longer wishes to take it away.[341] And He Himself cannot even sin, because He is unchangeable in all things,[342] cannot act contrary to Himself and His own will,[343] and is the highest good, which excludes all evil, just as light excludes darkness, and being excludes non-being.[344]

c) An explanation of certain passages of Scripture in which God appears, seemingly, to be the creator of evil. “When you hear, ‘Is there a disaster in a city that the Lord has not permitted?’ (Amos 3:6), know that here the term ‘evil’ refers to the afflictions sent upon sinners to correct their iniquities.”[345] “I form light and create darkness, I make peace and bring about calamity (Isa. 45:7)—He especially brings about peace within you when, through His saving teaching, He calms your spirit and subdues the passions that wage war against your soul; brings about calamities, that is, transforms evil and turns it to the better, so that it takes on the qualities of good.... However, if we call peace a state free from war, and evil the calamities of war... then we will say that God, according to His righteous judgment, sends punishment in war upon those who deserve punishment.”[346] Similarly—“the sayings: ‘God has bound everyone over to disobedience’ (Rom. 11:32); and also: ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear’ (Rom. 11:8)—these should not be understood as though God Himself were the cause of all this, but rather that He merely permitted it, because man has been given freedom, and a good deed must not be done under compulsion.”[347]

It is not without reason that many even among the pagans recognized God as holy;[348] this truth is accessible even to the natural mind. If God is the most perfect being, then He must also be holy; and if He is not holy, then He is not the most perfect: for holiness in a rational and free being is the first of all perfections, and sin is the first and worst of all possible imperfections. We also conceive of God as a being worthy of honor and worship; but can our reason recognize as worthy of worship a being that lacks holiness? We are aware within ourselves of an immutable moral law, which is itself holy and demands nothing but holiness from us; but this law is given to us by God and is an expression of His will: is this not clear evidence that God loves only what is holy, desires only what is holy, and is therefore Himself perfectly holy?

3. Infinite Goodness.

Goodness in God is that attribute by which He is always ready to bestow—and indeed does bestow—upon His creatures as many blessings as each of them is capable of receiving according to its nature and condition. This goodness (άγαθότης, bonitas), depending on the differing conditions of the beings upon whom it acts, is called by various names: it is called grace (χάρις, gratia) when it bestows blessings upon those who do not deserve them (Rom. 11:35; Eph. 2:5); mercy (έλεος, οίκτιρμός, misericordia), when it comes to the aid of the afflicted and the needy (Luke 1:72, 78; 2 Cor. 1:3); longsuffering (μακροθυμία, longanimitas), when He is forbearing toward sinners and, awaiting their repentance, delays in punishing them (Rom. 2:4; 3:25); kindness (χρηστότης, lenitas), when He lessens the punishment for sins (Rom. 11:22), and so on.[349]

There are countless passages in Scripture that depict God’s goodness:

a) In general, God is called—

aa) not only as good, but as the only good: “Praise the Lord, for He is good; His mercy endures forever” (Ps. 117:1; cf. Ps. 33:9; 72:1; 85:5; 118:68; 134:3; 135:1); no one is good except God alone (Mark 10:18);

bb) not only generous and merciful, but also the Father of generosity: The Lord is generous and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (Ps. 102:8; cf. Exod. 34:6; Ps. 111:4; 144:8); Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3);

(b) not only love, but also the God of love, the God of all grace: God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16; cf. v. 8); be of one mind, live in peace—and the God of love and peace will be with you (2 Cor. 13:11); Now the God of all grace, who has called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, will Himself—after your brief suffering—perfect you, establish you, strengthen you, and make you unshakable (1 Pet. 5:10).

6) In relation to creation. The Lord is good to all, and His mercy is over all His works (Ps. 144:9). When You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good things (Ps. 103:28). He sends springs into the valleys (Ps. 103:10), “ ” and waters the mountains from Your heights (13), causes grass to grow for the cattle (14), clothes… the grass of the field (Matt. 6:30), feeds… the birds of the air (26), provides food for every living creature (Ps. 135:25), and satisfies all living things according to His good pleasure (Ps. 144:16).

c) especially toward people. In this regard, it is said:

(aa) that God is our Father: call no one on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9; cf. Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Mal. 1:b; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Eph. 4:6); Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name (Matt. 6:9);

bb) that He listens to all our prayers as a father does: Is there anyone among you who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone? Or when he asks for a fish, would give him a snake? So if you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him (7:9–11);

(c) that He cares for all our needs as a father: He commands His sun to rise on the wicked and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45), giving life and breath and everything to all (Acts 17:25), and moreover gives abundantly for our enjoyment (1 Tim. 6:17; cf. 4:3); He also bestows every good gift and every perfect gift upon our souls (James 1:17) and works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13);

gg) finally, the most striking testimony to God’s infinite goodness toward us is the work of our redemption accomplished by Him: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God’s love for us was revealed in that God sent His only Son into the world so that we might have life through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 4:9, 10). But when the grace and love of our Savior, God, appeared, He saved us—not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but according to His mercy—through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior (Titus 3:4–6). He who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all—how will He not also graciously give us all things with Him? (Rom. 8:32).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also most frequently and with particular fervor extolled God’s goodness. “If anyone were to ask: What do we honor and what do we worship? — the answer is ready: we honor love. For, as the Holy Spirit says, our God is love (1 John 4:8), and this name is more pleasing to God than any other.”[350]

They—

a) considered this attribute to be the most essential in God: God is good by nature, good in and of Himself; and goodness, as it were, constitutes His very essence: He is entirely goodness, entirely love;[351]

b) regarded this attribute as the primary cause of creation and providence: from eternity, God existed alone and was blissful, having no need of anyone or anything; but solely out of His infinite goodness, He willed to make other beings partakers of His bliss, and He granted them existence, adorned them with the most diverse perfections, and never ceases to bestow upon them all the blessings necessary for existence and bliss;[352]

c) Above all, they depicted God’s goodness toward people—God is our common Father and loves each of us more than an earthly father and mother love their children—more than we love ourselves;[353] He is good to us not only when He shows us mercy, but also when He punishes us—not only when He grants us something, but also when He takes it away;[354] Our happiness—our salvation—is dearer to Him than even His own glory,[355] so that for our salvation He did not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up to the most grievous torments, to the most shameful death.[356]

It is hard to imagine that there is even one person of sound mind who, upon carefully reflecting on the works of God, would not confess from the depths of his soul that God is truly love. This, one might say, is the voice of all of nature surrounding us—the voice, in particular, of every insect and every blade of grass enjoying life; it is also the voice of our conscience: for everything has come into being and exists solely through the Creator’s love, and His innumerable mercies are poured out everywhere. Even the pagans themselves, however blinded they may have been, could not fail to notice this, and they acknowledged God as good.[357]

4. The Most Perfect Truth and Faithfulness.

We confess God to be true and faithful (άληθινός, πιστός, verax, fidelis), because whatever He reveals to His creatures, He always reveals truthfully and reliably; and in particular, whatever promises and warnings He utters to them, He always fulfills what He has said or will certainly fulfill it.[358]

God is true in all His revelations to His creatures. This is affirmed by Holy Scripture when it says:

a) that the Lord God is truth (Jer. 10:10; John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Rev. 3:7), the Lord, the God of truth (Ps. 30:6), and the God who is unchanging in His word (Titus 1:2), so that it is even impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:16–18);

b) that His word is also truth (John 17:17), and the words of the Lord are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times (Ps. 11:7); these words are true and faithful (Rev. 21:5; 22:6; cf. Ps. 32:4; 118:89, 90), and

c) that, in general, all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth (Ps. 24:10), Your ways are righteous and true (Rev. 15:3), and Your judgments are true and righteous (Rev. 16:7; 19:2).

God is faithful in all His promises and warnings. In this regard, Scripture states:

a) concerning God: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind” (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Kings 16:29); “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9); the Lord is faithful, who will strengthen you and guard you from the evil one (2 Thess. 3:3); let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb. 10:23); even if we are unfaithful, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13); faithful is the One who calls you, who will also bring it to pass (1 Thess. 5:24; cf. Deut. 7:9);

b) regarding God’s promises and warnings themselves: “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (Mark 13:30, 31; Luke 21:32, 33).

This attribute of God is fully explained by what we have considered previously. God, as we have seen, is an omniscient being, which means He Himself cannot be deceived in anything; He is an all-holy being, which means He cannot deceive others in any way; He is an almighty being, which means He is always able to fulfill a word given to others, whether it be a promise or a threat. And therefore, of course, no one will doubt that all the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously professed God’s truthfulness and faithfulness—[359] —since this truth is not only set forth with complete clarity in Holy Scripture but is also so evident to sound reason.

5. Infinite Justice.

By the term “justice” or “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη, justitia), we mean here an attribute of God by which He rewards all moral beings according to their merits—namely, He rewards the good and punishes the wicked.[360]

The general idea of God’s justice is expressed: a) in the words of the patriarch Abraham to God: “Far be it from You to do such a thing—to destroy the righteous along with the wicked, so that the righteous should suffer the same fate as the wicked” (Gen. 18:25); b) by the psalmist: “God is a righteous judge, [mighty and long-suffering]” (Ps. 7:12); “The Lord is righteous; He loves justice” (10:7); The Lord is righteous in all His ways (Ps. 144:17); He will judge the nations with justice (Ps. 95:10); and He will judge the universe with justice, executing judgment upon the nations with righteousness (Ps. 9:9; cf. Ps. 66:5; 95:13; 118:75, 137, 144); c) in the words of the Savior: the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds (Matt. 16:27); d) in the words of the Apostle Paul: Who will reward each person according to his deeds... For there is no partiality with God (Rom. 2:6, 11; cf. Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25); e) from the Apostle Peter: “If you call Him ‘Father,’ who judges everyone impartially according to their deeds, then conduct your time as strangers here with fear” (1 Pet. 1:17).

That God, in particular, rewards or will reward the righteous for all their good deeds is attested to by: a) the psalmist: “All who take refuge in You will rejoice… For You, O Lord, bless the righteous” (Ps. 5:12, 13); “He whose hands are blameless and whose heart is pure… will receive blessing from the Lord and mercy from God, his Savior” (Ps. 23:4, 5); “He does not withhold good from those who walk in integrity” (Ps. 83:12); 6) the wise man: “He blesses the dwelling of the righteous” (Prov. 3:33); c) The Apostle Paul: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; and now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that Day—and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing (2 Tim. 4:7,8). For God is not unjust; He will not forget your work and the love you have shown for His name, as you have ministered to the saints and continue to do so (Heb. 6:10). Knowing that each one will receive from the Lord according to the good he has done, whether he is a slave or a free man (Eph. 6:8; cf. Matt. 10:42; Rom. 2:6).

Finally, that God punishes or will punish sinners for all their wicked deeds—in confirmation of this, Holy Scripture: a) presents, on the one hand, the many instances of God’s judgment that have occurred in the past, such as: the expulsion of our fallen first parents from Paradise, the fate of Cain, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the universal Flood, and the death of the God-Man for the sins of mankind; and on the other hand—the future Last Judgment, where people will give an account on the Day of Judgment for every idle word they have spoken (Matt. 12:36), and the wicked will hear the harsh verdict of the impartial Judge: “Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Furthermore, Holy Scripture—b) testifies that the Lord’s curse is upon the house of the wicked (Prov. 3:33; cf. 15:25), and He will turn their iniquity upon them, and destroy them by their wickedness; the Lord our God will destroy them (Ps. 93:23); c) calls God a consuming fire: “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29; Deut. 4:24), and d) anthropomorphically attributes wrath and vengeance to Him: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18; cf. Exod. 32:10; Num. 11:10; Ps. 2:5, 12; 87:17; Job 7:14); “Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay,” says the Lord (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:80; Deut. 32:35); O God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, make Yourself known (Ps. 93:1).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, when discussing God’s justice, sought, among other things, to resolve the doubts commonly raised regarding this attribute, of which there are primarily two:

First: How can we reconcile the truth in God, who punishes sinners, with His infinite goodness? Some of the ancient heretics (Gnostics), considering this to be irreconcilable, conceived the idea of acknowledging two gods: a supreme god—the good one—and a god subordinate to him—the just one.[361] Against such a notion, the pastors of the early Church observed that the true God must necessarily be both good and just;[362] that His goodness is righteous goodness, and His justice is good justice;[363] that He remains just even when He forgives our sins and shows us mercy;[364] He remains good even when He punishes us for our sins, for He punishes as a Father, not out of anger or vengeance, but to correct us, for our moral good;[365] and so on. His very punishments are more a testimony to His fatherly goodness and love toward us than to His justice.[366]

Second: How can we reconcile with God’s justice the fact that the righteous often suffer on earth, while sinners prosper? To this, the ancient pastors replied: a) God’s justice toward people should not be limited to the confines of their present life, which is for them only a place of trials and a time of preparation for eternity; there is another life, where God’s justice will reward everyone according to their deeds;[367] b) God often justly punishes the righteous here: for there is no righteous person on earth who has not sinned in some way; He also justly rewards sinners: for there are sinners who possess much that is good within themselves;[368] c) He punishes the righteous for a good purpose, so that through trials He may purify them of every sinful defilement and strengthen them further in goodness, and so that, having punished them temporarily here, He may not punish them in eternity; He spares sinners for a good purpose, to make them feel His boundless fatherly goodness and to give them time for repentance, or He rewards them for whatever good is in them here, so that He may repay them for all their evil there;[369] d) But it is certain, on the other hand, that even here sinners often suffer punishment, while the righteous receive rewards, and that the righteous, even in the midst of calamities, enjoy the most precious inner blessings: spiritual peace, joy, and comfort from God, while sinners always find torment in their very passions and iniquities, which have a destructive effect on their souls and bodies.[370]

Even sound reason must acknowledge the most perfect justice in God.[371] Any injustice toward others can arise in us only from two causes: from ignorance or the error of our reason, and from the perversity of the will. But in God, neither of these causes can exist: God is an omniscient and most holy being; He knows everything, including the most secret actions of moral beings, and is capable of judging them justly; He loves all that is good by His very nature and hates all that is evil, also by His very nature. Let us add that God is also an omnipotent being, who, consequently, possesses all the means to reward others according to their merits.

§22. The Relationship of God’s Essential Attributes to His Being and to One Another.

Having thus set forth the Orthodox doctrine concerning the essence and essential attributes of God, each separately, we naturally come now to the question of their mutual relationship to one another. This question has been the subject of much discussion in the Church since ancient times, and especially during the Middle Ages, both in the West and in the East, and in resolving it, people have often fallen into extremes. The first extreme posits that there is a real (τώ πράγματι, realis) distinction between God’s essence and His essential attributes, as well as among the attributes themselves, such that the attributes constitute in God something separate both from the essence and from one another; the other extreme, on the contrary, asserts that God’s essence and all His essential attributes are completely identical with one another, that they are indistinguishable not only in reality but even in our mental conceptions (έπινοία, νόησει, cogitatione), and that all the various properties attributed to God—for example, self-existence, wisdom, goodness, and justice—signify exactly the same thing in God.[372] Strictly adhering to the teaching that the Orthodox Church imparts to us regarding the essence and essential attributes of God on the basis of Divine Revelation, we must say that both of these extremes are equally far from the truth, and that we cannot accept either—a) that the essence and essential attributes of God differ and are distinct from one another in reality; nor—b) that they have no distinction whatsoever between them, even in our mental conceptions.

First Proposition: “The essence and essential attributes of God are not in fact distinct from or separated from one another; on the contrary, they constitute a unity in God.” This idea necessarily follows from:

1) From those passages of Holy Scripture where God is depicted as the purest Spirit, and from whom all materiality, corporeality, and complexity are removed.[373] But if God’s essential attributes were truly distinct and separate from His essence and from one another, then He would not be simple but complex—that is, He would be composed of His essence and of His attributes, which are separate from one another. This is precisely how the Holy Fathers of the Church reasoned: “The Godhead is simple and not complex,” says St. John of Damascus; “but that which is composed of many and diverse elements is complex.” Therefore, if we call uncreatedness, beginninglessness, incorporeality, immortality, eternity, goodness, creative power, and the like essential distinctions in God (ούσιωδείς διαφοράς έπί Θεοϋ), then the Godhead, being composed of so many attributes, would not be simple but complex; and to assert this is the height of impiety.”[374] And even earlier, St. Basil the Great, proving that holiness belongs to the very essence of the Holy Spirit because He is simple, wrote: “If, however, the Holy Spirit is not simple, then He consists of His essence and holiness, but such a being is complex. Who, then, is so foolish as to call the Holy Spirit a composite being rather than simple, and—by virtue of His simplicity—consubstantial with the Father and the Son?”[375] This same idea of God’s indivisibility into distinct essences and attributes is found in Athanasius the Great, Hilary, and Cyril of Alexandria.[376]

2) From those passages of Holy Scripture where God is not only attributed with certain attributes—such as life, truth, wisdom, love, and others—but is also called by all these attributes, He is called—

a) truth and life: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6);

b) love: “God is love” (1 John 4:8);

c) wisdom and power: “We preach Christ crucified… the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23–24). All such expressions would be unjustified if God’s essential attributes were truly distinct from and separate from His essence, and from one another; then one could only attribute to God His attributes—wisdom, love, and others—as if they were mere parts; but one could no longer say that He is entirely wisdom and love, that He, even in His very essence, is love and wisdom, or that the very same God who is wisdom is also love. What Holy Scripture presents to us in this regard, we also find in the writings of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, such as:

a) from Saint Irenaeus: “God is simple and uncomposed, and entirely like and equal to Himself; He is entirely feeling, entirely spirit, entirely thought, entirely mind, entirely hearing, entirely sight, entirely light, and entirely the source of all good;”[377]

b) from Saint Cyril of Jerusalem: “We have a God who is one in His essence; for although He is called good and just, Almighty, and Sabaoth, He is not diverse or different; but being one and the same, He reveals the innumerable works of the Godhead; He is not greater in one attribute than in another, nor lesser in another, but is like Himself in every respect; He is not great only in His love for humanity and small in His wisdom, but His love for humanity is equal to His wisdom; He does not see in part and fail to see in part; but He is entirely the eye, entirely the ear, and entirely the mind;”[378]

c) from Saint Gregory of Nyssa: “God, by His very nature, is all that exists; He is the essence of truth, wisdom, and power;”[379]

d) St. Maximus the Confessor: “People are variously called good, wise, or just; but God, without limit, is all of these—He is good, wise, and just; He is goodness, wisdom, and justice, as the essence of all perfection.”[380] Blessed Augustine [381] and Saint Leo, Pope of Rome, say much the same.[382]

The second proposition: “The essence and essential attributes of God, while not actually distinct or separate from one another, are nevertheless distinguished in our mental conceptions, and moreover not without foundation in God Himself, so that the concept of any one of His attributes is not at the same time a concept of His essence or a concept of any other attribute.” And this proposition—

1) This necessarily follows from the Holy Scriptures. There we see that in one passage God is called eternal, in another omnipresent, in a third all-good, in a fourth just or all-wise, and His eternity is described in one way (Ps. 101:26–28), His omnipresence in another (Ps. 138:7–10), His goodness is portrayed differently (Ps. 144:9), and His justice and wisdom are portrayed differently (Matt. 16:27; Ps. 103:24). Reading all this, taught to us by God Himself—true and infallible—we naturally learn to distinguish in our minds His numerous attributes, and we cannot in any way agree that the same thing is meant by, for example, spirituality and eternity, omnipresence and goodness, justice and wisdom, even though He, as the simplest and most perfect Being, is entirely goodness, entirely justice, entirely wisdom, entirely eternal, spiritual, and omnipresent, and even though all His attributes are inseparable within Him and constitute a single unity.

2) This was expounded in detail by the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, especially Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, against the Anomoeans, who claimed that nothing in God can be distinguished even in thought (κατ’ έπίνοιαν), and that the names attributed to Him—wisdom, eternity, justice, and others—all express the same concept indiscriminately and denote His very nature and essence, rather than any particular attributes.[383]

“No,” wrote St. Basil the Great, “not all (divine) names have the same meaning, for the meaning of ‘light’ is different from that of ‘vine,’ ‘path,’ or ‘shepherd’... And there is not a single name that, by declaring the whole nature of God, would be sufficient to express it fully; rather, many and varied names, each with its own meaning, give us a concept—admittedly obscure and very meager in comparison with the whole—but sufficient for us.[384] How ridiculous, then, to say that creation is essence, or providence, or even foreknowledge is also essence; and in general, to call every action “essence”? And if these terms lead to a single meaning, then by necessity they are equivalent to one another, as we see in the case of multiple names, when, for example, we call the same person Simon, Peter, and Cephas. Consequently, whoever has heard of God’s immutability will also be led to the concept of His unbegottenness. And whoever has heard of God’s indivisibility will arrive at the concept of creation. And what could be more absurd than such a fusion, when the one who has stripped each name of its proper meaning lays down laws contrary to common usage and the teaching of the Spirit? When we hear of God that “You have made all things with wisdom” (Ps. 103:24), we come to know His creative artistry. When we hear that “You open Your hand and satisfy every living thing according to Your good pleasure” (Ps. 144:16), we come to know Providence extending over all. And when we hear that He has made darkness His covering (Ps. 17:12), we understand the invisibility of His nature. And again, hearing what is spoken from the mouth of God: “I am the Lord; I do not change” (Mal. 3:6), we come to know the eternal identity and immutability of God’s essence. Is it not, then, sheer folly to assert that each proper name does not have its own meaning, but that all names, despite their power, are equivalent to one another?”[385]

In these words, the holy father points out one of the reasons why we distinguish between God’s names and attributes in our mental concepts: our distinctions between God’s attributes are not merely purely subjective—no, their foundation lies in God Himself, in His various manifestations, actions, and relationships with us, which are creation and providence, even though God Himself, in Himself, is completely one, simple, and uncomplicated. St. Gregory of Nyssa points to another reason and foundation when he says: “Who does not know that the nature of God, whatever His essence may consist of, is one, simple, uncomplicated, and by no means can be conceived as any kind of diverse combination? But since the human soul, revolving below and immersed in the earthly body, is unable to grasp the sought-after (God) all at once—it therefore ascends to the incomprehensible nature in a manifold and partial way through many mental images, and cannot comprehend the hidden mystery with a single thought.”[386] That is, this reason stems, on the one hand, from the infinite loftiness and immensity of the divine being, and on the other, from the limitations and weakness of our intellect, which, by necessity, considers God, as it were, in parts and from different angles, and in one respect attributes to Him beginninglessness and self-existence, in another—eternity and immortality; in one—omnipresence; in another—eternity; in one—omniscience; in another—holiness, or goodness, or truth, and other attributes, all of which are inseparable from one another in God, yet not identical. Elsewhere, Saint Gregory, like his brother Saint Basil the Great, argues against Eunomius that all of God’s innumerable attributes each have their own distinct meaning, and by no means is one contained within the other,[387] and he ridicules the heretic for the fact that, by conflating God’s attributes, he said: “God, by His infinity, is unbegotten, and by His unbegottenness, He is infinite; for both these names have the same meaning.”[388] The words of Blessed Augustine are also remarkable in this context: “It is one thing to be God, and another to be the Father. Although fatherhood and essence (in God) are one and the same, one cannot say that the Father, by virtue of his fatherhood, is God, or that he is all-wise by virtue of his fatherhood. Such has always been the firm (fixed) teaching of our Fathers, and for this reason they rejected the Anomoeans as having strayed far beyond the bounds of the faith, since these heretics abolished every distinction between God’s essence and His attributes.”[389]

§ 23. The Moral Application of the Dogma.

The dogma concerning God’s essence and essential attributes can have the most far-reaching application in our lives and activities. In light of it, not only are a person’s duties toward God defined, but also many other rules of Christian piety.

1) God, by His very essence, is Spirit, and by His principal attribute of essence, which encompasses all others. The Spirit is boundless—that is, the most perfect, the highest, and the all-glorious. Hence—

a) First and foremost, we learn to honor and love God: for whom else should we honor and love, if not the Most Perfect One, since all perfection naturally stirs up both these feelings within us? And love for God, combined with reverence, forms the foundation of all our duties toward Him (Matt. 22:37).

b) We also learn that our love for God and our reverence for Him must be:

aa) the most sincere and spiritual: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,” said the Savior (John 4:24); any outward worship can have value only when it is an expression of the inner: otherwise, it is displeasing to God (Isa. 1:11–15)—and the true sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, according to the words of the Prophet (Ps. 50:19);

bb) the highest and most perfect: because God infinitely surpasses in His perfections all other beings toward whom we can feel reverence and love; and consequently, if we are to love and honor anyone above all others, it is Him, the Lord God … with all our heart …, and with all our soul …, and with all our mind, and with all our strength (Mark 12:30);

(c) the most profoundly reverent: if even the Seraphim, who surround the throne of the Lord Almighty in heaven, being unable to bear the majesty of His glory, cover their faces when they cry out to one another, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts” (Isa. 6:2–3); then with what reverent awe should we, the lowest and weakest of all His spiritual creatures, serve Him (Ps. 2:11)?

c) Let us learn to glorify God with our hearts and lips, with our thoughts, and with our whole lives, remembering the words of the Psalmist: “Give to the Lord, O families of the nations, give to the Lord glory and honor… for the Lord is great and worthy of praise; He is to be feared above all gods” (Ps. 95:7, 4; 144:3), and the words of the Savior: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

d) Finally, we learn to strive toward God as our highest good, and to seek in Him alone complete peace, repeating with David: “Who is there for me in heaven? And with You I desire nothing on earth.” My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever (Ps. 72:25–26). No matter how deep the thirst of our mind seeking truth, God is the highest Truth; no matter how ardent the inclination of our will toward the good, God is the most perfect Good; no matter how insatiable the love of our heart is for happiness and bliss, God is the highest and endless Bliss. Where, then, if not in Him, can we find complete satisfaction for all the lofty needs of our spirit?

2) By reflecting, in particular, on each of the attributes of God’s being—which distinguish God from His creatures—we can draw new lessons for ourselves. And—

a) If God alone is self-existent—that is, He owes nothing to anyone—whereas all other beings, and consequently we ourselves, owe everything to Him; then we must:

aa) constantly humble ourselves before Him, according to the word of Scripture: “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and

bb) give thanks to Him unceasingly: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

b) If He alone is self-sufficient and content with all things, and therefore does not need my gifts (Ps. 15:2), but rather He Himself gives life and breath and everything to all (Acts 17:25): then we must—

aa) nurture within ourselves a sense of utter dependence on Him and complete submission to Him, and—

bb) when offering Him any gifts or sacrifices, by no means think that we are thereby doing the All-Sufficient One a favor, since everything we have belongs to Him.

c) The certainty that we are always in the presence of the omnipresent God Himself, wherever we may be—

aa) naturally inclines us to conduct ourselves before Him with the utmost prudence and reverence;

bb) can keep us from sin, just as it once kept Joseph from sin (Gen. 39:9);

cc) can encourage and comfort us in all dangers, just as it encouraged David, who said of himself: “I have always set the Lord before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken” (Ps. 15:8);

dd) can inspire us to call upon, praise, and give thanks to the Lord in every place (John 4:21–24).

d) Remembering that God alone is eternal, whereas everything else surrounding us on earth is temporary and fleeting, we learn—

aa) not to set our hearts on perishable goods, but to seek the one imperishable good in God (Matt. 6:19–20);

bb) not to place our hope in princes or in the son of man, who may die at any moment and leave us without any support (Ps. 145:3–5), but to place all our hope in the One who alone possesses immortality (1 Tim. 6:16) and will never forsake us.

e) The thought of God’s perfect immutability—

aa) can further inspire us to place this exclusive trust in God, for people in general are so fickle, the favor of the great and powerful of the earth wavers and fades so easily; even the love of relatives and friends often fails us—whereas God alone is always the same and unchanging;

bb) it can at the same time inspire us to imitate God’s immutability in a moral sense, that is, to strive for steadfastness and constancy in all the pious aspirations of our spirit and in our unwavering progress along the path of virtue and salvation.

e) Living faith in Almighty God teaches us—

aa) to seek His help and blessing in all our undertakings: unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain (Ps. 126:1);

bb) to fear nothing and not lose heart even in the midst of the greatest dangers, as long as we do what is pleasing to Him and thereby attract His favor: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31); but—

cc) to fear and tremble before Him Himself if we do what is displeasing to Him: He is able to destroy not only our body but also our soul in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28).

3) If we turn our attention to the attributes of God’s mind, we will find much edification here as well.

a) God is all-knowing: what a source of comfort and encouragement for the righteous! Even if people, unaware of his intentions and unable to appreciate his actions, revile him and even persecute him, — for him, it is precious that God Himself clearly sees his soul with all its thoughts and desires, knows all his deeds in the bloody struggle against the enemies of salvation, knows his voluntary privations and undeserved sufferings, and knows every sigh and every tear of his amid severe temptations. What a terrifying realization this is for the sinner! No matter how much he may hypocritically pretend before people, no matter how hard he may try to hide his criminal intentions, no matter in what darkness he may commit his lawlessness—he cannot help but admit that there is a Being from whom there is no hiding, before whom everything is laid bare and revealed (Heb. 4:13), that people can be deceived, but God never can.

b) God is infinitely wise: therefore—

aa) let not our minds and hearts be troubled if, whether in social life or in nature, we see any phenomena that, at first glance, threaten universal ruin and destruction: all this is accomplished or permitted according to the inscrutable designs of the highest wisdom;

bb) let us not lose heart or grumble against God if we ourselves find ourselves in difficult circumstances, but rather let us entrust ourselves entirely to His holy will, believing that He knows better than we do what is good for us and what is harmful;

cc) we will learn, to the best of our ability, to imitate His supreme wisdom, constantly striving toward the ultimate goal He has destined for us, and choosing for this purpose the most reliable means, which He Himself has ordained for us in His revelation.

4) Finally, each of the attributes of God’s will either simply presents us with a model to imitate, or also imparts certain other moral teachings.

a) God is called supremely free because He Himself always chooses only the good, and chooses it without any external compulsion or incentive: this is what our true freedom must consist of! In the ability and freely acquired habit of doing what is good, simply because it is good, and not in the arbitrary power to do good or evil, as is commonly thought, and even less in the arbitrary power to do evil: for “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin,” said the Savior (John 8:34), and by committing evil, we lose a part of our freedom each time, submitting more and more to our passions and impure desires, over which we ought to reign.

b) God is supremely holy, and He has commanded us: “Be holy, for I [the Lord your God] am holy” (Lev. 11:44). Without this condition, we can never be deemed worthy of the most blessed union with the Lord: for what does light have in common with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14); nor will we ever be deemed worthy to behold Him: for only the pure in heart … will see God (Matt. 5:8; cf. Heb. 12:14).

c) God is infinitely good toward all His creatures and toward us in particular: this—

aa) teaches us to thank Him for all His blessings, and to repay His fatherly love with filial love: let us love Him, because He first loved us (1 John 4:19);

66) teaches us to be kind and merciful toward our neighbors: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36);

(cc) teaches us to boldly call upon Him for help in all our needs, with firm confidence that we will receive what we ask for (Matt. 7:11), provided we do not ask for the wrong things (James 4:3);

dd) finally, teaches us never to despair of our salvation, no matter how grave our transgressions may be, but rather to turn with true repentance to our heavenly Father, who says: “I take no pleasure in the death of the one who is dying…; but turn back, and live!” (Ezek. 18:32).

d) God is completely true and faithful. Here

aa) an unshakable foundation for our faith: whatever the Lord has revealed to us, we must accept and hold fast to with unconditional submission, even though there is much we do not understand. Here lies

bb) an unshakable foundation for our hope as well: He will undoubtedly fulfill all that He has promised us—He will fulfill it, if not here, then in eternity. Here, too, is a living lesson for us, so that we, too, having rejected falsehood, may speak the truth to one another, for we are members of one another (Eph. 4:25), and, when making promises or commitments to others, may always faithfully keep our word.

e) God is infinitely just: how much this one thought alone could do for our morality if we held it vividly and deeply in our minds and hearts! It—

aa) would keep us from sin and stir us to repentance, constantly presenting to us the fearsome sword of God, invisibly hanging over the sinner’s head, and that eternal fire which awaits unrepentant sinners beyond the grave. It—

bb) would inspire us to virtue, and would comfort, sustain, and encourage us on its sorrowful path, always reminding us of those supreme and endless blessings prepared for the righteous in the mansions of the Heavenly Father. And finally—

cc) by constantly painting before us the image of the impartial Judge and Rewarder, it would teach us to be just and impartial toward our neighbors as well, and to render to everyone what is due (Rom. 13:7).

In short, if we were to resolve to walk in the light of Your countenance, O Lord (Ps. 88:16), and to constantly remember the infinite perfections of our Lord, the straight path would always be clear to us (Ps. 106:7), and in reflecting on these perfections we might find for ourselves guidance and instruction amid all the most difficult and varied circumstances of our troubled life. It was not in vain that the Psalmist said: “In Your light, O God, we see light” (Ps. 35:10).

Chapter 2.
On God, Triune in Persons.

§ 24. The Special Importance and Incomprehensibility of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity, the Church’s Teaching on It, and the Composition of This Teaching.

The truths about God, who is one in essence, and His essential attributes, which we have set forth thus far, do not encompass the entirety of Christian doctrine concerning God. Merely acknowledging that God is one does not entitle us to call ourselves Christians: the Jews, who do not recognize Christ the Savior as the Messiah and reject Christianity, acknowledge the one God; so do the Muslims; and many ancient and modern heretics, even within Christianity itself, have held and continue to hold this view. The complete Christian doctrine of God—which must be held in the heart and confessed with the mouth in order to worthily bear the name of Christian—is that God is both one and triune: one in essence, triune in Persons. This doctrine constitutes the most fundamental Christian dogma itself: the dogmas concerning our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, and our Sanctifier—the Holy Spirit—are directly based on it; consequently, rejecting it inevitably leads to the rejection of these dogmas, and then, to a greater or lesser extent, every single dogma pertaining to the economy of our salvation. And by professing that God is one in essence and triune in Persons, we differ not only from the pagans and certain heretics who admitted the existence of many or two gods, but also from the Jews, the Muslims, and all heretics who have acknowledged and continue to acknowledge only one God.[390] Due to the special importance of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, it constitutes the main content of all creeds that have been and are used in the Orthodox Church, as well as of all particular confessions of faith written on various occasions by the pastors of the Church.[391]

Yet, while being the most important of all Christian dogmas,[392] the dogma of the Holy Trinity is also the most incomprehensible. We have already encountered much that is incomprehensible in our exposition of the doctrine concerning God, who is one in essence, and His essential attributes—especially His self-existence, eternity, and omnipresence. We shall see much more that is incomprehensible in the future, as we explore the dogmas concerning the Incarnation and the Person of our Savior, His death on the cross, the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God, the workings of grace within us, and so on. But the mystery of all Christian mysteries is, without a doubt, the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity: how there are three Persons in one God—just as the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—yet not three gods, but one God—this completely transcends all our understanding.[393] And this is why heretics, who attempted to explain the truths of the faith with their own reason, have stumbled over no other dogma as much as they have over the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, it is especially necessary here for us to strictly adhere to the positive teaching of the Church, which has safeguarded and defended this dogma against all heretical opinions and has set it forth, for the guidance of the Orthodox, with all possible precision.[394] We find such an exposition of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity in all three creeds currently used in the Orthodox Church, namely:

1) In the Creed of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea:

“One God, the Father of the living Word, of wisdom and power existing in Himself, and the image of the Eternal: the perfect Parent of the Perfect, the Father of the only-begotten Son.

One Lord, one from the one, God from God, the image and expression of the Godhead, the active Word, the wisdom containing the composition of all things, and the power establishing all creation; the true Son of the true Father, the invisible of the invisible, the imperishable of the imperishable, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal.

And there is one Holy Spirit, proceeding from God, revealed through the Son—that is, to humanity; the life in whom the living find their source; the holy spring; the sanctuary that bestows sanctification. He is God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all.

The Trinity is perfect, indivisible and inseparable in glory, eternity, and kingdom. For there is nothing in the Trinity that is created, subservient, or incidental—nothing that did not exist before and nothing that came into being afterward. Neither has the Father ever been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit; but the Trinity is immutable, unchanging, and always one and the same.”

2) In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

“I believe in one God, the Father...

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, who was born of the Father before all ages. Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father...

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified...”

3) In the creed known as the Creed of St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

“This is the Catholic faith: that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the essence. For the Person of the Father is one, the Person of the Son is another, and the Person of the Holy Spirit is another.

But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Godhead, equal in glory, and co-eternal in majesty. As the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit... Thus: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit—yet not three gods, but one God...

The Father is neither made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is neither made nor created by the Father Himself, but is begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither made nor created nor begotten by the Father, but proceeds from Him...

And in this Trinity, none is first or last; none is greater or lesser; but all three Hypostases are consubstantial with one another and equal.”

Looking more closely at this teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Most Holy Trinity, we cannot help but notice that it consists of three propositions: one general and two specific, which flow directly from the general and elucidate it.

The general proposition: in God, who is one in essence, there are three Persons or Hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The specific propositions:

First: as one in essence, the three Persons in God are equal to one another and consubstantial: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but not three gods, rather one God.

Second: However, as three Persons, They differ from one another in their personal attributes: the Father is begotten of no one, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Consequently, the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity, when considered separately, encompasses the following three dogmas: 1) the dogma of the triunity of the Persons in God, with unity of essence; 2) the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of the Divine Persons; and 3) the dogma of the distinction of the Divine Persons according to their personal attributes.

1. On the Trinity of Persons in God, while maintaining the unity of the essence.

§ 25. A Brief History of the Dogma and the Meaning of the Church’s Teaching on It.

That God, one in essence, is triune in Persons, has always and unchangingly been professed by the Holy Church from the very beginning, as attested by its creeds and other irrefutable evidence.[395] But the manner of expressing this truth in the early centuries varied even among the Orthodox teachers of the faith. Some used the words: ούσία, φύσις, substantia, natura, to denote the essence or substance in God;[396] others, though very few and very rarely, used these words to denote the Divine Persons.[397] Similarly, some used the words: ύπόστασις, ύπαρξις, or τρόπος ύπάρξεως, to denote the Persons in God;[398] others, on the contrary, used these terms to denote the divine essence, while employing the words πρόσωπον and persona to denote the Persons.[399] The difference in the usage of the term “Hypostasis” even led to significant disputes in the East, especially in Antioch, and for a time caused discord between the Eastern and Western Churches, the former of which taught that three Hypostases must be confessed in God, fearing the charge of Sabellianism, while the latter asserted that there is one Hypostasis in God, fearing the charge of Arianism.[400] To resolve these disputes, a council was convened in Alexandria (362), attended by Saint Athanasius the Great along with bishops from Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya. At the council, representatives from both sides were heard, and it turned out that both sides held exactly the same beliefs, differing only in their wording: both those who said, “In God there is one essence and three Hypostases,” and those who said, “In God there is one Hypostasis and three Persons,” — since the former used the word “Hypostasis” instead of *prósopón* (persona, “face”), and the latter instead of *oúsia* (substantia, “essence”).[401] From that time on, however, the first form of expression gradually began to prevail in the Church: Saints Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Isidore of Pelusium, and others consistently taught that in God there is one essence and three Hypostases,[402] and sought to define the distinction between these terms. “In the Holy Trinity,” wrote St. Basil the Great, “there is that which is common and that which is particular: the common is attributed to the essence, while the Hypostasis denotes the particularity of each Person.”[403] “The former,” St. Gregory the Theologian also says, “refers to the nature of the Godhead (τήν φύσιν τής θεότητος), while the latter refers to the personal attributes of the Three (τάς τών τριών ίδιότητας).”[404] The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council wrote in exactly this spirit in their letter to the Western bishops: “Our faith, in accordance with baptism, teaches us to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that is, in the one Godhead, and in the power, and in the essence (ούσία) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the indivisible majesty and coeternal kingdom in three perfect Hypostases or in three perfect Persons.”[405] And while in the fifth century some still did not strictly adhere to this distinction between the terms ούσία and ύπόστασις, by the sixth, seventh, and subsequent centuries it had already become completely accepted.[406]

But while Orthodox teachers of the faith differed only in their terminology, consistently professing one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity,[407] heretics distorted the very essence of the dogma, some denying the triunity of the Persons in God, others positing three gods.

Among the earliest heretics were:

a) even during the Apostles’ lifetime—Simon the Magus: he taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely manifestations and images of one and the same Person, and that the one God, as the Father, revealed Himself to the Samaritans; as the Son in Christ—to the Jews; and as the Holy Spirit—to the pagans;[408]

b) in the second century—Praxeas: he asserted that the one and same God, as hidden within Himself, is the Father, and as revealed in the work of creation and later in the work of redemption, is the Son, Christ;[409]

c) in the third century—Noetius, who also recognized the Father and the Son as one Person, as one God who became incarnate and endured suffering and death;[410] Savelian, who taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely three names, or three activities (ενέργειαι), of one and the same Person, God, who became incarnate and tasted death for us;[411] and Paul of Samosata, according to whom the Son and the Holy Spirit are in God as the mind and power are in a human being;[412]

d) in the fourth century—Marcellus of Ancyra and his disciple Photinus: they preached, following Sabellius, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely names for one and the same Person in God, and, following Paul of Samosata, that the Son or the Word is the mind of God, and the Holy Spirit is the power of God;[413]

e) in the Middle Ages—the Bogomils,[414] many Waldensians[415] , and certain individuals;[416]

f) in modern times—Swedenborg and his followers [417] and many others, known as nominalists or modalists.[418]

As we have already mentioned,[419] this last error was held by: a) Philoponus (c. 540) and his followers; b) certain scholastics: Godeschalk (9th century), Roscelin (11th century), and Peter Abelard (12th century); and c) some of the later writers: Sherlock, Peter Taidit, and Embs.[420] The general idea shared by all of them was that although the Divine Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are of one essence but not one in essence, they share one nature but each possesses it separately, just as, for example, the three persons of the human race do; and therefore, they are three gods, not one God.

To guard against these opposing heretical views—the first of which confuses the Hypostases within God, and the latter divides the essence—the Holy Church teaches her Orthodox children: “Let us venerate the one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in the one, neither confusing the Hypostases nor dividing the essence.”

Neither merging the Hypostases: that is, recognizing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit not merely as three names, or images, or manifestations of the same God, as the heretics claimed, nor as three of His attributes, powers, or actions, but as three distinct Persons of the Godhead, since each of them—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—possessing the divine mind and other divine attributes—has its own distinct, personal attribute: “For the Hypostasis of the Father is one, that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another.”

Below is the distinction: that is, the notion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in essence, exist inseparably one within the other, and, differing from one another only in their personal attributes, share the same mind, will, and all other divine attributes—and not at all like the three indivisible beings of any class among created beings that share a single nature.

“Among created beings,” to use the words of St. John of Damascus, “the common nature of indivisible beings is perceived only by the mind, because indivisible beings do not exist one within the other, but each exists distinctly and separately—that is, in and of itself—and each possesses many characteristics by which it differs from the other. They are separated by place and time; they differ in the dispositions of their will, in strength, in outward appearance or form, in skills, in temperament, in dignity, in way of life, and in other distinguishing characteristics—but above all because they do not exist one within the other, but separately. That is why it is said: ‘two, three people, and many.’ But in the holy, pre-essential, all-surpassing, and incomprehensible Trinity, we see something different. Here, commonality and unity are truly discerned in the co-eternality of the Persons, in the identity of essence, action, and will, in the harmony of their attributes, in the identity—I do not say “similarity,” but identity (ταυτότητα)—of authority, power, and goodness, and in the single direction of their movement... Each of the Hypostases is as one with the other as it is with itself: that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in every respect except for begetting, being begotten, and proceeding; they are one, distinguished only in the mind (έπίνοία). For we know God as one, and we perceive a distinction only in the attributes of fatherhood, sonship, and procession... In the unlimited Divinity, one cannot assume, as one does in us, any spatial distance, because the Hypostases exist one within the other, yet not fused but united, according to the Lord’s words: “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (John 14:11);—nor any distinction of will, decision, action, power, or anything else that in us produces a real and complete division. Therefore, we acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit not as three gods, but as one God in the Holy Trinity.”[421]

Therein lies the very incomprehensibility of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity: that the three distinct Persons of the Godhead are one in essence and utterly indivisible; and if They existed separately from one another, as three indivisible entities among created beings, there would be nothing incomprehensible to us. “The Godhead is both one and three: O glorious mystery! United by nature, it is divided according to the Persons: for what is one is not divided, yet the One is three: this is the Father, the Son, and the Living Spirit, who sustains all.”[422]

§ 26. Proofs from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament of the Trinity of Persons in God, while maintaining the unity of essence.

The truth of the Trinity of Persons in God, while maintaining the unity of essence, is revealed with complete clarity in the New Testament; yet it was known to some extent in the Old Testament as well. Beginning with the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, there are many allusions in the Old Testament writings to this supreme mystery, which, although they cannot be called entirely clear, were partly understood by the ancient Jews and are even more understandable to us, Christians, in the light of New Testament revelation. These allusions can be divided into three categories.

Some simply express that there is not one, but several Persons in the one God. This includes the words of God:

a) before the creation of man: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’” (Gen. 1:26);

b) before the expulsion of the fallen first parents from Paradise: “And the Lord God said, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’” (Gen. 3:22);

c) before the confusion of tongues and the scattering of humanity following the Tower of Babel: “And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language; and this is what they have begun to do, and they will not desist from what they have planned to do; let us go down and confuse their language there, so that no one will understand another’s speech’” (Gen. 11:6–7).

In all these passages, God is clearly depicted as consulting or conversing with someone. But with whom, exactly? It cannot be assumed that He consulted with angels, as the Jews claim.[423] Such a notion—

a) repugnant even to simple human reason, which cannot conceive that God—an infinitely wise and almighty being—would consult with His servants, the angels, whether before the creation of man or before any other act, as if He were in need of their assistance;[424]

b) is also contrary to Holy Scripture, which attributes the entire work of creation exclusively to God alone (Isa. 44:24) and generally denies that anyone could be His counselor in anything (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34).

Nor can one agree with another idea held by the Jews, namely, that in the passages mentioned, God is speaking to Himself alone, as people sometimes do when they wish to spur themselves on to some action, and speaks of Himself in the plural, following the example of the mighty of the earth.[425] For—

a) it is strange to imagine that God would need such self-motivation to act: “Truly, it is strange idle talk,” remarks St. Basil the Great, “to assert that anyone sits and commands himself, supervises himself, and compels himself authoritatively and insistently;”[426]

b) the custom of the powerful of the earth to speak of themselves in the plural emerged later, and did not yet exist in Moses’ day, as is evident from the entire Pentateuch—consequently, Moses could not have followed this custom to depict God speaking of Himself in this manner;[427]

c) but most importantly, under such an assumption, the meaning of God’s words is extremely strange: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Us” (Gen. 3:22); they would have to be understood as follows: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Me!!”... The Jews and, in general, those of erroneous thinking are unable to point to any other beings with whom God could have consulted in the three cases mentioned, and indeed they do not point to any. There remains now one final opinion—the opinion of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, to which all right-thinking Christians adhere—that in the cases mentioned, God did indeed consult with Himself, but only God understood not as a single Person, but as one in essence and triune in Persons.[428]

This view bears all the marks of truth. It

a) completely eliminates any inconsistency in God’s deliberation with Himself: if, within God’s unity of essence, there are three distinct and co-equal Persons, then deliberation within Him is both possible and natural, and entirely befitting Him;

b) corresponds perfectly to the narrative style of Moses in the passages we are considering, where we see that God speaks alone, yet speaks in the plural and, moreover, to Himself, or within Himself : “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image [and] in our likeness,’ and the Lord God said, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of us…’; and the Lord said: “… let us go down and confuse their language there…”;

c) finally, it is confirmed by the context of the speech. After quoting God’s words, “Let us make man in our image,” the holy chronicler continues: “And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him.” Consequently, the word “let us make” refers to the same One of whom it is said, “And He created,” and the expression “in our image” also means “in the image of God.” In the second passage of God’s words—“Behold, Adam has become like one of Us”—there is a clear reference to the very words by which our first parents had just been deceived: “You will be like gods” (Gen. 3:5). Consequently, the expression “like one of Us” cannot be applied to anyone other than God or the Divine Persons. The same must be repeated with regard to the third passage: “Let us go down and confuse their language there.” For a little earlier, Moses noted: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower” (v. 5), and a little later he added: “And the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth” (v. 8). Thus, “Let us go down…” refers to the same One of whom it is said, “He went down”; likewise, “let us confuse” refers to the same One of whom it is added, “He confused.”[429]

Other passages in the Old Testament point specifically to the triune nature of the Persons within the one God. Thus—

a) The sacred chronicler, describing God’s appearance to Abraham at the oak of Mamre, says: “And the Lord appeared to him at the oak of Mamre…”; then: “He (Abraham) lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing before him”; and immediately afterward: When he saw them, he ran to meet them from the entrance of [his] tent and bowed down to the ground, and said: “My Lord! If I have found favor in Your sight, do not pass by Your servant” (Gen. 18:1–3).

“Do you see,” asks Blessed Augustine, “that Abraham meets three, yet bows down to the One?... Beholding the three, he perceived the mystery of the Trinity, and by bowing down, as it were, to the One, he confessed the one God in three Persons.”[430]

And this is all the more remarkable because the three who appeared to Abraham themselves speak to him as if they were not three but one, for example, in verse 13: And the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh to herself?” Or in verse 17: “And the Lord said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham [My servant] what I am about to do?’”[431]

b) God Himself, commanding the Jewish priests to bless the sons of Israel, ordered them to utter the following words: “May the Lord bless you and keep you! May the Lord make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you! May the Lord turn His face toward you and give you peace!” (Num. 6:24–26). Here the name of the Most High—which belongs exclusively to God alone—is spoken three times, and each time with a desire on His part to bestow special blessings upon the one being blessed. Is there not a clear correspondence here with the words of another blessing expressed in the New Testament by the holy Apostle and , which conveys the same thought, only much more clearly: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:13).[432]

c) The psalmist says in one place: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His lips” (Ps. 32:6). And here, according to the Holy Fathers, there is an allusion to the Trinity of Persons in God: for three are mentioned in it who participated in the work of creation: the Lord, His Word, and the Spirit; and in other passages, Scripture indeed attributes the work of creation not only to God the Father, but also to His Word—that is, the Son—and to the Holy Spirit, and presents Them in this context as Divine Persons (John 1:1–3; Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4).[433]

d) The prophet Isaiah, having been granted a vision of the Lord in all His glory, testifies that the seraphim standing around His throne were calling out to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts” (Isa. 6:3). We readily agree that this seraphic exclamation, when considered in isolation, cannot yet be strictly recognized as an indication of the Holy Trinity.[434] But if we consider it, as we ought, in connection with other Old Testament passages that clearly imply the plurality of Persons in God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22); and even more so when considered in connection with New Testament passages that explicitly state that Isaiah, when he was granted to see and hear the Lord of Hosts, saw His Son as well (John 12:40–41) and heard the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25–27); finally, if we recall that the ancient Jews themselves, certainly not without sufficient reason, applied the seraphim’s threefold repetition of the word “holy”—[435] —to the three Persons of the Godhead, then there can be no doubt whatsoever regarding the true meaning of this seraphic doxology. That is why the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously affirm that what is expressed here is both the triunity of the Persons in God through the threefold repetition: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and the unity of essence—in the words: “Lord of Hosts.”[436]

Finally, certain passages in the Old Testament speak separately of the person and divinity of each of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, mentioning their very names, for example:

a) the person and divinity of the Father and the Son: “The Lord said to Me, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You’” (Ps. 2:7), or: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand’” (Ps. 109:1), “Your birth was like the dew, from the womb before the dawn” (3);[437]

b) regarding the person and divinity of the Holy Spirit, just as with the first two Persons: “And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me” (Isa. 48:16); and the Spirit of the Lord (the Spirit of the Most High), the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord, will rest upon him (that is, the Messiah, who is the Son); and he will be filled with the fear of the Lord (Isa. 11:2–3); or: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,” says the Messiah Himself, “for the Lord has anointed Me to bring good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to open the prison to those who are bound” (Isa. 61:1; cf. Luke 4:18–21, also Gen. 1:2; Ps. 32:6).[438] Should not all these and many other similar passages [439] have led the Jews to realize that God is not a single person, but that He has a Son and a Holy Spirit?

And there is no doubt that the ancient Jews—a) had a concept of the Most Holy Trinity, at least some of the most distinguished among them [440] and to a certain extent: evidence can be found in their paraphrases,[441] in their Kabbalah and Talmud,[442] and in the writings of their rabbis;[443]

b) had a concept of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as Divine Persons, and of Their consubstantiality with the Father, although not entirely clear or definite: evidence—ibid.[444]

As for why these concepts were not entirely clear, and why it pleased God to reveal the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity in the Old Testament only to a certain extent—this is hidden in the plans of His infinite wisdom. God-wise teachers attributed this primarily to two reasons:

a) one inherent in human nature itself—limited and flawed—which had to be led to the knowledge of the highest mysteries of revelation only gradually, as its powers and receptivity were revealed and strengthened: “It was unsafe,” argues St. Gregory the Theologian, “to preach clearly about the Son before the divinity of the Father had been confessed, and before the Son had been called (to put it somewhat boldly), to burden us with the preaching of the Holy Spirit and expose us to the danger of losing our last strength, as happens to people who are weighed down by food taken in excess, or who fix their still-weak eyes on the sunlight; rather, the light of the Trinity was to illuminate those being enlightened through gradual increases, ascents, progressions from glory to glory, and advancements;”[445]

b) another—regarding the nature and weaknesses of the Jewish people, to whom the Old Testament revelation was communicated: “God, in His infinite wisdom,” says Blessed Theodoret, “did not see fit to impart to the Jews a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity, lest they find in this a pretext for worshiping many gods—they who were so prone to Egyptian idolatry; and that is why, after the Babylonian Exile, when the Jews felt a clear aversion to polytheism, their sacred and even non- ly sacred books contain far more—and much clearer—passages than before, in which the Divine Persons are mentioned.”[446]

Finally, let us note that in reviewing the passages of the Old Testament that hint at the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, our primary aim was to show that the doctrine of this mystery is by no means new in the New Testament, as later writers claim. Jews, that the Old Testament righteous also believed in the very same triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in whom we also believe... But the main foundations of this most important of Christian dogmas are, without a doubt, contained in the books—

§27. Evidence from the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament for the triunity of the Persons in God, while maintaining the unity of the essence.

The passages in the New Testament that affirm the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity can be divided into three categories: some express both the triunity of the Persons in God and the unity of their essence; others primarily demonstrate the reality and distinctness of the Divine Persons; and still others primarily, or even exclusively, emphasize the unity of their essence.

I) The passages of the first kind, in chronological order, include:

1) The Savior’s discourse containing His promises to the Apostles regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them, as set forth in chapters 14, 15, and 16 of the Gospel of John. Having mentioned to His disciples His imminent separation from them, His visible departure from the world to the Father, and desiring to comfort them in the impending separation (John 14:1–7), the Savior—

a) first reminds them of His relationship with the Father, something He had already told them repeatedly: “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father…” “The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own; the Father who dwells in Me—He does the works.” Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me… And whatever you ask of the Father in My name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son (9, 10, 11, 13). Here, the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity are clearly distinguished: the Father and the Son—the Son, who is speaking to the disciples, and the Father, of whom He speaks—and their unity of essence is indicated: for, as the teachers of the Church observe, if the Father and the Son, being two distinct Persons, were not one in essence, then the Son could not have said: “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father”... or: “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.”[447]

b) Then He turns His disciples’ thoughts to another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom He promises to send to them from the Father in His place: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever”; and a little later: “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you” (14:26). Here, all three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are already distinguished, and specifically as Persons: the Son, who speaks of Himself: “I will ask…”; the Father: “I will ask the Father”; the Holy Spirit, who is called another Comforter—and is therefore distinct from the Son; He will be sent by the Father—and is therefore distinct from the Father; and He will be sent to take the place of the Son for the Apostles and to teach them everything—and is therefore a Person just like the Son.[448]

c) He then reveals to the disciples new information about this other Comforter, whom they are to receive as their guide—information about His relationship to the Father: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (15:26). Here, in addition to the fact that—as in the previous texts—all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are clearly distinguished: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the consubstantial nature of the Holy Spirit with the Father is also shown: “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father...”[449]

d) He goes on to tell His disciples about the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Himself, as the Son of God the Father: “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; that is why I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you (16:13–15). Here the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Son is expressed, for the Savior’s words—“All that the Father has is Mine”—can refer only to the unity of Their essence, and by no means to Their personal attributes.[450]

e) Finally, to conclude it all, He repeats to the disciples what He began with: “Truly, truly, I say to you: whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you… for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and entered the world; and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father (16:23, 27, 28). Here, the idea of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father is expressed with renewed force: “I came from God… I came from the Father.”[451]

2) The Savior’s command to the Apostles before sending them out on their worldwide mission: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Here, clearly, three are named and distinguished: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their single name is established.[452] How, then, should these words be understood? Without a doubt—

a) as the Savior Himself understood them and as His Apostles could have understood them. But the Savior had already repeatedly made it clear to the Apostles that by the name “Father” He meant God the Father Himself, who sent Him into the world (John 6:38–40; 7:16, 18, 28; 11:42, etc.), and that there is another who testifies about Me (John 5:32); by the name “Son,” He means Himself, whom the Apostles had indeed already confessed to be the Son of God, who came from God (Matt. 16:16; John 16:30); finally, by the name “the Spirit,” He means another Comforter, whom He had already promised to send to them from the Father in His place (John 14:16; 15:26). Consequently, in the present instance as well, since the Savior did not deem it necessary to add a new explanation of these words, He Himself and the Apostles could have meant by the names “the Father,” “the Son,” and “the Holy Spirit” none other than the three Divine Persons. Likewise, even earlier and on numerous occasions, the Savior had used the expression “in the name of,” “about the name of,” or “by the name of” before the Apostles, as well as before all His listeners, in phrases similar to the present one, and He always used it to denote dignity, power, glory, and authority; for example: “I have come in the name of My Father” (John 5:43); “the works that I do in the name of My Father—they bear witness about Me” (10:25); “in My name they will cast out demons” (Mark 16:17); where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20; cf. Matt. 24:5; Mark 9:39; 13:6; John 10:25; 17:11). Consequently, in the present case as well, by commanding the Apostles to baptize people not in names, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the Savior thereby signified the one and indivisible dignity of the three Divine Persons, their one authority, power, and glory, and consequently, their one and indivisible essence.

b) just as the entire Church of Christ, following the holy Apostles, later understood these words. But from its very beginning, the Church has consistently performed baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the three Divine Persons, and has denounced heretics who attempted to perform baptism either in the name of the Father alone, regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit as inferior to Him, or merely as His powers and attributes, or in the name of the Father and the Son, and even of the Son alone, thereby demeaning the Holy Spirit before Them.[453] Likewise, the expression used by the Savior—“in the name”—was always understood to signify the single dignity, the single Divinity, and the essence of all three Divine Persons: “He said, ‘in the name,’ not ‘in the names,’ notes Saint Ambrose, — therefore, not a different name for the Father, not a different name for the Son, not a different name for the Holy Spirit, because there is one God; not many names, because there are not two gods, nor three gods.”[454]

“Recall the confession,” says Saint Gregory the Theologian as well, “in whom were you baptized? In the Father?—Good! Yet this is Jewish. In the Son?—Good! This is no longer Jewish, but still imperfect. In the Holy Spirit?—Excellent! That is perfect. But were you baptized simply in Them, or also in Their common name?—Yes, and in the common name! What, then, is this name? Without a doubt, the name of God.”[455] “Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in Their common name, leads us to this (bliss); rebirth, renunciation of godlessness, and confession of the Divinity—this common name—lead us to it.”[456] And all the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, in their letter to the Western bishops, as we have already seen, state that “our faith, in accordance with baptism, teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—that is, in the one Godhead—and in the power and essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[457]

3) The words of Saint John the Theologian: “Three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (1 John 5:7). In this passage, even more clearly than in the previous one, both the Trinity of Persons in God and the unity of essence are expressed.

The Trinity of Persons: for the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are called the three witnesses; therefore, they are distinct from one another; therefore, the Word and the Spirit, who are presented as witnesses on an equal footing with the Father, are not merely two of His attributes, or powers, or actions, but are Persons just as the Father is.

The unity of essence: for if the Word and the Holy Spirit did not share the same divine nature and essence as the Father, but possessed a lower, created nature, then there would be an infinite distance between Them and the Father, and it would no longer be possible to say: “And these three are one.”[458] It is unjust to attempt to weaken the force of this passage by claiming that here the three heavenly witnesses, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, are presented as one not in terms of their essence, but only in terms of their unanimous testimony, just as the three earthly witnesses mentioned in the following verse: “Three bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood”; and these three—concerning the one (8)—undoubtedly constitute a unity, not in essence, but only in relation to their testimony. It should be noted that—

a) The Holy Apostle himself clearly distinguishes between the unity of the heavenly witnesses and the unity of the earthly witnesses: regarding the latter—who are, in fact, different from one another or distinct in essence—he simply states: “And these three are one” (καί οί τρεϊς είς τό έν έισιν), that is, one in relation to their testimony; but regarding the former, he says: “and these three are one” (καί οΰτοι οί τρεϊς έν έισιν), and not “one”; consequently, they are one to a far greater extent than the earthly witnesses—one not merely in relation to their testimony, but also in essence. This is all the more certain because—

b) the holy Apostle himself, in the following verse, calls the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, without any distinction, the testimony of God: “If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is greater”; consequently, he implies that the three heavenly witnesses are one, precisely by virtue of their Divinity, or that they are the three Divine Persons. And this is all the more certain because—

c) the same holy Apostle, even earlier, in his Gospel, already mentions each of the three heavenly witnesses: The Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit—and he refers to them as three Divine Persons, consubstantial with one another, as he sets forth the Savior’s words: “If I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I have come from and where I am going.” I bear witness to Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness to Me (John 8:14, 18; cf. 5:32–37); and “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will testify about Me” (15:26). He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. Everything the Father has is Mine; that is why I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you (16:14–15). Some also unjustly attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the passage under consideration,[459] pointing out that it is absent from certain Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and from certain translations—especially Eastern ones—and that it was not used by the ancient Church Fathers, such as St. Gregory the Theologian, Ambrose, and Hilary; nor by the Councils—Nicaea, Sardis, and others that opposed the Arians—even though this verse could have served as an important weapon against heretics, and even though some Fathers used verses 6 and 8 of the same chapter for this purpose, which are far less forceful and decisive. All this evidence suggesting the alleged inauthenticity of the verse in question is entirely insufficient for its purpose and, moreover, is refuted by positive evidence:

a) While this verse is absent from some Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that have survived to the present day, it was and remains present in many others.[460] Why, then, one might ask, should we give preference to the former over the latter and conclude that it was added to the latter rather than omitted from the former? On the contrary, fairness demands that we give preference precisely to the latter. For manuscripts of the first kind are private manuscripts, that is, they were written for private individuals or used in certain private churches; whereas the lists of the latter kind were used not only by private individuals and private churches, but were and are used by the entire Orthodox Eastern Church, and no one is able to prove that it adopted this verse into its lectionary only from a certain time onward, or that it could even have adopted it if it had not been known previously. Furthermore, it is very easy to explain how the omission of this verse in some manuscripts could have occurred: it could have resulted from a copyist’s oversight in the most imperceptible way, — since this verse begins exactly the same as the following verse and even ends very similarly,[461] — and due to the malice of heretics, especially the Arians, to whom verse 7 was undoubtedly objectionable in its content, and who, in fact, corrupted or omitted many texts that contradicted their heresies.[462] It was enough to omit the verse in just one or two copies for it to be absent from all subsequent copies transcribed or translated from the corrupted one. But, on the other hand, no one has yet been able to explain how and why this verse could have been introduced into the Second Epistle of John. One cannot blame the copyists for carelessness here: the insertion of an entire thought could only have occurred intentionally. Nor can one suspect the heretics of malice: the verse does not support any heresy; on the contrary, it supports Orthodoxy. Nor can one assume that the Orthodox themselves committed the forgery: for why would they not have made use of such an important passage against the heretics, and how could the entire Church have accepted it into universal use?

b) Although this verse is absent from some translations, especially Eastern ones, it is present in others, such as the Old Latin or Italic versions and in the current Vulgate.[463] But here, too, preference must be given to the latter: the Old Latin translation was undoubtedly made from the original text and is the oldest of all translations,[464] — whereas most of the Eastern translations appeared later and were made, or at least revised, based on the Syriac translation known as the “Simple” (peschito); consequently, they do not contain the verse we are defending simply because it is absent from the Syriac, and their sheer number proves nothing. Moreover, in the Syriac translation itself, this verse could just as easily have been omitted—whether by copyists or by heretics—as it was in the Greek text.[465]

c) Although some Church Fathers and Councils did not use this verse, other Church Fathers and teachers did. Specifically, in the 2nd century—Tertullian, who, although he used the Old Latin translation, undoubtedly had the Greek text of the New Testament at his disposal and occasionally cross-referenced the translation with it;[466] in the third century—Saint Cyprian;[467] in the fourth—Saint Athanasius the Great, or the author of the Greek treatise against Arius, which many attribute to Saint Athanasius, and Idatius the Elder, or another author of the eight books on the Holy Trinity, also attributed to Saint Athanasius;[468] in the 5th century—Eucherius, Archbishop of Lyon [469] , and four hundred bishops from Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, and Corsica, who included this verse in their conciliar confession of faith presented to the Vandal king Guneric, an Arian;[470] in the 6th century—Vigilius, Bishop of Tapsia, Fulgentius, and Cassiodorus.[471] The testimony of the latter is particularly important because he devoted almost his entire life to reading and correcting the sacred text, sparing no expense in collecting the most ancient manuscripts of the Bible from various locations, advised his monks to always use the most ancient manuscripts or those corrected according to the Greek text, and himself, with the greatest diligence, reviewed and corrected the books of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Epistles of the Apostles.[472] Consequently, if such a writer used the passage under consideration in a work written toward the end of his life, it follows that he found it in those most ancient and most accurate manuscripts that he had collected from various sources; and in the sixth century, “ancient manuscripts” could only have been those written two, three, or even four centuries earlier. We do not mention the many later writers who also made use of this passage. As for the writers and even entire Councils who did not use it, this does not necessarily imply that they were unaware of this verse or considered it spurious; they may have chosen not to use it for other reasons unknown to us. For example, it must be remembered that the Councils of Nicaea, the Council of Sardis, and all the Fathers who wrote against the Arians did not, strictly speaking, defend the triune nature of the Persons in God, but rather the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ; consequently, they may not have used this verse because it did not directly pertain to their subject, and because they had other, clearer passages of Scripture in their favor. Only regarding a few—very few—writers, such as Blessed Augustine, who, in expounding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, used verses 6 and 8 of the same chapter but did not use verse 7, which is incomparably clearer, can we conclude that they did not have this verse in their copies.[473] But in private copies, as we have already noted twice, its omission could have occurred in the most inconspicuous manner.

d) An examination of this verse within the context of the passage in which it appears strongly suggests that it is an authentic verse and not one added later. It is necessarily implied and required by verses 8 and 9 that follow it. In verse 8 we read: “And three bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” Here it is impossible to understand why the phrase “bear witness on earth” is used, unless we assume that it refers to those who bear witness in heaven; it is impossible to understand why the phrase “and these three are one” is added, unless it is to correspond with the words of the preceding verse: “and these three are of one”; without this, it would have been sufficient to say: “and three bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood”; and most importantly—it is completely unclear why, in the Greek text, as St. Gregory the Theologian also noted, the words of verse 8: “and the three bear witness” (τρεϊς είσιν οί μαρτυροΰντες)... and “these three are one” (καί οί τρεϊς είς τό έν έισιν) are in the masculine gender, whereas the Spirit, the water, and the blood (τό πνεύμα καί τό ΰδωρ καί τό αίμα) are all neuter,[474] unless this is merely to correspond to the identical words of the preceding verse 7: “three bear witness in heaven...”These three are one, and they must be in the masculine gender, according to the nature of their nouns (πατήρ, λόγος καί πνεύμα). Then verse 9 reads: if we accept human testimony, God’s testimony is greater. What, then, is God’s testimony, if not the testimony of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, mentioned in verse 7? Not to mention that the very content of this verse is entirely befitting the holy Apostle John and belongs, so to speak, to his distinctive characteristics: for he alone calls the Son of God the Word (John 1:1; Rev. 19:13), and mentions all three witnesses: the Father, the Son (John 8:18), and the Holy Spirit (15:26).

e) Finally, let us not forget that, when it comes to the question of whether a particular passage of the Bible is authentic or not, the Holy Church alone can serve as the supreme judge, as she has been entrusted by the Savior Himself with the eternal preservation of the Word of God and is protected by the Holy Spirit from all error in matters of faith. And the entire Orthodox Church has recognized and continues to recognize as authentic the passage from the Epistle of John under consideration, which it offers for universal use by its children.[475] This is the primary reason why we, too, recognize and must recognize the authenticity of this passage!

II. Among the passages of the second kind—that is, those testifying primarily to the distinct personhood of the Divine Persons—some indicate the personhood and distinctness of all three Persons together, while others, in particular, depict either the personhood of the Father, or the personhood of the Son, or the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

1) All three Persons of the Godhead are presented together as real and distinct from one another:

a) in the Gospel account of the Epiphany: and when Jesus had been baptized, He immediately came up out of the water—and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:16–17; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:21–22). Here, the Persons are clearly distinguished: the Father, testifying from heaven about the Son; the Son, baptized by John in the Jordan; and the Holy Spirit, descending upon the Son in bodily form, like a dove.[476]

b) In the words of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:13). Here, the holy Apostle wishes spiritual blessings upon the believers—from the Son, or Jesus Christ, and from the Holy Spirit, just as from the Father—and moreover, he wishes a specific blessing from each of Them; consequently, the Son and the Holy Spirit are Persons just as the Father is, all equal and all distinct from one another.[477]

c) in the words of the Holy Apostle Peter to the newly converted Jews, where he calls them “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1–2). Here, too, the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ—or the Son—are mentioned entirely separately and equally as Persons, and a specific action is attributed to each of Them.[478]

2) In particular, Holy Scripture depicts:

a) The Person of the Father, when it attributes to Him:

aa) knowledge: no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27; cf. Matt. 24:36; 6:4, 8, 32; Acts 1:7);

bb) will: I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 5:30; cf. 6:38–40; Luke 12:32; Matt. 6:9–10);

cc) activity: My Father is still at work (John 5:17–19), and when He speaks in detail about how the Father sent the Son into the world (John 6:39; 8:16) and then the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), and how the Father loves the Son (John 3:35; 5:20; 15:9), and loves the world (John 3:16; 14:21; 1 John 4:9–10), reveals the truth to people (Matt. 16:17; Heb. 1:1), and gives good things to those who ask Him (Matt. 7:11; Luke 11:13; John 16:23), forgives sins (Matt. 6:14; Luke 23:34), saves (John 12:27), glorifies (John 17:5), and so on.

b) The Person of the Son, when the Son, like the Father, is described as:

aa) knowledge: Just as the Father knows Me, so I know the Father (John 10:15; 17:25; Matt. 11:27, Luke 10:22);

bb) will: “Father, I want those whom You have given Me to be with Me where I am” (John 17:24; 10:18; 5:30);

cc) His work: “My Father is still working, and I am working” (John 5:17–36; 17:4), and when He speaks in detail about how the Son came into the world and became incarnate for our salvation (John 1:14; Heb. 2:14), and— —after His ascension into heaven, He sent down from the Father another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to the earth (John 16:7; 17:18; 20:21; Luke 24:49), that the Son loves the Father and the world (John 10:11; 14:31; 15:9), communicated revelation to people (John 1:18; 8:28; 17:6, 26), grants blessings to those who ask (John 14:13), forgives sins (Mark 2:9–10), and so on.

c) The Person of the Holy Spirit, when He, like the Father and the Son, is described as:

aa) knowledge: for who among men knows what is within a man, except the human spirit that dwells in him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11);

bb) will: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any further burden on you beyond what is necessary” (Acts 15:28; 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:11);

cc) activity: to each is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good…; Yet all these things are produced by the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually as He wills (1 Cor. 12:7, 11), and when He speaks in detail, He testifies about the Son and glorifies Him (John 15:26; 16:14), regenerates people (John 3:5–8; 1 Pet. 1:3; Titus 3:5), guides them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13), foretells the future (16:13), appoints shepherds (Acts 20:28), and so on.

It should be added that the reality and distinctness of the Divine Persons are clearly implied in all those passages of Holy Scripture that speak of the divinity of each of these Persons and their personal attributes. For if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each has a distinctive attribute that the other two do not possess, then all of Them are equally Persons and distinct Persons. But these passages will be discussed in their proper place.

III. Finally, the most remarkable passages in the Bible—which primarily or even exclusively attest to the unity and indivisibility of the divine Persons—are as follows:

1) The New Testament’s explanation of the vision of the prophet Isaiah, which he described in chapter 6 of his book. The prophet recounts that he was once granted a vision of the Lord (the Most High) Sabaoth seated on a high and exalted throne in all His glory (vv. 1–4), and that at that very moment the Lord said to him: “Go and tell this people: ‘You will hear with your ears but not understand, and you will look with your eyes but not see.’ For the heart of this people has grown callous (vv. 9–10). Here, obviously, reference is made to God the Father, who was primarily known in the Old Testament and was called the Most High and Sabaoth. But Saint John the Evangelist, referring to this passage, notes that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son of God and spoke of Him (John 12:40–41), while the Apostle Paul testifies that Isaiah’s command—“Go to this people and say…”— was spoken by the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25–27). How, then, could it be that, having seen the Father, the Prophet also saw the Son, and, hearing the Father, also heard the Holy Spirit—unless it was under the sole condition that these three, though distinct as Persons, are one in essence (1 John 5:7), that they all share one indivisible divinity, one indivisible majesty and glory, and one indivisible action?[479]

2) New Testament passages demonstrating the identity of the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Here is how, for example, St. Basil the Great reconciles such passages: “Go to Damascus, and there you will be told” (Acts 22:10); “He is My chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15)—the Lord said this from heaven to Paul when He appointed him as a preacher of the Gospel to the whole world. Ananias, however, said to Paul as he was entering Damascus: ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight… God, the God of our fathers, has chosen you’; and so that these words might not be taken as referring to Christ, he added: ‘so that you may know His will and see the Righteous One—Jesus’ (Acts 22:13–14). And Paul himself, referring to the Scripture concerning his calling and predestination, said: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle”; and then he named something else besides his calling: “chosen (αφορισμένος, set apart) for the gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1). And we learn from the Book of Acts what the Spirit set apart; for it is written: “While the apostles were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (Acts 13:2). If, then, God the Father has predestined someone, and the Son has called him, the Lord chooses that person, and the Spirit sets him apart by virtue of His nature, how can we admit a difference in essence within the Trinity, in which there is unity of action?”[480]

3) The Savior’s words: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). That what is said here concerns the unity of the Son of God with the Father in essence, and not in any other respect, is evident from the context of the entire passage. The Savior was speaking, as the holy Evangelist recounts, to the Jews, who demanded of Him: “If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” At first, He answered them directly: “I have already told you, and the works I do in the Father’s name testify about Me; but you do not believe because you do not belong to My sheep, who listen to My voice.” Then, turning his thoughts to these sheep of His and wishing to show that He would give them eternal life and that no one would snatch them out of His hand, He continued: “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all (as even the Jews themselves believed), and no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand—and I and the Father are one.” Consequently, they are one in power, in authority, and in divinity. The Jews understood the Savior’s words exactly this way, and they picked up stones to stone Him, saying, “We do not want to stone You for a good deed, but for blasphemy and because, though You are a man, You make Yourself God.” And what did the Savior do? Not only did He not correct their misunderstanding or explain His words differently, but on the contrary, He began to assert that He had uttered no blasphemy, saying: “I am the Son of God,” and, pointing to the works He had done in the Father’s name, He added: “so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I am in Him” (31–38). Then the Jews again rose up against Him and sought to put Him to death.[481] Similar passages indicating the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father are: John 5:19; 14:16; 16:15; 17:10.

4) The testimonies of the New Testament, some of which affirm that from of old God the Father Himself, the Lord God of Israel, spoke through the prophets (Heb. 1:1; Luke 1:68–70), while others state that it was God’s holy men who spoke these words, moved by the Holy Spirit, and that He, the Holy Spirit, foretold them through the mouth of David and the other prophets (2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 1:16; 28:25; Heb. 3:7; 10:15; cf. Jer. 31:33). How, then, can this be explained, if not solely by the fact that the Father and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from one another in their personal attributes, are inseparable in essence; that the Father is in the Spirit and the Spirit is in the Father; and that, therefore, when the Father spoke through the mouths of the prophets, the Spirit spoke along with Him, and vice versa?[482] It is in this very sense that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the ancient prophets and, in the New Testament, the apostles, is called the Spirit of the Father: “For it is not you who will speak, but the Spirit of your Father will speak in you,” said the Savior to His disciples as He sent them out to preach (Matt. 10:20).

5) The Apostle’s words about the Holy Spirit: God has revealed this to us through His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows what is in a man, except the spirit of the man that dwells in him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God (1 Cor. 2:10–12). What is remarkable here is:

a) that the Holy Spirit is attributed with the most perfect knowledge of God: yet the Savior attributed this attribute only to the Father and to Himself, and pointed to it as a sign of His divinity and equality with the Father (Matt. 11:27); consequently, the same must be concluded regarding the Holy Spirit;

b) the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit from God: consequently, He is not created out of nothing, is not a creature, but, on the contrary, is of the same nature as God;

c) The Holy Spirit is presented in exactly the same relationship to God as the human spirit is to man, that is, He is presented as dwelling in God and constituting one with Him, just as our spirit dwells within us and, together with the body, constitutes a single human being.[483]

Finally, let us say in general that the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity constitutes the central theme of the entire New Testament. For what does it preach to us? In the Gospels, it is primarily about the Father, who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16), and about the Son, who became incarnate and accomplished the great work of our redemption; in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles—primarily about the Holy Spirit, whom the Savior sent to the Apostles in His stead, and who has since begun the great work of our regeneration and sanctification.

§ 28. Confirmation of the Same Truth from Sacred Tradition.

However clear and numerous the passages of Sacred Scripture—especially the New Testament—may be that contain the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the one God, we must nevertheless turn here to Sacred Tradition, preserved in the Church from its very beginning. This is necessary because all these passages of Scripture have been and continue to be subject to various reinterpretations and disputes, which can be definitively resolved—at least for the believer—only by the voice of Apostolic tradition and the ancient Church.[484] It is also necessary in order to defend the Church itself against the unjust accusation of freethinkers that it began to teach such a doctrine of the three Hypostases in God only from the fourth century onward, beginning with the First Ecumenical Council, and that before that this doctrine was either entirely unknown to it or was taught quite differently.[485] It is therefore sufficient to trace the thread of tradition only as far back as the fourth century, or to the First Ecumenical Council, and to show whether and how the early Christian Church taught about the Holy Trinity during the first three centuries.

To make the matter clearer, we will set forth—

I) how the entire Church taught about the Holy Trinity at that time, following the Apostolic tradition;

II) how its individual pastors and congregants taught or believed, and

III) finally, we will present the testimonies of the Church’s enemies themselves regarding this subject.

I. The entire Church of Christ taught about the Most Holy Trinity before the Council of Nicaea in exactly the same way as it taught and continues to teach after the Council of Nicaea to the present day. The following serve as indisputable proof of this:

1) The public creeds or symbols of faith used at that time in various churches, handed down from the holy Apostles themselves. Thus:

a) in the creed known as the Apostles’ Creed, which was used primarily in the Roman Church and generally in the West, we read: “I believe in God the Father Almighty…; I believe in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord…; I believe in the Holy Spirit;”

b) in the creed set forth in the Apostolic Constitutions, which was used primarily in the East during the sacrament of baptism: “I believe and am baptized into the one unborn, one true God, the Almighty, the Father of Christ..., and in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, before all ages, born by the good pleasure (εύδοκία) of the Father, not created...; I am baptized also in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Comforter, who has been at work in all the saints from the beginning of the world, and who was later sent by the Father to the Apostles, according to the promise of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ...;”[486]

c) in the creed of the Church of Jerusalem: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty...; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father before all things, true God, through whom all things were made...; and in one Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who spoke through the prophets...;”[487]

d) in the creed of the Church of Caesarea: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty..., and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, born of the Father before all ages...; we also believe in the one Holy Spirit, confessing the being (είναι) and personal existence (ύπάρχειν) of each of Them: the Father—truly the Father, the Son—truly the Son, and the Holy Spirit—truly the Holy Spirit, just as our Lord, sending His disciples to preach, said: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’”[488]

2) The testimonies regarding the faith of the entire Church at that time, as recorded by Saint Irenaeus and Tertullian, who lived during that era and, by virtue of their office, could and should have known its true faith. Having spent his youth in the East under the direct guidance of a man of apostolic authority—Saint Polycarp—and having subsequently traveled through nearly half of the Christian world of his time, and finally having served the Church of Christ in the West as Bishop of Lyon, this is what Irenaeus says about its faith: “Although the Church is scattered throughout the universe to the ends of the earth, she has received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in the one God, the Father Almighty..., and in the one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the plan of salvation.... Having accepted this preaching and this faith, the Church, as we have said, though scattered throughout the world, carefully preserves it, as if dwelling in one house; it believes in this with one accord, as if having one soul and one heart, and in harmony proclaims, teaches, and transmits this, as if speaking with one voice. Although there are countless languages in the world, the power of the tradition is one and the same. The churches founded in Germany, in Iberia, among the Celts, believe and preach no differently than those founded in the East—in Egypt, Libya, and at the very center of the world (i.e., the Church of Jerusalem and others located in Palestine, according to the Christian view of that time). But just as the sun, this creation of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so too does the same preaching of the truth shine everywhere and enlighten all people who desire to come to the knowledge of the truth. And among the leaders of the churches, neither the one who is eloquent in speech nor the one who is unskilled in speech will speak against this or weaken the tradition.”[489]

Tertullian, who defended the Church’s doctrine of the Holy Trinity against Praxeas—who conflated the Persons within God and claimed that there is only one God—testifies: “And we have always believed, and now believe, in one God, with that explanation (dispensatione), which is called the economy, that the one Father has a Son, His Word... We believe that this Son was sent by the Father to the Virgin and was born of her, both man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and was named Jesus Christ... We believe that He, according to His promise, sent from the Father the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine has been widespread everywhere from the very beginning of the Gospel, even before all heretics, and all the more so before yesterday’s Praxeas...”[490]

3) Certain sacraments and customs of the early Church.

We refer to:

a) the sacrament of baptism, which she constantly administered, according to the Savior’s command, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “[491] ,” and, based on the Apostolic tradition, in no other way than through “ ”—the threefold immersion of the person being baptized in water—in order thereby to bear even clearer witness to the faith, both her own and that of the person being baptized, in the three co-equal Hypostases of the one God;[492]

b) a brief doxology, initially used primarily in two forms: “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit,” or: “Glory to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit,”[493] and sometimes: “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”[494] or: “To Him (Christ), together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever and ever,” and the like;[495] this doxology, as St. Basil the Great says, has been used in churches from the very time the Gospel was proclaimed, and in all its forms expresses both the distinction of the Divine Persons and the indivisibility of their honor, glory, and essence;[496]

c) finally, the Lamp-Lighting Hymn, or evening hymn, which St. Basil himself calls an ancient hymn handed down from the Fathers, and from which he then quotes the words: “We praise the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of God,” to demonstrate the faith of the early Christians in the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.[497]

4) The decrees issued by the early Church against those who dared in any way to distort the dogma of the Holy Trinity. It is well known that as soon as such individuals appeared and began to spread their false teachings, the voice of all the faithful—and especially that of the pastors—rose up against them as against innovators and heretics, “[498] ,” and the Church immediately excommunicated them from the community of the Orthodox. This is what she did with Praxeas, Noetius, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, who dared to deny the triune nature of the Persons in God, and even earlier—with the Ebionites and the Cerinthians, who rejected the divinity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.[499] Does it not follow directly from this that the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity was clear in the early Church and deeply rooted among all Christians? Otherwise, any distortion of this doctrine could not have appeared to be an innovation and heresy, but would rightly have been considered a matter of no consequence.

II. Individual members of the early Church—pastors and the flock—naturally had to believe in the mystery of the Holy Trinity just as they were instructed by the Church itself. Therefore, their testimonies and confessions, which have been preserved to the present day—though individual in nature—when taken as a whole, can serve as further confirmation of the belief held by the entire Church at that time. And several such testimonies have indeed come down to us from that era, partly in the writings of the earliest Fathers and teachers of the Church, and partly in the acts of the first martyrs.

1) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the first three centuries unanimously confessed, in their writings, the dogma of the Trinity of Persons in God within the unity of essence, with varying degrees of clarity. Thus—

Among the Fathers of the first century, or the Apostolic Fathers, Saint Clement of Rome says: “Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?...” and in another passage: “God is alive, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit;”[500] Hermas states: “Those who have believed in God through His Son have been clothed with the Holy Spirit...;”[501] Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer instructed the Magnesians: “Strive to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the Apostles, so that whatever you do may turn to your benefit in body and spirit, in faith and love, in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Holy Spirit... Obey the bishop and one another, just as Jesus Christ in the flesh obeyed the Father, and the Apostles obeyed Christ, the Father, and the Spirit....”[502]

Among the Fathers and teachers of the second century, Saint Justin the Martyr, describing how the sacrament of baptism was administered to those who had converted to Christianity after the proclamation of the Gospel, says: “Then we lead them to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same way that we ourselves were reborn—that is, they are washed with water in the name of the Father of all and Lord God, and our Savior Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit;” furthermore, describing the order of the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, he notes: “And he (the presider), having received (the bread and the cup of wine mixed with water), offers praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit,”—and a few lines later: “For all the blessings we receive, we give thanks to the Creator of all through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.”[503] This doctrine is expressed even more clearly by: Saint Irenaeus, whose testimony regarding the belief in the Holy Trinity of the entire Church—and, consequently, his own—we have already cited previously; Theophilus of Antioch, who says: “The three days that preceded the creation of the heavenly bodies are images of the Trinity: God, His Word, and His Wisdom;”[504] Athenagoras, who, in defending Christians against the unjust accusation of impiety, asks: “Who would not be astonished upon hearing that people who call God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—and who confess Their power in unity and Their distinction in order—are called impious?...” and then adds that the main concern of Christians is “to know God and His Word, to know what unity the Son has with the Father and what communion the Father has with the Son, what the Spirit is, and what unity and distinction there is among the united—the Spirit, the Son, and the Father.”[505]

Among the teachers of the late second and early third centuries, Clement of Alexandria writes: “There is one Father of all, one Word of all, and one Holy Spirit who is everywhere present;” and in the conclusion of the same work: “Let us glorify and give thanks to the one Father and Son... with the Holy Spirit, who is one in all things..., in all that is good, in all that is perfect, in all that is wise, in all that is just, to whom be glory now and forever, Amen;”[506] Tertullian, refuting the heretic Praxeas, says: “He thinks that one can believe in the one God only if one begins to call the same Being both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as if God would not remain one in all things when everything comes from Him—the One— that is, in the unity of being, and when the mystery of the divine economy is observed, which proclaims unity while distinguishing three—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—not in status (non statu), but in degree (sed gradu); not in essence, but in form; not in power, but in the aspect of a single power; for there is one God, in whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are distinguished under the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (ch. 2). They regard the number and order of the Trinity as a division of the One, whereas the One, producing the Trinity from itself, is in no way impaired by it; on the contrary, it is preserved in its wholeness. They proclaim that we preach two and three, while calling themselves worshippers of the one God, as if the unity, when unreasonably restricted, does not give rise to heresy, and the Trinity, when reasonably understood, does not constitute the truth (ch. 3). We have never uttered with our lips that there are two Gods, two Lords—not, however, because we deny that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each of them is God, but so as not to preach two gods (chap. 13). “The Trinity of the one Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (ch. 21).

Among the writers of the third century, we read in Origen: “we are taught to acknowledge three Hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;”[507] “everything that is said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit must be understood as existing above all ages and all eternity, for this is the one Trinity, surpassing all understanding, not only temporal but also eternal;”[508] from Saint Methodius of Patara: “The kingdom of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, just as their essence (ούσία) and lordship (κυριότης) are one; which is why we worship with a single act of worship the one Triune Godhead, without beginning, uncreated, infinite, and eternal;”[509] from Saint Cyprian: “If he (one baptized by heretics) has become a temple of God—I ask: of which God, the Father..., or the Son..., or the Holy Spirit, since the three are one?”[510] from St. Hippolytus: “Noetius must, even against his will, confess the Father, God the Almighty, and Christ Jesus, the Son of God, God made man..., and the Holy Spirit—he must confess that these are truly three...; otherwise we cannot acknowledge the one God, truly believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;”[511] from Dionysius of Alexandria: “If they assert that the hypostases, since there are three of them, are distinct, then there are indeed three of them, even if the heretics do not wish it; otherwise, let them completely eradicate the concept of the Divine Trinity.”[512]

To summarize all these testimonies from the writings of the earliest teachers of the faith regarding the Most Holy Trinity, let us quote a general assessment of them by Blessed Augustine, who was much closer to them in time and could have known their beliefs better than we do. He specifically says: “All orthodox interpreters of the mysteries of the Old and New Testaments—as many as I have been able to read—who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, endeavored, in accordance with Scripture, to teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by the indivisible equality of one and the same substance (substantiae), constitute the divine unity, and therefore are not three gods, but one God.”[513]

2) In the acts of the ancient martyrs, we find no less clear confessions of the Triune God, which are particularly important because they were mostly uttered by simple, uneducated people, and consequently, they spoke as they had been taught by the Church, without any admixture of their own speculations or reasoning. For example, let us point to:

a) the words of the holy martyr Polycarp, which he spoke when he was already ready to step onto the pyre prepared for him: “Lord, Almighty God, Father of Your beloved and blessed Son..., for this and for everything I praise You, bless You, and glorify You, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, to whom, together with You and the Holy Spirit, be glory now and forevermore;”[514]

b) on the confession of the Lyon martyr Epipodius, who suffered in the year 178: “I believe that Christ, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is God, and I joyfully lay down my soul for Him who is both my Creator and my Redeemer;”[515]

c) the confession of the martyr Vincent, who was put to death in the year 304: “I believe in Christ the Lord, the only Son of the one and most high Father, and I confess Him, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as the one God;”[516]

d) the words of two other martyrs who suffered in the same year, namely, the martyr Eupla: “I honor the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; I honor the Holy Trinity, apart from which there is no God;” and the martyr Afra: “Lord Jesus Christ!... To You I offer my sacrifice, You who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, live and reign, God forever and ever.”[517] And let us not forget that, in uttering such confessions of their faith in the Holy Trinity, the martyrs sealed them with their own blood: so deeply, then, was this faith rooted in their hearts, and so highly did they value it for the sake of salvation!

III. Finally, even the enemies of the early Church—both internal and external—can serve as witnesses to its belief in the Triune God.

Internal enemies—that is, heretics—bear witness to this in two ways. Some—failing to understand the Church’s teaching on the triune nature of the Persons in God within the unity of the essence—reproached the Orthodox for supposedly worshiping three gods, just as Praxeas and his followers did as early as the second century.[518] Others—by the fact that they themselves held and professed the doctrine of three Persons in God, and yet were not subjected to any condemnation by the Church for this, as is known of the Nazarenes, who appeared as early as the Apostolic Age,[519] , and of the Novatians, who appeared in the third century.[520] The question arises: why would the heretics have thought to reproach the Orthodox for their demands if the latter did not in fact profess the Trinity of Persons in God? And on the other hand, how could the Church—which habitually condemned heretics for any innovation in matters of faith—have failed to condemn some of them solely for the doctrine of the three Hypostases in God, if she herself did not hold this doctrine and believed only in one God?

The early Church had the custom of concealing its mysteries—and consequently, the mystery of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity—from its external enemies, the Jews and pagans. It is not surprising that they knew little of this mystery and did not use it to reproach Christians. However, some Jews and pagans did happen to hear about it and use it as a weapon against the holy faith. The philosopher Celsus, objecting to Origen on behalf of a Jew, remarks in one passage that Christians usually reproach pagans for polytheism, yet they themselves admit many persons within God.[521] The pagan writer Lucian, wishing to mock Christian doctrine, introduces in his dialogue *Philopatrides* a Christian named Trifon, who is catechizing a pagan named Critias; when the latter asks: “By whom or what should I swear?” he replies: “Swear by God, the King on high, the great and immortal One, the Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, one of the three, three in one; acknowledge them instead of Jupiter and honor them as God.”[522]

Concluding this series of testimonies, which completely undermine the absurd notion that the Church only began to teach the distinct doctrine of the three Persons in God from the fourth century onward—and that it believed otherwise before—we deem it necessary, in order to dispel any kind of misunderstanding, to add the following remarks:

1) A distinction must be made between the faith of the entire early Church in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the faith of individual persons, whoever they may be. The entire Church, indisputably, taught this great mystery during the first three centuries exactly as it has taught it from the fourth century to the present—a fact clearly confirmed by the testimonies we have cited. Relying in its teaching solely on the Word of God, both written and unwritten, and having within itself the Holy Spirit at all times, who guided it into all truth, the Church was infallible then, just as it remains infallible to this day. But its individual members—both the flock and the shepherds themselves—in assimilating its teaching and then, in their efforts to clarify it—whether for themselves or for others—might have erred, just as they may do now: for in this case, the revealed teaching imparted by the Church was inevitably mixed with people’s personal conceptions, and each person could expound his thoughts on the dogma only according to his own limited understanding. Therefore, if any inaccuracies regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity were to be found in the writings of the earliest teachers of the Church—whether one or even several—these inaccuracies should in no way be held against the Church itself.

2) As we trace the development of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the writings of individual teachers of that time, we must strictly distinguish between the essence of the dogma—or the idea it embodies—and the manner of its expression and detailed explanation. The essence of the dogma—that there are three Persons in one God—was professed by the pastors of the early Church in complete harmony with the entire Church and with the pastors of subsequent centuries, as confirmed by the evidence we have presented. But the manner of expression and the detailed explanation of the idea of the three Divine Persons within the unity of the essence did not, in fact, always possess such clarity, precision, and certainty among the pastors of the first three centuries as it does among the writers of later ages.

3) This, however, should by no means be held against even the individual pastors of the early Church. The occasional lack of clarity or precision found in their exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity stemmed in part from the inaccessible profundity of the mystery itself—which they were the first to explain in detail, especially in the face of various attacks from pagans and heretics— as much as from the limitations of human language and the extreme difficulty of finding suitable words to express this mystery—words that the pastors of the early Church were also the first to seek out and employ.[523] Meanwhile, writers of the fourth, fifth, and subsequent centuries naturally drew upon the experiences of their predecessors in expounding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, extracting from them all that they found to be best, — they lived at a time when this doctrine, as a result of various heresies, had been examined and thoroughly defined in precisely those same terms by local and ecumenical Councils.

4) Justice also requires that certain passages in the writings of the earliest teachers of the Church, which do not express the idea of the three Persons of the Godhead quite accurately or clearly, be compared with other passages by the same authors where this idea is expressed more correctly and clearly, and one should by no means conclude, based solely on passages of the former kind, that this or that writer taught incorrectly about the Most Holy Trinity. Thus, all the writers of the first three centuries in general are exempt from such a reproach—even Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, in whose works there are indeed sometimes inaccuracies in the doctrine of the Divine Persons, but there are also, as we have seen, precise passages that correctly express this doctrine.[524]

5) Finally, it would be utterly reckless to deliberately exploit certain unintentional inaccuracies in the teaching on the Most Holy Trinity by the earliest pastors in order to spread one’s own error under the guise of theirs, as the ancient heretics often did, according to the testimony of Blessed Augustine.[525]

§ 29. The Relationship of the Dogma of the Trinity of Persons in One God to Sound Reason.

Following the example of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, who, although they clearly professed the incomprehensibility of the dogma of the Trinity of Persons in God within the unity of essence, yet sometimes found it necessary to offer rational arguments regarding this dogma,[526] we, too, will allow ourselves to say a few words about its relationship to sound reason, so that, on the one hand, we may refute false opinions concerning this subject, and on the other, clarify and establish for ourselves the true opinion.

1. From ancient times, there have been two false opinions regarding this subject.

Some have claimed and continue to claim that the doctrine of the Triune God contradicts sound reason because it contradicts itself,[527] —but they are entirely in the wrong:

a) Christianity teaches that God is one and at the same time triune, not in the same sense but in different senses; that He is one precisely in essence, and triune in Persons; and that one concept pertains to the essence of God, while another pertains to the Divine Persons, so that these concepts do not in the least exclude one another—where, then, is the contradiction? If Christianity taught that God is both one in essence and triune in essence, or—that in Him there are both three Persons and one Person, or even—that the Person and the essence in God are identical—then, indeed, there would be a contradiction. But, we repeat, Christianity does not teach this, and anyone who does not deliberately confuse the Christian concepts of essence and Persons in God will never even think of seeking an internal contradiction in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

b) In order to call any idea contrary to sound reason and to itself, one must first fully comprehend that idea, grasp the meaning of its subject and predicate, and see their incompatibility. But with regard to the mystery of the Holy Trinity, no one can claim to have done this: we know only what nature or essence is and what a person is among created beings, but we do not fully comprehend either the essence or the Persons in God, who infinitely surpasses all His creatures. Consequently, we are not in a position to judge whether the concepts of God as one in essence and God as triune in Persons are compatible or incompatible; we have no right to assert that the idea that God is one in essence and triune in Persons contains an internal contradiction. Is it reasonable to judge what we do not comprehend?

c) On the contrary, sound reason cannot but acknowledge this idea as entirely true and free from any contradiction. It does not comprehend its inner meaning; but, on the basis of external evidence, it knows with certainty that this idea has been clearly communicated by God Himself in Christian revelation: and God is the God of truth.

Others have fallen and continue to fall into the opposite extreme, claiming that the doctrine of the Triune God is entirely comprehensible to the mind [528] —yet another injustice! Not only does speaking in this way directly contradict the Word of God, which attributes knowledge of the Most Holy Trinity only to the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity and to no one else (Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:11), and consequently contradicts the Holy Church and all its teachers, who have always called the dogma of the Triune God the greatest mystery,[529] — one wonders, then, how do they intend to prove that this doctrine is comprehensible to us?

a) By the fact that they find traces of it in many ancient pagan religions: Egyptian, Indian, Persian, Greek, and Roman.[530] But—

aa) it is well known that not everything found in these religions is the product of (errant) human reason, but much of it was passed down, according to tradition, from the patriarchal, divinely revealed religion, which, prior to Abraham, was the common heritage of the human race, although it was transmitted in a more or less distorted form;

bb) Among such traditions, without a doubt, we must also include certain concepts regarding the Trinity in God that have been preserved in pagan religions, because these concepts are extremely confused, unclear, indistinct, and indefinite; whereas if reason itself had formulated them as a result of its knowledge of the Most Holy Trinity, they would naturally possess the character of clarity and definiteness, like all other forms of knowledge;[531]

(cc) Finally, it must be noted that the concepts of the triune nature of God found in pagan religions bear almost no resemblance to the true doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, or the Christian doctrine;[532] Consequently, even if we attribute them to the mind, they—as errors—should more rightly serve as proof of the idea that reason alone is incapable of comprehending this sublime mystery.

b) By the fact that concepts of the Divine Trinity are found in the works of the philosopher Plato.[533] But even Plato—

aa) speaks in this instance with such vagueness and confusion that even his best followers did not know how to understand him; some thought that their teacher posited three gods: a supreme god, who is the cause of all things and the father of the world; a second, lower god, who was created by the first, represents a kind of intellect, and through whom all things were created; finally, a third god, even lower, created from the second and constituting the soul of the world, or even the world itself;[534] while others believed that Plato did not actually posit a trinity, but rather a quaternity within God, because he subordinated the three principles of all things—which are themselves subordinate to one another—to yet another higher unity.[535] Hence—

bb) it is evident that there is not the slightest resemblance between Plato’s doctrine of three or four gods of unequal dignity and the Christian doctrine of three coequal Persons in one God, and some of the Church Fathers not without reason called Plato the forerunner of Arius;[536]

cc) it is natural to conclude that Plato expressed his concepts of the Divine Trinity not as the fruit of his own reasoning and rational consciousness (otherwise he would have expressed them with clarity), but as concepts borrowed from somewhere else and, perhaps, incorrectly or insufficiently assimilated; He could have borrowed these concepts either from the mixed traditions of pagan religions or, as many Christian teachers asserted, from the sacred books of the Old Testament and his interactions with the Jews.[537]

c) Certain intellectual arguments concerning the nature of God, which supposedly fully explain the possibility and even the necessity of the trinity of Persons within the one God. But these arguments by no means deserve such high regard. For example, the one considered the best among them is as follows: “In God, as Spirit, one must distinguish, first, a twofold activity—namely, the activity of intellect and the activity of will—and, second, the source of both these activities. And since there can be nothing accidental or transitory in God, each of these activities, as well as their source, must possess autonomy: Consequently, within the one and same divine being, it is necessary to admit three distinct and independent persons: the Father, as the source of the actions of intellect and will; the action of intellect, or the Son; and the action of will, or the Holy Spirit.[538] But does explaining the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity in this way not amount to distorting this doctrine, or to failing to understand it at all?

2) The true view regarding the relationship of the mystery of the Holy Trinity to sound reason is the view of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. Rejecting both the idea that this mystery contradicts sound reason and the idea that it is entirely comprehensible to us, they nevertheless admitted that, since the Holy Trinity is partly reflected in its creation, our reason can find certain likenesses of it in the real world—though only the faintest and most imperfect likenesses. Therefore, they themselves, when the occasion arose, made use of such likenesses, wishing to bring the incomprehensible mystery somewhat closer to ordinary concepts: they pointed, for example, to the sun, a sunbeam, and light, which share both unity and distinction; to the root, trunk, and fruit of the same tree; to the spring, stream, and river, inseparably connected yet distinct; to three candles burning in a single place and shedding a single, undivided light; to fire, the radiance of fire, and heat, which also represent a trinity within unity; to the three distinct faculties within the same human soul—intellect, will, and memory, or consciousness, cognition, and desire, and so on.[539] To these comparisons, one can undoubtedly add several others from the physical and spiritual worlds: for instance, in the physical world, every body necessarily has three dimensions—width, length, and depth; the space in which bodies exist has the very same three dimensions; time, in which bodies develop or change, is also composed of three necessary parts: the past, the present, and the future; in the spiritual world—every truth necessarily encompasses three conditions: representation, the object represented, and the correspondence of the representation to the object; every virtue also has three: free action, law, and the harmony of free action with the law, and so on. But while allowing ourselves, when necessary, to point to such images of the supernatural Trinity in the world, we must firmly remember that all of them, as the ancient teachers of the Church have already noted, are infinitely distant from the Original, can only partially resemble It, but are far from explaining It, and that, therefore, they must be used with the utmost caution and prudence.

“Whatever I have contemplated within myself with my inquisitive mind,” says Saint Gregory the Theologian, “whatever I have used to enrich my understanding, wherever I have sought a likeness for this (the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity), I have found nothing earthly to which God’s nature could be applied. Even if some slight resemblance is found, a much greater one slips away, leaving me behind along with that which was chosen for comparison. Following the example of others, I imagined a spring, a well, and a stream, and reasoned: Do they not bear a resemblance—the Father to one, the Son to another, and the Holy Spirit to the third? For a spring, a stream, and a river are inseparable in time, and their coexistence is unbroken, even though they appear to be divided by three distinct properties. But I feared, first, that I might introduce into the Godhead a kind of flow that never ceases; and second, that such a likeness might lead to numerical unity. For a spring, a stream, and a flow constitute a single entity in terms of number, differing only in the manner of their representation. He again considered the sun, the ray, and the light. But here, too, there is a concern: first, not to lose sight of the complexity observable in the sun and in that which comes from the sun amidst a simple nature; second, so that, by attributing essence to the Father, the other Persons are not deprived of their independence, nor are they reduced to being divine powers that exist in the Father but are not independent. For both the ray and the light are not the sun itself, but rather certain emanations of the sun and essential qualities of the sun. Thirdly, so as not to ascribe to God both being and non-being at the same time (and this example could lead to such a conclusion); and this is even more absurd than what was said before... And in general, I find nothing in the examination of what is presented that would cause one’s thought to dwell on the chosen similitudes, unless one, with due prudence, takes a single element from the image and discards all the rest. Finally, I concluded that it is best to turn away from all images and shadows, as they are deceptive and fall far short of the truth, and instead to adhere to a more pious way of thinking, focusing on a few sayings, having the Spirit as my guide, and preserving to the end whatever insight is received from Him, and to pass through this present age with Him as a sincere companion and interlocutor, and, to the best of my ability, to persuade others to worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the one Godhead and the one Power.”[540]

§ 30. The Moral Application of the Dogma.

In worshiping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—three Persons in one essence—

1) Let us remember that the divine Trinity is reflected, to some extent, in each of us.

It is reflected—

a) in the three constituent parts of our being—spirit, soul, and body: from this we shall learn to ensure that your spirit, soul, and body may be kept sound… without blemish (1 Thess. 5:23), so that the unity and harmony established by the Creator Himself may be preserved among them; so that the body does not prevail over the soul, nor the soul over the higher aspirations of the spirit, but that all may remain in their proper order and in the proper relationship to one another.

This is reflected—

b) in the three principal faculties of our spiritual nature—the mind, the will, and the emotions; let us learn to preserve their natural unity and harmony here as well, that is, so that none of these faculties is suppressed or neglected at the expense of another; on the contrary, may they all harmoniously strive toward their respective goals: the intellect—toward the highest Truth, the will—toward the highest Good, and the emotions—toward the highest Bliss; and that all may be in the proper relationship to one another—the will subordinate to the intellect, and the emotions subordinate to both the intellect and the will, or to the moral law.

2) Let us remember that all of us, though not one in essence—as the Three who bear witness in heaven are one—nevertheless constitute a single human community; and therefore, though separated from one another, we can attain the closest moral unity among ourselves and possess, as it were, a single mind, a single will, and a single feeling. The means to this end have been shown to us by the Triune God Himself in the unity of the Christian faith, in the unity of Christian love, and in the unity of Christian hope (Eph. 4:3–6; John 13:34; 17:21).

3) Finally, let us remember that although we are God’s creatures and even the weakest of beings, by becoming Christians we have become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4); that by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who has regenerated us, we are all children of the heavenly Father and brothers of His only-begotten Son (John 1:12–13; Luke 8:21). And therefore we can enter into the closest moral union with the Triune God Himself, provided that, believing in Him and striving toward Him with hope, we love Him with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind (Matt. 22:37). Then, without a doubt, the Savior’s promise will be fulfilled in us : “Whoever loves Me will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him (John 14:23)—and we will understand the meaning of the Apostle’s words: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).

2. On the equality and consubstantiality of the Divine Persons.

§ 31. Connection to the Previous Section: A Brief History of the Dogma and the Meaning of the Church’s Teaching on It.

The dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of the Divine Persons follows naturally from the dogma we have just examined. If there are indeed three distinct and independent Persons in God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and if these three are one and completely indivisible in essence, then it follows that they are all completely equal to one another and of one essence; which means that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but not three gods, rather one God. Therefore, it is only natural that the Church of Christ, while constantly and unchangingly upholding the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in God, with unity of essence, has just as consistently upheld the doctrine of the equality and consubstantiality of the Divine Persons.

But among the individual members of the Church, there were often those who distorted this doctrine as well, though not in the same way. Some rejected the equality and consubstantiality of all three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; others took issue specifically with the equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; still others—with the equality and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

The first group also expressed their views in different ways. Some attributed a divine nature to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but not one and the same nature—rather, different ones—and claimed that the Father is the highest among Them, the Son is lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is lesser than the Son.[541] Others attributed a divine nature only to the Father and the Son, but also considered them distinct, calling the Son inferior to the Father; they regarded the Holy Spirit as created.[542] Still others, although they attributed one and the same divine essence (substance) to all three Persons, did so in such a way that they ascribed one part of this essence exclusively to the Father, another exclusively to the Son, and a third exclusively to the Holy Spirit, and consequently completely separated Them from one another.[543] In refutation of these heretical views—which, incidentally, never gained much traction—we find remarks by Saints Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Hilary, and Augustine.[544]

Heretics who rejected the divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity—that is, the equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father—were far more numerous and, at times, gave rise to the most powerful movements within the Church. Such were:

a) as early as the Apostolic Age—Cerinthus and Ebion: according to ancient sources, it was them whom the Holy Apostle John had in mind when he wrote his Gospel, which so clearly demonstrates the divinity of the Son;[545]

b) in the second century—Carpocrates, Theodotus and Artemon with their followers, who, wishing to base their false teachings on the Word of God, rejected the Gospel of John, corrupted other sacred books, and distorted the meaning of Scripture with arbitrary interpretations,[546] but found zealous opponents in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other teachers of the Church;[547] c) in the third century—Paul of Samosata, who rejected the personhood of the Word or the Son of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ,[548] and was condemned by the two Councils of Antioch (in 264 and 270).[549] But the most dangerous of all heretics of this kind was—

d) in the fourth century—Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. He taught that the Word, or the Son of God, had a beginning in time, albeit before all else; that He was created out of nothing, although God later created all things through Him; that He is called the Son of God only as the most perfect of created spirits, but that He does not possess a divine nature and is therefore entirely different from the Father.[550] In response to this blasphemous false teaching, which had stirred up the entire Christian world and led many astray, the First Ecumenical Council was convened (in 325), at which 318 primates of the Church unanimously affirmed the ancient doctrine of Orthodoxy and pronounced a condemnation against the heretics as follows: “We believe... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial (όμοούσιον) with the Father... But those who say of the Son of God that there was a time when He did not exist, or that before His birth He did not exist, or that He came into being from non-being, or that He came into being from another Hypostasis or essence, or that the Son of God is changeable or mutable—these are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church.”[551]

Soon, three sects emerged within Arianism: the Arians proper, who asserted that the Son, as a created being, was in no way like the Father (κατά πάντα ανόμοιος τώ Ιιατρί), and were therefore also called Anomoeans; and, named after their principal leaders, Aetius and Eunomius, Aetianists and Eunomians; the Semi-Arians (among whom the most famous were Basil of Ancyra, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius of Nicomedia), who taught that the Son is not a created being but is the true Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, yet acknowledged Him to be not consubstantial (όμοούσιον) but of a similar substance (όμοιούσιον) to the Father; finally, a third group, occupying a middle ground between the Arians and the Semi-Arians, and called the Acacians, after their leader Acacius: they preached that the Son is like (όμοιος) the Father, but not like Him in essence and divinity, but only as an image reflecting the original within itself.[552] All these heretical doctrines, down to their finest details, were refuted at several local councils, and especially in the writings of the most renowned teachers of the Church: Athanasius and Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, and others (553).[553] From that time on, Arianism gradually began to wane, but it did not disappear entirely. In the Middle Ages, many of the Cathars or Albigensians adhered to the teachings of Arius;[554] from the 16th century onward — a significant portion of the Anabaptists and Socinians, who see Christ as merely a man;[555] in modern times, this same heresy is preached by naturalists and rationalists.

Among the heretics who rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit—and, consequently, His equality and consubstantiality with the Father and the Son—the following are well known: Valentinus (2nd century), who taught that the Holy Spirit is not, by nature, distinct from the angels;[556] the Arians, who regarded the Holy Spirit as a creation of God;[557] and even the Semi-Arians, who held the same views.[558] But Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, is rightly recognized as the leader of the Spirit-rejecters. He openly and with particular audacity rebelled against the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him a creation of the Son, subservient to the Father and the Son, and soon gained numerous followers among the Arians and Semi-Arians.[559] At the same time, however, there were also zealous opponents of this heresy. The Orthodox teachers of the Church—Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius, Ambrose, Diodorus of Tarsus, and others—wrote specific treatises refuting it.[560] It was condemned even more solemnly by the Councils—the Council of Alexandria (362), the Council of Illyricum (374), the Council of Iconium (377), and finally the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381). The Fathers of the latter Council, in defense of Orthodoxy, explained the clause of the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit with the following words: “We believe… in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, of whom the prophets spoke…”

Thus, in defending and explaining—in response to various heresies—the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of the Divine Persons, the Holy Church has consistently held the same view, which it maintains to this day: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—not three gods, but one God.”[561] It calls each of Them—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—God individually, because each of Them is a distinct Person possessing all divine perfections. But it states that all of Them—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are not three gods, but one God: because They share the divine perfections indivisibly; because They have a single essence, a single divinity, a single will, a single power, authority, majesty, and glory; because Their distinction as three Persons is based not on a difference in divine attributes—which are indivisible among all Three—but solely on a difference in personal attributes, by virtue of which the Father is precisely the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit, while that which constitutes the divine nature itself is one and the same in all of Them. Explaining this, Saint Gregory the Theologian says: “The Godhead is the infinite consubstantiality of the Three Infinite Ones, in which each, when contemplated in Himself, is God—as Father and Son, Son and Holy Spirit—while preserving in each His personal attribute; and the Three, when conceived together, are also God; the former because of consubstantiality, the latter because of common origin.” And elsewhere: “We have one God, because the Godhead is one, and those who exist from God are reduced to the One, even though we believe in Three; for just as one is no more God than the other, so the other is no less God; and one is not before the other, nor is the other after—They are not separated by will, nor are They divided by power; and none of that applies which occurs only in divisible things. On the contrary, to put it more briefly, the Divinity is indivisible in the Divided, as in three suns contained one within the other—a single dissolution of light. Therefore, when we have in mind the Divinity, the First Cause, and the single origin; then what we conceive is one. But when we have in mind Those in whom the Divinity resides—Beings proceeding from the First Cause, and Beings proceeding from Him simultaneously and equally—then the Objects of Worship are three.” Also in the third passage: “ , there is unity in the Divinity, but those to whom the Divinity belongs are three in number. Each is a single God, if you name one. And again, there is one God without beginning, from whom the richness of the Godhead flows, when the word refers to the Three... One might call three gods those who were divided among themselves by time, or thought, or power, or will, so that each would never be identical with the others, but would always be in conflict with them. But in my Trinity there is one power, one thought, one glory, one authority; and therefore the oneness—which is the great glory in the single harmony of the Godhead—is not violated.”[562]

§ 32. The Divinity of the Father.

No one has ever doubted the divinity of the first Person of the Holy Trinity, not even among the heretics themselves who rejected the divinity of the other two Persons. And this is quite natural:

a) because a person cannot acknowledge anyone as God without first completely renouncing sound reason (Ps. 13:1), and at the same time—

b) because the divinity of the Father is so clearly portrayed in Holy Scripture that there remains not the slightest cause for any confusion or hesitation.

Christ the Savior Himself calls His Father:

a) God: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16);

b) the one true God: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3);

c) the Lord of heaven and earth: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to little children” (Matt. 11:25).

The Holy Apostles also very often referred to the Father as

a) God, beginning nearly every one of their epistles to Christians with the words: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:3, etc.), and instructing them to glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with one accord and with one voice (Rom. 15:6; Col. 1:12; 3:17);

b) the one God: yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6);

c) The blessed God: Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, etc.).

It would be entirely superfluous to cite further evidence of this truth from Sacred Tradition. Let us merely note that, in professing this truth, the ancient teachers of the Church ascribed to God the Father various expressive titles, such as: God-in-Himself, God-in-All, God Who Exists Above All,[563] God of All, Father of All, Creator of All,[564] Almighty, King of All, and the like.[565]

§33. Evidence from Scripture of the Divinity of the Son and His consubstantiality with the Father.

The divinity of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, as well as His consubstantiality with the Father, is depicted with no less clarity in Holy Scripture. The sacred texts pertaining to this subject fall into two categories: some speak directly of the divinity of the Son of God; others bear witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ. But since Jesus Christ is none other than the Son of God, who hypostatically assumed human nature, there is no need to distinguish between the two. In these texts, which are innumerable, Holy Scripture ascribes to Jesus Christ—or the Son of God—everything that can be attributed to the true God, such as:

1) The titles of God. It calls Him—

a) God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning” (John 1:1–2). Here—

aa) the Word is called God—[566] —obviously in the very same sense as God the Father, with whom He was from the beginning; consequently, in the proper sense;

bb) by the name “the Word,” without any doubt, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is meant; for, continuing his account, the Evangelist says: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father... for the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (14:17).

b) God incarnate: and without a doubt—the great mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed in throughout the world, and exalted in glory (1 Tim. 3:16). It is self-evident which God is being spoken of here.[567]

c) The Lord: but we have one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor. 8:6; cf. Matt. 22:43–44); The Lord of glory: if they had known Him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8); The Lord God: take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased for Himself with His own blood (Acts 20:28). The name “the Lord God,” who purchased the Church with His blood, cannot refer to any of the Divine Persons other than the Son [568] (See also Jude 4).

d) The true God: We also know that the Son of God came and gave us light and understanding, so that we might know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). It seems there could be no stronger testimony than this. Here the Apostle calls Jesus Christ:

aa) the true Son of God—therefore, the Son in the proper sense, not figuratively—the natural Son, begotten of the Father’s essence, not adopted by grace;

bb) calls Him at the same time the true God, as indicated by the demonstrative pronoun “this one” (ούτος), which undoubtedly must refer to the nearest person;

cc) calls Him the true God in exactly the same sense in which, a few words earlier, he called God the Father the true God;[569]

e) the great God: the grace of God has appeared, saving all people, teaching us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:11–13). That the title “great God” refers here to Jesus Christ and not to anyone else is confirmed by:

aa) from the very figure of speech in the Greek language;[570]

bb) from the meaning of the passage: it clearly points to the future reward and the glorious coming of God the Judge, whom Christians await, — and from other passages of Scripture we know that the Father does not judge anyone , but has entrusted all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), and that it is the Son Himself who will one day appear in His glory to judge the living and the dead, as He Himself has repeatedly testified (Matt. 24:3–43; Mark 13:3–33; Luke 17:22–37);

(bb) Finally, from a comparison of this passage with verse 10 of the same chapter, where the Apostle unequivocally called Jesus Christ “God the Savior”: so that they (in a general sense—Christians) might in every way be a credit to the teaching of our Savior, God.[571]

f) God, the Blessed One. The Apostle, listing the various advantages of the Jews, says, among other things: “To whom belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ, who is over all, God, blessed forever, Amen (Rom. 9:4–5). The following factors compel us to apply these last words to Jesus Christ rather than to God the Father:

aa) the figure of speech: the expression “who is over all” (ό ών έπί πάντων) unquestionably refers to the preceding subject, that is, to Christ according to the flesh;

bb) the context of the passage: having stated that Christ is of the Jews only according to the flesh, the Apostle naturally leads the reader to expect the question of who, then, is Christ apart from the flesh;

cc) the purpose of the discourse: the Apostle points to Jesus Christ’s descent from the Jews according to the flesh as one of the advantages of the chosen people—and, moreover, as the most important advantage—so what would this advantage consist of if Christ were merely a man, and the final words did not apply to Him: “God, who is over all, blessed forever”?[572] The importance of this testimony is equally indisputable:

aa) in it, Jesus Christ is called God, who is above all, that is, supreme, just as God the Father is called in another passage (Eph. 4:6);

bb) God who is blessed, also like God the Father (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:8);

cc) God, blessed forever—again, exactly like God the Father (2 Cor. 11:31), and finally—

dd) all of this is concluded with the word “Amen,” which, according to its usage in Holy Scripture, always reinforces or seals the truth, and with which the same Apostle, in another passage, concluded a similar doxology to the one true God, in contrast to false gods: creatures were worshiped instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever, Amen (Rom. 1:25).

2) The divine nature, perfect equality, and consubstantiality with God the Father.

a) The divine nature. This pertains primarily to two statements by the holy Apostle Paul:

aa) the first—in the Epistle to the Colossians: “For in Him (Jesus Christ) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (2:9), where the divine nature is wholly ascribed to Christ (cf. Rom. 1:20);

bb) the second—in the Epistle to the Philippians: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”: He, being in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped; but He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and appearing in human form; He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death—and death on a cross (2:5–8). Here the expressions “being in the form of God” (εν μορφή θεοΰ ύπάρχων) and “being equal with God” (τό εΐναι ΐσα θεώ) are clearly contrasted with the expressions “taking the form of a servant” (μορφήν δούλου λαβών) and “becoming like men” (έν όμοιώματι άνθρώπων γενόμενος). But just as the latter expressions obviously denote the human nature in the person of Jesus Christ, so, consequently, the former denote the divine nature in Him.[573] Furthermore, the Apostle states:

aa) that Christ, being in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped (ούχ' άρπαγμόν ήγήσατο); this means that this equality belonged to Him by right, that is, by nature;

bb) that He humbled or emptied Himself when He took the form of a mere human; this means that by nature He is not a servant of God, nor is He a creation of God, but is God Himself. Otherwise, in what would His humbling consist?

b) Perfect equality with God the Father: “My Father is still working, and I am working” (John 5:17). For whatever the Father does, the Son also does (19). Just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills (21). Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself (26). And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand (10:28–29). If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well (14:7).[574]

c) Of the same essence as God the Father. This is revealed:

aa) from the Savior’s words: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), the meaning of which we have already seen;[575]

bb) from the Savior’s other words: “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father… I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (John 14:9, 11), the meaning of which we have also seen;[576]

cc) from the third set of the Savior’s words: “If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well” (John 8:19; cf. 14:7), which necessarily imply that the Father and the Son are of the same essence;[577]

gg) finally, from the Savior’s fourth set of words: “All that is Mine is Yours, and all that is Yours is Mine” (John 17:10); “All that the Father has is Mine” (16:15), which imply the very same truth.[578]

3) The divine attributes, which are:

a) Eternity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). “And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed” (17:5). And even more clearly: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:10; cf. vv. 12, 17, 18). “Thus says the First and the Last, who was dead, and behold, I am alive” (Rev. 2:8). “Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to his deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last” (Rev. 22:12–13).

b) Self-Existence. In addition to the words just quoted from Revelation—which, by pointing to the eternity of the Son of God, also point to His self-existence—the words of the Savior also apply here: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26).

c) Omnipresence: “No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven and is in heaven” (John 3:13). “For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20).

d) Immutability. The holy Apostle depicts this attribute of the Son of God when he applies to Him the words of the Psalmist: “In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and all will wear out like a garment; like a robe You will fold them up, and they will be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will never end” (Heb. 1:10–12), and when he further states in the same epistle: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

d) Omniscience. The Savior Himself claims this attribute: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27; John 10:15). And all the churches will know that I am the One who searches hearts and minds (Rev. 2:23). The Apostles also recognized this in Him: “Now we know that You know everything and do not need anyone to ask You. Therefore, we believe that You came from God” (John 16:30). Lord! You know everything; You know that I love You (John 21:17). Or: Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew them all 25 and had no need for anyone to testify about a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person (John 2:24–25). In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3).

e) Omnipotence. My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them; and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand (John 10:27–29). He (Jesus Christ) will transform our lowly body so that it may be like His glorious body, by the power with which He works and subdues all things to Himself (Phil. 3:21).

g) Glory: for if they had known Him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8; cf. James 2:1).

4) Divine actions and authority over all that exists. The Son of God is called:

a) The Creator of the world. All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3). For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible—whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers—all things were created through Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Col. 1:16–17; cf. Heb. 1:2 and 10).

6) The Sustainer. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Col. 1:17); upholding all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3).

c) The Performer of Miracles by His Own Power: just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills (John 5:21). And these signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover (Mark 16:17–18).

d) The Ruler of all, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. He sent the word to the children of Israel, proclaiming peace through Jesus Christ; He is the Lord of all (Acts 10:36; cf. Jude 4). They will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them; for He is the Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev. 17:14). On His robe and on His thigh is written the name: “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).

5) Divine honor. Scripture expresses this idea when—

a) it commands in general: that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:23); and when it subsequently commands, in particular:

6) to believe in the Son: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). And His commandment is that we believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23; cf. John 3:18; 6:40; Acts 16:31; 20:21).

c) to hope in Him. “Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, and believe also in Me” (John 14:1). “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but take heart: I have overcome the world (John 16:33). Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the command of God, our Savior, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope (1 Tim. 1:1; cf. Matt. 12:11; Col. 1:27),

d) to love Him. Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is accursed; maran-atha (1 Cor. 16:22; cf. John 14:23).

e) call upon Him in prayer. And if you ask the Father anything in My name, I will do it, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it (John 14:13–14). Truly, truly, I say to you: whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you (John 16:23; cf. Rom. 10:13; Acts 22:16).

e) to worship Him. Likewise, when He introduces the Firstborn into the universe, He says: “And let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6). So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow— —in heaven, on earth, and under the earth—and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10–11).

g) to confess Him. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God (1 John 4:15). For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (Rom. 10:9–10).

It is true that there are passages in Holy Scripture which, at first glance, seem to contradict the doctrine of the divinity of the Son of God and His equality with the Father, and which have therefore been used since ancient times by heretics who rejected the divinity of our Savior. But we must remember:

a) that, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ is not only God but also man;

b) that, as God, He has His being from the Father, and consequently, although He is of the same essence as the Father and completely equal to Him, in terms of personal relationship He is the Son of the Father and occupies the second place in the order of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; and

c) that, finally, as our Redeemer, He was in a state of voluntary self-humiliation during the days of His flesh (Heb. 5:7; Phil. 2:6–8), deigning to take upon Himself our sins, thereby lifting the curse that was upon us (Gal. 3:13), and fully fulfilling the will of the Father, who had determined to save the world through the blood of His Son (Rom. 3:25). In light of these thoughts, we can easily grasp the true meaning of those passages of Holy Scripture that heretics have always cited to refute the dogma of the divinity of the Lord Jesus. Thus—

a) when He said, “The Son can do nothing of Himself unless He sees the Father doing it” (John 5:19), He spoke in reference to His personal relationship with the Father, with whom He shares not only a single being, but also a single will, a single action, and a single power; and therefore, naturally, whatever He does, He always does from the Father and with the Father, and He cannot do anything on His own;[579]

b) when He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), He spoke both in terms of His personal relationship to the Father as His cause—[580] —and in terms of His humanity, which is undoubtedly inferior to His divinity;[581]

c) when He said, “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” (John 20:17), He spoke both as the Son of God and as a human being; for God is His Father by nature, but He became His God through the economy of salvation, since the Son took upon Himself human nature—whereas, in relation to us, on the contrary, God is our Father only by grace, but Lord and God by nature;[582]

d) when He said: “But of that day or hour no one knows—not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36)—He spoke both in His humanity, while at the same time in a state of voluntary self-humiliation,[583] and in accordance with the plans of divine providence, finding it unwise to reveal the time of judgment to people;[584]

d) when He said: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will (Matt. 26:39)—He revealed in Himself two wills: the human will, which, due to the weakness of the flesh, prayed that the suffering might pass from Him, and the divine will, which is completely similar to or identical with the Father’s will, and was ready to accept suffering and death;[585]

e) when He cried out on the cross: “My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46), He cried out on our behalf: for He did not suffer for Himself, but for us, and it was not He Himself who was forsaken by God the Father (which is impossible due to the unity and indivisibility of Their essence), but we were forsaken; and it was for our reconciliation with the wrathful Deity that He ascended the cross.[586]

“From this same perspective,” says Saint Gregory the Theologian, “we may also understand that the Son was trained in obedience through suffering, as well as His cry, tears, prayer, and acceptance of reverence (Heb. 5:7, 8)—all of this is accomplished and miraculously united on our behalf. He Himself, as the Word, was neither obedient nor disobedient (since both are characteristic of subordinates and those of lesser rank—one being virtuous, the other deserving of punishment)—but as the image of a servant (Phil. 2:7), condescends to fellow servants and servants, taking upon Himself a foreign likeness, representing in Himself all of me and all that is mine, so that He might consume within Himself my worst traits, just as fire consumes wax, or the sun consumes earthly vapor, and so that I, through union with Him, might partake of what is proper to Him.”[587]

Having thus demonstrated the proper way to interpret those passages of Scripture that, at first glance, seem to contradict the doctrine of the Son’s divinity, and having clarified the most difficult of them, we consider it unnecessary to go through all the others, which are far less difficult,[588] and we turn to another source of Orthodox theology to confirm this doctrine.

§ 34. Evidence from Sacred Tradition of the Divinity of the Son and His consubstantiality with the Father.

The ancient Christian Church, the guardian of the true apostolic tradition, undoubtedly believed in the divinity of the Son of God during the first three centuries exactly as all Orthodox Christians believe today; for we should note that in this case as well—as in the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in God—we have no need to trace the thread of tradition beyond the fourth century, or beyond the First Ecumenical Council, from the time of which, according to the admission of the freethinkers themselves, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ had already been firmly established in the Church.

The evidence of the ancient Church’s belief in the divinity of the Son of God is of two kinds: some may be called internal, others external.

The internal evidence includes:

1) The creeds or confessions of faith used in the Church prior to the Council of Nicaea. In some of them, the idea of the divinity of Jesus Christ is expressed briefly, as, for example, in the creed known as the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord,” — whereas in others it is expressed in detail and with complete clarity. Thus, in the creed included in the Apostolic Constitutions, Jesus Christ is called “the only-begotten Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, born before all ages by the will of the Father, uncreated;” in the creed of the Church of Jerusalem—“the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, true God, through whom all things were made”; in the creed of the Church of Caesarea—“the Word of God, God from God..., born of the Father before all ages;’”[589] in the creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, used in the Neo-Caesarean Church during daily instruction of the people—“one from the one, God from God..., the Power that created all things..., immortal from the immortal, eternal from the eternal.”[590]

2) Creeds formulated at councils, or on behalf of a council of pastors, prior to the fourth century. Such is the creed of the pastors of the Church of Alexandria, set forth by them in a letter to Paul of Samosata, who rejected the divinity of the Savior: “We confess,” they wrote, among other things, the Image of God, His Word, and His Wisdom—as the Son of God and true God, one eternal Person and one Hypostasis. This cannot be the case with human beings: for the word, wisdom, power, and image of a human being are attributes of a human being and do not exist in and of themselves, and none of them is either a human being or the Son of Man... On the contrary, the Image of God and the Word who is with Him is God and the Son of God, the hypostatic Word (ένυπόστατος Λόγος), that is, possessing a Hypostasis distinct from the Father. This is how the holy fathers themselves confessed Him, and this is what they handed down to us to confess and believe.” And further: “Why do you call Christ a mere man, and not the true God, worshiped by all creation together with the Father and the Holy Spirit?... He is the invisible God who became visible; for God, who appeared in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), being born of a woman, is the same One who was born of God the Father from the womb before the dawn of day (Ps. 109:3)... He is Lord by nature and the Word of the Father, through whom the Father created all things, and is called by the holy Fathers consubstantial with the Father... For they (the holy Fathers) taught us about Him as God.”[591] Such is also the confession of the Council of Antioch (A.D. 269), set forth in a letter to the same heretic: “We have decided to set forth in writing the faith that we first received, which has been handed down to us and is preserved in the catholic and Holy Church even to this day, by succession from the blessed Apostles, who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word (Luke 1:2), and which is proclaimed in the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. Here it is: God is unbegotten, one, without beginning, invisible... Having come to know His Son from the Old and New Testaments, we confess and proclaim Him as the begotten, only-begotten Son, the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), Wisdom, and the Word, and the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24), existing before the ages, God not by predestination but by essence and Hypostasis, the Son of God. But whoever rejects that the Son of God was God even before the creation of the world, and says that to acknowledge the Son of God as God is to admit two gods, we consider such a person to be outside the church canon—and all the Catholic churches agree with us on this... And all the divinely inspired Scriptures present the Son of God as God.”[592]

3) The Church’s excommunication of heretics who rejected the divinity of the Son of God or of Jesus Christ from the community of the Orthodox, namely: the excommunication of Cerinthus, Ebion, Theodotus, Carpocrates, Paul of Samosata, and finally Arius, along with all their followers.[593] In these instances, the Church’s own belief in the divinity of the Son of God was expressed in the clearest and most solemn manner.

4) The sayings of individual pastors and teachers of the early Church.

Among the Apostolic Fathers—

a) Saint Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, while praising their previous conduct, reminds them that at that time they constantly had the sufferings of God before their eyes;[594] and in his second epistle, right from the beginning, he instructs them: “Brethren, you must think of Christ Jesus as God, as the judge of the living and the dead;”[595]

b) Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer refers to Him several times in his epistles as God, God incarnate, God made man, the eternal Word of God, and the Son of God in divinity;[596] he calls His blood the blood of God, and desires to become an imitator of the sufferings of his God;[597]

c) one of the Apostolic Fathers, who kept his name secret, says that God “did not send to people just any of His servants, an angel, or a prince...; but the very Architect and Creator of all things (δηρουργόν τών όλων)..., by whom all things are arranged, determined, and to whom all things are subject....; He sent Him as a king sends his royal son; He sent Him as God (ώς θεόν έπεμψεν);”[598]

d) Saint Polycarp calls Him the eternal Son of God,[599] to whom all things in heaven and on earth are subject and all spirits serve.[600]

Among the teachers of the second century—

a) Saint Justin asserts that Jesus Christ is both the firstborn Son of God and God Himself,[601] the second in number but not in power;[602] that He was the One who appeared in the Old Testament under the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Apology 1, II. 63); that His divinity is evident from His true birth from God (Dialogue with Tryphon, chs. 125–126), and adds: “The Word of Wisdom, who is God Himself, born of the Father of all, bears witness to me concerning this (mysterious birth)” (ibid., ch. 61); finally, addressing the Jews, he says: “If you had reflected more carefully on what the Prophets have said, you would not have rejected that He (Jesus Christ) is the one God and the Son of the unbegotten God” (ibid., ch. 121);

b) Tatian defends before the pagans the reality of God’s appearance on earth in the flesh, and figuratively calls the Holy Spirit the minister of the suffering God (διάκονον τοϋ τεπονθότος θεοΰ);[603]

c) Saint Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, after calling the Savior the one and only God (solus Deus) (Book III, Chapter 8, II. 3), notes that no one is called God except God and the Lord of all and His Son Jesus Christ (III, 6, 21); that angels were never given the name of God in the strict sense, but in such cases some attribute was always added to indicate their limited nature (III, 6, 3, 5); that the Magi brought gifts to Jesus Christ because He is God (III, 9, 2), and that “all the Prophets and Apostles, and the Spirit Himself, call Him, in the proper sense, God, and Lord, and eternal King, and the Only-Begotten, and the Word made flesh” (III, 19, 2);

d) Meliton of Sardis says of Christ that He is both God and man,[604] and of Christians that they worship not stones but God the Word.[605]

Among the teachers of the third century—

a) Tertullian writes that Christ is God and Lord for all, God from God, as light from light, the Son begotten of the essence of the Father and consubstantial with the Father;[606] he demonstrates the possibility of God’s incarnation,[607] and notes that “it is the duty of Christians to believe in God who died, and yet lives forever and ever,” and that we do not belong to ourselves but have been bought with the blood of God, the crucified God;[608]

b) Clement of Alexandria speaks with equal clarity about the Word, who is both God and man and is the source of all good things, about God the Redeemer, who, as God, foresaw what they wished to ask Him,[609] and gives the following instruction: “Man, believe in the man who is also God, the living God, who suffered and is worshiped;”[610]

c) Origen calls Jesus God,[611] God and the image of the invisible God, revealing the Father to us (Commentary on Genesis 10:6; Commentary on the Gospel of John, vol. II, II.11), God and man (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, vol. XVII, II.20), who possesses everything that the Father possesses (on Lamentations, Discourse VIII, II. n 2), is even one and the same with the Father—God and Lord,[612] —and to whom the Church renders divine honor inseparably with the Father (Against Celsus VIII, 26, 67);

d) Saint Hippolytus, referring to the Apostle’s words about Christ (Rom. 9:6), writes: “This One who is above all is God: for He says boldly, ‘All things have been handed over to Me by My Father’ (Matt. 11:27); The God who is above all, the blessed One, was born, and, having become man, is God forever;”[613]

e) Saint Dionysius of Alexandria, after some pastors began to suspect him of heresy regarding the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father on the basis of imprecise expressions in his writings, solemnly vindicated himself in a separate epistle, in which he confessed with complete clarity both the equality and the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son;[614]

f) Saint Cyprian says: “We have an Advocate and Intercessor for our sins, Jesus Christ, our Lord and God (Letter 3, according to another source, 7); “He is our God; He is Christ (regarding vain idols), and no one who does not believe that Christ is God can become His temple” (Letter 73).

Arnobius,[615] Methodius of Patara,[616] Felix of Rome,[617] Peter of Alexandria,[618] and all the other orthodox teachers living at that time also professed the divinity of Christ the Savior with equal certainty, according to the testimony of a contemporary writer cited by Eusebius. Refuting the heretics’ claim that the doctrine of the Savior’s divinity appeared in the Church only after Pope Victor, this writer says: “Their words might perhaps be plausible if they were not refuted, first, by Divine Scripture, and second, by the writings of certain brothers that appeared before Victor’s time and were written in defense of the truth against the pagans and against the heresies of that time: I am speaking of the books of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many others, all of whom call Christ God. Moreover, who is unfamiliar with the works of Irenaeus, Meliton, and others, in which Christ is called both God and man? And how many psalms and hymns were written in ancient times by faithful brothers, which call Christ the Word of God and glorify His divinity!”[619]

5) The Testimonies of the Martyrs. When Emperor Trajan (in A.D. 120) threatened to sacrifice the martyr Symphorosa to his gods if she did not burn incense before them, she replied to her persecutor: “Your gods cannot accept me as a sacrifice; but if I am burned for the name of Christ, my God, then all the more will I consume your demons.”[620] During the martyrdom of Felicia and her seven sons (in 150 AD), the youngest of them, Martial, replied to the torturer: “Oh, if only you knew what punishments await the idolaters! But God is still delaying in revealing His wrath upon you and your idols. For all who do not confess that Christ is the true God will be cast into eternal fire.”[621] The martyr Donata (in the year 200) also said before her torturer: “We pay honor to Caesar, but we pay fear and reverence to Christ, the true God.”[622] The martyr Peter (in the year 200), though still a youth, when urged to offer a sacrifice to a certain pagan goddess, replied: “No, I must offer a sacrifice of prayer, heartfelt contrition, and praise to Christ, the living and true God, the King of all ages.”[623]

External evidence of the ancient Church’s belief in the divinity of Christ the Savior includes:

1) Testimonies from certain pagans and Jews. Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan that Christians have the custom, as soon as day breaks, of gathering together and singing a hymn of praise to Christ as God.[624] Emperor Hadrian, in his letter to Servianus, says of the Alexandrians that some of them worship Serapis, while others worship Christ.[625] Lucan reproaches Christians for bestowing divine honor and worship upon a man crucified in Palestine, and for having abandoned all the gods of Greece for his sake.[626] Celsus mocked the Christian belief that God Himself came into the world to redeem humanity, that God was born and crucified, and claimed that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation implies that God had changed.[627] Other pagans leveled exactly the same accusations against the Christians.[628] The Jew Tryphon, in the well-known work of Justin the Martyr, acknowledges as unbelievable and impossible (άπιστον καί άδύνατον), contrary to Christian teaching, that God could have become a human being (Dialogue with Tryphon II. 68). Another Jew, in the equally well-known work by Origen Against Celsus, objects, asking why Christ fled to Egypt when it is unbecoming for God to fear death, and whether the great God was truly unable to preserve His own Son (τόν ‘ίδιον ϋιόν).[629] It is also noteworthy that when Saint Polycarp died a martyr’s death, the Jews earnestly pleaded with the proconsul not to hand over the martyr’s body to the Christians, expressing the fear that the Christians, having abandoned the Crucified One, might begin to deify (σέβεσθαι) the new sufferer;[630] Consequently, it was known to the Jews that Christians revered Christ as God.

2) The Voice of the Heretics. We refer, on the one hand, to the Nazarenes and Docetists, who emerged from the very beginning of Christianity and who undoubtedly believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, yet were not subjected to the slightest condemnation by the Church for this; on the contrary, the Church condemned the latter precisely because, while believing only in the divinity of the Savior, they denied His human nature and attributed to Him only an imaginary, phantom body, since they considered it unworthy of God to be clothed in the coarse flesh of a human being.[631] On the other hand, we are referring to the Arians, who rejected the divinity of the Word, or more precisely, we are referring to the manner in which they defended their false teaching. It is well known that, as soon as this heresy arose, the Orthodox pastors, in refuting it, constantly pointed, among other things, to the authority of the earlier Fathers, while the Arians evaded this in every way, limiting themselves solely to an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture.

“They do not want,” said Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the first to denounce Arius, “anyone from the ancients to be compared to them, or those who were our teachers in our youth... They call themselves the wisest of all, present themselves as the inventors of dogmas, and boast that only to them have such truths been revealed—truths that had never even occurred to any mortal before.”[632]

Thus, the Arians felt that Christian antiquity did not support their position, and they themselves acknowledged that they were the inventors of their false doctrine. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, in his book on the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, after citing numerous testimonies from the ancient Fathers, addresses the Arians with the following words: “We have shown how this doctrine (of the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father) was handed down from the Fathers to the Fathers—but you, new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, which Fathers can you present to support your claims? But you are unable to name a single wise and right-thinking one—for they all turn away from you.”[633]

We cannot pass over in silence yet another instance presented by subsequent history. When Emperor Theodosius, wishing to put an end to the disputes between the Orthodox and various Arian sects concerning the divinity of the Son of God, convened the bishops of all these sects together with the Orthodox at a council, and , on the advice of Patriarch Nectarius, asked the Arian representatives in advance whether they wished, in order to definitively resolve the question of whose side the truth lay, to call upon the ancient and venerable pastors of the Church as witnesses and to be satisfied with their judgment—at which point these representatives did not know how to respond, were divided among themselves into different opinions, and began to argue; and the emperor clearly saw that they did not agree with his proposal at all; and therefore decided on another course of action, demanding that each sect present to him its written creed.[634]

After such a wealth of internal and external evidence—and especially the testimony of the pastors and teachers of the Church regarding the true faith of the entire ancient Church in the divinity of the Lord Jesus— no right-thinking person will, without a doubt, be led astray if, in the writings of the latter, he occasionally encounters some inaccuracies or ambiguities in the detailed exposition of this supreme dogma, or if he encounters passages in which, as in Holy Scripture itself, the Son is presented as lesser than the Father, second to the Father, merely the executor of His will, and so on. Everything we have noted regarding such passages in Holy Scripture (§ 33), and what we have said previously regarding similar inaccuracies and ambiguities in the teachings of those very same ancient pastors on the Trinity of Persons in God within the unity of essence (§ 28), all of this is fully applicable in the present case as well and serves to dispel misunderstandings of every kind.

§ 35. Evidence from Holy Scripture of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son.

The divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son is proven from Holy Scripture in the same way as the divinity of the Son. Holy Scripture attributes to the Holy Spirit:

1) Divine titles. This is evident:

a) From the direct utterances of the Word of God. The psalmist, speaking of himself: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks through me, and His word is on my tongue.” “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said of me” (2 Kings 23:2–3), and in this way explains whom he means by the name “the Spirit of the Lord” (cf. Ps. 84:9). The Apostle Peter expressed the same idea even more clearly when he rebuked Ananias: “Ananias! Why have you allowed Satan to put it into your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds from the sale of the land?… You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). The meaning of his words is this: when Ananias, having withheld part of the proceeds from the sale of his field, decided to conceal his deed from the Apostles as if they were mere men (he withheld part of the proceeds, with his wife’s knowledge, and brought a portion of it and laid it at the Apostles’ feet, v. 2), — then the chief among the Apostles, admonishing the guilty man, said: “No, you have not lied to us, but to the Holy Spirit who dwells in us; you have not deceived people, but you thought to deceive God.”[635] And let us not forget that by the name of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles, in the strict sense, we must understand the Person as another Comforter, whom the Savior sent to them in His stead, and who guided them into all truth, spoke through their lips, and directed their actions in the field of apostolic ministry (John 14:16, 26; 16:13).[636]

b) From a comparison of various passages of Holy Scripture. Thus—

a) the sacred Chronicler testifies that the Most High Himself guided the Israelites in the wilderness: “So the Lord alone led them” (Deut. 32:12); and the prophet Isaiah explains that it was precisely the Holy Spirit who guided them: “He put His Holy Spirit in their hearts…” The Spirit of the Lord led them to rest (Isa. 63:14; cf. v. 11);

b) The psalmist says that the Israelites in the wilderness continued to sin against Him and provoke the Most High in the wilderness (Ps. 77:17–18, 40–41), just as God Himself declares through the mouth of the psalmist : “In the wilderness, where your fathers tested Me, where they put Me to the test, and saw My works” (Ps. 94:8–9); and the Prophet Isaiah himself explains that the Israelites grieved His Holy Spirit in the wilderness (63:10), and the Apostle Paul notes that “just as the Holy Spirit says… in the wilderness… where your fathers tested Me, put Me to the test, and saw My works for forty years (Heb. 3:7–9);

c) the holy Apostle Paul calls believers the temple of God: “Do you not know that you are God’s (Θεού) temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16), and a little later he calls them the temple of the Holy Spirit: Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, whom you have received from God? (1 Cor. 6:19);[637]

d) The Apostle Peter testifies that prophecy was never produced by human will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21), and the Apostle Paul says that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). “Why, then,” asks St. Basil the Great, “is the Holy Spirit not God, if His Scripture is inspired by God?”[638]

2) Divine nature, equality, and consubstantiality with the Father and the Son.

a) Divine nature. “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). “With the words, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ notes Blessed Theodoret, the Savior testified that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, and He did not say, ‘will proceed’ or ‘will come into being,’ but ‘proceeds,’ in order to show that Their nature is one and the same, that Their essence is indivisible and inseparable, and that the Persons are united with one another. For that which proceeds cannot be separated from that from which it proceeds.”[639]

b) Equality with the Father and the Son. This is evident:

aa) from the commandment regarding baptism: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), where the Holy Spirit is placed on an entirely equal footing with the Father and the Son;[640]

bb) From the words of the Holy Apostle: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord; there are different kinds of working, but the same God, who works all things in all.” But to each is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good... yet all these things are brought about by the one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually as He wills (1 Cor. 12:4–7 and 11), where the work of the Holy Spirit is placed entirely on a par with the work of the Lord Jesus and God the Father;[641]

(c) from a comparison of various passages of Scripture that mention all three Divine Persons, but in different orders, so that sometimes the name of the Father comes first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third (Matt. 28:19); sometimes the Father’s name is first, the Holy Spirit’s second, and the Son’s third (1 Pet. 1:2); sometimes the Son’s name is first, the Father’s second, and the Holy Spirit’s third (2 Cor. 13:13), and sometimes, finally, the Holy Spirit is first, the Son second, and the Father third (1 Cor. 12:4–6)—which further demonstrates their equality in dignity.[642]

c) Of the same substance as the Father and the Son. The passages supporting this idea are 1 John 5:7; Isaiah 6:1–10; cf. John 12:40–41 and Acts 28:25–27; Acts 9:15; 22:10, 14; 13:2; and especially 1 Cor. 2:10–12,[643] , which we have already discussed (in § 27). Here we will merely point out:

aa) the Apostle’s words: “You do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, provided that the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” 10 “And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness” (Rom. 8:9–10), where the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, undoubtedly because of the unity of Their essence, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers is presented as the indwelling of Christ Himself in them, of course, for the very same reason;[644] and

bb) passages from which it is evident that the Holy Spirit is in inseparable communion with the Father and the Son in being and in action; for example, the Savior says: “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own; “The Father who dwells in Me—He is the one who does the works” (John 14:10), and in another passage: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has certainly come upon you” (Matt. 12:28); He also says: “I can do nothing on My own” (John 5:30); “I have told you everything I heard from My Father” (John 15:15), and a little further on: “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13).

3) Divine attributes, for example:

a) Omniscience: “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13); “He will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you” (John 14:26); The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows what is in a man, except the human spirit that dwells in him? In the same way, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:10–11). For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21; cf. Acts 1:16; 4:25; Luke 2:26, 29).

6) Omnipresent. The idea of this attribute of the Holy Spirit is clearly expressed:

aa) where it is stated that He dwells and works, at the very same time, in the souls of all believing Christians scattered across the face of the earth: “The Spirit of God dwells in you.” But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9, 11, 14, 16, 26–27)—in whom you are being built together into a dwelling place of God by the Spirit (Eph. 2:22; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 12:11, 13); and

bb) in the words of the Wise One, that the Spirit of the Lord fills the universe (Wis. 1:7) and is the all-seeing Spirit who permeates all intelligent, pure, and most subtle spirits (Wis. 7:23), — “that is to say,” notes St. Gregory the Theologian, “as far as I understand, the Spirit that permeates the angelic powers, as well as the prophetic and apostolic powers, at the same time and not in a single place, but present here and there, which signifies its boundlessness.”[645]

c) Omnipotence. This is revealed primarily through the Holy Spirit’s independent and sovereign bestowal of miraculous or extraordinary gifts upon believers: to each is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit; to another, faith, by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing, by the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the ability to distinguish between spirits; to another, various kinds of tongues; and to another, the interpretation of tongues. But all these are produced by one and the same Spirit, who distributes them to each one individually as He wills (1 Cor. 12:7–11).

d) Infinite majesty. We can infer this from the Savior’s words: “Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter how they blaspheme; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:28–29; cf. Matt. 12:31–32).

4) Divine acts, such as:

a) Creation and continuity in the kingdom of grace, or the regeneration of souls: “The Spirit of God created me, and the breath of the Almighty gave me life” (Job 33:4; cf. Ps. 32:6). Unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God... unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5; cf. Titus 3:6).

b) Providence and continuity in the kingdom of grace, or the governance of Christ’s Church. “When You send forth Your Spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:30). Therefore, keep watch over yourselves and over the entire flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased for Himself with His own blood (Acts 20:28; cf. Acts 13:2; 15:28; 16:6–7; 20:23; Eph. 2:22). This includes, in particular, the passages that attribute to the Holy Spirit:

aa) the justification and sanctification of people: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2);

bb) adoption as children of God the Father: “All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.” For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father!” This very Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:14–16);

bb) the bestowal of spiritual gifts upon them: there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord; and there are different kinds of working, but the same God who works all things in all (1 Cor. 12:4–6);

gg) assisting us in all good works: the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words (Rom. 8:26). But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22–23).

c) The working of miracles. Regarding this, St. Basil the Great teaches as follows: “That finger of God (Ex. 8:19), which in Egypt transformed dust into animals, thereby pointing to the original creation of animals, was the Comforter, the Spirit of truth. For, according to the testimony of the three Evangelists, the Lord said to the Jews: ‘If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has certainly come upon you’ (Matt. 12:28), and Luke says that He said: ‘If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the Kingdom of God has certainly come upon you’ (Luke 11:20). Therefore, just as the signs that took place in Egypt through Moses and were wrought by the finger of God, so too are the wondrous signs of God Himself accomplished by the working of the Spirit.” And following this, St. Basil points out that the Holy Spirit is the sovereign dispenser of other miraculous gifts as well—1 Cor. 12:8–11.[646]

5) Divine reverence. For—

a) we are all bound to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), and consequently, we are bound to confess and glorify both the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit;[647]

b) we are all the temple of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in each of us (1 Cor. 6:19); therefore, we must serve Him as the Lord of the temple, as God.

The following two observations are also very important in relation to the truth we are considering:

a) Nowhere in all of Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit called a created being or listed among God’s creations, although there would have been ample opportunity to do so if the sacred writers had truly regarded Him as a created being. For example, the Psalmist repeatedly calls upon all of God’s creatures—heavenly and earthly, angels, powers, the sun, the moon, and others—to glorify God, but he does not say a single word about the Holy Spirit (Ps. 102:20–22; 148:1–13). The Apostle Paul lists the most important of the Son of God’s creations—thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers—but he also says nothing about the Holy Spirit (Col. 1:16). The Apostle Peter testifies that when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of God the Father, the angels, authorities, and powers submitted to Him as God-man (1 Pet. 3:22), but there is not the slightest hint of the Holy Spirit’s submission to Him.

b) The Holy Spirit is placed in exactly the same relationship to Jesus Christ, in the work of our redemption, as God the Father. The Father sanctified His Son and sent Him into the world (John 10:36), and the Savior says of the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted” (Luke 4:18), and the Apostle Peter notes: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38). The Father Himself brought about the Incarnation of His Son: “God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), “who was born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); and concerning the Holy Spirit, it was foretold to the Most Holy Virgin: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The Savior testified about the Father: “The Father who dwells in me—he is the one who does the works” (John 14:10); “The works that I do in My Father’s name—they bear witness about Me” (John 10:25), and concerning the Holy Spirit: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has certainly come upon you” (Matthew 12:28). The Father did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all (Rom. 8:32); the same is attributed to the Holy Spirit when it is said that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God (Heb. 9:14). Is it possible that all such actions would be ascribed to the Holy Spirit in relation to Jesus Christ—the God-Man and equal to God the Father—if the Holy Spirit were not a Divine Person but a creature?

“The divinity of the Spirit is very clearly revealed in Scripture,” says St. Gregory the Theologian, “consider the following: Christ is born—the Spirit precedes Him (Luke 1:35). Christ is baptized—the Spirit bears witness (John 1:33–34). Christ is tempted—the Spirit sustains Him (Matt. 4:1). Christ performs miracles—the Spirit accompanies Him. Christ ascends—the Spirit succeeds Him.”[648]

Some find passages in Holy Scripture that, at first glance, do not support the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit; but such passages are very few, and they are not difficult to interpret. They point, for example, to:

a) the Savior’s words about the Holy Spirit: “He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, that He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). But “the Son, too,” as we say together with St. Basil the Great, “does not speak on His own, but testifies to the Father who sent Me; He has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak (John 12:49)..., not because He learns from the Father, but because whatever the Father speaks, He speaks through the Son in the Spirit.”[649] This depends on the unity of Their essence, the identity of Their will, the indivisibility of Their action, and, together with the fact that the Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit and the first Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son occupies the second place after the Father, and the Holy Spirit the third.

b) Regarding the Savior’s other words: “No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27). But these words do not exclude the Holy Spirit from participating in the knowledge of the Father and the Son, just as the Apostle’s words—“No one knows the mind of the Son except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11)—do not exclude the Father and the Son from participating in the knowledge of God. Wherever two Divine Persons or one are mentioned, there is still no need for all three to be mentioned.

c) Regarding the Apostle’s words: “The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom. 8:26). But in the latter words, the cause is taken instead of the action, and the meaning expressed is not that the Spirit Himself prays or intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words, but rather that He inspires our prayers and stirs up heartfelt groanings within us, as is evident from the first words of this very text: The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray.[650] We see a similar example in the Savior’s statement to the Apostles: “It is not you who will speak, but the Spirit of your Father will speak in you” (Matt. 10:20), that is, the Spirit will inspire you with what to say; He will guide you into all truth.

d) The fact that the Apostle often expresses blessings to Christians from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, without mentioning the Holy Spirit at all (1 Cor. 1:3 and others). However, it is well known that in his second epistle to the Corinthians ( ), the Apostle expresses to them the same blessings from the Holy Spirit as from the Father and the Son: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:13). And who among us has the right to demand that the Apostle always mention all three Divine Persons together?[651]

§ 35. Evidence from Sacred Tradition of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son.

We have already seen, in part, the teaching of the ancient Church—the guardian of the Apostolic tradition—regarding the equality and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, from the testimonies cited to demonstrate her belief in the Trinity of Persons in one God. Specifically: a) from its ancient creeds, in which it taught its children to believe equally in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, sometimes noting regarding the latter that He is the Comforter, who acted in all the saints from the beginning of the world, spoke through the Prophets, and was later sent to the Apostles by the Father, according to the promise of the Lord Jesus; b) from its ancient short doxology, which was always offered equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or together with the Holy Spirit; c) from the ancient evening hymn, which was also always offered in honor of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God; d) from the sacred rite of baptism, which from the very beginning was performed exclusively by the threefold immersion of the person being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; e) from the confessions of the ancient martyrs who died for their faith in the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; f) finally, from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church, who clearly expressed the same truth (see § 28). We will now cite a few more patristic testimonies that are most directly related to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that we are expounding. Thus—

Saint Clement of Rome calls Him the Spirit “holy and righteous, proceeding from the Father;”[652] and therefore distinct from the Father and consubstantial with Him.

Saint Justin speaks on behalf of all Christians whom the pagans accused of impiety: “We are not impious toward the true God, the Father of righteousness...; but we honor and worship (σεβόμεθα καί προσκυνούμεν) Him Himself, the Son who proceeds from Him, and the prophetic Spirit, bestowing this honor upon them in word and truth.”[653] “We place Him (the Son) second in order, and the prophetic Spirit third.”[654]

Tatian: “The spirit that envelops matter is inferior to the pre-divine Spirit, and, being like a soul, should not be placed on an equal footing with the perfect God.”[655]

Saint Irenaeus: “God had no need of angels to create what He intended to create. For He always has the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and with whom He created all things freely and of His own will, to whom He turns when He says, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness.’”[656]

Tertullian: “The Spirit of God is God, and the Word of God is God, because they are from God.”[657]

Saint Hippolytus: “If the Word was with God, and was Himself God: would anyone then say that two gods are meant? I will say that although there are not two gods, but one, there are nevertheless two Persons and a third—the grace of the Holy Spirit. For although there is one Father, there are nevertheless two Persons; for the first Person is the Son, and the third Person is the Holy Spirit : otherwise we cannot acknowledge the one God, truly believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[658] “We worship the Holy Spirit.”[659]

Origen: “Many scriptures teach us about the nature of the Holy Spirit. From all of them we have learned that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit possesses such importance and dignity (tantae auctoritatis et dignitatis esse) that saving baptism cannot be performed except in the name (auctoritate) of the all-surpassing Trinity.”[660] “They (the Apostles) also handed down to us that the Holy Spirit, in honor and dignity, is one with the Father and the Son.”[661] “He always abides with the Father and the Son, and always is, was, and will be, just as the Father and the Son are.”[662]

St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not go unpunished: for the Spirit is God.”[663]

Saint Gregory the Wonderworker: “There is one Holy Spirit, proceeding from God, who appeared through the Son... The Trinity is perfect, indivisible and inseparable in glory, eternity, and kingdom. Therefore, in the Trinity there is nothing created, nothing subservient, and nothing incidental—nothing that did not exist before and nothing that came into being afterward. Neither was the Father ever without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit; but the Trinity is unchanging, immutable, and always one and the same.”[664]

Saint Methodius of Patara: “We believe that in the Son, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:5), who became man for our sake, the Father dwells with the Spirit through their indivisible divinity, consubstantial with Him.”[665] “Neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor the Son the Son, nor the Holy Spirit what He is in His hypostasis, so that no Person of the Trinity can be deprived of either eternity, communion (with the other Persons), or the kingdom.”[666]

In general, however, the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church who lived before the fourth century (for we limit ourselves here only to them, considering it superfluous to cite the testimonies of the Fathers of the fourth century, when entire extensive treatises were written on the divinity of the Holy Spirit and this dogma was definitively affirmed at an Ecumenical Council)—attributed to the Holy Spirit:

a) Divine attributes: eternity,[667] omnipresence,[668] omniscience,[669] self-holiness,[670] and others;

b) Divine actions: creation,[671] providence,[672] in particular the inspiration of the Prophets,[673] the sanctification of people,[674] the bestowal of grace upon them,[675] and dwelling in the souls of believers;[676]

c) perfect equality and consubstantiality with the Father and the Son,[677] and—

d) divine worship.[678]

Finally, regarding certain inaccuracies in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as well as in the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in general, which are sometimes found in the writings of the earliest pastors of the Church, we have already expressed our observations on this matter (§28), and it would be superfluous to repeat them.

§ 37. The Moral Implications of the Dogma.

We believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but not as three gods, but as one God. From this, we derive two main moral lessons.

1) All three Persons of the Godhead are equal to one another: consequently, we must render equal divine worship to all of Them, honor the Son just as we honor the Father, and honor the Holy Spirit no less than we honor the Father and the Son. To reject or belittle any of the Divine Persons is to overthrow the faith in Christ within oneself.

“I assure every person,” wrote St. Basil the Great, “who confesses Christ but denies God that Christ will not be pleased with him, just as He is not pleased with one who calls upon God but rejects the Son; for his faith is vain. I also assure the one who rejects the Spirit that faith in the Father and the Son will prove futile for him, and that he cannot have this faith unless the Spirit is present. For whoever does not believe in the Spirit does not believe in the Son; and whoever does not believe in the Son does not believe in the Father. No one can call Jesus “Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). And: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (John 1:18). Whoever does not believe in the Spirit has no part in true worship. For one cannot worship the Son except in the Holy Spirit, and one cannot call upon the Father except in the Spirit of sonship.”[679]

“Imagine,” said another holy teacher, “that the Trinity is a single pearl, appearing the same and shining equally from every angle: if any part of this pearl were damaged, the stone would lose all its beauty. When you dishonor the Son in order to honor the Father, the Father does not accept your honor. The Father will not be glorified by the dishonoring of the Son. If a wise son brings joy to his father (Prov. 10:1), then all the more so, will not the son’s honor also be an honor to the father? And if you accept this as well: “It is no glory to you to dishonor your father” (Sirach 3:10), then, consequently, the father will not be glorified by the dishonor of the son. If you dishonor the Holy Spirit, then the Son does not accept your honor either, for although the Spirit is not from the Father as the Son is, He is nevertheless from the same Father.”[680]

2) All three Persons of the Godhead are consubstantial and indivisible among themselves: consequently, we must worship Them with a single, undivided worship, and, while worshiping each of Them—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—we must constantly keep in mind Their common divinity. May none of us resemble those Christians whom St. Gregory the Theologian called “excessively orthodox,” and who, instead of honoring only the three Persons in the one God, honored and confessed three separate gods.[681] The Holy Church, which alone can teach us both true knowledge of God and true worship of God, provides us with the most reliable guidance in this matter: it contains hymns and prayers addressed separately to God the Father, to God the Son, and to God the Holy Spirit; but the majority of the other prayers and hymns, the conclusions of almost all prayers, the exclamations, and the doxologies are addressed indiscriminately to all three Persons in the one Godhead. Thus, when reciting the first evening prayer to God the Father: “Eternal God and King of all creation...,” the Orthodox Christian concludes it by saying: “for Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen;” and then, when reading the second prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ: “Almighty One, Word of the Father, Jesus Christ, who art perfect in Thyself…,”—at the conclusion of which he says: “for Thou art glorified with Thy Father without beginning, and with the Most Holy Spirit, forever and ever, amen;” and then reciting the third prayer to the Most Holy Spirit: “O Lord, King of Heaven, Comforter, Spirit of Truth...”—and concludes it by saying: “and I will worship, and sing, and glorify Your most pure Name, together with the Father and His only-begotten Son, now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen.” And it must be remembered that whenever the Church addresses all three Persons of the Godhead together, she addresses Them not as three, but as the one triune God, and always invokes Them in the singular “ ,” not in the plural, for example: “For all the heavenly powers praise You (not ‘You all’), and to You (not ‘You all’) we send up glory, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages, Amen,” or: “For Thine (not Yours) is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, Amen.”

3. On the Distinction Among the Divine Persons According to Their Personal Attributes.

§ 38. Connection to the previous section; a brief history of the dogma and the Church’s teaching on it.

The idea of the equality and consubstantiality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is but one of the ideas that flow from the Christian doctrine of the three Persons in God within the unity of essence—and by examining it in detail, we have learned only what the Divine Persons have in common and in what sense They are one. Another concept arising from this same doctrine necessarily requires that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the three Persons of the Godhead, also possess their own distinctive characteristics by which they differ from one another—otherwise, They would not be three, and we would inevitably confuse Them with one another. These distinctive characteristics of the Divine Persons have from ancient times been called in the Church the personal attributes of God ([682] ) and consist in the fact that the Father is begotten by no one, but Himself begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit; the Son is begotten by the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The ancient teachers of the Church used the word “unbegotten,” άγεννησία, innativitas,[683] to express the personal property of the Father, and called Him “beginningless,” άναρχος [684] “without cause,” αναίτιος,[685] and, in relation to the other Persons, “the Beginning,” άρχή, principium,[686] the cause, άιτία, causa,[687] the author, auctor,[688] while in relation to the Son Himself—the Father, Πατήρ, Pater, and in relation to the Holy Spirit—the Begetter, Προβολεύς.[689] They denoted the personal attribute of the Son with the word “begotten”—γέννησις, generatio,[690] and sometimes by more general terms indicating only that the Son has his being from the Father, such as: προβολή, prolatio, processio, derivatio, άπορροία, signatura,[691] and the verbs: προπηδάν, έκλάμπειν, άναλάμπειν, and the like;[692] The Son Himself was called the Son and the Child of God, the Image of the Father, His Word, Wisdom, Will, and Right Hand—[693] , and so on. Finally, to denote a personal attribute of the Holy Spirit, they used the word “ekporeusis”—έκπόρευσις, έκπόρευμα, processio, πρόοδος, προβολή, πρόβλημα,[694] —and the verbs: έκπορεύεσθαι, προσελθεϊν, προϊέναι;[695] The Holy Spirit Himself was called—the Image of the Father, Wisdom, the Finger of God, and so on.[696] How the Son is begotten by the Father and what this begetting consists of— —is, as the ancient teachers of the Church said, incomprehensible and inexpressible to us;[697] Of course, “birth” must be understood in a spiritual sense, and one must not assume any physical separation in it.[698] How the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and how “proceeding” differs from “birth”—they considered this equally incomprehensible; but they noted that there is undoubtedly a difference between them, and that they denote two distinct modes of being that must not be confused.[699]

The doctrine of the personal attributes of the Divine Persons remained in this form throughout the Church of Christ for several centuries: it was incorporated, as one of the fundamental dogmas of Orthodoxy, into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, composed in the fourth century and which became the unchanging standard of faith for all Christians. But in the seventh century—or, if we are to believe the testimony of the Latins, as early as the fifth—certain individual teachers in Western Europe began, on occasion, to make erroneous statements regarding the personal property of the Holy Spirit, saying that He proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son—Filioque.[700] One might, however, suppose that they used the word “proceeds” (procedit) here not in the same sense with regard to the Father and the Son, and that they meant specifically the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father and only His temporary proceeding or mission into the world from the Son: at least, this is how a Greek Father of their time, Maximus the Confessor († 662), explained the words of these teachers to reassure the Greeks, who were quick to raise their voices against the Latins’ innovation;[701] and later, one of the Roman writers, Anastasius the Librarian († 890), citing St. Maximus’s explanation.[702] But the seed had been sown, and it soon bore fruit; in the eighth century, the question of the origin of the Holy Spirit became the subject of the most heated debates in the West, and many, no longer distinguishing between the Holy Spirit’s temporary mission to the world and His eternal mode of being, began to assert decisively that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Toward the end of the century, the addition—the *Filioque*—was introduced into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed itself, most likely in Spain.[703] For the renowned Alcuin (d. 804) wrote at that time to the brothers in Lyon, warning them to fear the Spanish innovation and not to allow even the slightest addition to the creed;[704] and Patriarch Paulinus of Aquileia even convened a local council in 791, at which he condemned any such addition.[705] Unfortunately, the voice of the defenders of the truth went unheard. At the beginning of the ninth century (in 809), Emperor Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen (Aquisgrani) to deliberate on the controversial matter, presiding over it personally.[706] The details of what transpired at the council are unknown, because the council’s acts have not survived.[707] It is known only that, thanks to Charlemagne’s personal influence, the party seeking to add the “Filioque” to the creed prevailed, and an embassy was sent from the emperor and the council to Rome to Pope Leo III to ask him to approve the newly devised dogma and permit the addition to the creed. According to an eyewitness account, the envoys first sought, in a lengthy speech, to convince the pope that the doctrine for which they were seeking his approval was true and ancient (what kind of dogma is this, when even the pope himself still needed to be convinced of its truth and antiquity!). The Pope did, in fact, ostensibly agree to the new doctrine, but he resolutely refused to allow it to be included in the creed, despite all the envoys’ persuasion and the fact that, as the envoys claimed, this addition had already been made in some churches.[708] And in order to more clearly demonstrate his prohibition before all and to protect the unaltered standard of faith from any corruption, the pope ordered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed on two silver tablets—one in Greek, the other in Latin—and placed in St. Peter’s Basilica with the inscription: haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae religionis, that is, “I, Leo, have placed this out of love for the Orthodox faith and for its protection.”[709] Despite the pope’s opposition, however, this unauthorized addition to the creed was gradually accepted in various parts of Gaul, Spain, Germany, and Italy, so that when, in the second half of the ninth century, papal missionaries arrived among the Boliars with the aim of turning them away from the See of Constantinople toward that of Rome, these missionaries were already spreading the creed with the “Filioque” addition there as well. It was then that Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, raised his bold voice for the first time, in defense of Orthodoxy, against the abuses of the Latins, and before the whole world rebuked them for the unlawful addition to the Creed, contrary to the rules of the Ecumenical Councils, which he soon (in 866) condemned at a large council of bishops from throughout the East.[710] Pope Nicholas I, instead of submitting to the council’s decision and correcting the error committed out of ignorance, wrote to Archbishop Ginkmar of Reims and other bishops of Gaul, urging them to do everything in their power to prove to the Greeks that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son;[711] and John’s successor, Adrian, having condemned all the decrees of the Council of Photius against the Latins, thereby elevated this heresy to the status of dogma.[712]

The subsequent Pope John VIII, agreeing with Photius, had promised to remove the unlawful insertion from the creed,[713] and the Roman envoys, who shortly thereafter attended the Great Council of Constantinople (879), did indeed sign that decree of his, which once again prohibited forever any additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, or any other changes to it.[714] But the pope, having failed to obtain what he expected from the council—namely, the submission of the Church of Boliar to his authority—did not accept the council’s decrees and did not fulfill his promise, so that the creed with the addition of the Filioque continued to be used in various churches of the West. It is not known exactly when such use of the creed was permitted in Rome itself; but, according to the testimony of Roman writers themselves, it was not before 1014.[715] From that time on, especially after new condemnations by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Kerullarios (in 1053), the Roman Church never again renounced its false dogma, the most significant of all the innovations that separated it from the Ecumenical Church.

In the Middle Ages, certain other distortions of the dogma concerning the personal attributes of God appeared in the West among the Scholastics. Some rejected the very existence of these attributes, without, however, denying the reality of the Divine Persons.[716] Others endeavored to determine from what in God and how the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds, and held, for the most part, that the Son is begotten from the mind of God, while the Spirit proceeds from the will.[717] Still others, with equal effort, sought to explain exactly how the birth of the Son differs from the procession of the Holy Spirit, and why the former must be called a birth while the latter cannot—and in their answers to this, they fell into the most diverse and strange opinions.[718] But all such speculations and subtleties [719] were confined solely to the walls of the school and did not penetrate the life of the Church itself.

Beginning in the 16th century, Protestant communities arose in the West that rejected nearly all the false teachings of papism, though in doing so they also rejected quite a few true ones; but, to everyone’s astonishment, they retained the Roman false dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which they continue to profess to this day.

The Orthodox Church alone has preserved the dogma concerning the personal attributes of God, just as all the others have, in all its original purity and integrity, and teaches: “In one Godhead there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Father, who from before all ages begets the Son from His own essence and proceeds the Holy Spirit; the Son, begotten of the Father before all ages and consubstantial with Him; the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father from all eternity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 9). “Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding—are distinguished within the Godhead as Persons, not as a substance, which is indivisible in itself” (ibid., answer to question 12). And elsewhere: “The distinction between the Persons of the Holy Trinity is that God the Father is not begotten nor proceeds from another Person; the Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father” (Extended Catechism, Art. 1).[720]

§ 39. The Personal Attribute of God the Father.

The teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the personal attribute of God the Father has the firmest foundation in Holy Scripture. This includes:

a) the words of the Savior: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), from which it is evident that the Father did not receive His being from anyone, was not created by anyone, was not begotten, and does not proceed from anyone;

b) all those passages where He is called the Father in relation to the Son—of which there are countless examples—such as: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27); so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:23); or where it is said that He begets the Son: “The Lord said to Me, ‘You are My Son’; I have now begotten You” (Ps. 2:7); “Your birth was like the dew before the dawn” (Ps. 109:3);

c) finally, passages that present the Father as the source in relation to the Holy Spirit as well: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26); we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God (1 Cor. 2:12).

Hence—

a) it becomes clear why the Father, in the order of the Divine Persons, usually occupies the first place (Matt. 28:19) and is called the first Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, or, as the ancients sometimes referred to Him, the God-self, the First God, the Primordial God, and so on;[721]

b) it is also clear that in God there is only one source of Divinity, the Father—a teaching frequently reiterated by the ancient teachers and still proclaimed by the Orthodox Church today: for the Son and the Holy Spirit derive their being from Him alone;[722]

c) finally, it is clear that the Father serves, as it were, as the bond and unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, who, though one in essence, are distinct as Persons: for the Son and the Holy Spirit, receiving their origin from Him, are also raised up to Him alone as their Cause. “One nature in Three,” writes St. Gregory the Theologian; “one—God; unity—the Father, from whom the Others proceed and to whom They are raised, not merging with Him but coexisting with Him, and undivided among Themselves by time, will, or power.”[723]

And in order to correctly understand the personal attribute of God the Father, one must remember the observations of the ancient teachers of the Church that He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit:

a) in a wholly spiritual manner, and therefore without any suffering, without any sensory separation, because the divine nature is immaterial and simple;[724]

b) He begets and proceeds from eternity and eternally: for there was no time when the Father was not the Father of the Son and the Producer of the Holy Spirit, just as there was no time when He was not God; and what never had a beginning cannot be said to have an end;[725]

c) begets and proceeds in a way known only to Him alone, and to the One begotten by Him and the One proceeding from Him, while none of the created beings can comprehend it;[726]

d) finally, that eternity and causelessness are attributed exclusively to God the Father only in relation to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, whereas in terms of Divinity, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal and causeless; or rather, the entire Holy Trinity is co-eternal and co-causal.[727]

§ 40. The Personal Attribute of God the Son.

The teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the personal attributes of God the Son also has equally firm foundations in Holy Scripture. For He is very often referred to here as:

a) the Son of God the Father, for example: “The Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He Himself does… For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills” (John 5:20–21; cf. 14:13; 17:1; Matt. 11:27);

b) The Only-Begotten Son: For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 1:14), and moreover—

c) One who abides in the very bosom of the Father: No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the Father’s bosom, He has made Him known (John 1:18);

d) the true Son: We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20);

e) His own Son: “He who did not spare His own Son (ίδίου), but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32)? It would be superfluous to prove that, both in these and in all other passages of Holy Scripture, the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God in the literal sense, and not in any figurative sense, since we already know that the sacred books attribute to Him both the divine nature, divine attributes, and consubstantiality with the Father and the Holy Spirit (§ 33).

In defending this doctrine concerning the personal nature of God the Son against various perverse interpretations by heretics, the ancient pastors of the Church sought to clarify the following points:

1) The Son is begotten from the essence or nature of the Father, and not from nowhere (out of nowhere), nor from nothing.[728] This—

a) follows from the very concept of birth: “Birth consists in the fact that the one born is produced from the essence of the one who gives birth, being similar in essence; just as in creation and formation, on the contrary, the created and formed come from outside, and not from the essence of the one who creates and forms;”[729] and—

b) is confirmed by the clear words of Scripture: “Your birth was like the dew, from the womb before the dawn” (Ps. 109:3). “If—from the womb—then the question arises: can we really believe that the Son was born from nothing?”[730] “This does not mean that God has a womb; but since true, and not false, offspring are usually born from the womb of their parents, God designated Himself as having a womb in His birth, to put the ungodly to shame, so that they, even by reflecting on their own nature, might recognize that the Son is the true fruit of the Father, as proceeding from His womb.”[731]

2) However, although the Son is born of the very essence of the Father, this is not such that anything is separated from the Father’s essence in the process, or that the Father is deprived of anything, or that the Son has any deficiency: no— “the indivisible God begot the Son without division,”[732] “He begot Wisdom, yet He Himself was not left without wisdom; He begot Power, yet He did not grow weak; He begot God, yet He Himself was not deprived of divinity, nor did He lose anything, nor was He diminished, nor did He change: likewise, the Begotten has no deficiency whatsoever. Perfect is the One who begot, perfect is the One begotten. God is the One who begot, and God is the One begotten.”[733] Or, to give a close analogy: the Son was begotten of the Father, as light is from light.[734]

3) The birth of the Son of God is an eternal birth, and therefore it never began and never ended.[735] That is why God the Father Himself says to the Son in one passage: “Before the dawns, Your birth was like the dew” (Ps. 109:3), that is, He begot Him before all ages, without beginning,[736] and in another: “I have now begotten You” (Ps. 2:7), that is, He begot Him only now, or begets Him eternally.[737] For this reason, in other passages of Scripture, the terms are used interchangeably—both that God spoke the Word, who is the Son, and that God speaks the Word; or, in other words, that the Son was born of the Father and that the Son is born of the Father.[738] However, in order to express this eternal birth of the Son—which is incomprehensible to us—in a way closer to our ordinary concepts, it is far better to say that the Son was born of the Father eternally than to say that the Son is eternally being born; for that which is being born has not yet been born, whereas the Son has already been born.[739]

4) Finally, we must remember that the Son was begotten by the Father but did not separate from Him—or, in other words, was begotten inseparably (άδιαστατως). That is why He is called “the only Son in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18) and “abiding in the Father” (John 10:38).

“Just as fire and the light that comes from it,” says St. John of Damascus, “exist together—the fire does not come first and then the light, but fire and light together, — and just as light is always born of fire, and always abides in it and is in no way separated from it—so the Son is born of the Father, never being separated from Him, but always existing in Him. Only the light that is born of fire, without being separated from it, and which always abides in it, has no independent existence (ύπόσασιν) apart from fire (because light is a natural quality of fire); on the contrary, the only-begotten Son of God, born inseparably and indivisibly from the Father and always abiding in Him, has His own Hypostasis, distinct from the Father’s Hypostasis.”[740]

§ 41. The Personal Attribute of God the Holy Spirit.

Preliminary Remarks. As we begin to expound the doctrine of the personal nature of God the Holy Spirit—that is, His proceeding from the Father—let us first note:

1) that this doctrine constitutes the most important of the distinctive dogmas distinguishing our Orthodox Church from the Roman Church and Protestant denominations, all of which believe and teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. Therefore, it deserves our special attention.

2) To ensure clarity of concepts when expounding this doctrine, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit—which constitutes His personal attribute proper—and His temporary outpouring upon creatures or His mission into the world, which does not pertain to the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit itself, but is something external and transitory, and is attributed to both the Holy Spirit and the Son (John 16:28–29).

When the Orthodox Church affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, contrary to the teaching of Western Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly from the Son as well, it refers specifically only to the eternal and Hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. As for His temporal procession, however, the Orthodox, in complete agreement with Western Christians, believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds—that is, is sent into the world—not only from the Father but also from the Son, or more precisely, through the Son.[741]

3) In order to maintain complete impartiality in resolving this issue, which has been the subject of centuries-long disputes between the Christian East and West, we will endeavor to present, as briefly as possible, the arguments not only for the Orthodox teaching on the personal nature of the Holy Spirit but also for the non-Orthodox view, and to present both as if face to face: so that, by comparing them with one another, everyone may see and decide on which side the truth lies.

§ 42. An Examination of the Question of the Origin of the Holy Spirit Based on Holy Scripture.

I. Is there direct and clear evidence in Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

Yes, and it is, moreover, direct and clear in the highest degree. It is found in the following words of the Savior to the Apostles: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father (τό πνεύμα τής άληθείας, ό παρά τού πατρός έκπορεύεται), He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). But does the expression “who proceeds from the Father” truly signify the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit, rather than a temporary mission to the world? Precisely so; and this is

1) is revealed by the purpose for which these words were spoken. The entire discourse (John 14:16) in which they are found was directed by the Savior primarily toward comforting His disciples in their impending separation from Him. To this end, He makes a promise to His disciples to send the Holy Spirit to them in His place, and first calls the promised One another Comforter, who will abide with them forever (14:16), then as the Spirit of truth, who will teach them all things and remind them of everything they have heard from their divine Teacher (17:26), and then adds that this future Comforter, this Spirit of Truth, is not some created being, but proceeds from the Father—that is, has eternal existence from God—and is therefore a Divine Person (15:26): an addition absolutely necessary for the purpose. Without Him, the Apostles’ consolation could not have been complete; for only now could they be convinced that their future Guide, as a Divine Person, was truly able to replace for them the One from whom they were about to be separated, and whom they recognized as the true Son of God, the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16; John 16:30). This was all the more necessary because, although the Savior had often spoken to the Apostles about the Holy Spirit, He had never yet explained to them who the Holy Spirit actually is and what His personal dignity is.

2) This is evident from the very combination and arrangement of the words cited. If we agree that the expression “who proceeds from the Father” does not refer to the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit, but only to a temporary mission to the world, then in that case, first of all, we must accept a strange equating in the Savior’s words—this text would have to be read as follows: “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send from the Father—the Spirit of truth, who is sent by the Father—He will bear witness about Me.” Second, it would become unclear why the verb “proceeds” is used in the present tense when speaking of the future mission of the Holy Spirit, especially since the Savior had previously referred to this very mission in the future tense when testifying about the Father: “He will give you another Comforter” (John 14:16), or: “Whom the Father will send in My name” (26), and about Himself: “Whom I will send to you from the Father” (15:26). Meanwhile, while taking it as certain that the passage under consideration speaks of the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit, we find neither an identity in the Savior’s words nor anything incomprehensible in the verb “proceeds”; on the contrary, this verb must be in the present tense in order to even approximately denote the eternal—that is, the unceasing and unchanging—proceeding of the Holy Spirit, just as the Savior used the verb in the present tense to denote His own eternity, saying: “Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58).

3) Finally, this is indisputably confirmed by the voice of all Christian antiquity, which consistently saw in the Savior’s words, “Who proceeds from the Father?”—the idea of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. It suffices here to recall that these words were understood in precisely this sense not only by the most renowned teachers of the Church—Basil the Great,[742] Gregory the Theologian,[743] John Chrysostom, and others,[744] but also by the entire Ecumenical Council (the Second), which incorporated these words into the Creed.

II. Is there direct and clear evidence in Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son?

There is not a single one. People attempt to derive this doctrine from various passages of the Word of God only through reasoning and interpretation. To this end:

1) they argue that the very words “who proceeds from the Father” by no means exclude the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son; on the contrary, they even imply this idea: because the Father and the Son are one in essence, and whatever the Father has, the Son also has.[745] Can such reasoning be accepted? Absolutely not:

a) The Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, are indeed one in essence; but They differ from one another as Persons, and whatever the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has—with the exception of personal attributes, which are incommunicable: otherwise, we would fall into Sabellianism and conflate the Divine Hypostases. And when it is said that the Father begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit, the Father is understood precisely as a Person with His own personal attribute, distinct from both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, when it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the name “Father” cannot in any way be understood to include the Son, who is one with the Father in essence but not in person.[746] If—

b) we assume that the words “who proceeds from the Father” do not exclude, but rather imply, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well, because the Son is one with the Father in essence, then we must also assume that the words “is begotten by the Father” do not exclude, but rather imply, the begetting of the Son by the Holy Spirit: for the Spirit is also one with the Father in essence. Moreover, we must admit that the Son, being begotten by the Father, is also begotten by Himself, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, also proceeds from Himself: because They are one with the Father in essence, and moreover, all are coeternal.[747] Finally—

c) if we examine the very structure of the statement containing the words: “Who proceeds from the Father,” we will be even more convinced of the groundlessness of the reasoning under consideration. Comforting His disciples before His ascension into heaven, the Savior promises to send them the Holy Spirit in His place, and He attributes this sending to both the Father and Himself: “Whom I will send” (15:26; cf. 14:26)—but as soon as He begins to speak of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding, He refers only to the Father, without so much as a hint of Himself. Why then, we ask with Mark of Ephesus, having mentioned Himself so closely and having attributed the sending of the Holy Spirit to both Himself and the Father, did the Lord not also speak of the proceeding: “Who proceeds from Us?”[748] Is it not clear, then, that He distinguishes between what belongs to both of Them in relation to the Holy Spirit and what belongs to the Father alone?

To assert, as some do, that when Christ said, “Who proceeds from the Father,” He meant both the Father and Himself as the Son is entirely arbitrary: for why, then, in the very same discourse, when speaking of the sending of the Holy Spirit, did Christ not limit Himself to such a turn of phrase? On the contrary, He spoke separately of the Father: “Whom the Father will send,” and about Himself: “Whom I will send”?[749]

2) They focus on this last statement of the Savior: “Whom I will send…,” and conclude: if the Spirit is sent by the Son, then, consequently, He proceeds from Him; for otherwise the Son could not send the Spirit.[750] But again, this is a line of reasoning that cannot be accepted outright. The idea that, within the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, the sending of one Person by another necessarily implies that the one sent proceeds from the one who sends has—

a) the slightest basis in Holy Scripture—on the contrary, it is even contrary to it: for Scripture says that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit, and not by the Father alone (Isa. 48:16; 61:1; Luke 14:18), whereas the eternal begetting of the Son is attributed exclusively to the Father and nowhere to the Holy Spirit.[751]

b) It contradicts the theology of the ancient, renowned teachers of the Church, who explain this mission quite differently when they say that the Son sends the Holy Spirit and is Himself sent by Him, precisely because of the unity of Their essence and their mutual communion or participation in one another’s actions [752] — the most natural explanation! For the three Persons of the Godhead, apart from their personal attributes, share everything else in common, and, most importantly, by virtue of the unity of their essence, they share a single will and act inseparably. Therefore, when one Person acts preeminently, the other two necessarily participate in His action; when the Son of God comes into the world for the redemption of humanity, it is stated simultaneously that He is sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit; when the Holy Spirit subsequently comes to sanctify humanity, the participation of the Father and the Son is expressed by the fact that both are presented as sending Him; and since Scripture does not attribute any particular action in the world to the Father, it is not surprising that He is not also called the One sent by the Son and the Holy Spirit.[753] In general, it must be remembered that—

c) the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit into the world, being temporal, pertains to God’s external activity—and all external activity is common to the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. That is why some of the ancient teachers of the Church stated that the Son, sent into the world by the Father and the Holy Spirit, is sent also from Himself; just as the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son, is sent also from Himself.[754] It is possible, however, to point out—

d) a specific reason why the Son sends the Holy Spirit into the world. It lies in the fact that the Son, as the Redeemer of the world, has acquired through His merits before the face of God’s eternal justice the inestimable right to bestow upon people the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit for the regeneration and sanctification of sinners: that is why the Holy Spirit’s mission to earth is established in accordance with the glorification of Jesus Christ, which followed the completion of His great work: the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them, because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39).

3) They point to the following words in the Savior’s same discourse to the Apostles: “I have much more to say to you, but you cannot bear it now.” But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; that is why I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you (John 16:12–15). Here they focus, first, on the expression “He will take what is Mine,” and say: “from Mine,” that is, from Me; “He will take,” that is, it will come from Me; and second, on the words: “All that the Father has is Mine,” and they reason: if everything the Father has, the Son also has, and the Father, among other things, has the attribute that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him—therefore, the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son.[755] But such an interpretation and such reasoning:

a) are completely contrary to the structure of the passage. According to the structure of the passage, the meaning of the Savior’s words cited is clearly as follows: “I have not yet taught you many truths, because you are not yet able to understand them. But when the Spirit of truth comes, whom I have promised you, He will make up for this deficiency in My place and guide you into all truth. He will make up for this lack in My place: for He will not teach some new doctrine of His own, different from Mine; for He will not speak on His own authority, but will speak what He hears; on the contrary, He will continue the very same teaching that I taught: He will take from Mine and proclaim it to you. And since I have told you before that My teaching is not My own, but that of the One who sent Me (John 7:16; cf. 14:10, etc.), so that my present words may be clear to you, I will add that everything the Father has is Mine—that is why I said: ‘The Holy Spirit will take what is Mine and declare it to you.’”[756]

Consequently, the words “He will take what is Mine” and then “Everything the Father has is Mine” refer exclusively to the teaching that the Son—who came to earth to fulfill the Father’s will for the salvation of humanity—received from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit—as the Son’s successor on earth in this same great work—was to receive from the Son. And the expression, “He will take what is Mine and declare it to you,” should not be understood to mean, “The Holy Spirit will borrow from Me what He did not previously know or possess”—for the Spirit, as God, has known and possessed all things from eternity;[757] but rather: “He will continue My teaching after Me, and not some other teaching; He will remind you of everything I have told you (John 14:26), ‘and He will complete, in My stead, what I would still like to tell you, but which you cannot understand at present.’”[758] Why is that? Because “We are one with Him in essence; we possess the same wisdom and knowledge, and the same indivisible action”—this is how the ancient teachers of the Church explained it.[759] If, however—

b) Some of them, in the words “he will take from Mine,” saw the idea of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, yet they understood it entirely differently from how Western Christians wish to understand it today. “He (Christ) said: ‘He will take from what is Mine,’ that is, from My Father,” writes St. Athanasius the Great, “for He added: ‘All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that He will take from what is Mine and declare it to you.’”[760] Blessed Augustine expresses this even more clearly: “And what (Christ) said about the Holy Spirit—‘He will take from what is Mine’—resolves the question itself, lest anyone think that the Spirit is, as it were, at some distance from Him, just as He Himself is from the Father, when both are from the Father—one is born, the other proceeds (cum ambo de Patre, ille nascatur, iste procedat). Therefore, I say, so that they might not think this, He immediately added: ‘All that the Father has is Mine’; that is why I said that He will take from Mine. He undoubtedly wished to be understood as meaning that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “ .”[761] This same interpretation of the text was later adopted by Alcuin or Albin [762] —famous in the West—as well as by other writers, both Western and Eastern.[763]

Let us now turn to the details. If—

c) the expression “will take from Mine”—meaning: will derive eternal existence from Me, proceeds from Me—then the question arises: why is the verb “will take” in the future tense, just as the verb “will glorify” immediately preceding it is, and the verb “will proclaim” following it? Was the Holy Spirit not already proceeding from the Son at the time He was speaking with the Apostles, but was only about to proceed after His ascension into heaven? To assert that the verb “will take” expresses the past or the present is to assert that the other two verbs—“will glorify” and “will proclaim,” which are inseparably linked to it—also express the past or the present; but this would be a complete distortion of the meaning of the passage.[764] If, however, we were to assume—without any basis, mind you—that the verb “will take” alone denotes the present, while the other two denote the future, then we would encounter a new distortion of the meaning of the statement. The Savior’s words would have to be understood as follows: “The Holy Spirit will glorify Me, because it is from Me that He comes, and will proclaim it to you.” What, then, will He proclaim?...

This leads to even greater inconsistencies—

d) the reasoning of dissenters, who, taking the Savior’s words without any qualification—“All that the Father has is Mine”—say: “But the Father has the attribute of proceeding from the Holy Spirit; therefore, so does the Son.” For one could just as easily reason: “The Father also has the attribute of not being begotten; therefore, so does the Son: The Father also has the attribute of begetting the Son; therefore, so does the Son...” On the other hand, since the Son Himself said to the Father, “All that is Mine is Yours” (John 17:10), and the Son has the attribute of being begotten by the Father—must we conclude from this that the Father also possesses that attribute? The Incarnation belongs to the Son; does that mean it also belongs to the Father?.. The only way to resolve all these inconsistencies is to interpret the Savior’s words—“All that the Father has is Mine”—with a qualification. The Son does indeed have everything that the Father has in essence and divinity, just as the Father has everything that the Son has, but with the exception of personal attributes. This is precisely how the ancient and renowned teachers of the Church understood this saying: they taught that this saying points specifically to the unity of the nature of the Father and the Son, denoting Their essential attributes and, in general, everything that is common between Them,[765] but by no means does it denote Their distinctive attributes.[766] Therefore, it was reasoned that whatever the Father has, not only the Son has, but the Holy Spirit also has.[767] Consequently, they did not and could not have intended to draw from these words of the Savior—as is done today—a conclusion regarding the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; otherwise, one would have to admit that the Fathers believed that He proceeds from Himself.

It should be noted that the arguments examined regarding the Western doctrine of the personal nature of the Holy Spirit—especially the last one—are recognized by those of a different opinion as the most important. The others are considered less compelling and therefore deserve less attention. Thus, they attempt to conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally—

4) From the Apostle’s words to the Galatians: “But because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Gal. 4:6), reasoning: “The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20), undoubtedly because He proceeds from Him; consequently, He is also called the Spirit of the Son for the very same reason.” But—

a) it is not necessary that what is attributed to different Persons be attributed to them for exactly the same reason. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father both because He is consubstantial with Him and indivisible from Him, and at the same time, perhaps, because He proceeds from Him: for Scripture clearly speaks of this (John 15:26); He is called the Spirit of the Son only because He is of the same essence as Him and is never separated from Him, always abiding in Him—but to say that He is called so also because He proceeds from Him—for this reason you will find no basis anywhere in the Word of God. And the ancient teachers of the Church unanimously held that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, just as He is called the Spirit of the Father, precisely because of His consubstantiality with Them,[768] and consequently, although they often called Him “not alien to the Son,” “proper to the Son,” and “the Spirit of the Son,” they at the same time denied His proceeding from the Son.[769] It should be added that—

b) The Apostle’s words here do not refer at all to the eternal Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but rather to His grace-filled gifts bestowed upon the hearts of believers—that spirit of sonship and love, that spirit of freedom and unashamed boldness before God, with which all who are born of Him are filled, and of which the Apostle said: “We did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but we received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Rom. 8:15). Understood in this sense, the Spirit is quite naturally called the Spirit of the Son, because all spiritual gifts have been acquired for us through the infinite merits of the Son, and are poured out into our hearts by Him.[770]

5) From the Apostle’s words to the Romans: you do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, provided that the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9). The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ for the same reason that He is called the Spirit of the Son—that is, because He is consubstantial with Him,[771] and because He is the very Spirit who constantly rested upon Christ and filled Him as our Redeemer (Isa. 11:2,3), and finally because He is sent upon us for the sake of Christ’s merits.[772] Furthermore, if we consider the Apostle’s words in the context of his entire discourse, they can be understood as follows: “You do not live a carnal, sinful life, but a spiritual, holy one, because the Spirit of God dwells within you. And whoever does not live spiritually, whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ within them—that is, whoever does not nurture within themselves the same holy thoughts and feelings that were in Christ—I do not consider that person a Christian either.” For the expression “the Spirit of Christ” in the first verse of the same chapter is replaced by the Apostle with a single word, “spirit,” in contrast to “flesh,” while the expression “to have the Spirit of Christ” corresponds to another: “to be in Christ” (8:1), “to have Christ within oneself” (10). Consequently, not even the slightest hint of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son can be assumed here.

6) Finally, from the Gospel account of the Savior: “Having said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:22). But if, from the fact that the Savior imparted the Holy Spirit to the Apostles by His breath, one were to conclude that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son, then one would have to admit that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Apostles—because they, too, imparted the Holy Spirit to believers by laying their hands on them (Acts 8:17). To assert, however, that the Savior’s very breath signifies not merely the bestowal of the Holy Spirit but His eternal procession is even stranger: in that case, from Moses’ account of God “breathing into his (Adam’s) nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7), one would have to conclude that our soul eternally proceeds from God. The Church Fathers repeatedly focused on this Gospel passage and interpreted it in various ways: some explained that through His breath the Savior merely prepared the Apostles for their future reception of the Holy Spirit; others explained that He granted the Apostles here the authority to bind and loose; still others that He granted them even the very grace and power of the Holy Spirit, though only to a lesser degree than that with which they were eventually endowed on the day of Pentecost. But none of the Fathers or teachers found in this text any suggestion of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.[773]

III. What general conclusion, then, can be drawn from all that has been said so far?

In all fairness, the following must be concluded: “While the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Father is expressed in Holy Scripture with complete clarity, even literally, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is entirely foreign to Holy Scripture; it is not contained in it, not only literally but also in spirit, because it cannot be deduced from Scripture even by means of sound reasoning, despite all the efforts of its defenders.”

Let us now turn to Sacred Tradition or the belief of the ancient Church regarding this dogma, and first consider the public expressions of faith (creeds) used in particular churches or in the entire universal Church, as well as the teachings of the ecumenical and local councils, which also represented the voice of the Church.

§ 43. How the ancient creeds teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

1) Without exception, all of them—insofar as they mention this dogma—unanimously teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. Thus:

a) In the creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, which has been used since his time in the Church of Neocaesarea for the public instruction of the people in the faith, we read: “and one Holy Spirit, who has his being (proceeds) from God and was revealed through the Son, that is, to people.”[774] Here, the expression “from God,” without a doubt, means “from God the Father”—because the Son is mentioned further on: “and revealed to people through the Son.” Consequently, a clear distinction is made here between what pertains to the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit and what pertains to the Son: the Father is credited with the fact that the Holy Spirit derives His very hypostasis from Him, while the Son is credited only with the fact that through Him the Holy Spirit was revealed to people, or sent into the world. This distinction is extremely significant! Let us not forget that the creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker was not composed by him himself, but was revealed to him in a special way from above, and that in this creed, for the first time among all those that had existed until then, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit appears.

b) According to the testimony of Saint Epiphanius, the creed used in the Church from the time of the First Ecumenical Council until the year 373 for the instruction of those preparing for the sacrament of baptism states: “We believe… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.”[775] Consequently, a distinction is also made between what pertains to the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit and what pertains to the Son: The Father is attributed both with the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him and with the fact that the Holy Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with Him, while the Son is attributed only with the latter. Why, then, one might ask, is the former not attributed to the Son, if it was believed at that time that this attribute belonged to Him?

c) In the creed, which, as the same Holy Father attests, began to be used in the Church in 373 in response to the heresy of Apollinaris and others, we find the following: “We believe in the Holy Spirit..., that He is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Comforter, uncreated, proceeding from the Father and received by the Son (or, according to other manuscripts, “accepted” by the Son).”[776] Consequently—once again, a distinction, and one clearly grounded in Holy Scripture, between what pertains to the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit and what pertains to the Son! It is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), but is only received from the Son (John 20:22), or receives (John 16:14). If, then, no distinction were made between the expressions “proceeds from the Father” and “will receive from the Son,” but they were considered identical—as Western Christians now understand them—why is it not stated explicitly in the ancient creed, as they say today, “proceeding from the Father and the Son”—which would be both shorter and clearer?

d) Finally, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which replaced all previous creeds, the Holy Church still teaches us to believe: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.” Here we must recall the purpose for which these words were included in the Creed. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council wished to express through them, with the greatest possible precision, the idea of the consubstantiality and perfect equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, contrary to the heresy of Macedonius, who rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit and called Him a creation of the Son. If so, why then did the Fathers not say, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son,” but instead said only, “who proceeds from the Father,” when the first formulation would have been far more powerful for their purpose? For that would have explicitly signified the Holy Spirit’s consubstantiality not only with the Father but also with the Son. And why, when speaking of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding, do they mention only the Father, yet when speaking subsequently of the divine glorification of the Holy Spirit, do they mention both the Father and the Son? If in the first instance, by mentioning the Father, they also implied the Son, then why did they not limit themselves in the latter instance to the Father’s name alone , but added the Son’s name to it? This is a clear sign that at that time there was no belief whatsoever that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well.[777]

2) What do Western writers counter with to all this?

a) That in the cited passages from the creeds, although it is clearly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, nowhere is it added: “from the one Father”; and consequently, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Son is not excluded at all. But when setting forth the idea of the Son’s personal nature, these very same creeds state only: “who is begotten of the Father,” without adding: “from the one Father.” Who, then, would conclude from this that the Son of God is not begotten from the one Father alone, but is begotten together with and from the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, we have seen that even without such an addition, the creeds nevertheless clearly set forth the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father as a distinctive attribute of the Father that does not belong to the Son,

b) That the creed known as that of St. Athanasius of Alexandria even explicitly speaks of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. For the Latins read in this creed, according to their manuscripts: “The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.” But—

aa) in the Greek manuscripts, with few exceptions, the addition—“and from the Son”—is absent;[778]

bb) even the most impartial of Western writers acknowledge that this addition was made by the Latins at a later date, appearing in both Latin and some Greek manuscripts;[779]

cc) until the fourteenth century, none of the Westerners used this creed against the Greeks;[780] this means that either it was known in many places even without the addition, or they were ashamed to point to something they clearly recognized as corrupted. It should also be remembered that the creed known as the Creed of St. Athanasius did not come into use until the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century,[781] and, consequently, this creed cannot be regarded as one of the public expressions of faith used in the early Church, on a par with those we have mentioned.

c) Some have dared to assert that in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed itself, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council already read: “proceeding from the Father and from the Son.”[782] But today this utterly unfounded opinion is refuted even by dissenting theologians.[783]

§ 44. How the ancient Councils taught regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit.

1) Every single Ecumenical Council—and, following them, nearly all the local councils—whenever they had occasion to address this dogma, unanimously confessed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. Namely:

a) At the First Ecumenical Council, Leontius, Bishop of Caesarea, speaking on behalf of all those present, addressed a certain philosopher who had asked for clarification with the following words: “Accept the one Godhead of the Father, who ineffably begot the Son, and the Son, who was begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father Himself (έξ αύτοϋ τού Πάτρας) and of the very essence of the Son (ίδίου δέ όντος τού ύιοϋ), as the divine Apostle testifies: ‘For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him’ (Rom. 8:9).”[784] The words “of the Son Himself” indicate only that, although the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, He is nevertheless not foreign to Him; He is His own by essence, consubstantial with Him, just as St. Basil writes: “The Spirit is also called Christ’s, as being united with Christ by nature.”[785]

b) At the Second Ecumenical Council, the Fathers included in the Creed, among other things, the words: “who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son”—the meaning of which we have already seen.

c) At the Third Ecumenical Council, the following rule was established: “Let no one be permitted to speak, write, or compose any other creed except that defined by the Holy Fathers, who assembled in the city of Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. And those who dare to compose, present, or propose a different creed to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth—whether from paganism, Judaism, or any heresy whatsoever— if they are bishops or members of the clergy, let them be excluded—bishops from the episcopate and clergy from the clergy; but if they are laypeople, let them be anathematized” (Canon 7). Although this passage explicitly refers to the Nicene Creed rather than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—which sets forth the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in greater detail—it should be noted that the Fathers of Ephesus regard both creeds as one and the same, calling it the Nicene Creed because its foundation was actually laid in Nicaea, while in Constantinople it was merely supplemented—as, indeed, the decision of the Council of Ephesus was understood throughout all subsequent times.[786] Consequently, the aforementioned rule not only prohibited the composition of new creeds for public use, but also prohibited any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whether by omission, distortion, or addition of anything (for example, the “Filioque”), and this creed was recognized as the sole, unalterable public standard of faith for all future ages.[787]

d) At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon, after reading both the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds, the Fathers: —

aa) observed: “This wise and salvific creed of divine grace is sufficient for the perfect understanding and affirmation of piety; for it teaches perfectly what ought to be taught concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;”

bb) then decreed: “that the faith of the three hundred eighteen holy Fathers might remain whole and inviolate,” and affirmed “that doctrine which the one hundred fifty holy Fathers, gathered in the imperial city of Constantinople against the heretics, regarding the essence of the Holy Spirit and made public to all—not as if adding anything that was lacking to what had been previously accepted (i.e., the Nicene Creed), but merely explaining, through the testimonies of Scripture, their belief concerning the Holy Spirit against those who dared to deny His lordship (δεσποτείαν);”

(cc) finally, they reiterated the aforementioned (7th) canon of the Council of Ephesus, that no one should be permitted to formulate a different creed or alter the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, under strict penalty.[788] Furthermore, in their dogmatic epistle to Emperor Marcian, the same Holy Fathers wrote, among other things: “The defenders of the faith at the Council of Constantinople, armed with the truth, defeated the attempts of the heretics, proving that, according to the teaching of the faith, the Holy Spirit is Lord and God, and that He proceeds from the Father.”[789]

d) At the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople, the Fathers: —

aa) at the very beginning of their dogmatic definition, declared the following words: “We confess that we accept the four Holy Councils, namely, the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, and Chalcedon; we proclaim, as they proclaimed, all their definitions concerning the one and same faith; and we judge those who do not accept them to be alien to the Catholic Church;”

(bb) repeated word for word the definition of the Council of Chalcedon regarding the perfect immutability of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed;

cc) heard and approved the letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Eutychius, to Pope Vigilius, which contained the following confession: “We have always preserved and continue to preserve the faith revealed by the Fathers who were present at the four holy Councils, and we will follow these Councils in everything.”[790]

e) At the Sixth Ecumenical Council, when the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds were read, the Fathers—

aa) declared: “This sacred and Orthodox creed of divine grace is sufficient for the perfect knowledge and affirmation of the Orthodox faith,” and once again reiterated the rule of the three preceding Ecumenical Councils regarding its perfect inviolability and immutability;[791]

bb) in their first canon, among other things, decreed: “We also uphold the confession of faith proclaimed by the 150 holy Fathers who gathered in this imperial city during the reign of our great Emperor Theodosius, and we accept the theological statements concerning the Holy Spirit;”[792]

cc) they heard and approved, as a model of Orthodox teaching, the confession of faith of Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who writes concerning the Holy Spirit: “I believe... and in the Holy Spirit, proceeding from God the Father , recognized as both Light and God, and truly consubstantial, of the same essence, and of the same nature (όμεφυλον) with the Father and the Son;”[793]

gg) They heard and approved two epistles from Pope Agathon, in one of which he affirms that the Church of Rome firmly holds to the faith handed down by the five Ecumenical Councils and takes special care to ensure that what has been established by the canons remains unchanged, without any reduction or addition, and that it be preserved intact both in words and in thought;[794] while in the other he expresses himself, among other things, as follows: “This is our perfect knowledge: that we may, with all the diligence of our minds, observe those tenets (terminos) of the catholic and apostolic faith which the Apostolic See has hitherto preserved and taught together with us, believing also in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, and who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.”[795]

g) Finally, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council—

aa) the confession of faith of Saint Theodore the Confessor, Patriarch of Jerusalem, was read (during the third session) and unanimously approved by all—and in this confession, regarding the Holy Spirit, it is stated: “We believe... and in the one Holy Spirit, eternally (άϊδίως) proceeding from the Father, and truly co-eternal, consubstantial, and co-honored with the Father and the Son,” and further: “This holy Council (of Constantinople), guided and instructed by the same Holy Spirit, has recognized the eternal, pre-eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and that He is consubstantial, co-worshiped, and co-glorified with the Father and the Son.” When the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was read, the Council exclaimed: “We all believe this, we are all of one mind, and we all sign in agreement... We follow the ancient decree of the universal Church; we preserve the decision of the Fathers; and we anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the universal Church.”[796]

g) Among the local Councils, it suffices to mention a few that took place in the far west.

Thus, the Council of Rome, presided over by Pope Damasus, states in its confession: “If anyone does not confess that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, just as the Son is from the essence of God and is God, the Word of God: let him be anathema,” — and further: “If anyone believes correctly about the Father and the Son but does not hold the correct belief about the Holy Spirit, that person is a heretic.”[797]

The Council of Four Hundred African Bishops (in the 5th century), in its confession presented to the Vandal king Guneric, an Arian, states: “We believe that the Father, who is unbegotten; the Son, who is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, are of one substance, that is, one essence,” — and elsewhere: “If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, if He tests, if He is Lord and sanctifies, if He works with the Father and the Son and gives life, if He shares foreknowledge with the Father and the Son—then why doubt that He is God?”[798]

The Fathers of the Lateran Council, held in 649 under Pope Martin, solemnly professed their faith according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the addition of the “Filioque,” and then literally repeated the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, which subjected to punishment anyone who dared to introduce any other creed into public use.[799]

2) Which councils, for their part, do the Westerners cite—or could they cite—to support their belief in the personal nature of the Holy Spirit?...

a) Of all (seven) Ecumenical Councils, they point to only one—the Council of Ephesus—which they claim clearly attested to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son as well. How so?

aa) By, they say, condemning the Nestorian creed presented by the presbyter Charisius, which contained, among other things, the following words regarding the Holy Spirit: “We do not call Him the Son, or one who came into being through the Son.”[800] But the Council, which condemned the Nestorian creed, undoubtedly did not condemn everything contained therein—for it also sets forth many dogmas in a perfectly orthodox manner—but condemned only that which was Nestorian in it, as is evident from the Council’s own decree: “If any bishops, clergy, or laypersons are found to be speculating or teaching what is contained in the exposition on the Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God presented by the presbyter Charisius, or the vile and perverse Nestorian dogmas—let them be subject to the decision of this Holy Ecumenical Council.”[801] On what grounds, then, can one claim that the Council’s condemnation also applies to the above-quoted words of the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit? No, the Council could not have condemned these words, because not only do they contain nothing heretical, but on the contrary, they are themselves directed against the worst of heresies, the Macedonian heresy, which taught that the Holy Spirit is a creation of God and came into being specifically through the Son—a heresy against which, as is well known, Nestorius passionately waged war until his downfall. As proof, let us cite all the phrases from the Creed in which these words appear:

“We believe in one God, the eternal Father, who did not come into being subsequently, but who has always existed, the eternal God... We also believe in the one Son of God, the only-begotten, who exists from the Father’s essence, the true Son and identical to Him from whom He is and is received by faith as the Son (We believe) also in the Holy Spirit, who is from the essence of God—not as the Son, — who is God by essence, having the same essence as God the Father, from whom He is by essence, — distinct from creation and united with God, from whom He is by essence in a special way, unlike all creation, which we acknowledge not to be of the same essence as God but to be created — we do not call Him (the Holy Spirit) the Son, or one who came into being through the Son, but we confess Him as a perfect Person just as we do the Father, just as we do the Son, and just as we do the Holy Spirit.”[802]

Who now fails to see that the words, “we do not call Him… brought into being through the Son,” stand entirely apart from the doctrine of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, which was set forth earlier, and are directed specifically against the idea that the Spirit is a creation of God and was brought into being through the Son? And who, therefore, considers these words to be unorthodox?

bb) Because the Council approved the anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in the ninth of which the holy father calls the Spirit of God “the same” (ϊδιος) as the Son, noting in his explanation that the Son, even when He became man, possessed His own Holy Spirit, who essentially dwells from Him and in Him.[803] But one need only read the aforementioned anathema and consider what it is directed against to be convinced that there was not even a thought here of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. Nestorius, without his heresy touching at all upon the hypostatic nature of the Spirit,[804] asserted only that the Divine Redeemer, not being united with God the Word prior to His death on the cross, was not consubstantial with the Holy Spirit, and therefore performed miracles through the Holy Spirit as through a power external to Him, alien to Him, and possessing a different essence.[805] It is against these very ideas that Saint Cyril takes up arms in the ninth anathema, asserting, on the contrary, that the Lord performed miracles through the Holy Spirit, not as an external power, but as a power proper to Himself, and that the Spirit is consubstantial or identical (ϊδιος) to the Son—that is, possesses the same divine attributes (ϊδιόματα) and essence as He does. Here are the exact words of the anathema: “If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using His own (τή ίδία) power as something foreign (άλλότρια) to Himself, and having received from Him the power to conquer unclean spirits and to perform divine signs among people—and does not, on the contrary, say that the Spirit through whom He (the Lord) performed divine signs is His own (ϊδιος): let such a one be anathema.”[806]

However, since Saint Cyril did not express himself here with sufficient clarity and detail, his words immediately aroused confusion among some Eastern bishops who were not well-disposed toward him, and Blessed Theodoret wrote on their behalf: “If (Cyril) calls the Spirit the Son’s own in the sense that He is consubstantial with the Son and proceeds from the Father, then we agree with him and acknowledge his statement to be orthodox; but if—in the sense that the Spirit has His being from the Son or through the Son—then we reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe in the Lord, who said: ‘The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.’”[807] This is what prompted Saint Cyril to express his thought more clearly. Defending himself against Theodoret’s attacks, in a letter to a certain Bishop Eupotius, the holy father states that he called the Holy Spirit “the Son’s own” by no means in the sense condemned by Theodoret, but in the sense that “although the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, according to the Savior’s word, He is not alien to the Son, for the Son shares everything in common with the Father.”[808] At the same time and for the same reason, Saint Cyril wrote to John of Antioch and other Eastern bishops, stating, among other things: “We do not permit ourselves or anyone else to alter even a single phrase in the Creed, or to omit even a single syllable, remembering the words of the one who said: ‘Do not move the ancient boundary that your fathers have set’ (Prov. 22:28). For it was not they who spoke, but the Spirit of God the Father Himself, who proceeds from Him, yet is not alien to the Son in terms of essence.”[809] After reading this letter, Blessed Theodoret and the other Eastern bishops unanimously testified: “This letter of Cyril is adorned with evangelical soundness of mind, for in it our Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as fully God and fully man, and the Holy Spirit is not said to have His being from the Son or through the Son, but to proceed from the Father, and to be proper to the Son. Having recognized such truth in this epistle, we have glorified Him who healed the tongue-tied and transformed discordant sounds into pleasant harmony.”[810] Thus, the ninth anathema of St. Cyril, which Westerners have hitherto cited as proof of the ancient Church’s belief in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, must, on the contrary, serve as indisputable evidence that the ancient Church not only did not accept this teaching but directly rejected it.[811]

(cc) Finally, by the fact that the Council approved a letter written on behalf of the entire Egyptian Church to Nestorius, which included, among other things, the following words: “The Holy Spirit is not the Son, but is not foreign to Him—for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth, and He is poured out from Him, as from God the Father.”[812] But the expression “the Spirit is poured out from the Son” does not mean that He proceeds from the Son, but signifies only the temporary outpouring or mission of the Holy Spirit through the Son into the souls of believers, as the holy Apostle also expresses (Titus 3:6).[813] Moreover, it is noteworthy that the authors of the epistle also distinguish between the Son and the Father in this regard: the Spirit, they say, is poured out from (παρά) the Son, just as He is poured out from (έκ) God and the Father.

b) Among the local councils, prior to their schism from the universal Church, the Western churches can point only to the Councils of Toledo and others held in Spain beginning in the fifth century, which introduced the addition: Filioque, as well as the Council of Aachen (or Aquisgrán), held under Charlemagne in 809. But—

aa) as for the earlier ones:

1) it cannot be said with certainty whether the Councils themselves actually included the word — “Filioque”—or whether it was added later by others, because the decrees of those same Councils contain expressions affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the Father is the sole source of the entire Godhead,[814] and moreover, it is known that the acts of the Councils of Toledo are, in fact, not free from errors regarding the subject under consideration.[815] If—

2) we assume that the Councils themselves introduced the aforementioned addition, then it is impossible to determine with precision in what sense they used the word “proceeds” (procedit) when speaking of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son, whether in the sense of eternal procession, as from the Father, or only in the sense of a temporary mission to the world; for when, in the seventh century, the Greeks, having heard for the first time of such an innovation by some in the West, began to denounce them, — Saint Maximus the Confessor, to reassure the Orthodox, wrote that the Westerners, when speaking of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, meant precisely His temporary mission to the world, and by no means were they calling the Son the cause of the Spirit,[816] as this explanation of Maximus was later confirmed by one of the Western writers, Anastasius the Librarian.[817] However, if—

3) some Spanish councils had already admitted at that time the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, just as from the Father, then it would follow only that this error appeared in some parts of Spain earlier than in other Western countries, and the voice of such minor local councils carries no weight against the voice of the entire Church, which at that time believed—not only in the East but also in the West—that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

bb) The Council of Aachen, however, when one considers the circumstances, serves, on the contrary, as irrefutable evidence that until the ninth century, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son was not recognized at all in the West, and that it was still considered a novelty even then. For—

1) the question arises: what was the subject of discussion at the Council? Modern writers answer that it was the procession of the Holy Spirit—specifically, whether He proceeds from the Son in the same way as He proceeds from the Father. On what occasion was this discussed? Because a certain monk from Jerusalem named John was the first to raise this question.[818] But if, as Western Christians now claim, the Church has undoubtedly professed from the very beginning and throughout all ages the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well, was it then worth convening an entire council of pastors in Gaul and reexamining the Church’s unquestionable dogma simply because of a question raised by some obscure Jerusalem monk? A clear sign that this question gave rise to various interpretations in the West itself, that some resolved it one way and others another, and that, consequently, there was not yet, even then, a definitive teaching of the Church in the West regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.

2) How did events unfold at the Council, and how did it end? The Council’s acts have not survived; but from the brief accounts of the chroniclers, it can be concluded that heated debates took place at the Council, that neither of the disputing parties was willing to yield to the other, and therefore nothing was definitively decided [819] — further proof that even in the West, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son was not yet recognized as a dogma of the faith!

3) At the conclusion of the Council, Emperor Charlemagne, who had presided over it and shared the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, sent envoys and a letter to Pope Leo III to seek his confirmation of this new false dogma. In this letter, which the envoys read aloud before the pope on behalf of the Council, it is stated, among other things: “The recently arisen (nuper exorta) question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit has long been carefully considered by the holy Fathers of the Church. But since it had long been neglected by scholars, it did not remain dormant as a matter considered in antiquity, but rather seemed to have suddenly emerged before us from obscurity only in these present days”..., and further: “Since this question has long remained unresolved by scholars, Almighty God has willed to turn the hearts of the shepherds toward it, so that, when the time of neglect has ended, they might resolve, through sacred inquiry, to uncover the heavenly treasure.”[820] From this it is evident:

a) that there was no consistent belief in the Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well: for this question, the envoys say, had long been neglected;

b) that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son did not constitute a dogmatic tenet that all Christians were obliged to believe, but had from ancient times been a matter of private opinion, serving as a question addressed only by scholars, and—

c) finally, that even among individual scholars, this question had not yet been resolved (jacebat indiscussa) prior to the beginning of the ninth century, or before the Council of Aachen.

4) After hearing the envoys’ speech, in which they sought to prove their point using (misinterpreted) passages from Scripture and the testimonies of the Fathers (some of which were distorted, others inaccurately quoted),[821] the Pope was supposedly convinced that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, and commanded others to believe this, but he resolutely opposed the inclusion of this teaching in the creed—so much so that he even ordered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed on two silver tablets, without the addition of “Filioque,” and placed in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, with the inscription: “I, Leo, have placed this out of love for the orthodox faith and for its preservation.”[822] But—

a) if the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son has been a dogma of the Church from time immemorial, why was it still necessary to prove this dogma before the pope himself from Scripture and the Church Fathers, and why did the pope need to decree that others should believe this way from then on?[823] The pope—

b) expressed his agreement with the words: “I think so, I hold so, together with these writers and the testimonies of Holy Scripture;”[824] but the passages from the Church Fathers were misquoted, and the texts of Scripture were misinterpreted; consequently, the pope was either deceived or deceived himself. The pope—

c) decreed that belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit is reserved only for those capable of rising to the comprehension of such a lofty mystery [825] — what kind of dogma is this, when not everyone is obliged to accept it? And having expressed his agreement, the Pope —

d) noted, however, to the envoys that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is beyond the reach of the human mind, that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, who did not include in the creed — “and from the Son,” and who decreed: “no one is to add or alter anything in this creed”—were no wiser than we are, and were guided not so much by human wisdom as by divine wisdom.[826] And that is precisely why he himself refused to make an addition to the creed, despite all the envoys’ persuasions.

Is it still necessary now to put into words the general conclusion that follows from our review of the ancient creeds and Councils? Let us turn to the individual teachers of the Church.

§45. An Examination of the Question of the Origin of the Holy Spirit Based on the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

aa) How should we view the testimonies cited from the writings of the Holy Fathers and Church Teachers in defense of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father?

These testimonies are exceedingly numerous and varied,[827] and, by encompassing the truth they affirm from every angle, they place it beyond all doubt.

1) Some of these testimonies, while mentioning the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Father, make no mention at all of the Son. Thus—

Among the Eastern teachers—

a) St. Basil the Great says: “Just as the creative Word established the heavens, so the Spirit, who is from God, who proceeds from the Father (that is, from His mouth, so that you may not regard Him as something external and created, but may glorify Him as having His own Hypostasis from God), brought forth from Himself all the powers that are in Him;”[828]

b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “The Spirit is truly the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, but not as the Son (ούχ' ύίκώς), because He proceeds not by birth (γεννητώς) but by procession (έκπορευτώς), if a new term must be used for clarity;”[829]

c) St. John Chrysostom: “The followers of Macedonius refused to believe that the Holy Spirit, proceeding in an ineffable manner from the Father, is God;”[830]

d) Saint Ephrem the Syrian: “The Holy Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds from the essence (έκ τής ούσίας) of the Father, perfect and distinct—for He is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Holy Spirit, possessing the fullness of goodness, and as a testimony to the divinity of the One from whom He proceeds;”[831]

e) Saint Epiphanius: “Although there are many spirits, this Spirit is above all spirits, as He eternally exists from the Father, and not from a creature created out of nothing...; the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same Divinity..., the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father;”[832]

f) Saint Cyril of Alexandria: “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the true, sovereign, and good Comforter, proceeding from the Father, unbegotten—for He is the only Begotten—and uncreated, for nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find that He is counted among created beings; on the contrary, He is placed on an equal footing with the Father and the Son. We know that He proceeds from the Father, but we do not seek to understand how He proceeds, remaining within the limits set for us by theologians and the blessed.”[833]

From the Western Church—

a) Saint Ambrose: “If you name the Father, you will also name His Son and the Spirit of His lips, as long as you hold this in your heart; and if you name the Spirit, you will also name God the Father, from whom the Spirit proceeds, and the Son, because He is the Spirit and the Son;”[834]

b) Hilary: “The Comforter will come, and the Son will send Him from the Father; He is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father...; and the Son will send from the Father that Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father;”[835]

c) Blessed Augustine: “They [the Arians] say that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is created by the Son, but they will find no support for this anywhere in Holy Scripture, since the Son Himself said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father...; It is true that the Father gave being to all things, and He Himself received nothing from anyone—but He granted equality with Himself to no one except the Son, who was born of Him, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him;”[836]

d) Paschasius, deacon of the Roman Church (5th century): “If this Spirit were not from the Father, and, while naturally abiding in the Father, did not dwell in Him, then He could not proceed from God; but you ask: Does the Spirit always proceed from the Father? He is always with the Father, and always proceeds from Him unceasingly, just as heat proceeds from fire but is not separated from it;”[837]

e) Gaimus, Bishop of Halberstadt (9th century): “The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth because He proceeds from the Father of Truth;”[838]

f) Rabanus Maurus (9th century): “The Spirit will not speak on His own, perhaps because He does not come from Himself, but from the Father—for the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; He will not speak on His own, because He does not exist of Himself—for the Father alone does not exist from another, but the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father... The Holy Spirit is received from the Father, because He proceeds from the Father, from whom the Son was also begotten.”[839]

But enough of that. Even those who hold different views agree that there are many such testimonies among the ancient teachers of the Church that mention the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father; they merely note that “these testimonies prove nothing: for to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father does not yet mean to say that He proceeds from the Father alone, and consequently, does not mean to deny His proceeding also from the Son.”[840] But—

a) the ancient teachers also commonly spoke of the Son as being begotten by the Father, without adding the words “by the Father alone”—does it really follow from this that they did not reject the begetting of the Son by the Holy Spirit as well?... If, indeed, —

b) If the ancient pastors believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, why then do they so often state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son at all? If—

c) now, when the Western Church believes in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, if any of its members were to repeat in their writings that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, while remaining silent about the Son, what would be said about such a writer? Wouldn’t his faith be subject to suspicion or even condemnation? Why, then, did the ancient Orthodox teachers not face the slightest criticism for this from their contemporaries and fellow believers? Let us say—

d) finally, that two of the Western writers we have mentioned, Gaimus and Rabanus Maurus, lived as late as the ninth century, after the question of the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son had been deliberately addressed at the Council of Aachen and later by the pope himself—and yet they preached that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, making no mention whatsoever of the Son: what does this mean? Does this not mean that even in the West, as late as the ninth century, not everyone had yet agreed to accept the false dogma of Aachen, but strictly adhered to the ancient teaching of the Church?...

2) Other testimonies, while speaking of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, do mention the Son as well, but in such a way that they attribute to Him something else in relation to the Holy Spirit, for example, that the Holy Spirit is sent from Him, or comes through Him, or is consubstantial with Him, and the like; and in this way they show even more clearly that in ancient times people did not believe in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son as well. A similar idea is expressed by:

Among the Eastern teachers—

a) St. Athanasius: “If (the heretics) had reasoned correctly about the Son, they would have reasoned soundly also about the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and, being consubstantial (or of the same essence) with the Son, is given by Him to the disciples and to all who believe in Him;”[841]

b) St. Basil the Great: “That the Spirit is from God, the Apostle clearly preached, saying: ‘We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit from God’ (1 Cor. 2:12), and that the Spirit appeared through the Son, the Apostle made clear by calling Him the Spirit of the Son;”[842] and in another passage.. “He (the Holy Spirit) is from God, not in the same way that everything else is from God, but as one proceeding from God—not through birth, as the Son is, but as the Spirit from the mouth of God.... He is also called the Spirit of Christ, as one united with Christ by nature—therefore, whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9);”[843]

c) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Let us imagine not a ray from the sun, but another Sun from the unbegotten Sun, shining together with the first through birth from Him..., and then another Light just like it, and in the same way, not separated by an interval of time from the Light that was begotten, but shining together with Him, and deriving its reason for being from the primordial Light;”[844] or: “having (the Holy Spirit) Himself His cause of being from the God of all, from Whom the only-begotten Light also proceeds, and shining together with the true Light, He is separated neither by distance nor by any difference in nature from the Father or from the Only-Begotten;”[845]

d) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Formulating a sound and truthful statement concerning the highest Divinity, we say that from God the Father was born the Son, consubstantial..., and the Holy Spirit, who gives life to all, proceeds—and, as I have said, the life-giving Spirit proceeds in an ineffable manner from the Father, but is bestowed upon creatures through the Son;”[846]

e) Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (6th century): “Truly, there is one God.... The Son is known in the Father and the Father in the Son; the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and having the Father as His source, descends upon creation through the Son by His good pleasure toward those who receive Him;”[847]

f) Saint Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (8th century): “Just as the sun is the source and cause of the ray and the radiance, and through the ray the radiance is conveyed to us, and it is this radiance that illuminates us and is received by us—so too God the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, is bestowed and made manifest through the Son.”[848]

From the Western tradition—

a) Hilary: “The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, but is sent by the Father through the Son;”[849]

b) St. Ambrose: “The Lord said in the Gospel: ‘When the Comforter comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to Me—therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and bears witness to the Son,”[850] and elsewhere: “He (the Son) said: ‘He proceeds from the Father’—this refers to the beginning of His existence; He said: ‘Whom I will send’—this refers to communion and the unity of nature;”[851]

c) Blessed Jerome, in explaining the words “the spirit faints before Me” (Isa. 57:16): “Some understand here the Holy Spirit, who hovered over the waters in the beginning and gave life to all things, who proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son through the communion of nature;”[852]

d) Blessed Augustine: “It is enough for a Christian to believe that the cause of all created things, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, who alone is the true God..., and that He is the Trinity, namely the Father, and the Son, born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the same Father, yet one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son;”[853]

e) Pelagius, Pope of Rome (6th century): “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Almighty, equal to both the Father and the Son, coeternal and consubstantial with them, who eternally proceeds from the Father and is proper to the Father and the Son”;[854]

e) St. Gregory the Great: “Since it is known that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeds from the Father and dwells in the Son—why did the Son say that it was fitting for Him to depart, so that He who never departs from the Son might come!”[855]

3) A third set of testimonies, even stronger, expresses the idea that within the Godhead there is only one origin, one source—the Father—who begets the Son and proceeds from Himself the Holy Spirit; or that both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from Him. Testimonies of this kind are presented to us by—

From the Eastern teachers—

a) St. Dionysius the Areopagite: “There is one source of the supernatural Divinity—the Father—so that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, and the proper titles of each of the divine Hypostases remain inviolable,”—and further: “From the sacred words we have learned that the true Divinity is the Father, while Jesus and the Spirit are, if one may so express it, divinely planted branches of the God-born Divinity, and as it were flowers and supernatural lights—but how this is so is impossible to articulate or conceive;”[856]

b) Origen: “If there is a Spirit of love, a Son of love, and God is love, then it must certainly be understood that both the Son and the Spirit proceed from the single source of the Father’s Divinity;”[857] or: “The original goodness must be found in God the Father, from whom the begotten Son and the proceeding Holy Spirit undoubtedly preserve within themselves the attribute of goodness that exists in that source from which the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds;”[858]

c) St. Athanasius: “He who believes in the Father has come to know the Son and the Spirit in the Father, not apart from the Son—and therefore we believe in both the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Trinity is one Godhead, known through the one Father;”[859]

d) St. Basil the Great: “There is the Father, who has a perfect and self-sufficient being, the root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit,”[860] and further: “Although everything is said to be from God, the Son is specifically from God, and the Spirit is from God; for the Son proceeded from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but the Son proceeds from the Father through birth, while the Spirit proceeds from God in an ineffable manner;”[861]

d) St. Gregory the Theologian: “We honor monarchy (μοναρχία), though not the kind of monarchy defined by the unity of a single person (for even one, if at odds with itself, constitutes a multitude), but that which constitutes the equal honor of unity, consubstantial wills, and the identity of motion and direction toward the One of those who proceed from the One... The One, having moved from the beginning into duality, came to rest in the Trinity. And this is what we have—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the parent and the begetter, begetting and bringing forth impassively, outside of time and incorporeally; the Son is the Begotten; the Spirit is the Begotten One, or—I do not know how one who turns away from all that is visible would name this;”[862] elsewhere: “We have one God, because the Godhead is one. And those who exist from God are brought back to the One, even though we believe in three… when we have in mind the Godhead, the First Cause, and the One Source, then what we conceive of is one. But when we have in mind Those in whom the Godhead dwells—those who exist from the First Cause, and who exist from it simultaneously and equally—then those who are worshiped are three;”[863] in a third passage: “The nature is one in three—God; the unity, however, is the Father, from whom the Others proceed, and to whom They are raised, not merging with Him but coexisting with Him, and not divided among themselves by time, will, or power;”[864] in the fourth: “I would be willing to call the Father the greatest, from whom the Equal Ones derive their equality and their being (on which they agree); but I fear that I might make the Principles the beginning of lesser things, and offend them by giving preference. For there is no glory to the Principle in the humiliation of Those who are from Him”;[865]

e) Saint Epiphanius: “It is sufficient to attribute the entire union of the Trinity to the One, and to present the Son, the true God, and the true Spirit as proceeding from the Father;”[866]

g) Saint Caesarius: “The Son and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father not in a human sense, through outflow, separation, or removal, but as from the source of a river, existing from Him, in Him, and with Him, and as rays from the sun, existing in Him, with Him, and from Him... The Father is the parent of the Son and the source of the Holy Spirit by nature, ineffably, timelessly, before all ages;”[867]

g) Blessed Theodoret: “We have been taught that the Holy Spirit has His being from the Father...—for the Lord Jesus Christ says the following about Him: ‘When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father— —the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father’ (John 15:26)—by saying, ‘proceeds from the Father,’ He showed that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit;”[868]

e) St. Anastasius of Sinai: “Although both the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to proceed from the Father, proceeding is properly a property of the Holy Spirit, just as birth is a property of the Son;”[869] and further: “All such (general) designations are appropriately applied to each Person, while preserving that the Father alone is the Father, because He alone is the beginning; that the Son is the Son, because He alone is begotten; and that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit, because He proceeds from the Father by His own nature;”[870]

j) St. Maximus the Confessor: “The Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, and therefore is the only-begotten Son, while the Spirit proceeds from that same essence;”[871]

k) St. John of Damascus: “The Father alone is unbegotten, for He does not derive His being from another Hypostasis; the Son alone is begotten—He was born without beginning and outside of time from the essence of the Father; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the essence of the Father, not by birth but by procession... The Son is from the Father by birth; the Holy Spirit, though also from the Father, is not by birth but by procession. And although we have been taught that there is a distinction between birth and procession, we do not know the nature of this distinction. Only together—from the Father—are the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, everything that the Son and the Spirit possess, they possess from the Father, including their very being... We acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit not as three gods, but as one God in the Holy Trinity, so that we attribute the Son and the Spirit to a single Cause, without combining or mixing them with Him... When we look within the Godhead at the First Cause, at the single origin, at the unity and identity—so to speak—of movement and will within the Godhead, and at the identity of essence, power, action, and dominion, we conceive of a single reality. But when we look upon those (Persons) in whom the Godhead resides—or, to be more precise, who are the very Godhead itself—upon the Persons who exist in Him from the First Cause, begotten, of equal honor, and inseparable, that is, upon the Hypostases of the Son and the Spirit—then we worship three. The Father is one Father and is without beginning, that is, uncaused, because He did not receive His being from anyone; the Son is one Son and is not without beginning, that is, not uncaused, for He is from the Father...; the Holy Spirit is one Spirit, proceeding from the Father, though not by sonship but by procession.”[872]

From the West—

a) Philastrius, Bishop of Brixen (4th century): “There are three Persons (in God), living for all eternity and completely equal in greatness and power—but the Son and the Holy Spirit are, strictly speaking, from the Father;”[873]

b) Blessed Augustine: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom the Son also proceeds, because in this Trinity the Son was begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, while the one Father, who was begotten by no one and proceeds from no one, is one;”[874] Elsewhere: “When the Lord says: ‘Whom I will send to you from the Father,’ He shows that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son—for having said, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ He added, ‘He will bear witness to Me,’ but He did not say, ‘whom the Father will send from Me,’ as He said: ‘Whom I will send to you from the Father,’ thereby showing that the source of all divinity, or rather, of the entire Godhead, is the Father;”[875] in the third: “The Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father; but the Son was begotten, and the Spirit proceeds...; the Holy Spirit does not come from Himself, but from the One (and not from the Others) from whom He proceeds;”[876]

c) Paulinus, Bishop of Iolania (5th century): “The Holy Spirit, like the Word of God—both are equally God—abiding in a single head and proceeding from the one source of the Father; only the Son through birth, and the Spirit through procession, each preserves his own personal nature, and they are more distinct than separate from one another;”[877]

d) Maximus, Bishop of Tauris (5th century): “According to the truth of the Gospel, just as the Son proceeded from the Father, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; and just as the only-begotten Son is of God, so also the Holy Spirit is of God;”[878]

e) Saint Leo, Pope of Rome: “That which proceeds from God is the same as God Himself, and this is none other than the Son and the Holy Spirit;”[879]

f) Prosper of Aquitaine, Bishop of Reims (5th century): “The Son was begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father was neither begotten by another nor does He proceed… and the Son is equal to the One from whom He was begotten, and the Holy Spirit is equal to the One (and not to the Others) from whom He proceeds;”[880]

g) Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspen in Africa (6th century): “We confess God the Father as the source not of the entire Godhead, but of the Son and the Holy Spirit—the source from whom the only-begotten Son has the beginning of eternal birth, and the Holy Spirit, that of eternal proceeding;”[881]

h) Thalassius, an African monk (6th century): “We acknowledge the Father as the sole source of all things, and specifically the Son and the Spirit, as the parent and as the eternal source...,” and further: “We conceive of the Father as both without beginning and as the beginning—without beginning as the Unbegotten, and as the beginning as the Parent and Giver of those who proceed from Him, namely, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[882]

4) Finally, there are testimonies that speak in this way about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, but which completely reject the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son—either in meaning or even literally. We find such testimonies:

Among the Eastern teachers—

a) from St. Basil the Great: “Since the Holy Spirit… is united with the Son, with whom He is inseparably presented, and His existence depends on the cause—the Father, from whom He proceeds—the distinctive mark of His hypostatic nature is that He is known through the Son and together with the Son, and derives His existence from the Father. The Son, however, who together with Himself and through Himself makes known the Spirit proceeding from the Father—He alone, as the only-begotten, has shone forth from the unbegotten Light—has, by His distinctive characteristics, nothing in common (ούδεμίαν κοινωνίαν) with the Father or with the Holy Spirit;”[883] or: “I know the Spirit with the Father, yet the Spirit is not the Father; I have received the Spirit with the Son, yet not the One called the Son, but I present one attribute of Him with the Father, because He proceeds from the Father, and another with the Son, because I hear: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him’ (Rom. 8:9);[884]

b) According to St. Gregory the Theologian: “What the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have in common is that They are uncreated and divine; what the Son and the Holy Spirit have in common is that They proceed from the Father; and what is distinctive to the Father is that He is unbegotten, to the Son that He is begotten, and to the Holy Spirit that He proceeds;”[885] or: “Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except for being the First Cause; and everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Spirit, except for sonship and that which is said of the Son in a bodily sense, for the sake of my humanity and my salvation;”[886]

c) from St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Not all human persons derive their being from the same person in sequence, but one from one and another from another, so that the causes of those who proceed from these causes are also different: this is not the case in the Holy Trinity—for it is the one and same person of the Father from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds; which is why we say that, in truth, there is one First Cause of those who depend on Him as their cause, one God, existing indivisibly with Them;”[887] and further: “The Spirit is united with the Father in that both are uncreated, but differs from Him in that He is not the Father, as the Father is; He is united with the Son in that both are uncreated, and in that both derive their being from the God of all; yet He differs from the Son in that He proceeded from the Father in a manner other than that of the Only-Begotten (μήτε μονογεννώς), and was revealed through the Son;”[888]

d) According to Saint Epiphanius: “There is one God the Father and one true God, not like the imaginary and non-existent gods whom the pagans called gods; but one true God: for from the one—the one Only-Begotten and the one Holy Spirit;”[889] or: “The Father is uncreated, having the Son, who was begotten of Him and not created, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from Him (and not from Them), and likewise uncreated;”[890]

e) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Just as a finger is inherent in the hand—not as something distinct from it, but as something naturally united with it—so too is the Holy Spirit united with the Son in consubstantiality, though He proceeds from God the Father”;[891]

f) from Blessed Theodoret and other Eastern bishops, whose words we have already cited;[892]

g) from Anastasius of Sinai: “The distinction between birth and proceeding does not indicate a distinction in nature, because it signifies not being itself, but only the mode of being, whereas the same essence remains both in the One from whom, and in those who proceed from Him in various ways; consequently, the mode of being, as stated, is different, but the essence is one and the same: for they are from one and the same, though not identical; and therefore we should not be surprised when (Christ) says that the origin of both (the Son and the Holy Spirit) is from the Father;”[893]

(h) from St. Maximus the Confessor: “One God, the Father of the one Son and the source of the one Holy Spirit; an indivisible unity and an inseparable Trinity; the mind without beginning, the one Parent of the one Son, who is essentially without beginning, and of the one eternal life, that is, the Holy Spirit; the source;”[894]

i) from St. John of Damascus: “It is necessary to know that we do not derive the Father from anyone, but call Him the Father of the Son; nor do we call the Son either a cause (according to some, nor without a cause) or the Father, but we say that He is from the Father and is the Son of the Father; we also say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and we call Him the Spirit of the Father, but we do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; rather, we call Him the Spirit of the Son;”[895] elsewhere: “The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the Father of the Son alone, while He is the producer of the Holy Spirit; The Son is the Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, the Image, the Radiance, and the Representation of the Father; but the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father, but the Spirit of the Father, as He proceeds from the Father: for there is no generation (έρμη) without the Spirit; He is the Spirit of the Son as well, but not because He proceeds from Him, but because through Him He proceeds from the Father, for the Father alone is the Cause;”[896] in the third: “We have one God, the Father, and His Word, and His Spirit; The Word, begotten hypostatically, and therefore called the Son, and the Spirit, proceeding hypostatically from the Father, the Spirit of the Son, but not from the Son;”[897] in the fourth: “We honor the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also called the Spirit of the Son, as having appeared through Him and communicated to creation, but not as having His being from Him.”[898]

From the Western tradition—

a) from Blessed Augustine: “The Father did not diminish Himself in order to beget the Son from Himself, but begot Another of Himself in such a way that He remains wholly in Himself and abides in the Son just as He is alone; likewise, the Holy Spirit, whole from the whole (and not from the whole), does not depart from the One from whom He proceeds, but is with Him just as He is from Him (and not from Them), neither diminishing Him by His proceeding nor increasing Him by His abiding in Him”;[899] Elsewhere, “And what did (Christ) say about the Holy Spirit, ‘I will send to you’—this settles the matter, lest anyone think that the Spirit is, as it were, derived from Him through certain degrees, just as He Himself is from the Father, when both are from the Father—one begotten, the other proceeding—although in truth it is difficult to distinguish between the two in the heights of the divine nature;”[900] in a third passage: “Perhaps someone might think that the Holy Spirit was born of Christ just as Christ was born of the Father; for He said of Himself: ‘My teaching is not My own, but that of Him who sent Me,’ and concerning the Holy Spirit: ‘He will not speak on His own authority, but He will take what is Mine and declare it to you’; but since the Savior explained the reason why He said, ‘He will take what is Mine,’ adding: “All that the Father has is Mine; that is why I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you”—it follows that the Holy Spirit also has His being from the Father, just as the Son does,” — and a few words later: “If, then, the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why are not both called Sons, why are not both said to be begotten...? We will discuss this, God willing, elsewhere;”[901]

b) Vigilius, Bishop of Mansi (5th century): “I confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance and one nature, and I believe that the Son was begotten not from nothing and not from anyone, but from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father;”[902]

c) From Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspen (6th century): “Holding fast to the rule of the apostolic faith, we confess the Holy Spirit not as someone other than God, but as God Himself, not distinct from the Son and the Father, and not united with the Son and the Father; for He is the one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding entirely from the Father, and dwelling entirely in Both, not in Each separately, because He is indivisibly common to Both;”[903]

d) From Rusticus, cardinal deacon of the Roman Church (6th century): “The Father begot, but was not begotten and is not from anyone else, just as the Others are from Him; the Son was begotten and begot nothing coeternal; The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing coeternal proceeds from Him or is begotten by Him; some of the early Fathers also added to the attributes that, just as the Spirit, together with the Father, did not beget the Son, so the Spirit does not proceed from the Son as He proceeds from the Father;”[904]

d) Mansuetus, Bishop of Mediolanum (Milan) (7th century), who, together with a council of other bishops, in his letter to Emperor Constantine—read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council—states the following: “When we speak of the eternal Son, we place Him in relation to the Person of the eternal Father; and when we speak of the Holy Spirit, we indicate that He proceeds from the Person of the eternal Father;”[905]

e) From Anastasius the Librarian (9th century): “We do not call the Son the cause or source of the Holy Spirit; but, knowing the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son, we confess that just as He (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father, so He proceeds from the Son—that is, understanding “proceeding” to mean sending into the world: this is how he explained it... he (St. Maximus) teaches both us and the Greeks in what respect the Holy Spirit proceeds, and in what respect He does not proceed from the Son.”[906]

How, then, do Western writers respond to all these ancient testimonies, which state that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, that the Father is the sole source of the entire Godhead, the sole originator of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and even that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son? They respond, out of necessity, with various sophistries and subtleties, since they are absolutely unable to answer directly and in a way that is universally understandable without betraying their false dogma. The essence of their answer is as follows: “The Father is the uncaused cause of the Holy Spirit, or a cause without a cause (causa improdueta); He is the beginning without a beginning (principium imprincipiatum); He is the primary source (principalis); while the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit, though no longer a cause without a cause (causa ex causa), a beginning dependent on the original beginning—the Father (principium principiatum). Therefore, when the ancient teachers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the Father is the source or beginning of the Holy Spirit, they mean the Father specifically as the cause without a cause, the first cause. Likewise, when they state that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, they merely mean that the Son is not the uncaused cause of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, in neither case do they in any way reject the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as a cause that is not without a cause, as a beginning that is not without a beginning.”[907] But—

a) This interpretation is entirely arbitrary and unfounded. The question arises: how do we know that when the ancient teachers stated: “The Father is the cause or source of the Holy Spirit,” this meant: a cause without a cause, a source without a beginning; and when they rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, did they do so specifically only as from a primary cause, and by no means in general? Did the teachers themselves say that they should be understood in this way and not otherwise? Did they even hint at such an interpretation in their writings? Absolutely not: these writings are before us. Why, then, impose one’s own convoluted interpretations on others? It is in vain to point out that some of the ancient pastors, especially the Greek ones, admitted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, as if this were equivalent to the expression “from the Son.”[908] No, the teachers themselves strictly distinguished between these expressions and did not consider them to be identical: on the contrary, St. John of Damascus, as we have seen, explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not from the Son; and we will see in due course exactly what “through the Son” means. Even more in vain do the Latins cite later Greek writers—Manuil Kalekas, Demetrius Sidonius, Vissarion, and others like them, who supposedly explain the teachings of their ancient teachers in exactly the same way: [909] The opinion of these writers, as later authors and especially as apostates from Orthodoxy who have gone over to the side of papism, has no significance whatsoever in the present case.

b) This arbitrary interpretation cannot in any way be applied to the second class of evidence (the first has already been discussed separately). If the ancient teachers truly believed that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father as the original source, also proceeds from the Son as a source that is not without a beginning, could they have expressed themselves as they do in the aforementioned testimonies? Could they, for example, have said—in seeking to define the personal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son—“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is given to creatures through the Son, by virtue of the communion of nature”? Or: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is not alien to the Son in essence, and is one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son”? Or: “The Holy Spirit, although He comes through the Son, derives His being from the Father”? No, faith would inevitably compel them to say: “The Holy Spirit, although He proceeds from the Father as the first cause, also proceeds from the Son as the non-first cause”; or: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; that is why He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son;” or: “The Holy Spirit is bestowed upon creation through the Son, but proceeds from the Son and, at the same time, from the Father,” and so on.

c) This arbitrary interpretation is even less applicable to the third class of testimonies. In some of them, the Father is indiscriminately called both the cause and the source of both the Holy Spirit and the Son; consequently, if by the term “cause”—the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit—the ancient teachers meant, strictly speaking, a cause without a cause, and by the term “source”—the original source, then one must agree that, according to the ancient teachers, the Son, like the Holy Spirit, there is still some cause that is not without cause, some source that is not the first. In other testimonies, the Father is called the sole source of the entire Godhead, the sole origin of the Holy Spirit, just as He is of the Son; but could the ancient pastors have used the word “sole” if they had believed that the Son, too, is the origin of the Holy Spirit, albeit not the first? And the expression: “The Father is the sole source in relation to the other Persons of the Godhead”—does this not directly imply that there is no other source within the Godhead, neither one that is without beginning nor one that has a beginning?... In a third set of testimonies, the same Father is called the Begetter of the Son and the Producer (προβολεύς) of the Holy Spirit, or it is said that the Father begot the Son from Himself and produced the Holy Spirit from Himself—does this, then, also leave room to suppose that the Holy Spirit has another co-Producer—the Son, who likewise produces Him from Himself?

d) Finally, this interpretation certainly cannot be applied to the fourth class of scriptural evidence, which—either in meaning or even literally—rejects the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son—acknowledging only the Father as the uncaused cause of the Holy Spirit, and the Son as a caused cause—would never agree to say, along with St. Gregory the Theologian, without any explanation: “Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except for causality...;” or, together with Blessed Augustine and Fulgentius, that “the Spirit is wholly from the Father (totus de Patre), the whole from the whole” (integer de integro); or, together with Blessed Augustine and Paul of Nolan that “the Son and the Spirit are both (ambo) from a single source—the Father”.... All the more so, he would never have agreed to repeat the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Mansvet, and others, that “in the Holy Trinity there is one and the same person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds, so that, in truth, the Father alone is the cause of those who depend on Him as their cause, that the Holy Spirit is united with the Son both in that neither is created and in that both derive their being from the God of all, differing from the Son only in that He proceeded from the Father in a manner different from that of the Son.” Finally, it is absolutely impermissible for a believer in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son to profess his faith in the same way that Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, and others, saying, “The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son”—but would necessarily have to say: “Although the Spirit proceeds from the Father as from a cause without a cause, He also proceeds from the Son as from a cause dependent on the Father.”

No, all the efforts of falsehood to obscure the truth are in vain when it is clearer than the sun.

§46. How should we view the testimonies cited from the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church in defense of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son?

1) Some of these testimonies do not belong to the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church at all, but are falsely attributed to them. For example—

a) the envoys of the Council of Aachen (809), while arguing before Pope Leo III for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, cite—among other things—the following words from Blessed Jerome the following words from his exposition of the Creed: “The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is consubstantial with the Father and the Son and in all things equal to Them;”[910] but these words are not found not only in the aforementioned exposition of the Creed, but also in any of Blessed Jerome’s writings, according to the research of a certain Western writer;[911]

b) At the Council of Florence, John the Provincial, in defense of the Roman heresy, cited the following testimony of Pope Damasus from his confession of faith sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch: “We believe... and in the Holy Spirit, who is neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son—therefore, the Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten, and the Comforter proceeds from the Father and the Son;”[912] but there is no such testimony at all in the aforementioned creed,[913] on the contrary, as we have seen, it clearly professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father;[914]

c) the well-known Roman theologian, Thomas Aquinas, in his work Against the Greeks, cites up to ten passages from a discourse at the Council of Nicaea, attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and from that same saint’s epistle to Serapion, — passages in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is clearly taught, but which are completely absent from all the writings of the Father of Orthodoxy;[915]

d) Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and others, in their refutation of the Orthodox, cite the following additional testimony from St. Athanasius’s letter to Serapion: “Reject a heretic after the first and second admonition (Titus 3:10); therefore, even if you were to see some flying through the air, like Elijah, or walking ‘as if on dry land’ upon the waters, like Peter and Moses, but at the same time, if such people do not confess, as we do, God the Spirit, who essentially proceeds from God the Son, just as God the Son, the only-begotten, proceeds eternally from God the Father—then reject such people as well.”[916] But we would search in vain for this passage in all of St. Athanasius’s letters to Serapion. Let us not, however, dwell any longer on such insertions and forgeries: dissenting writers once made use of them, and perhaps did so out of some misunderstanding or by mistake…; they no longer do so.

2) Other testimonies, though they belong to the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, are corrupted, or at least are cited in a corrupted form. It is painful to level such a serious accusation against anyone, and to think that there were people among Christians who dared to distort even the works of the Fathers, but we are not the first to make this accusation. Many Western scholars have publicly rebuked the Latins for this and supported their claims with numerous examples.[917] Among our own writers, two have compiled over a hundred passages pertaining specifically to the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which have also been corrupted by the Latins.[918] We need not discuss here when exactly all such alterations took place—whether during the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers, or even before publication, in the manuscripts,[919] whether out of good or bad motives, whether always intentionally or sometimes unintentionally, — but we must note that these alterations were not only exploited by earlier dissenting theologians, but, to our astonishment, are exploited, at least by some, even today.

Of the numerous past examples, it suffices to point out just a few.

a) In some Latin editions of St. Athanasius’s works, his third (or, according to others, fourth) treatise against the Arians contains the following passage: “We do not introduce three principles or three Fathers, like the Marcionites and Manichaeans, for we do not take three suns as a comparison, but a single sun, and its radiance, and a single light from both,”[920] — and the scholar Bellarmine triumphantly points to this passage as irrefutable evidence that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Both, that is, from the Father and from the Son.[921] But in the Greek text, according to all editions of St. Athanasius’s works produced by the Latins themselves, the last words of the quoted passage read as follows:... “but a single sun, and its radiance, and a single light from the sun in its radiance.”[922]

b) Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise Against the Greeks, quotes the following statement from St. Athanasius’s letter to Serapion: “The Apostle attributes to His cause—the Son—what the Spirit accomplishes in him, just as the Son attributed to His cause—God the Father—the works that He Himself performed.”[923] But in reality, according to the best editions, this statement reads as follows: “Just as the Son called the works He Himself performed the works of the Father, so too did Paul call the works he performed by the power of the Spirit the works of Christ.”[924]

c) Peter Lombard and other defenders of papal authority cite the following from St. Ambrose’s work on the Holy Spirit: “That which proceeds from anyone proceeds either from his essence or from his power; from his essence, as the Son, who proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”[925] But today, in all editions of Ambrose’s works, it reads as follows: “from the essence, as the Son, who said, ‘I (Wisdom) came forth from the mouth of the Most High’ (Sirach 24:3), as the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and of whom the Son said: ‘He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine.’”[926]

d) Two apostates from Orthodoxy, Vekk and Kaleka, who wrote in defense of the Roman heresy, cite the following statement from the third homily on the Lord’s Prayer by St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit from the Father, and there is testimony that He is the Spirit from the Son (έκ τού Ύιού).”[927] But even the Jesuit Petavy had to agree that this passage is corrupted and that it should be read as follows, in accordance with the structure of the discourse: “The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit from the Father, and there is testimony that He is the Spirit of the Son—for it is said: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him’ (Rom. 8:9).”[928]

d) In all editions of the works of Blessed Jerome, in his explanation of the Creed written to St. Cyril, it reads: “The Holy Spirit truly and properly proceeds from the Father and from the Son.”[929] But the Roman theologians themselves, who had been using Jerome’s works even before they were published in print, quote this passage without the addition: “and from the Son,”[930] and one of them (Peter Lombard), after citing this and two other similar passages from the same work of Blessed Jerome, asks in bewilderment: Why did Jerome, having said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not say—“and from the Son”?[931]

e) From the writings of Blessed Augustine on the Most Holy Trinity, Peter Lombard quotes the words: “The Holy Spirit is the gift of the Father and the Son, because He proceeds both from the Father and from the Son.”[932] But now, in all editions, this passage reads as follows: “The Holy Spirit is a gift of the Father and the Son, because, as the Lord says, ‘I will send you the Spirit of truth from the Father’ (John 15:26), and because what the Apostle says—‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him’ (Rom. 8:9)—refers to the very same Spirit.”[933]

g) The Jesuit Antonius Possevinus, following certain editions of the works of St. John of Damascus, quotes the following statement from the story known by his name about Barlaam and Josaphat (chap. 19): “acknowledge the one Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son.”[934] However, a more conscientious editor of St. John of Damascus’s works (Jacob Bill), having consulted the most ancient manuscripts, did not find the phrase “and from the Son” in the specified passage and therefore omitted that phrase in his edition.[935] Subsequently, both Bellarmine and the most vicious traitor and enemy of the Orthodox Church, Leo Allacius, were forced to admit that the passage in question from the story of Barlaam and Josaphat was corrupted.[936]

h) There were even people who, in the very letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Bulgarian Tsar Michael, had no qualms about embellishing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with their favorite insertion, — Photius, who, as is known to the whole world, most solemnly and vehemently denounced the Latins for this innovation and courageously endured so many calamities.[937]

But here are examples of how the Latins still make use of these corrupted passages to defend their false doctrine.

a) The well-known Roman theologian Perrone, having proven—as he believes—beyond dispute that the Western Church has from ancient times believed in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son: and on what grounds? —

a) the fact that in the seventh century the Greeks of Constantinople, supposedly Monophysites, reproached the Orthodox Latins for this;[938]

b) because in the eighth century a dispute arose in the West over this matter between the Greeks—allegedly iconoclasts—and the Orthodox Latins, and a council was convened in Gaul under Pepin;[939]

c) the fact that by the end of the ninth century, Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople—allegedly a schismatic—strongly denounced the Latins for this, and—

d) finally, by the fact that, from the sixth to the tenth century, certain minor councils in Spain, Gaul, Germany, and Italy gradually introduced [940] this innovation even into the creed: (what splendid evidence!…),—he then turns to the Eastern Church and says: “It is no less certain that the Eastern Church has always believed in exactly the same way. She was fully aware of this belief of the Western Church, for she knew of the letter from Pope Hormisdas to Emperor Justin in 521, in which, among other things, it is stated: it is known that the distinctive feature (proprium) of the Father is that He begets the Son; the proprium of the Son is that He is begotten by the Father as equal to the Father; the proprium of the Holy Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, within the single essence of the Godhead. And none of the Greeks, Perrone continues, objected to this. Thus, Pope Hormizd would not have written: “It is known...” if he had not been convinced that both Churches believed this to be true at that time.”[941] But the question arises: why did this Western scholar disregard a very important observation by another Western scholar, Manzi, regarding the cited passage from Hormizd’s letter, after comparing it with the manuscripts: “The original scribe wrote this passage as follows: ‘It is also known in what the distinctive feature of the Holy Spirit consists…’ Which reading was transformed by another ancient and nearly equivalent hand as follows: ‘It is known that the distinctive feature of the Holy Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son’?”[942] Why did the scholar fail to take into account the testimony of Adam Zernikau, who saw with his own eyes in a codex at the Hamburg Library an exact reconstruction of the original text of the passage in question, made by someone even before Mansi on the basis of the manuscripts?[943] In short: why did the scholar cite the passage in its corrupted form, when it has already been proven that it is corrupted?...

b) The same theologian quotes the following words from Didymus of Alexandria’s treatise on the Holy Spirit: “The Savior said: ‘He [the Holy Spirit] will not speak on His own,’ that is, not without Me and not without My consent and that of the Father, because He is not separate from My will and that of the Father,” — “because He does not exist of Himself, but from the Father and from Me—for the very fact that He exists and speaks, He has from the Father and from Me.”[944] But it is known that Ratramnus, a Corbeian monk who wrote against the Greeks as early as the 9th century at the behest of Pope Nicholas I, quotes the very same passage from Didymus quite differently, namely without the words repeated twice: “from the Father and from Me…,” even though these words were most necessary for his purpose, and he could not possibly have omitted them intentionally; which means that in the 9th century, these words were not present in the manuscript copies of Didymus’s work.[945] Likewise, it is known that in some editions of Didymus’s treatise on the Holy Spirit, published by Western scholars even as late as the 16th century, these words are similarly absent;[946] which means that even in the 16th century there were still manuscripts in which these words had not been introduced. Can such a passage now be considered uncorrupted?

c) Finally, Perrone points to words from St. Basil’s third book Against Eunomius: “That He (the Holy Spirit) is second in dignity to the Son, as He derives His being from Him, receives from Him, proclaims to us, and is wholly dependent on Him—this is the teaching of piety; but that He is third in nature—this is not what Sacred Scripture teaches us, nor can it be concluded with strict consistency from what has been said above.”[947] This is the very passage whose authenticity the Latins defended against the Greeks at the Council of Florence for nearly a whole year, and which they were unable to uphold. For Mark of Ephesus—

a) on the one hand, rightly contrasted with their version the most ancient Greek manuscript of Basil’s work available to him, in which the disputed passage read—without the words favorable to the Latins—as follows: “that the Spirit rightfully occupies second place after the Son—this, perhaps (ίσως), teaches the doctrine of piety; but that He is third in nature as well—this is not what Holy Scripture has taught us... etc.,”—confirming, moreover, that in Constantinople there are as many as a thousand such ancient manuscripts with the same exact reading, although there are four or five manuscripts with a corrupted reading, which the Latins follow;

b) on the other hand, he clearly demonstrated the corruption of the Latin reading, both from the entire context of St. Basil’s discourse in which this passage is found and from parallel passages in other works of the Holy Father, which testify that he never admitted the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Son.[948] Now it may be added that the authenticity of the reading defended by Mark—and consequently, the corruption of the one followed by the Latins—is confirmed by other evidence:

a) the fact that Western scholars themselves, in almost all editions of St. Basil’s works in Greek and in Latin translation, read this passage entirely in accordance with Mark,[949] and those who worked on the most recent and best editions (in 1730 and 1839) also noted that of the seven manuscripts they used, all have the same reading, and only one does not contain the particle ΐσως, “perhaps”;[950]

b) the fact that even in the manuscript preserved in the Synodal Library in Moscow and dated to the 11th century, the passage in question from St. Basil has exactly the same reading;[951] and—

c) because Nikita, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, who wrote a refutation in the late 12th century against Hugo Eterian’s treatise against the Greeks, quotes this passage from St. Basil in its uncorrupted form, even though he himself held a non-Orthodox view on the procession of the Holy Spirit,[952] and even though Eterian had already quoted it in Latin in a corrupted form.[953] Why, then, would a scholar rely on such a passage, the corruption of which is so obvious and acknowledged by so many, even by those who share his views? Or, even if this corruption were not obvious, what need is there to base one’s teaching on a passage that is controversial and subject to so much dispute? Are there not other, better passages that cannot be disputed? There—the explanation of the whole mystery!

3) The third type of evidence (the most extensive category), although correctly cited from the writings of the Church Fathers, consists of testimonies that are inaccurate, indirect, and generally do not convey the meaning attributed to them through false interpretations. These include:

a) passages quoted from the writings of the ancient teachers out of context and explained outside the context of their original discourse. For example, they point out—

(aa) two sayings of St. Athanasius in which he calls the Son the source of the Holy Spirit;[954] but in both cases, the holy teacher says this about the Son specifically in the sense that He pours out the Holy Spirit into the souls of believers or bestows His gracious gifts, for in both cases he quotes the Savior’s words: “Whoever is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink” (John 7:37), His words to the Apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), His words from the conversation with the Samaritan woman about living water (John 4:10–15)—understanding this water to be the Holy Spirit—and other similar texts concerning the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit;[955] or—

bb) the saying of St. Basil the Great: “Just as the Son relates to the Father, so does the Spirit to the Son, according to the combination of words taught in baptism.”[956] But the full text of St. Basil’s statement is as follows: “If [the heretics] suppose that subordination (ύπαρίθμησις) (subordination) pertains to the Spirit alone, let them know that the Spirit is mentioned in the same way as the Lord, and the Son as the Father. For the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is taught in the same way (Matt. 28:19). Therefore, according to the formula taught in baptism, just as the Son relates to the Father, so does the Spirit relate to the Son. And if the Spirit is placed alongside the Son, and the Son is placed alongside the Father, then it is evident that the Spirit is also placed alongside the Father. Is it therefore appropriate to assert, regarding names placed in the same relationship, that one of them is primary and the other secondary?”[957] Where, then, is there even a hint here of the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Son?...

b) Passages stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from Both, found in the writings of St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, and Cyril of Alexandria.[958] But—

aa) the expression “to be from someone” (τό έκ τινός είναι), as Mark of Ephesus noted at the Council of Florence,[959] does not necessarily mean to proceed from someone or to derive one’s existence from them, but is used in sacred language in other senses as well, for example, in the sense of the identity of properties and nature, in the sense of being sent by someone, and in the sense of receiving something from another person, as in the Savior’s words: “You are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23; cf. 47), or: “I have come forth from God and have come; for I did not come on My own, but He sent Me” (42), and again: “He will take what is Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14). Consequently, it is also correct to say of the Holy Spirit that He is from Both, from the Father and from the Son, but only in different senses; He proceeds from the Father as sharing the same nature with Him, and as proceeding from Him and being sent into the world; He proceeds from the Son as sharing the same nature with Him, as having received from Him the teaching to be preached to people, and as being sent from Him and bestowed upon believers. And indeed—

bb) the Holy Fathers mentioned above spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from Both, in these various senses. Whenever Saint Epiphanius stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from Both—whether in a superior or inferior sense—he invariably clarified his thought with the words of the Savior: “He proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) and “He will take what is Mine” (John 16:14)—for example: “The Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son, is of the same divinity; He proceeds from the Father and always receives from the Son,”[960] or: “The Spirit is from Christ or from Both, as Christ says: ‘ ’ who proceeds from the Father and will take from Mine.”[961] Hilary, having stated in one passage that “the Holy Spirit must be recognized as having the Father and the Son as causes,”[962] explains in another that he calls the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit precisely as the dispenser of spiritual gifts,[963] and in a third passage says: “The Holy Spirit receives from the Son, from whom He is sent, and proceeds from the Father,” noting that to proceed is not the same as to receive, and that what the Holy Spirit receives from the Son signifies only either authority, or power, or teaching.[964] In a similar way, St. Cyril of Alexandria explains this himself, saying that the Spirit proceeds from Both, for example: “The Spirit, who essentially proceeds from Both—that is, who is poured out (or communicated to believers) from the Father through the Son—is the Spirit of God the Father, and at the same time of the Son.”[965]

c) The statements of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, primarily Greek ones, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, or is, or is poured out from the Father through the Son—διά ύιοΰ, per Filium. The Latins explain these expressions as follows: “It is known from many examples that the particles ‘through’ (διά) and ‘from’ (έκ) are used interchangeably in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers. Thus, in the words of the Evangelist: ‘All things through (δι' άυτού) Him all things were made…,” or “the world was made through Him” (John 1:3, 10), the word “through” (δι' άυτού) certainly means “from Him” (έξ άυτού). Consequently, when the ancient teachers said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this is equivalent to saying “from the Son.”[966]

But, first, a general remark: just because the particle διά, “through,” is sometimes—let us even say often—used in the Word of God and in the writings of the Fathers in the sense of the particle έκ, “from,” does it follow that it is always used in that same sense there? Undoubtedly not. On the contrary, anyone who has read the Word of God and the writings of the Fathers knows that there are countless examples in them where the particle διά is used in its other meanings as well, such as: “together with,” “after,” “in continuation,” and so on.

Second: Is it known, in particular, from even a single instance—directly and decisively—that the ancient teachers, when speaking of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son, intended their words to mean “from the Son”? No, it is not. On the contrary, it is reliably known that in this case they strictly distinguished the particle διά (“through”) from the particle εκ (“from”): for the expression “through the Son” was used, for example, by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, who, however, spoke of the Holy Spirit as follows: “shining through Him (i.e., through the Light begotten or the Son), but having its cause of being from the primordial Light;”[967] was also used by Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John of Damascus, who, however, explicitly rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;[968] and the blessed Theodoret even called the expression “through the Son”—in the sense of “from the Son” (the Holy Spirit has existence)—blasphemous and ungodly.[969]

Thirdly, it is known from the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church that they used the expression — δι' Ύιοΰ—regarding the Holy Spirit in the sense of “together with the Son,” “following the Son,” and most frequently “through the Son,”[970] that is, together with the Son has existence from the Father, follows the Son in the order of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, is sent into the world through the Son, reveals Himself to created beings, is bestowed, and so on. Here are some examples:

1) St. Basil the Great says: “Since the Holy Spirit... is united with the Son, with whom He is inseparably presented, and whose existence depends on the cause—the Father, from whom He proceeds; therefore, the distinctive feature of His hypostatic nature is that He is known (γνωρίζεσθαι) through (μετά) the Son and together with (σύν) the Son, and derives His existence from the Father. The Son, however, who through (διά) Himself and by (μετά) Himself makes known (γνωρίζων) the Spirit proceeding from the Father—He who alone, as the only-begotten, has shone forth from the unbegotten Light—has, by His distinctive characteristics, nothing in common with the Father or with the Holy Spirit.”[971] Here—

a) the preposition διά is evidently substituted for the preposition — σύν: for the same idea regarding the Spirit’s relationship to the Son is repeated twice, and the particles in question correspond perfectly to one another, and—

b) although it is stated that the Holy Spirit is “día Ύioΰ,” the eternal procession of the Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father alone.

2) Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: “The Father is without beginning and unborn, and is always presented as the Father. And from Him, in an unbroken sequence (κατά τό προσεχές), the indivisibly only-begotten Son is presented together with the Father. Immediately following (διά) the Son and after (μετά) the Son—before one can even conceive of any empty and non-existent space—the Holy Spirit is suddenly understood as a whole; He, however, is not later than the Son in existence, so that one could never conceive of the Only-Begotten without the Spirit, — but having Himself the cause of His existence in God, the Creator of all, from whom the Only-Begotten Light also proceeds, shining immediately after (διά) the true Light, He is separated neither by distance nor by any difference in nature from the Father or from the Only-Begotten.”[972] Here—

a) the order of the Divine Persons is indisputably depicted, and the preposition διά is used to express that the Holy Spirit follows immediately after the Son;

b) it is stated that although the Holy Spirit follows (διά) the Son, He Himself derives His very existence from God the Father, from whom the Son also comes;

c) finally, it is noted that although the Holy Spirit shines forth after (διά) the Son, He is not separated from the Father—nor from the Son—by either distance or a difference in nature.

3) Saint Cyril of Alexandria, arguing that the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity was accessible to some extent even to pagan sages, writes, among other things: “There is one God of all, but the concept of Him extends, as it were, to the holy and consubstantial Trinity— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whom Plato also called the soul of the world: for the Spirit gives life and proceeds from the living Father through the Son,” — and then, after presenting several of Plato’s thoughts regarding the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, he concludes: “Thus he knew Him (the Holy Spirit), who truly exists, who gives life to all and sustains all, and who, as it were, flows from the holy source of God the Father: for He proceeds from the Father by nature, and is bestowed upon creation through the Son.”[973] Thus, in these final words, the holy teacher clearly expresses his meaning of “proceeds from the Father through the Son,” which he had stated earlier without explanation.

4) Saint John of Damascus, who also repeatedly stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, defines even more clearly how this expression is to be understood: “We honor the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also called the Spirit of the Son, as having appeared through Him (δι’ αυτού) and being communicated to creation, but not as deriving His being from Him.”[974] However, we have already seen quite a few similar examples where the expression “through the Son” is used in reference to the Holy Spirit precisely to indicate that He is given, present, sent, etc., to creation through the Son or by the Son, and it would be superfluous to repeat them here.[975]

d) The sayings of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Son, rests upon the Son, is received from the Son, is the image of the Son, and so on.[976] But—

aa) The Holy Spirit dwells in the Son and rests upon Him for the same reason that the Son dwells in the Father and the Father in the Son (John 14:10), that is, by consubstantiality, by the perfect indivisibility of Their nature, and by no means by proceeding from the Son; otherwise, from the Savior’s words: “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me”—one would have to conclude that They proceed from one another;

(b) In particular, it is stated that the Spirit rests upon the Son, as upon the God-man, in accordance with the words of the prophet: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him—the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2–3);

cc) The Spirit is received from the Son by believers, because the Son is our Redeemer and Advocate, who has reconciled us to God (Eph. 2:14–16) and, by His merits, has acquired the right to bestow upon us from His divine power… everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; cf. John 7:37), to pour into our hearts the grace of the Spirit (Titus 3:6), which is therefore called the grace of Christ (Rom. 16:20);

gg) even if the Fathers sometimes say that the Spirit is the image of the Son, it does not follow from this that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, for many things that are born of or proceed from another are not the image of that from which they proceed (such as a fruit born of a tree), and one can be the image of another solely by virtue of a unity of nature, not by virtue of origin (just as two people are sometimes found to be perfectly alike, even though they are not related). The Son is the image of the invisible God, being of the same essence as Him and having revealed and continuing to reveal Him in Himself and through Himself to created beings through His equality in power, authority, and other divine attributes (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1–3); likewise, the Spirit may be called the image of the Son by virtue of His consubstantiality with Him and because He reveals the Son—as the Son of the Father—through His wisdom, holiness, and other actions in the world. On the other hand, this title is fitting for the Spirit also because He works to make us—believers—conform to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29).[977]

4) Finally, there are testimonies (let us not hide this) that are correctly cited from the writings of the Church Fathers and do indeed explicitly express the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son. But—

First: Among whom are these testimonies found?

a) Among the Fathers and ancient teachers of the Eastern Church, absolutely none: not a single one of them clearly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the sense of eternal procession. And the expressions cited from their writings, which are indirect and imprecise, do not convey this idea at all.[978]

b) Among the Fathers and teachers of the Western Church, no one until the fifth century—[979] —or until Blessed Augustine—as he himself forcefully attests in the following words: “Until now, even the learned and great scholars of the Divine Scriptures have not discussed the Holy Spirit with such thoroughness and care that one might easily comprehend His personal nature, by which we call Him neither Son nor Father, but precisely the Holy Spirit... Nevertheless, they maintain in their preaching that the Holy Spirit is not begotten by the Father, as the Son is—for there is only one Christ—nor is He from the Son, as a grandson of the supreme Father (grandfather), but that He owes His very being to no one but the Father, from whom all things come—so as to prevent us from positing two principles without a beginning, which is utterly false and absurd, and characteristic not of the Catholic faith but of the error of certain heretics.”[980]

c) In the fifth century itself, such testimonies are found—according to the indications of Western theologians—[981] —only in Blessed Augustine (three or four),[982] —one in St. Leo, Pope of Rome, and one in Gennadius of Massilia,[983] —and then in some little-known writers of the sixth century: Paschasius, a deacon of the Roman Church; Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspen; Fulgentius Ferrandus; and Venantius Fortunatus.[984] It would be superfluous to mention later writers—that is, those of the seventh and eighth centuries—when open disputes regarding the origin of the Holy Spirit had already begun in the West.

Second: what can be said about these testimonies?

a) One may doubt their authenticity and integrity:

aa) because they are found exclusively among Western writers; and in the West there were motives to alter such testimonies, or even to insert them into the writings of the ancients, ever since open disputes began there regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, that is, from the 8th century;

bb) because in the West, not only were there incentives to alter such testimonies or insert them into the writings of the ancients, but they actually did insert and alter them—as is indisputably known to us from numerous examples, and as Western scholars themselves now frequently admit when publishing the works of Blessed Augustine, Hilary, Prosper, and others;[985]

(c) finally, because the very same writers from whom testimonies are presented to us, as if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son—namely, Paschasius, Fulgentius, Leo the Great, and Augustine—speak quite differently in other passages of their writings, as we have seen; in particular, Augustine and Fulgentius even explicitly reject this doctrine.[986] On the basis of all this, at the very least, we are justified in disbelieving the aforementioned testimonies until we are convinced of their authenticity and the integrity of ancient manuscripts dating back to the eighth or even the seventh century.

b) If, however, we agree to accept the authenticity and integrity of these testimonies, then they can be understood differently than they are currently understood in the West. It is possible that some of the Roman writers of the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, when speaking of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, used the verb “proceeds” (procedit) only in the sense of a temporary proceeding or a mission into the world. For—

(aa) there is no doubt that the verb *procedit* was sometimes used in this sense by Latin writers as early as the 4th century, as evidenced by the example of St. Ambrose, according to the acknowledged view of Western scholars themselves and his most recent editors;[987]

bb) in precisely this sense, the expression “The Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Son” was sometimes used in the West even in the seventh century, as Saint Maximus the Confessor attested to the Greeks in his time, having specifically inquired about this from Roman teachers; cc) in the West, some understood the aforementioned expression in this sense even as late as the 9th century, as we know from the writings of Anastasius the Librarian.[988]

c) Finally, if _dwe agree to interpret these testimonies in the same way that Christians of the Western Church understand them today—that is, that Blessed Augustine, Fulgentius, and certain others in the fifth and sixth centuries believed in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father but also from the Son: in that case, their belief must be recognized as merely their private opinion, and nothing more. For it cannot in any way be called the belief of the entire Church or a dogma—

(aa) that which does not trace its origin unbroken back to the holy Apostles and was not known in the Church, neither in the East nor in the West, throughout the first four centuries;

bb) that which, beginning in the fifth century, was occasionally expressed in their writings by only a very few in the West alone, and even then in such a way that others—their own close fellow believers—found the new teaching unconvincing,[989] or understood it differently;[990]

cc) that, gradually gaining strength, it became the subject of heated disputes in the very West in the eighth century, with some agreeing to believe it and others disagreeing;[991]

dd) finally, that for the affirmation and propagation of which a council was convened in Aachen among some Western Christians at the beginning of the 9th century—a council that resolved nothing due to differences of opinion—and which Pope Leo III himself subsequently required not everyone to believe, but only those capable of rising to the understanding of such a lofty mystery.[992]

§47. Conclusion from all the patristic testimonies examined.

This conclusion can be summarized in two propositions:

1. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father—this is what the pastors of the entire Christian Church, both Eastern and Western, have taught from the very beginning of Christianity; but the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son began only in the fifth century (assuming the authenticity and integrity of the relevant testimonies), solely in the West, by very few and amid the dissent of many, until this doctrine gradually took hold there, not before the ninth century. Consequently

2. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father has been considered a dogma of the Church and its universal belief since ancient times; whereas the idea that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son appeared only in the fifth century as a private opinion or belief held by a few, and was not considered a dogma even in the West until the ninth century.

We could end our exploration of the personal nature of God the Holy Spirit right here. However, since dissenting writers still attempt to support their false dogma with the arguments of theological reasoning based on the positive teachings of the Word of God and the Church, and since, on the other hand, defenders of Orthodox dogma have from time immemorial used the same weapons against those of erroneous thought,[993] we do not consider it superfluous to say a few words on this subject as well.

§48. A Consideration of the Arguments of Theological Reason Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

1. What arguments do Orthodox theologians typically present in defense of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and does not proceed jointly from the Son as well?

The most important of these are as follows:

1.1. The indisputable truth, accepted by all Christians—both in the Eastern and Western Churches—is that in the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in essence but distinct as Persons, and therefore possess two kinds of properties: essential, indivisible, and common to all of Them; and personal, distinct, and belonging exclusively to each of Them individually. Now the question arises: to what aspect of the Father should we attribute the fact that He proceeds from Himself the Holy Spirit (just as He begets the Son)? To the essence, or to the Person? If to the essence, then one must admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father and the Son, but also from Himself (an absurdity that even Western Christians do not accept)—for the essence of all the Divine Persons is one and indivisible. If, however, it proceeds from a person, then it is necessary to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father alone—for the Father, as a Person, is entirely distinct from the Son and from the Holy Spirit, and what belongs to one of Them cannot belong to another.

1.2. An indisputable truth, accepted by all Christians since ancient times, is that in the Holy Trinity, despite the triunity of the Persons, there is only one principle—μοναρχία.[994] And we fully uphold this truth and confess the unity of principle in the Godhead when we say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the one and same Father. But Western Christians do not uphold this truth and admit not one but two principles in the Godhead when they assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, for the Father and the Son are one only in essence; but as Persons, They are two, and have no other unity between themselves—other than unity in essence—that would constitute a single source for the Holy Spirit; to suppose, however, that the procession of the Holy Spirit pertains to the essence of the Father and the Son, which is common to the Holy Spirit Himself, as we have seen, is to admit an absurdity.

1.3. The entire Christian Church, both Eastern and Western, has taught from ancient times and continues to teach that in the Holy Trinity, just as the essence must not be divided, so too the Hypostases must not be merged, contrary to the heretics—the Sabellians. But Western teachers now conflate the Hypostases of the Father and the Son (and consequently fall into Sabellianism), at least insofar as they admit, in addition to unity in essence, some special union between Them, as a result of which these two Persons, through a single and, as they say, indivisible action, proceed from Themselves the Holy Spirit, and serve as one principle, one cause for Him, rather than as two principles or causes.

1.4. According to the teaching of the universal Church, all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are one only in essence; consequently, whatever unity the Son has with the Father, the Holy Spirit has exactly the same. But Western teachers now admit that the Son has a greater unity with the Father than the Spirit does, when they say that the Father and the Son are one also in relation to that joint action by which they proceed from Themselves as the Holy Spirit; they are one as the single, eternally indivisible principle of the Holy Spirit.

1.5. The Universal Church has always recognized in God only unity in essence and trinity in Persons. But Western teachers not only now recognize unity and trinity in the Godhead, but also introduce duality into it. They acknowledge unity: for they teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in essence; they acknowledge the Trinity: for they teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Persons; they introduce duality: for they teach that the Father and the Son constitute one eternally indivisible entity in relation to the Holy Spirit , as His source, while the Holy Spirit, in relation to Them, constitutes another, as proceeding from this source.[995]

The indisputability of all the Orthodox Church’s teachings on this matter is self-evident. They are based on the unquestionable teaching of the universal Church and are constructed without any strain, in accordance with the laws of sound reasoning.

2. What arguments do Western theologians typically present to support the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well?

Of all those devised by the scholastics, only four are still in use today and are therefore recognized as—relatively speaking—the best:

2.1. “If the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, then He would indeed be no different from Him; for the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in whom all is one, are distinguished from one another only through the opposite relationship of one Person, as the cause, to another Person, as that which proceeds from Him, and vice versa.”[996] But both of these ideas are entirely arbitrary and not only lack any basis in the positive teaching of the ancient Church but even directly contradict it: for—

a) the Church has taught from ancient times that, although the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the same Father, they differ from one another in that the Son is begotten by the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, and—

b) in general, it has distinguished the Divine Persons not through some kind of opposing relationship between Them, but by believing that the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.[997]

2.2. “Only by acknowledging the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son can we conceive of the correct relationship between Them. True, even without this, They stand in a certain relationship—first, in a relationship of unity, because Both proceed from the one Father; and second, in a relationship of distinction, because Both proceed in different ways. But this is not a direct relationship between Them, and consequently, it is not the highest and most perfect relationship, which must be understood in the Holy Trinity.”[998] Once again, these are thoughts that are in no way based on the positive teaching of the Church and are arbitrary; for on what grounds can one assert that there must be a direct mutual relationship between the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, as distinct Persons, when all of Them, according to the teaching of the Holy Church, are one or completely indivisible in essence, and consequently, exist in a relationship to one another that is more than merely direct? On the other hand, why not call the other two relationships between the Son and the Holy Spirit—namely, the relationships based on the unity of the Source and on the distinction of origin from that Source—the most perfect?

2.3. “If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as He does from the Father, then the Father differs from the Son in two ways: namely, by begetting the Son from Himself and by sending forth the Spirit from Himself. But one must accept only one distinction, one distinctive feature for each of the Divine Persons, because Their perfection consists as much in the highest possible unity as in the smallest possible number of distinctions, and consequently, in the fact that nothing else is ascribed to each Person except for one distinctive or personal attribute.”[999] But who among us has the right to determine how many particular attributes should constitute the personal property of each Person of the Most Holy Trinity, when this mystery is incomprehensible to our minds, and when the positive teaching of the ancient Church clearly states that the personal property of the Father indeed encompasses not only two, but even three particular attributes: that He Himself is begotten of no one and proceeds from no one, that He begets the Son, and that He proceeds from Himself the Holy Spirit? And, on the other hand, what kind of idea is it that the highest perfection of the Divine Persons requires that each of Them have no more than one distinguishing feature, and that the Father would cease to be fully perfect if we were to attribute two or three specific characteristics to His personal nature?

2.4. “The Son receives everything from the Father, with the exception of the Fatherhood, which alone is incommunicable; consequently, He also receives the divine, fruitful (fruchtbaren) will. And therefore, the Son, together with the Father and like the Father, participates divinely (ist fruchtbar) through His will in the procession of the Holy Spirit.”[1000] But how do we know that the Father alone possesses the attribute of fatherhood, while the attribute of proceeding the Holy Spirit is shared, when, on the contrary, the ancient teachers of the Church equally attributed both to the single Person of the Father, and stated that the Son received everything from the Father except the attribute of being the cause of another Person (Hypostasis) in general, that is, both the property of begetting the Son and the property of proceeding the Holy Spirit?[1001] And, secondly, where does the idea come from that the Son, together with the Father, proceeds the Holy Spirit from Himself somehow through the will?

§ 49. General Conclusion.

Having surveyed, as far as possible, everything that both Eastern and Western Christians present as most noteworthy in support of their teaching on the personal nature of God the Holy Spirit, we can now judge with complete clarity which side holds the truth; we can say to anyone who reflects impartially: Come and see.

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about the procession of the Holy Spirit just as the Word of God itself teaches with complete clarity, just as the ancient creeds and Councils—both ecumenical and local—teach, and just as all the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, both Eastern and Western, and, finally, as this proves to be reasonable and just according to the considerations of the theological mind. Who, then, with a clear conscience, would dare to assert that we, by believing in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, have strayed from the truth? Who would dare, in good conscience, to accuse us of error or heresy, — when to accuse us of error or heresy is to accuse all the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church of the same thing, is to accuse the Ecumenical Councils—not just the local ones—and indeed the entire ancient Church of the same thing, and is even to accuse the very Word of God of error or heresy? Who, we repeat, would dare to commit such blasphemy?

On the contrary, the Western Church’s teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit “and from the Son” is based not on the Word of God, but only on a perverse interpretation of various passages thereof; not on the ancient creeds of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils, but only on certain minor local councils held in Spain from the fifth century onward (if, moreover, we agree to assume that their acts are unaltered) and on the Council of Aachen, which took place as early as the beginning of the ninth century; not on the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, but solely on a perverse interpretation, or distortion, or even forgery of their testimonies, and on the very few direct statements of certain teachers of the fifth and sixth centuries, the authenticity of which is also questionable; finally, it proves to be unfounded and arbitrary even from the perspective of theological reasoning. Can such a teaching be called true? And is it all the more justifiable to present such a teaching as a dogma and even include it in the creed, when every Christian dogma must necessarily be based on the Word of God, must necessarily be held by the entire universal Church, and must have existed within it since the time of the Apostles themselves—rather than having appeared in some fifth or ninth century? No, this is already an error—and the greatest error of all; it is an innovation in a matter in which not only any particular Church, but even the universal Church, has no right to introduce innovations: for all dogmas have been revealed to us by God. This is, therefore, in a certain sense, a brazen encroachment upon the rights of God Himself.

§ 50. The Moral Application of the Dogma.

However abstract the doctrine of God’s personal attributes may be, we can still draw moral lessons from it for ourselves.

1) All Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, in addition to the common attributes belonging to Them by nature, also possess distinct attributes that distinguish Them from one another, so that the Father is precisely the Father and occupies the first place in the order of the Divine Persons, the Son is the Son and occupies the second place, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and occupies the third place, although in divinity They are all completely equal to one another. And to each of us the Creator has granted, in addition to the attributes common to all of us by human nature, specific attributes that distinguish us from one another; He has granted specific abilities and specific talents that determine our particular calling and place among our neighbors. To recognize these abilities and talents within oneself and to use them for one’s own good and that of one’s neighbors, and for the glory of God, so as to thus fulfill one’s calling—this is the indisputable duty of every human being.

2) Although the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity differ from one another in their personal attributes, they are nevertheless in constant mutual communion with one another: the Father dwells in the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son in the Father and the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son (John 14:10).[1002] Likewise, we too, despite all our differences in personal attributes, must maintain, to the best of our ability, mutual communion and moral unity among ourselves, bound together by the unity of nature and the bond of brotherly love.

3) In particular, let the fathers among us learn to remember Whose great name they bear, just as the sons—or all those born of the Fathers—...[1003] and, remembering this, let them take care to sanctify the names of the Father or the Son that they bear through the faithful fulfillment of the duties entrusted to them by these names.

4) Finally, remembering the disastrous consequences to which the arbitrary speculations of Western Christians regarding the personal nature of God the Holy Spirit have led, let us learn, as much as possible, to adhere strictly to the dogmas of faith taught by the Word of God and the Orthodox Church, and never to move the ancient boundary that our fathers established by faith (Prov. 22:28).

Section 2.
On God in His General Relationship to the World and to Mankind

For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:36).

§ 51. The Church’s Understanding of This Relationship and Its Teaching Thereon

The one triune God, possessing all the highest perfections and, consequently, enjoying the most perfect glory and bliss, though He had no need of anyone or anything, yet, being infinitely good, willed that other beings should come into being and share in His goodness: He called the universe into being out of nothing, and ever since has been providentially caring for it. It is precisely in these two acts of God—creation and providence—that the general relationship consists which God has equally toward the whole world and, in particular, toward man, and upon which primitive religion was founded among the human race.[1004] It is called “general” in contrast to another, special, supernatural relationship that God has directly toward fallen humanity alone—a relationship known as oikonomia (οίκονομία) or the mystery of our redemption, and which constitutes the foundation and essence of Christianity proper, as restored.[1005]

The teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning God in His general relationship to the world and to humanity is succinctly expressed in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: “I believe in one God... the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”—and consists of two parts: the doctrine of God as Creator and the doctrine of God as the Almighty [1006] , or Provider.

Chapter 2.
On God as Creator

§ 52. The Church’s Teaching and the Structure of This Teaching

The Orthodox Church teaches us the following about God as Creator: “Without a doubt, God is the Creator of all visible and invisible creatures. First of all, He brought into being through His thought all the heavenly Powers, as excellent singers of His glory, and created that rational world, which, by the grace given to it, knows God and is always and in everything devoted to His will. After that, God created this visible and material world out of nothing. Finally, God created man, who is composed of an immaterial, rational soul and a material body, so that from this single human being, thus composed, it might already be evident that He is the Creator of both worlds—the immaterial and the material. For this very reason, man is called a “little world”: for he bears within himself the image of the entire great world” (Orthodox Confessions, Part 1, Answer to Question 18).

This teaching evidently consists of two parts: I) a general idea of God’s creation, and II) specific ideas concerning the main types of God’s creations: the invisible or spiritual world, the visible or material world, and the microcosm, that is, man.

1. On God’s Creation in General

§ 53. The Concept of God’s Creation and a Brief History of the Dogma

By the term “creation,” in the strict sense, we mean the bringing into being of something out of nothing. And therefore, when we say that God created the world, we are expressing the idea that everything existing outside of God was brought into being by Him out of nothingness, or from complete non-existence into existence.[1007]

This truth ranks among the distinctive truths of divine revelation, unknown not only to ordinary pagans but also to their wisest sages: for some of them acknowledged that the world is eternal;[1008] others admitted that it emanated from God;[1009] still others taught that the world came into being of its own accord, by chance, from eternal chaos or atoms;[1010] a fourth group held that God formed it from matter coeternal with Himself,[1011] and no one could conceive of the world being created out of nothing by God’s almighty power. The Christian Church, having received this truth—which is incomprehensible to the human mind—from God, and desiring to impress it more firmly upon its children, has consistently taught it from the very beginning in the public creeds of the faith.[1012] The pastors and teachers of the Church also included it in their confessions,[1013] and sought to instill it in their flock as one of the most important doctrines.[1014] Unfortunately, there soon arose among Christians people who not only revived nearly all the ancient errors concerning the origin of the world but also introduced new ones. Namely:

a) Hermogenes and many other heretics posited the eternity of the matter from which the world was formed;[1015]

b) Simon the Magus, Menander, Basilides, Carpocrates, and others taught that the world was formed from eternal matter by angels;[1016]

c) Cerinthus taught that the world was formed by some lower power without the knowledge of the supreme God;[1017]

d) the Ophites, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists—that the world was formed by an evil principle, the devil;[1018]

e) Origen viewed the world as a necessary consequence of God’s omnipotence and therefore held that the world was created from eternity.[1019] All these errors were condemned by the early Church and refuted by many teachers of the faith, in particular: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Augustine;[1020] although they did not disappear entirely. In the Middle Ages, the Paulicians and Bogomils held the belief that the world was created by the devil or Satan.[1021] Some of the more recent, so-called philosophers have revived the doctrine of eternal matter from which the world originated,[1022] as well as the doctrine of the world’s emanation or development from God (emanationism and pantheism),[1023] and the notion that God created the world out of absolute necessity and, consequently, created it from eternity.[1024]

All of the views listed above must, in all fairness, be called heretical, since they directly contradict the teaching of the Word of God and the Orthodox Church regarding the origin of the world.

§ 54. God Created the World

“God is the Creator of visible and invisible creatures,” teaches the Orthodox Church (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 18)—and here is the indisputable testimony of the God-inspired men:

a) the prophet Moses: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1);

b) the prophet David: “Blessed is the one whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Ps. 145:5–6);

c) the prophet Isaiah: “The Lord, who created the heavens, He, the God who formed the earth and made it; He established it—He did not create it in vain; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18; cf. 42:5);

d) the prophet Jeremiah: He created the earth by His power, established the universe by His wisdom, and spread out the heavens by His understanding (Jer. 10:12);

e) Ezra: “You, O Lord, are one; You have created the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You sustain all these things, and the heavenly hosts worship You” (Nehemiah 9:6);

f) The Apostles, who, when Peter and John were released by the Jewish high priests, began their united prayer to God thus: “Sovereign God, You who created the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 4:24); g) in particular, the Apostle Paul, who proclaimed at the Areopagus in Athens: “God, who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by human hands” (Acts 17:24), and who, among other things, wrote to the Hebrews: “Every house is built by someone; but the one who built everything is God” (Heb. 3:4); g) finally, the Apostle John the Theologian, who heard the Angel swear by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is on it, the sea and all that is in it (Rev. 10:6; cf. 14:7).

To this we add:

a) that throughout all Holy Scripture, only God is called eternal, and nowhere is the world presented as coeternal with Him: the eternal Lord God, who created the ends of the earth, does not grow weary or faint (Isa. 40:28), or: “You have provoked the One who created you by offering sacrifices to demons rather than to God” (Baruch 4:7; cf. Ps. 92:2); and furthermore: all things were created through Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Col. 1:16–17);

b) is called the First, the Alpha, the Beginning of all: “I am the First and I am the Last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens” (Isa. 48:12–13); “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8); for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:36);

c) and that the creation of the world is regarded as one of the distinguishing marks of the true God: “Men!” exclaimed Paul and Barnabas, “what are you doing?” when the Gentiles in Lystra, mistaking them for their gods who had come down to earth, wanted to offer sacrifices to them, — “We, too, are human beings just like you, and we are bringing you the good news so that you may turn away from these false gods to the Living God, who created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them” (Acts 14:15; cf. Isa. 45:18).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in addition to dogmatically preaching this truth to the faithful on the basis of the Word of God, sometimes sought to reveal it in the light of natural reason as well. On the one hand, they positively demonstrated that the world was created by God. “All beings,” says, for example, St. John of Damascus, “are either created or uncreated. If they are created, then they are undoubtedly changeable: for whatever begins its existence with change must necessarily be subject to change—that is, either to decay or to arbitrary alteration. If, however, they are uncreated, then by a natural consequence they must be unchangeable, for beings that are opposite in their existence also have an opposite mode of existence—that is, opposite properties. But who would disagree that all beings—not only those perceptible to our senses, but even the angels themselves—are subject to change, become different, and undergo various movements? Spiritual beings—that is, angels, souls, and demons—change of their own volition when their progress toward the good or their deviation from the good intensifies or weakens. Everything else, however, changes through bodily birth and decay, increase and decrease, and through changes in quality and spatial motion. But whatever is changeable must be created; and if it is created, then it must have been created by someone. The Creator, however, must not Himself be created, for if He were created, He would necessarily have been created by someone, and that someone by another, and so on, until we arrive at something uncreated. Therefore, the Creator must be uncreated and, consequently, unchangeable. But what is unchangeable if not God?”[1025] On the other hand, the ancient pastors refuted all opposing views. Among them were—

a) The view that the world has existed from eternity—noting: “If God is not the only eternal Being and everything else did not originate from Him, then He is not God; and if the world is co-eternal with God, and therefore equal to Him in being, then it is equal to God in immutability, in infinity, and in every respect; and thus there is another God. But two eternal and co-eternal principles cannot be admitted according to the dictates of sound reason.”[1026]

b) The view that the world was created by angels or some other inferior power. “If angels, or anyone else, created the world against God’s will, it follows that they are more powerful than God; and if they created it according to His will, that would mean He needed their assistance. But God has no need of anyone or anything.[1027] Moreover, no angel is capable of creating the world any more than it is capable of creating itself.[1028] Angels, being created beings, cannot be creators.”[1029]

c) The view that the world came into being by chance. “If everything had come about by chance, without a rational cause, then everything would have come into being haphazardly, without a plan or order. But in reality, we see something different: everywhere in the world, there is a remarkable order and the wisest arrangement. And this necessarily leads us to conclude that the world was arranged by a Being of the highest reason, that is, God.”[1030]

§ 55. God Created the World Out of Nothing

“God created the world out of nothing,” teaches the Orthodox Church (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 8.18)—and this truth is evident:

1) From the words of the sacred Author of Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Although the Hebrew verb *bara* (אּרּבּ)—“created”—has a dual meaning, expressing both the creation of something from nothing and the formation from pre-existing matter (Gen. 1:27);[1031] but here it is used specifically in the first sense: for Moses immediately continues by stating that the created Earth was formless and empty (v. 2), and that it was from this unformed earth that God subsequently formed, step by step, all that is visible (v. 6 ff.).[1032] And the very expression “In the beginning God created” inevitably suggests the idea that He created when there was still nothing.[1033]

2) From the fact that in the Old Testament Church there was indeed a belief in the origin of the world from nothing. Thus, a certain pious Jewish woman, during the persecution under Antiochus, while persuading her son to accept death for the faith of the Fathers, said to him, among other things: “I beg you, my child, look at the heavens and the earth, and seeing all that is upon them, know that God created everything out of nothing, and that the human race came into being in the same way (2 Macc. 7:28)—from nothing.”[1034]

3) From those passages in the New Testament where it is stated that the Lord created all things (Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 4:11), that everything is from Him, through Him, and to Him (Rom. 11:36), that through Him all things came into being, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3). All these statements would not be entirely accurate if matter had existed from eternity of its own accord, and if God had created the world out of pre-existing matter.

4) Finally, from the direct testimony of St. Paul the Apostle, we know by faith that the ages were established by the word of God, so that the visible came into being from the invisible (Heb. 11:3), and that God calls what does not exist as though it did (— τά μή όντα, ώς όντα Rom. 4:17).

The Holy Fathers and writers of the Church—

1) Consistently confessed and preached the creation of the world out of nothing, such as: Hermas,[1035] Tatian,[1036] Athenagoras,[1037] Irenaeus,[1038] Tertullian,[1039] Ephrem the Syrian,[1040] John Chrysostom,[1041] Gregory the Theologian,[1042] Gregory of Nyssa,[1043] Augustine,[1044] and others. “What would be so great,” asks, for example, Theophilus of Antioch, “if God had created the world from pre-existing matter? After all, an artist, having received material from someone, can fashion whatever he wishes from it. But God’s power is seen in the fact that He brought into being from nothing everything He desired.”[1045] “Therefore,” remarks another Church Father, “let no one ask from what substance God produced such great and wondrous creatures; He produced everything from nothing.”[1046]

2) They refuted the doctrine that God created the world out of eternal matter. To accept this idea, the defenders of the truth argued, is to subject God to the matter He supposedly needed for creation;[1047] it is to acknowledge God as weak.[1048] On the other hand, if matter were eternal, it would also be unchanging, and consequently the world could never have been formed from it.[1049] If it were coeternal with God, and therefore just as self-existent as He is, it would also be completely independent of Him. How, then, could He have formed the world out of it?[1050] “Let them answer us: How did the active power of God and the passive nature of matter come together? How did matter, which provides formless substance, and God, who possesses knowledge of forms without substance, come together in such a way that what is lacking in one is supplied by the other; so that the Creator is given that upon which to display His art, and matter is given that by which to cast off its formlessness and lack of form”?[1051]

3) They rejected the idea that God produced the world from Himself. “God does not create with bodily hands,” writes St. Basil the Great, “but He creates not by producing creatures from Himself, but by bringing them into being through His activity, just as a man who makes something with his hands does not produce his work from himself.”[1052] Similarly, Blessed Augustine observes: “God created everything out of nothing; but He did not create from Himself, rather He begot One equal to Himself, whom we call the Son of God, and often God’s power and God’s wisdom—for it is through them that He created everything that was created out of nothing.”[1053] And elsewhere: “The universe was created; God did not beget it from Himself so that it might be the same as He Himself is. On the contrary, He created it out of nothing so that it might not be equal either to the One by whom it was created or to His Son, through whom it was created.”[1054]

As for the saying of the ancients, which they so often repeated: “Nothing comes from nothing,” this saying is, in a certain sense, entirely true: that is, nothing can ever arise of its own accord from nothing. But we do not claim that the universe arose from nothing on its own; rather, we believe that God’s infinite omnipotence brought it into being from non-existence, and consequently, we point to the power that was capable of doing this, albeit in a way that is incomprehensible to us.[1055]

§ 56. God created the world not from eternity, but in time, or together with time

If the world was created out of nothing, then it did not exist at one time; therefore, it had a beginning and was not created from eternity, but in time, or more precisely, together with time. For time is nothing other than the succession of things, as the necessary form of existence for limited beings and objects subject to change. Therefore, it could not have existed before these beings, but could only have come into being together with them—so that the beginning of the world is at the same time the beginning of time, and when the former was created, the latter was created at the same time.[1056] The Orthodox Church indeed teaches that God is “the Creator not only of things, but also of time itself and the age in which things came into being” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 33), that “foreknowledge and predestination existed in God before the existence of all things” (ibid., answer to question 30), and that He “knew all things before the creation of the world” (ibid., answer to question 26). Holy Scripture also confirms:

a) that the world did not always exist. This idea is expressed in the words of the Psalmist addressed to God: “Before the mountains were born or You had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God” (Ps. 89:3); in the words of God Himself: “And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began” (John 17:5), and in the words of the Apostle Paul: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..., for He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love (Eph. 1:3–4. See also Col. 1:17; Sir. 23:29; Prov. 8:23).

b) that the world had a beginning. “At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). The same can be seen in the following texts: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); “[1057] ” “In the beginning, You, [O Lord,] laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Ps. 101:26), although sometimes the expression “in the beginning” has another meaning in Scripture, namely: first of all, before the world came into being, from eternity (John 1:1; Prov. 8:23).

c) Finally, time itself, like the world, did not always exist and was created by God. “I was anointed from of old,” says the Hypostatic Wisdom of God, “from the beginning, before the earth came into being.” I was born when the abysses did not yet exist, when there were not yet springs abundant with water. I was born before the mountains were set in place, before the hills (Prov. 8:23–25). And the holy Apostle adds that it was through this Hypostatic Wisdom that God the Father created the ages (Heb. 1:2).

In revealing and defending this truth, the Holy Fathers and teachers primarily employed the following arguments:

a) if the world was created by God, then it was not created from eternity, for the cause must necessarily exist before that which proceeds from it;[1058]

b) if the world was created out of nothing, then it was not created from eternity, for it did not exist at one time;[1059]

c) the world is subject to change and exists in time; consequently, it was not created from eternity, because change and time—no matter how far back we trace them to their beginning—cannot be conceived without a beginning.[1060] At the same time, the defenders of the truth did not leave unresolved the doubts that were raised regarding it at that time.

To assert that the world was created by God not from eternity but within time—some argued—is to assert that even the very idea of the world, the very intention to create the world within God, is not eternal but arose only at a certain point in time; and consequently, it means to admit mutability in God. Against this, Blessed Augustine observed that God’s eternal intention to create the world and the creation of the world at a specific point in time are not in contradiction; God had the idea of the world from eternity, determined from eternity to create it, but to create it at a specific point in time; consequently, there is no basis for assuming that God changed in any way when He actually brought the world into being.[1061]

Others focused on the concept of God as the most supremely active being and asked: What was God doing before the creation of the world, if the world was not created from eternity? “Only God Himself could answer this,” said Saint Irenaeus, “but Sacred Scripture has revealed nothing to us about it.”[1062] “I will not say,” wrote Blessed Augustine, “as someone said in resolving this question, that God was then preparing hell for those who attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible; rather, I will say: I do not know, I do not know.” And a little further on: “Since before the creation of heaven and earth there was not yet any time, why ask what God was doing then? There was no ‘then’ where there was no time.”[1063] In St. Gregory the Theologian, we read the following on this subject: “I ask: if inactivity and imperfection cannot be ascribed to God, then what was God’s thought occupied with before the Most High, reigning in the void of the ages, created the universe and adorned it with forms? — It contemplated the Beloved Radiance of His goodness, the equal and equally perfect luminosity of the Triune Godhead, as is known to the one Godhead alone, and to whom God has revealed it. The World-Creating Mind also contemplated, in His great mental visions, the images of the world—which He Himself had composed—that He would later bring into being, yet for God, even then, it was real. Before God’s eyes lies everything: what will be, what was, and what is now. For me, such a division is imposed by time, so that one thing lies ahead and another behind; but for God, all merges into one, and all is held within the power of the great Deity.”[1064]

Still others argued that since God has been Lord and Ruler from eternity, the world over which He reigns must also have existed from eternity; or they reasoned that if God has possessed omnipotence from eternity, He must necessarily have created the world from eternity as well. Tertullian responded to the first opinion—originally expressed by Hermogenes—by arguing that the titles “Lord” and “Ruler” (Dominus) do not express God’s essence or any of His internal attributes, but only His external relationship to the world, because He became Lord and Ruler only in time, ever since the world came into being.[1065] As for the unfounded nature of the second argument, attributed to Origen, Saint Methodius clearly demonstrated this by noting that this argument presupposes that God would not be omnipotent if He had not created the universe, and consequently, that He is omnipotent and perfectly complete not in and of Himself, not by His very nature, but in dependence on the things He created.[1066]

§ 57. The Participation of All Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the Work of Creation

In professing that God created the world, the Orthodox Church attributes this great work not to any single Person of the Most Holy Trinity, but to all three together. Thus, in the Creed itself, it calls God the Father the Creator, speaks of the Son as “through whom all things were made,” and calls the Holy Spirit the Life-Giver. This is expressed even more clearly in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith: “We believe that the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—is the Creator of all things visible and invisible” (Art. 4).[1067]

In Holy Scripture we find clear grounds for this teaching. For, in addition to the many passages where creation is attributed to God in general (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 10:12; Ps. 113:23; 133:3; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 1 Cor. 11:12; Heb. 3:4), there are also passages where creation is attributed specifically to:

a) God the Father. For example: the one God the Father, from whom all things come (1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 2:10). And the words of the Apostles’ Prayer: “O Lord God, who created heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them”—are addressed specifically to the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity; for we read further: “You spoke by the mouth of our father David, Your servant, through the Holy Spirit: ‘Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth have risen up, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ. For indeed, in this city, Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, gathered against Your Holy Son Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your counsel had predestined to take place (Acts 4:24–28).

b) God the Son. For example: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3); or: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth… all things were created through Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16; cf. Heb. 1:3).

c) God the Holy Spirit. The righteous Job speaks of Him: “The Spirit of God created me” (Job 33:4), and the Psalmist: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His lips” (Ps. 32:6; cf. Ps. 103:30); “[1068] ” and the sacred Chronicler depicts the Spirit of God hovering over the waters at the creation of the world, as if infusing life into the newly created matter (Gen. 1:2).[1069]

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also attributed the creation of the world to God in general,[1070] and in particular to God the Father,[1071] to God the Son or the Word,[1072] and to God the Holy Spirit,[1073] noting, however, that it was not each one separately, but all together that They brought the universe into being.[1074] And to clarify exactly what each Person of the Most Holy Trinity contributed to the work of creation, the holy teachers stated that “the Father created the world through the Son in the Holy Spirit;” or: “Everything comes from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit,”[1075] though not in the sense that the Son and the Holy Spirit played any role as instruments or performed servile labor in creation, but in the sense that They creatively carried out the Father’s will.[1076] And this teaching is grounded in Scripture itself, where it is clearly stated that everything is from the Father (1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:18) through the Son (John 1:3; Heb. 1:3, etc.) in the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:18), that all things are from Him, through Him, and to Him—ex autou, kai di’ autou, kai en autou ta panta (Rom. 11:36).[1077]

St. Gregory the Theologian presents this idea more specifically when, describing the order of creation, he says: “God (the Father) first conceives the angelic and heavenly powers—and the thought became a deed, which was fulfilled by the Word and accomplished by the Spirit.”[1078] St. Basil the Great explains this even more clearly and in greater detail with the following words: “In their (the angels’) creation, consider the primary cause (προκαταρκτική αίτία) of the created—the Father—and the creative (δημιουργική)—the Son, and the perfecting cause (τελειωτική)—the Spirit, so that the ministering spirits have their being by the will of the Father, are brought into being by the action of the Son, and are perfected in their being by the presence of the Spirit. The very essence of the angels, however, is holiness and dwelling in holiness. And let no one think that I am asserting that the three principal Hypostases and the activity of the Son are imperfect. For there is one principle of beings, creating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit. And the activity of the Father, who acts in all things through all, is not imperfect, nor is the creation of the Son insufficient, unless it is perfected by the Spirit. For if the Father, creating by His sole will, had no need of the Son, He would not will through the Son; nor would the Son, acting like the Father, have any need of assistance, yet He too wills to bring things to completion through the Spirit. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His lips—all their host (Ps. 32:6). But the Word is not a mere sound in the air produced by the organs of speech, nor is the Spirit the vapor of the lips expelled by the respiratory organs; but the Word, who was with God in the beginning and is God (John 1:1), and the Spirit of God’s mouth—the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). Therefore, conceive of the Three: the commanding Lord, the creating Word, and the upholding Spirit.”[1079] Finally, St. John of Damascus calls the Father the source and cause (πηγή γεννητική καί προβλητική) not only in relation to the Divine Persons, but—in a different sense, of course—also in relation to all that exists, the Son—the Father’s power that pre-ordains (δύναμις προκαταρκτική) the creation of all things—and the Holy Spirit—the accomplisher (τελεσιουργός) of all creation.[1080]

It should be added that—

a) the doctrine of the participation of all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the work of creation is a necessary consequence of the doctrine of Their unity and perfect indivisibility in nature and in all divine attributes, and—

b) the very order and degree of each Person’s participation in this work fully correspond to Their personal order and the relationships among Them.

§ 58. The Manner of Creation

Regarding the manner in which God created the universe, the Orthodox Church sometimes states that He created everything by thought (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 18), sometimes—by His will (ibid., answer to question 14), and sometimes—by His word or command (ibid., answer to question 22). In this, too, she follows the Word of God, which testifies that God created the world—

1) Through reason and wisdom: The Lord founded the earth through wisdom and established the heavens through reason (Prov. 3:19; cf. Ps. 135:5; Jer. 10:12), that is, He created in accordance with His own supremely wise mental concepts (ideas), in which He had from eternity contemplated all His future creations: all His works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; cf. Dan. 13:42; Sir. 23:29; 39:26). “From of old I was anointed,” says the very Wisdom of God herself, “from the beginning, before the earth came into being...” “When He prepared the heavens, I was there… when He established the sea’s boundaries so that the waters would not overstep its limits… when He laid the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him” (Prov. 8:23, 27, 29). The reality of these eternal divine concepts, in which the world existed even before it came into actual (real) being, was unanimously acknowledged by the Fathers and teachers of the Church,[1081] , who called them the archetypes (πρωτότυπα) of all things, the models (παραδείγματα), the predestinations (προορισμοί), and so on [1082] “God saw everything before it came into existence,” writes, for example, St. John of Damascus, “conceiving it in His mind from eternity; and every thing receives its existence at a specific time as a result of His eternal thought—united with His will—which is predestination, image, and design.”[1083] And elsewhere: “God’s concepts of each of those things that are to receive their existence from Him are their images, blueprints, or, as Saint Dionysius calls them, predestinations. For in His counsel are preordained the images of all things that are predestined to be and that will certainly come to be.”[1084]

2) By His will, that is, entirely freely, and not as a result of any necessity. That is why it is said: Our God is in heaven [and on earth]; He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 113:11); The Lord does whatever He pleases, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the depths (Ps. 134:6); You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created (Rev. 4:11). For this reason, the ancient teachers of the Church confessed that God created the world not out of any necessity or under compulsion, but solely by His own will;[1085] that He created everything He willed and as He willed;[1086] that His will is both the foundation, the beginning, and the measure of all things,[1087] and is even the very act itself that we call the world.[1088]

3) By the Word. And God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light, as the sacred Chronicler relates—And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters…,” And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters,” and so on (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, and following). He [spoke, and they came into being]; He commanded, and they were created, exclaims the God-inspired Psalmist (Ps. 148:5). But the Holy Fathers of the Church note that the “word of God” here should not be understood as any articulate sound or word similar to ours; no, this creative word signifies only a gesture or expression of God’s almighty will, which brought the universe into being out of nothing (Rev. 4:11; Jer. 32:17).

“The Creator of the universe,” says St. Basil the Great, “possessing creative power sufficient not only for the world alone, but infinitely superior to it, brought all the grandeur of the visible into being by a single gesture of His will... When we attribute a voice, speech, and command to God, we do not mean by the “word of God” the sound produced by the vocal organs or the air set in vibration by the tongue; rather, for the sake of greater clarity for students, we wish to depict the very movement of the will itself in the form of a command.”[1089] St. Ambrose,[1090] St. John of Damascus, and others reason in a similar way.[1091]

Consequently, to summarize briefly what Sacred Scripture teaches about the manner of the universe’s creation, the doctrine is as follows: “God created the world according to His eternal ideas about it, completely freely, by a single act of the will. The plan for the universe had been predetermined from eternity in these ideas; free will determined to carry out this plan; and the act of the will actually brought it to pass.” But how a single act of the almighty will, a single creative word, could bring the universe into being out of nothing—this, Scripture calls a mystery that is understood only by faith: “By faith,” says the holy Apostle, “we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that the visible came into being from the invisible” (Heb. 11:3).

§ 59. The Motivation for Creation and Its Purpose

Since God created the world not out of necessity but entirely of His own free will, it follows that He created it out of some motive—for He could just as easily have chosen not to create it. And since He created it with wisdom and reason, it follows that He created it for some purpose—for wisdom cannot act without a purpose.

The Orthodox Church teaches us the following on this subject: “We must believe that God…—being good and most good, though perfect and glorious in Himself—created the world out of nothing for the purpose that other beings, by glorifying Him, might share in His bliss” (Orthodox Confessions, Part 1, Answer to Question 8; cf. The Simple Catechism, p. 35, Moscow, 1845). Consequently, the Church considers the Creator’s infinite goodness to be the sole motive for creation, and the purpose of creation to be, on the one hand, the glory of the Creator, and on the other, the bliss of His creatures.

And as we delve deeper into the Word of God, we are easily convinced that no other motive that could have prompted the Most High to create the universe can be conceived, except for His goodness alone. Holy Scripture leads us to this thought—

a) in part, in those passages where it teaches that God is a being of perfect perfection (Ps. 114:3; Matt. 5:45), and consequently, of all-gloriousness (Ps. 23:10; 28:3) and of all-goodness (1 Tim. 1:11; Ps. 15:11), that He needs neither anyone nor anything (Acts 17:25, 26), that He has existed from eternity alone, without the world (Ps. 89:3; Eph. 1:3–4), and consequently, could just as well have continued to exist for all eternity had He not chosen to bring other beings into existence; but—

b) even more so in those passages where, lifting our eyes to God’s creations themselves, He exclaims: “The Lord is good to all, and His mercy is over all His works” (Ps. 144:9; cf. Proverbs 11:25–27); or calls us to confess His mercies revealed in the work of creation: “Praise the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endures forever. Praise the God of gods, for His mercy endures forever. Praise the Lord of lords, for His mercy endures forever; He who alone performs great wonders, for His mercy endures forever; who created the heavens with wisdom, for His mercy endures forever; who established the earth upon the waters, for His mercy endures forever; who created the great luminaries, for His mercy endures forever; the sun—to rule the day, for His mercy endures forever; the moon and the stars—to rule the night, for His mercy endures forever (Ps. 135:1–9). The Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously identified the Creator’s goodness as the reason for creation. Here, for example, are the words—

a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Since it was not enough for Goodness to exercise itself merely in the contemplation of itself, but it was necessary for goodness to spread out, to go farther and farther, so that the number of those benefited might be as great as possible (for this is characteristic of the highest Goodness), God first devised the angelic and heavenly powers—and the thought became reality;”[1092]

b) St. Athanasius the Great: “God is good, or rather, the very source of goodness; and since it is not in the nature of the Good to hate anything, He, having no hatred toward anything, created all things out of nothing through His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ”;[1093]

c) Blessed Theodoret: “The Lord God has no need of those who praise Him, but out of His sole goodness He bestowed being upon the angels, the archangels, and every creature,” and further: “God lacks nothing; but He, being an abyss of goodness, was pleased to bestow being upon those who did not exist;”[1094]

d) St. John of Damascus: “The good and all-good God was not content with the contemplation of Himself, but out of the abundance of His goodness, He willed that beings should come into being who would benefit from His blessings and share in His goodness.”[1095]

Likewise, both Sacred Scripture and, following it, the holy teachers of the Church place the glory of God first and foremost as the purpose of creation. The former expresses this idea—

a) in general terms, when it states that the Lord did everything for His own sake (Prov. 16:4) and that everything comes from Him (Heb. 2:10);

b) much more clearly and directly, when it testifies that His invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen since the creation of the world through a contemplation of His works (Rom. 1:20), — and it is in this very revelation of the highest perfections that God’s outward glory consists—and that indeed the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 18:2), and the whole earth is filled with the glory of the Lord of Hosts (Isa. 6:3);

c) finally, with complete clarity, when He commands us: “Glorify God in your bodies and in your spirits, which belong to God” (1 Cor. 6:20); “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), and when He generally calls upon heaven and earth to glorify the Creator: “Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the heights. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.” Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all you stars of light. Praise Him, heavens of heavens, and the waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He [spoke, and they came into being;] He commanded, and they were created; He established them forever and ever; He set a decree that will never pass away. Praise the Lord from the earth, great fish and all the depths, fire and hail, snow and mist, the stormy wind that carries out His word, mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars, wild animals and all livestock, creeping things and winged birds, kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all the judges of the earth, young men and maidens, the aged and the young—let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted; His glory is in heaven and on earth (Ps. 148:1–13). Among the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, this idea is expressed by: the holy martyr Justin, who says that God created the world “to manifest His divine power”;[1096] Theophilus of Antioch: “God brought all things into being from non-existence, so that His greatness might be known and understood through His creations”;[1097] Tertullian: “God created the world out of nothing for the glorification of His greatness;”[1098] as did Athenagoras, Athanasius the Great, Lactantius, Augustine, Jerome, and others.[1099]

As for the second purpose of the world—the bliss of created beings—it is—

1) It follows naturally from the motive by which God was pleased to create the world. If God brought the universe into being solely out of His infinite goodness, desiring that other beings might also taste the sweetness of existence and share in His goodness, then this is clearly one of the purposes of the world. It is for this very purpose that God never ceases to do good (Acts 10:38) to His creatures, Himself giving life and breath to all things (Acts 17:25), and moreover giving us all things in abundance for our enjoyment (1 Tim. 6:17), filling all things with good (Ps. 103:28) and sustaining all living things by His good pleasure (Ps. 144:16). It is in this very sense— —that the ancient teachers of the Church often expressed the idea that God created all things not for Himself—for He needs nothing—but for us, His creatures.[1100]

2) is a necessary consequence of the attainment of the first goal. Moral beings (since they alone are capable of striving toward this goal on their own—that is, freely—and attaining it, while all other beings are merely filled with the glory of their Creator, merely reveal it to rational creatures, and cannot themselves consciously glorify Him), — moral beings, by truly glorifying their Creator, thereby already attain their own bliss. For they can truly glorify God, as the Savior commanded us, only through good deeds and a godly life (Matt. 5:16), and the result of good deeds is bliss, according to His own teaching on the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3–12), and godliness, as the Apostle says, is useful for all things, holding the promise of life both now and in the future (1 Tim. 4:8).

From this it becomes clear that, while recognizing the glory of God and the bliss of created beings—which are so closely interconnected—as the purpose of the world, we by no means reject the view that the world was created for the moral development of rational creatures and their gradual perfection in goodness. Without gradual perfection in goodness, they can neither truly glorify God nor attain bliss; consequently, in a certain sense, this perfection can also be called the purpose of the world—not, however, the principal and ultimate purpose, but, so to speak, a preliminary and intermediate one in relation to the principal ones. We are created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10), so that through these works we may glorify the Lord and attain bliss.

§ 60. The Perfection of Creation and the Origin of Evil in the World

“The Orthodox Church teaches that we should reason about creation in this way: since it was created by the Good, it is itself good, with the distinction that a rational and free creature, when it turns away from God, becomes evil—not because it was created that way, but because of its actions, which are contrary to reason. Unrational creatures, however, since they lack free will, are entirely good by their very nature” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 31). And in another passage: “Since the Creator is, by His very nature, good, He has created everything He has made to be beautiful, and He can never be the Creator of evil. If, however, there is any evil in a human being or a demon (for we do not know evil in nature itself)—that is, sin contrary to God’s will—then this evil originates either from the human being or from the devil. For it is absolutely true and beyond any doubt that God cannot be the cause of evil, and that therefore perfect justice demands that we not attribute it to God” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 4).

Scripture indeed confirms—

a) on the one hand, that everything created by God is created perfect. Thus, the sacred Chronicler, recounting the days of creation, repeatedly remarks: “And God saw that it (what He had created) was good” (Gen. 1:4; 10:12, 18, 21, 25), and at the conclusion of it all He says: “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (31). Subsequent writers repeat the same thought in various ways; for example, the Psalmist: “How manifold are Your works, O Lord! In wisdom You have made them all” (Ps. 103:24); Ecclesiastes: “He has made everything beautiful in its time” (Eccl. 3:11; cf. Wisdom 11:25); the wise son of Sirach: “All the works of the Lord are exceedingly good” (Sirach 39:21); and the holy Apostle Paul: “Every creation of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4).

b) on the other hand—that if there is evil in certain rational creatures, namely, in demons and humans, then this evil does not come from God, but from themselves. “He was a murderer from the beginning,” said the Savior of the devil, “and does not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him; when he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). “Through one man sin entered the world,” the Apostle also says, “and through sin, death; and thus death passed into all men, because all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12); or: “Whoever commits sin is of the devil, for the devil sinned first” (1 John 3:8). Consequently, we are commanded: “Turn away from evil and do good” (Ps. 33:15); “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove your evil deeds from My sight; cease to do evil” (Isa. 1:15), and so on.

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church expounded on all these ideas regarding the perfection of creation and the origin of evil in the world, particularly in two instances: first, when they refuted the false teachings of the Gnostics, Marcionites, Manichaeans, and other heretics, who claimed that the world is imperfect and filled with evil, and that the cause of this evil is God Himself, or a distinct, evil principle opposed to the good; and second, when they wrote commentaries on the Six Days of Creation. In the first case, their main arguments were as follows: “Evil is not some entity possessing actual existence, like other beings created by God, but is merely the deviation of beings from their natural state—in which the Creator placed them—into a state that is the opposite. Therefore, God is not the cause of evil; rather, it arises from the beings themselves, who deviate from their natural state and purpose. And since only moral beings can deviate from their natural state of their own accord, evil, in the strict sense, is solely moral. Physical evil, on the other hand, must be viewed partly as a consequence of moral evil, partly as a punishment sent by God for sins, and partly as a means of correcting sinners.”[1101]

And in their commentaries on the Six Days of Creation, the holy teachers examined, in order, each class of God’s creatures that appeared on one day or another, and demonstrated in detail the traces of God’s wondrous wisdom in their most perfect design.[1102] Sound reason, based solely on the concept of God, readily agrees with the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers regarding the perfection of creation and the origin of evil in the world. God is a being of the highest wisdom and omnipotence; therefore, He could not have created the world imperfect, nor could He have created in it a single thing that would be inadequate for its purpose or fail to contribute to the perfection of the whole. God is the holiest and most benevolent Being; consequently, He could not be the cause of evil, whether moral or physical. And if He had created an imperfect world, it would have been either because He was unable to create a more perfect one, or because He did not wish to. But both of these assumptions are equally inconsistent with the true concept of the Supreme Being.

§ 61. The Moral Implications of the Doctrine

By delving into the meaning of the doctrine of God’s creation, we can learn much both about God and about His creatures.

1) God created the universe—and with it, us—solely out of His infinite goodness and love, having no need of anyone or anything; therefore, the first feeling that should fill each of us when we look at the nature that surrounds us and become aware of our own existence is a feeling of the deepest gratitude toward the Creator.

2) In the creation of the universe out of nothing, in its astonishing vastness, in its wise design—both as a whole and in its parts, down to the smallest details—in the marvelous diversity of the beings that inhabit it, and in the qualities with which these beings are endowed, God has revealed His infinite omnipotence, majesty, and wisdom, so that the world as a whole is a mirror of Divine perfections; let us, then, gaze into this mirror as often as possible so that, seeing before us the image of our Lord, we may walk in His presence and imitate His perfections.

3) The primary purpose of the creation of the universe is the glory of the Creator. And the world around us, reflecting so clearly the perfections of God, is truly a majestic temple in which everything ceaselessly praises and glorifies its Creator; let us, too, learn to join our voices of praise to the voice of all nature; let us learn to glorify God both in our bodies… and in our spirits…, which belong to God (1 Cor. 6:20), and to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

4) All of God’s creatures are perfect, and their perfection lies in the fact that each is entirely sufficient for the purpose for which it was created; let us therefore respect this perfection of creatures, never allowing ourselves to misuse any thing or being contrary to its nature and purpose.

5) All of God’s creatures are beautiful: let us learn to love this beauty as the work of our Lord’s hands; but let us love it in such a way that we do not forget the Creator because of His creatures; rather, by contemplating visible beauty, may we be lifted up more and more to the contemplation of God’s invisible, uncreated, supreme beauty, and may we attach ourselves to it with our whole soul, seeking in it our true bliss.

On the Principal Kinds of God’s Creations

1. On the Spiritual World

§ 62. The Teaching of the Church and a Brief Overview of False Opinions Regarding the Dogma

The teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the invisible or spiritual world, specifically as a creation of God, can be summarized as follows: “Angels are incorporeal spirits, endowed with intellect, will, and power... They were created before the visible world and before man...; they are divided into nine orders... and even the evil angels were created by God as good, but became evil of their own free will” (Extended Christian Catechism on the First Article; Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answers to Questions 19–21).

This is a dogmatic teaching which, as we shall see, has always existed in its entirety within the Church, yet in all its parts has also been subject to various particular opinions, or has even been rejected. Thus, there have been and still are people who have rejected and continue to reject the very existence of angels, both good and evil, basing their position primarily on the idea that the passages in Holy Scripture concerning angels must be understood figuratively.[1103] There were also those who held their own private opinions regarding the nature of angels—many attributed bodies to angels, both good and evil, although, for the most part, these were the most subtle, fiery, or ethereal;[1104] some considered angels to be inferior, in terms of the dignity of their nature, compared to the human soul.[1105] Still others erred regarding the origin of angels; first, regarding the manner of their origin, asserting that angels were not created by God but emanated from His essence;[1106] Second, they erred regarding the time of their origin, believing that angels were created either suddenly after the creation of matter but before the visible world was formed from it,[1107] or on the first day along with the light,[1108] or after the entire material world and humankind had already been created.[1109] Still others taught that the fallen spirits are evil by their very nature and from the beginning, and did not become evil of their own free will.[1110] There were quite a few specific opinions regarding the number and ranks of good and evil angels, regarding how and why the angels fell, what their first sin consisted of, and so on.

The merit of all these opinions—whether stated or unstated—will become apparent on its own through a detailed exposition of the Orthodox teaching on good and evil spirits as creations of God.

1.1. On Good Spirits or Angels

§ 63. The Concept of Angels and the Certainty of Their Existence

The name “Angel” (’Άγγελος, ךּאּלּמּ—messenger, herald), as the ancient teachers of the Church have noted, is a title denoting an office, not a nature.[1111] It is therefore not surprising that in Holy Scripture this title is applied to various messengers of the Most High who have proclaimed or are proclaiming His will. Thus, in the Old Testament, it is attributed to: the Messiah himself, who, however, is called not simply an Angel, but the Angel of the Covenant (Mal. 3:1); Moses (Num. 20:16); and other prophets (Hag. 1:3; Isa. 33:7), to priests (Mal. 2:7), and even to inanimate objects that carry out the Lord’s word (Ps. 77:49); and in the New Testament—to the Savior’s Forerunner (Matt. 11:10), to His disciples (Luke 9:52), to the disciples of the Forerunner (Luke 7:18–24), and to the leaders of the churches (Rev. 1:20; 2:1). But in the strict and proper sense, the term “angels” in Holy Scripture refers to beings of a special kind, distinct from both God and man—spiritual beings that are real, not imaginary; and this is evident in countless passages of both the Old and New Testaments, which cannot be explained figuratively without grossly distorting the meaning of the text.

Here are a few examples from the Old Testament:

a) It is told of the patriarch Jacob: “And he saw in a dream: Behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.” And behold, the Lord was standing above it and said, ‘I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; [do not be afraid]. The land on which you are lying I will give to you and to your descendants’ (Gen. 28:12–13). Here the angels are clearly distinct from God and from man, and although this vision occurred in a dream, they must certainly be recognized as real beings, just as God, who appeared together with them—all the more so since Jacob’s dream itself took place by God’s arrangement.

b) In the Book of Job we read: “Is a man more righteous than God? Is a man purer than his Maker?” Behold, He does not even trust His servants, and He finds fault with His angels (Job 4:17–18). Here, too, angels are distinguished from both God and man, and are presented as inherently superior to man; but would it have been possible to make this comparison if angels did not actually exist?

c) The psalmist makes a similar comparison between man and angels, only in stronger terms: “What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:5–6).

d) Although, as we have noted, the name “angels” is sometimes applied to prophets as well, in the proper sense angels are clearly distinct from prophets: for they appear to them on behalf of the Most High and proclaim His will. Thus an angel appeared to Elijah (2 Kings 1:3, 15), to Daniel (Dan. 3:49; 6:22), and to Zechariah (Zech. 1:14).

We find even clearer and more decisive evidence of this truth in the New Testament: in the words of both the Savior Himself and the Apostles.

The Savior, for example, says:

a) He replied, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed are the sons of the Kingdom, and the weeds are the sons of the evil one; the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels” (Matt. 13:37–39). In this saying, angels are presented as existing in exactly the same way as the Son of Man, the world, and the sons of the Kingdom.

b) “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 18:10). Here, angels are depicted not only as real and personal beings, but also as being in the closest relationship with God.

c) I tell you: whoever confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels of God; but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God (Luke 12:8–9). This means that angels constitute a distinct class of beings, separate from the human race.

d) But as for that day or hour, no one knows—not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son—but only the Father (Mark 13:32). Angels are presented here as inhabitants of heaven, possessing perfect knowledge compared to humans and existing just as certainly as the Father and the Son do.

e) When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory (Matt. 25:31; cf. 16:27; Luke 9:26). The Son of Man will come to judge, undoubtedly accompanied by real beings.

f) In the resurrection, people neither marry nor are given in marriage, but remain as the angels of God in heaven (Matt. 22:30). These words, in which angels are so indisputably acknowledged as real beings, are all the more remarkable because the Savior spoke them before the Sadducees, who denied the existence of angels (Acts 23:8), and thus testified that He taught about angels not at all out of any accommodation to the false notions of His listeners, as freethinkers dare to suppose,[1112] but solely because of the unshakable truth of this teaching.

Among the holy Apostles, it suffices to hear the testimonies of the two chief ones:

a) Saint Peter says: “It was revealed to them (the prophets) that what is now preached to you by those who proclaimed the gospel through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—this was not for their own benefit but for yours—and into which even the angels long to look” (1 Pet. 1:12). Here, angels are clearly distinguished from other messengers and heralds of God—the prophets and apostles—and are presented as beings of a special kind, superior and endowed with free will.

b) St. Paul writes to his beloved disciple Timothy: “I charge you in the presence of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the elect angels to keep these things without prejudice” (1 Tim. 5:21). If, therefore, the Apostle calls upon the angels as witnesses, together with God the Father and the Lord Jesus, he evidently attributes to them an indisputable existence.

c) And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same Apostle, comparing the Savior to the angels, says: “He is as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is more glorious than theirs.” For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You…,” Likewise, when introducing the Firstborn into the universe, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:4–6). From this, too, it is evident that the Apostle recognized angels as real beings, and moreover, as the highest among other beings.

There is countless evidence that the Holy Church of Christ believed in the existence of angels from the very beginning. Such evidence includes all the ancient creeds, in which God is called, among other things, the Creator of the invisible, that is, the spiritual world.[1113] Such are also, in particular, the testimonies of the Church Fathers: Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Augustine, and many others,[1114] which we consider superfluous to cite here, since no one has ever doubted the Church’s belief in the existence of angels.

Having received from divine Revelation the idea that there is a spiritual world in addition to the visible world, and that there are angels, sound human reason can, in its own way, approach this truth to some extent.

History tells us that belief in the existence of angels has existed in all ages and among all peoples, despite all the differences in their religions, and that it is almost as universal among humankind as the belief in the existence of God.[1115] How, then, should we view this phenomenon? How can we explain it? The most natural and straightforward explanation is that the doctrine of angels was transmitted into all the religious systems of various peoples from primitive religion, and is one of the remnants—albeit a considerably distorted one—of that original Revelation which was granted by God to the forefathers of the human race in Paradise, and subsequently spread from them among all their descendants.

In the material world, we see an extraordinary multitude and diversity of beings; we observe among them various degrees and classes, some higher than others, some more perfect than others; may we not conclude, by analogy, that something similar must exist in the spiritual world, — that, besides the human soul, which alone is known to us as a spirit, there must also exist countless other spirits and classes of spirits, which likewise rise above one another in degrees of perfection and, as it were, form a continuous ladder, beginning with the human soul and ascending to God? At the very least, it is utterly implausible that the entire spiritual world should be limited solely to human souls, when the material world is so astonishingly vast and diverse.

If the purpose of the world and sound reason cannot but acknowledge, on the one hand, the glory of the Creator, and on the other, the happiness and bliss of creatures (§ 59), then the existence of spirits appears necessary in this regard as well. No matter how many of His perfections the Lord has manifested in the creation of material beings, these creatures themselves are incapable of understanding the divine perfections manifested in them or of glorifying their Creator. No matter how abundantly He has bestowed upon them the blessings of life, the vast majority of beings in the material world lack even the ability to perceive their own existence, while others, though capable of perceiving existence, are unable to comprehend it rationally or enjoy it consciously. Only spiritual and rational beings are capable of understanding the perfections of their Creator, manifested both within themselves and in the creation of the material world; they alone can glorify Him through rational speech and a godly life; they alone are capable not only of sensing but also of distinctly comprehending the full sweetness of existence and enjoying true happiness and bliss.

§ 64. The Origin of Angels from God and the Time of Their Origin

It is well known that the sacred Chronicler, in describing the creation of the world, did not speak clearly about the origin of the angels. And this, as the Holy Fathers of the Church believed, was for two reasons: first, because, due to the inability of the Jews of that time to rise to the level of supernatural matters, Moses intended to set forth before his fellow tribesmen only the history of the visible world, in order to teach them, at least through a series of subjects accessible to them, to recognize the true Cause of all that exists;[1116] and secondly—because it was not safe to speak clearly about the existence of higher, spiritual beings to people who were not yet sufficiently grounded in the truth of God’s unity and were prone to fall into polytheism and idolatry.[1117] Despite Moses’ silence regarding God’s creation of angels, this truth is undoubtedly proclaimed in the Word of God. It is expressed:

a) In those passages where it is stated that everything that exists apart from God derives its being from Him. For example: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3); For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:36); every house is built by someone; and the one who built everything is God (Heb. 3:4; cf. Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11).

b) More direct and clear are the words of Ezra: “You, O Lord, are one; You have created the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and You sustain all these, and the heavenly hosts worship You” (Neh. 9:6). Here, the phrase “all their hosts” (of the heavens), created by God, refers to the angels, who are indeed called by this name in Scripture (Luke 2:13) and are depicted as surrounding the throne of the Most High and worshiping Him (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 7:11; Ps. 96:7).

c) Finally, with complete clarity—in the words of the Apostle: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers—all things were created through Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). “The unseen” here refers to the spiritual world, as opposed to the visible, material world, and “thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers” are the names of angelic ranks, as is evident from other similar passages (1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 1:20–21).

The Church’s belief that God is the Creator of the unseen, that is, the Creator of the spiritual world—a belief known from her creeds—has been clearly professed by various teachers of the Church in their writings. For example—

a) Irenaeus: “God created everything as He willed, bestowing upon all a fitting structure, order, and beginning of existence: upon spiritual beings—a spiritual and invisible nature; upon heavenly beings—a heavenly nature; upon angels—an angelic nature; upon animals—an animal nature… and whatever He brought into being, He brought into being by His almighty word;”[1118]

b) Eusebius: “When God desired to share the treasures of His riches with many, and resolved to bring into being every rational creature, He created various incorporeal, thinking, and divine powers—angels and archangels, spirits unconnected with matter and utterly pure;”[1119]

c) Ambrose: “We easily recognize the Creator of angels, dominions, and powers in the One who, by the wave of His power, brought into being from nothing such a beautiful world that did not previously exist;”[1120]

d) Theodoret: “We believe that angels were created by God the Almighty on the basis of the testimony of Scripture;”[1121]

e) Augustine: “Divine revelation has made it very clear to us that angels, too, were created by God.”[1122]

But Divine Revelation is not so clear regarding exactly when God created the angels. Of all the opinions on this subject that have existed among Christians, only one is grounded in the Word of God—the opinion which, for this reason, was held by the majority of the Church Fathers and teachers, and which the Orthodox Church itself recognizes as true. It consists of the following: “Angels were created by God before all else, and indeed the spiritual world was created before the material world.”[1123] The basis for this teaching is found:

a) On the one hand, in the opening words of the sacred Book of Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1)... Here, the term “heaven” cannot be understood to mean the firmament or, more generally, what is commonly called “heaven,” for the visible heaven, with all its expanses and celestial bodies, was created later (Gen. 1:6; 8:14–17). And just as “earth” should be understood not merely as the earth itself, but as the substance from which God subsequently, over the course of six days, formed the material world ([1124] )—so too, by contrast, “heaven” naturally refers to the spirits themselves, which are usually depicted in Scripture as inhabiting heaven (Col. 1:16).[1125] This conjecture is all the more plausible because Moses does not at all attribute to heaven the disorder that he attributes to the earth or to primordial matter, and thus clearly distinguishes and contrasts them with one another. If this is true, then it follows that angels were created first of all, when nothing yet existed besides God, and served as the beginning of all God’s creation.[1126]

b) On the other hand—in God’s own words to Job: amid the general rejoicing of the morning stars, when all the sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38:7). The term “angels,” or (according to the Hebrew text) “sons of God,” in this passage undoubtedly refers to angels in the proper sense—incorporeal spirits— , because they are already mentioned by this name twice earlier in the same book of Job (1:6; 2:1). Meanwhile, they are acknowledged here as already existing and glorifying God on the fourth day, when the stars were created; this implies that they were created earlier.[1127]

Among the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, there is no doubt that angels were recognized as having been created before the material world:

St. Basil the Great: “Even before the world came into being, there was a certain state befitting the pre-worldly powers, transcending time, eternal, and ever-lasting. It was in this state that the Creator and Builder of all things brought forth His creations—the spiritual light befitting the bliss of those who love the Lord, rational and invisible beings, and all the splendor of contemplative creatures that surpass our understanding, so much so that we cannot even devise names for them. It is they who fill the essence of the invisible world, as Paul teaches us, saying: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible—whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers” (Col. 1:16)—as well as the angelic hosts and the archangelic orders. And when it became necessary to add this world to what already existed—primarily as a school and place of education for human souls, and later as a dwelling place for all that is subject to birth and destruction— then a succession of time was brought into being, akin to the world and the animals and plants within it—always hastening and flowing, never interrupting its course.”[1128]

St. Gregory the Theologian. “Since it was not enough for Goodness to exercise itself merely in the contemplation of itself, but it was necessary for goodness to spread, go further and further, so that the number of those benefited might be as great as possible (for this is the nature of the highest goodness), God first (πρώτον) conceived the angelic and heavenly powers, and the thought became a deed, which was fulfilled by the Word and accomplished by the Spirit... And since the first creatures were pleasing to Him, He conceived another world—material and visible; and this is the harmonious composition of heaven, earth, and all that lies between them.”[1129]

St. John Chrysostom: “(God) created the angels, the archangels, and other incorporeal beings, and He created them not for any other reason but out of His goodness alone... After creating them, He also created man and this entire (i.e., visible) world for the very same reason.”[1130]

Saint Ambrose: “The angels, principalities, and powers, though they once had a beginning, nevertheless already existed when this world was created.” And elsewhere: “The cherubim and seraphim, even before the very beginning of the world, cried out with a sweet voice: ‘Holy, holy, holy...’”[1131]

Blessed Jerome: “Our world has not yet reached even six thousand years (that is, up to the time when Blessed Jerome lived). And how many, one must suppose, eternities (aeternitates) had passed before him—how many ages, how many innumerable centuries—during which the angels, thrones, dominions, and other powers served the Lord and existed by His will, without any measure or change of time.”[1132]

The same views were shared by: St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Origen, Caesarius, Hilary, St. Gregory the Great, Anastasius of Sinai, St. John of Damascus, Photius, St. Demetrius of Rostov, and others.[1133]

All other opinions regarding the time of the angels’ origin are unfounded and arbitrary. Thus—

a) The view that angels came into being suddenly following the creation of primordial matter, even before the visible world was formed from it, is as follows: “In the beginning, God created the heavens, the earth, and the waters out of nothing, and while darkness still covered the waters and the waters covered the earth—the angels and all the heavenly powers were created so that the Creator’s goodness would not remain idle but would have upon whom to manifest itself for many ages (spatia); and then this visible world was created and adorned from the matter created by God.”[1134] That is, this view is based on:

aa) on the idea that a long time elapsed between the initial creation of heaven and earth and the subsequent six-day creation of the visible world, and—

bb) on the reasoning that if God had not created the angels during this interval, His goodness would have remained idle. But how can the first idea be substantiated? How do we know whether the primordial matter remained in a chaotic state for a long time or not? And even if it was a long time, what does this long period mean in comparison to the eternity that preceded the existence of the world, when God alone existed? Must we then say that His goodness remained idle at that time? Or, to dispel this notion, must we admit that the world was created by God from eternity?

b) The view that angels came into being on the first day is based on the fact that on the first day God created light, and angels are conceived as having a fiery or luminous nature.[1135] But this primordial light was sensible, for it produced the day at that very moment; and to conceive of angels as having a fiery nature or as clothed in any body, even the most subtle, is, as we shall see, unjust.

c) Finally, the view that angels came into being only after the creation of the entire world and of man is thought to be derived from the gradual progression with which, according to Moses’ account, God proceeded during creation from less perfect beings to more perfect ones.[1136] But who has given us the right to extend this law of gradualness from the visible world to the spiritual world, when, on the contrary, the sacred Chronicler clearly states that God, after creating man—the king of nature—rested on the seventh day from all His works (Gen. 2:2), and consequently created no one else?

§ 65. The Nature of Angels

By their very nature, angels are incorporeal spirits, more perfect than the human soul, yet limited in space and power.

1) Angels are spirits. This is what Holy Scripture teaches—

a) when it speaks of angels in general: are they not all ministering spirits, sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14);

b) when, in particular, it attributes to them the essential properties of a spirit: mind and will, mentioning their desire to penetrate the mystery of our redemption (1 Pet. 1:12), their ignorance of the last day of the world (Mark 13:32), and their holiness (Matt. 25:31);

c) when He depicts them as contemplating (Matt. 18:10) and glorifying God (Isa. 6:3), doing His will (Ps. 102:20), rejoicing over the salvation of sinners (Luke 15:10), and generally living and acting in ways that only rational and free beings can (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 5:21). The ancient teachers of the Church taught just as precisely about angels. “Do you wish to know,” says, for example, Blessed Augustine, “Do you wish to know the name of his (the angel’s) nature? It is ‘spirit.’ Do you wish to know his office? It is ‘angel.’ In his essence he is a spirit, and in his activity he is an angel.”[1137] However, the teaching of the Fathers on this subject is so certain that it would be superfluous to prove it.

2) Angels are incorporeal spirits. And this idea, while not explicitly stated in Scripture, is at least revealed by comparing various passages within it. In one passage, it testifies th , that angels are spirits—πνεύματα (Heb. 1:14)—just as it says of God: “God is Spirit—πνεύμα” (John 4:24). In another passage, it explains that a spirit—πνεύμα—has neither bones nor flesh (Luke 24:39)—not even flesh such as that of Christ the Savior after His resurrection, the glorified flesh in which He was able to enter to His disciples through locked doors (John 20:19). In a third instance, it notes specifically regarding angels that, unlike humans clothed in flesh, they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30), and that they cannot even die (Luke 20:35–36). And if angels were clothed in any kind of flesh, as humans are, then why, one might ask, does the Word of God nowhere explicitly mention the bodies of angels, but calls them spirits, whereas it nowhere explicitly calls humans spirits, but, while attributing a spirit or soul to them, also attributes a body to them?

True, there are accounts in the Bible that angels often appeared to people in sensory forms; but God Himself, according to the Bible, sometimes appeared in a sensory form as well. This means only that both God and the angels, by His will, can at times take on a form visible to humans. But to conclude from this that angels or God are constantly clothed in a body would be unfounded.[1138] Scripture also mentions the language of angels, in which they glorify God as they surround His throne (Isa. 8:1–3; 1 Cor. 13:1). But just as the name “throne of God” certainly cannot be understood to mean a physical throne on which God supposedly sits, like earthly kings, so too, of course, the language of the angels and their praise should not be understood in a sensory sense—all of this is merely a figurative representation of spiritual realities that cannot otherwise be grasped by the human mind. That is why we sing together with the Holy Church: “With incorporeal lips and intelligent mouths, the angelic choirs offer unceasing song to Your unapproachable Divinity, O Lord.”[1139] The idea of the incorporeality of angels was the dominant theme among the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. We find it:

a) in St. Athanasius: “An angel is a rational, incorporeal (άϋλον), song-singing, immortal being;”[1140]

b) in St. Gregory of Nyssa: “All rational creatures are divided into an incorporeal (άσώματον) nature and one clothed in flesh—the incorporeal nature is that of the angels; the other kind is us, human beings;”[1141]

c) St. John Chrysostom: “God created angels, archangels, and other incorporeal natures;”[1142]

d) According to Blessed Theodoret: “If the image of God consisted in the invisibility of the soul, then angels, archangels, and all incorporeal and holy natures would more rightly be called images of God, since they have no bodies at all and possess perfect invisibility;”[1143]

e) According to St. John of Damascus: “An angel is a rational, free, incorporeal being who serves God... Being minds (νόες), angels exist in mental realms (νοητοϊς), not limited by the body, for by nature they are not clothed in flesh and have no extension, but are spiritually (νοητώς) present and active wherever they are commanded.”[1144] We also find this idea in the writings of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Didymus, Leo the Great, Fulgentius, Gregory the Great, and others.[1145]

As for those sayings of the Church Fathers in which some kind of materiality is attributed to angels, the following should be noted:

a) Some of the early Christian teachers, in attributing corporeality to angels, intended only to say that angels have a real (actual) existence: for these teachers, “body” (σώμα, corpus) meant “essence” or “substance” (ούσία, substantia), and therefore they sometimes even referred to God as corporeal, as Blessed Augustine on Tertullian.[1146] Here, therefore, the idea is correct, and the inaccuracy lies only in the word.

b) Others called angels “corporeal” in the sense that, although they are not clothed in any flesh, the very spirituality of their nature has its limits and, compared to the nature of God, the Supreme Being, appears, as it were, dense and material. Thus, St. John of Damascus, having defined an angel as an incorporeal being, adds: “However, an angel is called incorporeal and immaterial only in comparison with us. For in comparison with God, the one and incomparable, everything appears coarse and material; the Divine Nature alone is entirely (όντως) immaterial and incorporeal.”[1147] This is a particular but pious thought, evidently stemming from the concept of God’s most perfect spirituality, and in no way contradicting the Church’s dogmatic teaching that angels are spirits not clothed in flesh.

c) A third group attributed corporeality to angels in the sense that, as finite beings, they are necessarily bound to a specific location and cannot be everywhere at once. “Therefore,” says Blessed Augustine, “we call rational natures corporeal because they are defined by place, just as the human soul is enclosed in the body.”[1148] Thus, this view, which attributes corporeality to angels only in a figurative sense, does not exclude the correctness of the doctrine regarding the incorporeality of angels.

After these observations, there remains only a very limited number of ancient teachers who, it seems, attributed a body in the literal sense to angels—albeit one that was extremely subtle, ethereal, or fiery—namely: Justin the Martyr, Origen, Methodius, and Theognostus.[1149] But their opinion must be regarded merely as the private opinion of a few.

3) Angels are spirits more perfect than the human soul, yet limited. The most perfect, yet limited:

a) By its very nature. This idea is expressed directly and clearly in the words of the Psalmist, who states that man is not much less than the angels (Ps. 8:6), who are therefore, though higher than man, only slightly so... The Apostle Paul implies this in two instances: first, when the Apostle demonstrates the divine greatness of the only-begotten Son of God, among other things, by the fact that He is superior even to the angels themselves (Heb. 1:4–14); and second, when, describing the glory of the Redeemer of mankind—into which He entered after His days in the flesh, upon His ascension into heaven—he says that angels, principalities, and powers have been subject to Him (1 Pet. 3:22), and that God the Father has seated Him at His right hand in heaven, far above every principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come (Eph. 1:21). In both cases, the Apostle evidently recognizes angels as the highest among God’s creatures, the closest to God, yet lower than God Himself.

b) In terms of their intellect. The Savior said to the Apostles when they asked Him about the last day of the world: “But of that day or hour no one knows—not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). From this it is evident both that angels possess greater knowledge than humans and that this knowledge has its limits. From other passages of Holy Scripture, we can conclude, in particular, that angels—

aa) do not fully know the essence of God: for no one knows God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11);

bb) do not penetrate the mysteries of the human heart: for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men (3 Kings 8:39; Jer. 17:9);

cc) do not know and cannot, of their own accord, foretell the future, for the Lord God reserves this privilege for Himself alone (Isa. 44:7);

dd) did not fully know the great mystery of our redemption (Eph. 2:10), and even now they strive to fathom it (1 Pet. 1:12).

c) In terms of their strength and power. The Word of God directly testifies that angels surpass us in strength and power (2 Pet. 2:11; cf. Ps. 102:20), and it testifies to various instances of their astonishing power, such as, for example, the angel’s slaying of all the firstborn of Egypt in a single night, or the slaying of 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, also in a single night (2 Kings 19:35; cf. Acts 5:19; 12:7, 11). However, this power of the angels has its limits and does not extend to the point where they can perform miracles on their own: “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, the only One who performs miracles” (Ps. 71:18).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, with the exception of one or two,[1150] unanimously recognized angels as beings superior to man and attributed to them greater knowledge and greater power.[1151] But, following Holy Scripture, they affirmed that both the knowledge and power of angels are limited; that angels do not fully know God, the human heart, the future of chance events, or the mystery of our redemption; and that they are not capable of performing miracles on their own.[1152]

Finally, we cannot overlook a distinctive feature found in the patristic teaching on the nature of angels. Angels, as some Church Fathers put it, are created in the image of God: “[1153] ”—a thought not explicitly stated in Scripture, but nonetheless valid. It follows from the entire biblical teaching that angels, by their very nature, are spirits, just as God, their Creator, is the highest Spirit; that they are endowed with intellect and freedom, just as their Creator possesses the most perfect intellect and the highest freedom; and that, consequently, they reflect in their nature the image of their Creator.

§66. The Number of Angels and Their Ranks: The Celestial Hierarchy

1. The angelic world is presented in Holy Scripture as extraordinarily vast. One of the Old Testament seers had a dream and prophetic visions in which, when the thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days took His seat, thousands upon thousands served Him, and multitudes stood before Him (Dan. 7:1, 9–10). Another seer, from the New Testament, also saw and heard the voices of many angels around the throne… and their number was myriads of myriads (Rev. 5:11). The numerous heavenly host praised the coming of the Son of God to earth for the redemption of the human race (Luke 2:13). Moreover, Christ Himself mentioned more than twelve legions of angels to His disciples when He was arrested by the high priest’s servants in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:53). Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy angels—to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly among them (Jude 14; cf. Matt. 16:27; 24:31; 25:31). Every person who truly believes in Christ the Savior also enters into fellowship with the myriads of angels (Heb. 12:22).

To explain the great number of angels, many Church teachers have drawn on the Savior’s parable about the man who, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, leaves the ninety-nine in the wilderness and goes in search of the lost one until he finds it (Luke 15:4; Matt. 18:12). “This single lost sheep,” they said, “represents the entire human race, while the ninety-nine that did not go astray represent the multitude of heavenly angels.”[1154] Others, however, asserted that there is “an innumerable and blessed host of supreme minds,” that “it surpasses the meager and inadequate count of the numbers we use”;[1155] that there are “tens of thousands of myriads of angels, tens of hundreds of thousands of archangels. just as many thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, and an infinite multitude of incorporeal forces.”[1156] “Imagine,” says Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “how numerous the Roman people are; imagine how numerous the other barbarian peoples are who exist today, and how many of them have died over the past hundred years; imagine how many have been buried over the past thousand years; imagine all the people from Adam to the present day: their number is great, yet it is still small compared to the angels, who are more numerous. They are ninety-nine sheep; and the human race is but a single sheep; the vastness of a place serves as a measure of the multitude of its inhabitants. The earth we inhabit is, as it were, a mere point located at the center of the heavens: therefore, the heavens surrounding it have as many inhabitants as their space is greater; and the heavens of the heavens contain an immeasurable number of them. If it is written: “Thousands upon thousands served Him, and myriads upon myriads stood before Him” (Dan. 7:10), this is not because that was the exact number of angels, but because the Prophet could not express a greater number.”[1157]

2. Given such a multitude of angels, it is natural to assume that there are distinctions among them and to think that, just as in the material world—wisely ordained by God—there are distinct classes of beings that, though homogeneous in nature, differ from one another in degrees of perfection, so too there must be distinct classes and degrees of beings in the angelic world. spiritual: and the holy Apostle Paul leaves no doubt about this. Saying that angels were created by the Son of God, this teacher of the nations expresses it this way: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible—whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers—all things were created through Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). The very tone of the speech, together with the conjunction “whether”—or ε’ίτε, which always indicates a distinction rather than a similarity—testifies that various classes of heavenly powers are being enumerated here. Elsewhere, in describing the Savior’s glory after His ascension into heaven, it is noted that the Father seated Him at His right hand in heaven, far above every principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come (Eph. 1:20–21; cf. 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:22). In the third instance, he testifies concerning true Christians: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither powers nor the present nor the future, neither height nor depth, nor any other created thing, can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39). To suppose that in all these instances the different names given by the Apostle to angels are merely repetitions of the same name, and do not denote different angelic ranks, would be contrary to the tone of the discourse and unworthy of the Apostle. Furthermore, from the very names that the Word of God assigns to the angelic powers, one can infer their distinction in dignity. Some of them, for example, are called angels (1 Pet. 3:22), while others are called archangels (1 Thess. 4:15; Jude 9): the latter are evidently superior to the former and take precedence over them—otherwise, why would they have been given such a title?

The Orthodox Church has always recognized the distinction between angels and their division into classes or degrees, based on the difference in their natural powers and perfections. It solemnly expressed this belief at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), when it condemned Origen, among other things, for teaching that angels are completely equal to one another in essence and in powers, and that they were not originally divided into classes but were divided only later, when some of them fell.[1158] Among the Church Fathers, the distinction between the angelic orders was clearly professed in their writings by Ignatius the God-Bearer,[1159] Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and others.[1160]

3. How many exactly are these angelic orders, or, in other words, how many degrees are there in the heavenly hierarchy? The Orthodox Church, referring to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who discussed this subject in detail, states that “angels are divided into nine orders, and these nine are divided into three ranks. In the first order are those who are closer to God, namely: the Thrones, the Cherubim, and the Seraphim. In the second order: the Powers, the Dominions, and the Virtues. In the third: the Angels, the Archangels, and the Principalities” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 20). This division:

a) Is partly based on Holy Scripture, at least insofar as the sacred books mention the names of all the angelic orders listed here, such as: cherubim (Gen. 3:24; Ps. 79:2; 98:1; Ezek. 1:5–14; 10:15–20), seraphim (Isa. 6:1–8), powers (Eph. 1:21; Rom. 8:38), thrones, principalities, dominions, and authorities (Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21; 3:10), archangels (1 Thess. 4:19; Jude 9), and angels (1 Pet. 3:22; Rom. 8:38)—and no other names of angelic orders besides these nine are mentioned.[1161] On the other hand, as we have already seen, the Apostle does indeed distinguish between some of these angelic orders and recognizes them as distinct from one another.

b) But it is based primarily on Sacred Tradition. And St. Dionysius the Areopagite derives this tradition directly from the lips of his divine mentor, St. Paul the Apostle, saying: “The Word of God has designated all the heavenly powers (orders) by nine distinct names, and our divine spiritual mentor has divided them into three triadic degrees.”[1162] Furthermore, we find the same division of angels into nine orders—or, at the very least, the enumeration of precisely nine angelic orders—in the Apostolic Constitutions, in the writings of Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer,[1163] in those of Saint Gregory the Theologian,[1164] in those of Saint John Chrysostom,[1165] and even more clearly in the writings of Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Saint John of Damascus, and others.[1166] The words of St. Gregory the Dialogist are as follows: “We accept the nine orders of angels, because from the testimony of the Word of God we know of angels, archangels, powers, authorities, principalities, dominions, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. Thus, almost every page of Holy Scripture testifies to the existence of angels and archangels ; as is well known, the prophetic books often speak of cherubim and seraphim; The Apostle Paul lists the names of four more orders in his Epistle to the Ephesians, saying: “far above every principality, and power, and might, and dominion”; and in his Epistle to the Colossians, he writes: “whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.” Thus, when we add “thrones” to the four he mentions to the Ephesians—that is, principalities, powers, forces, and dominions—we have five distinct orders; and when angels, archangels, cherubim, and seraphim are added to them, there will undoubtedly be nine angelic orders.” If, however, some of the ancient teachers of the Church mention in their writings a smaller number of angelic orders—and sometimes even under different names—it is only because these teachers spoke of the angelic orders in passing and did not intend to list them all with particular precision, even in their very names.[1167]

In general, the ancient pastors considered the doctrine of the heavenly hierarchy to be mysterious and beyond the grasp of the human mind. “How many orders of heavenly beings there are,” reasons Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, “what they are like, and how the mysteries of the sacred hierarchy are accomplished among them—only God, the author of their hierarchy, knows this with precision; they themselves also know their own powers, their light, and their sacred and supreme hierarchy. As for us, we can say about this only as much as God has revealed to us through them themselves, as those who know themselves.”[1168] “What the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in the heavenly places are,” says St. Augustine, “I believe unshakably, and I hold without doubt that they differ from one another; but what they are and in what exactly they differ from one another, I do not know.”[1169]

Among the various opinions, the most noteworthy is that the division of angels into nine orders encompasses only those names and ranks revealed to us in the Word of God, but does not include the many other names and forms of angels that are not revealed to us in this life but will become known in the life to come. To some extent, this idea can be observed in Dionysius the Areopagite himself, who—having first stated that only God knows exactly how many orders of heavenly beings there are, and that we can say about them only what has been revealed to us—does indeed subsequently list and divide into nine orders only those names of angels known to us from Revelation. But this idea is developed with particular force by Origen, St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret, and Theophylact.[1170] “There are,” says Chrysostom, “truly other powers whose names we do not even know... It is not only angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers that inhabit the heavens, but also countless other kinds and an unimaginably great number of classes, which no word is capable of describing. And how do we know that there are powers higher than those mentioned above, and that there are powers whose names we do not even know? The Apostle Paul, having spoken of one, also mentions the other when he testifies about Christ: “He (the Father) seated Him at His right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph. 1:21). Do you see that there are certain names that will be known there but are unknown now? That is why he said, “every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come.” We must not, however, forget that the opinion presented here is a personal one.

1.2. On Evil Spirits

§ 67. The Various Names of Evil Spirits and the Certainty of Their Existence

The Word of God, which speaks of good spirits, also speaks of evil spirits (Luke 7:21), referring to them as unclean spirits (Matt. 10:1), spirits of wickedness (Eph. 6:12), and demons (Luke 8:30, 33, 35). In particular, it distinguishes among them one chief spirit, whom it most often calls the devil (1 Peter 5:8), “ ” the tempter (Matthew 4:3), Satan (Revelation 20:2, 7), sometimes Beelzebub (Luke 11:15), Belial (2 Cor. 6:15), the prince of this world (John 12:31), the prince who reigns in the realm of the air (Eph. 2:2), the prince of demons (Matt. 9:34), and so on; while other evil spirits, in relation to him, are called angels of the devil (Matt. 25:41) and angels of Satan (Rev. 12:7, 9).

The fact that this devil and his angels are accepted in Holy Scripture as personal and real beings, and not as imaginary beings, is evident—

1) From the books of the Old Testament. Here it is recounted that on more than one occasion, when God’s angels appeared before God, the devil appeared with them; and then the various calamities with which the devil tempted the righteous Job, by the permission of the Almighty, are described in detail (Job 1:6; 2:2 ff.). It is also recounted that an evil spirit troubled Saul when the Spirit of the Lord departed from him (1 Sam. 16:14), that Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of the Israelites (1 Chron. 21:1). In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, the high priest Jesus is depicted standing before the angel of the Lord, with the devil at Jesus’ right hand, acting as his accuser (Zech. 3:1). Finally, the Book of Wisdom testifies: “Through the devil’s envy, death entered the world” (Wisdom 2:24). In all these cases—especially in the first and the last two—failing to conceive of the devil as a personal and real being would mean completely distorting the meaning of the text.

2) Even more so—from the books of the New Testament. To prove this, it suffices to point to a few examples:

a) The Savior, explaining the parable of the wheat and the tares, says: “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed are the sons of the Kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the evil one; the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels (Matt. 13:37–39). Here the devil is presented as a real and personal being, just like the Son of Man, the angels, the sons of the Kingdom, and the sons of the adversary.

b) When the Pharisees accused the Savior of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Matt. 12:24): the Savior not only did not say that Beelzebub and his demons are not real beings—which would have been the best way to refute the Pharisees’ absurd notion—but, on the contrary, He replied with words that clearly attested to the reality of Satan and his kingdom. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, by whose power do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has certainly come upon you. Or how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man? Then he will plunder his house (26–29).

c) When the Apostles once asked the Savior in private why they could not cast out an unclean spirit from a man, the Lord not only did not tell them that it was not an unclean spirit at all, and that unclean spirits do not actually exist, but on the contrary, He taught them the rule for casting out evil spirits: “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29).

d) In the terrible judgment that the righteous Judge will pronounce upon sinners—“Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41)—the devil and his angels are clearly distinguished from wicked people and are presented as real beings destined for eternal punishment.

e) The Apostle James says: “Even the demons believe—and tremble” (James 2:19). This means they are rational, thinking beings.

f) The Apostle John testifies that whoever commits sin is of the devil, because the devil sinned first. For this very reason the Son of God appeared—to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). Can we accept that the term “devil” here refers not to a real being, but only to an imaginary one?

(g) The Apostle Paul writes: “so that Satan might not outwit us, for we are not unaware of his schemes” (2 Cor. 2:11), and thus portrays the devil as a thinking being; and elsewhere he expresses the desire that those who oppose the truth may be freed from the snare of the devil, who has captured them in his will (2 Tim. 2:26), and thus teaches that the devil is a personal being possessing his own will.

The Christian Church has always and unquestionably acknowledged the existence of the devil and his angels, as is well known—

a) from the writings of its teachers: Justin the Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Origen, Ambrose, and all the others;[1171]

b) from the ancient rite still used in the Church during baptism, in which the person receiving the sacrament is required, among other things, to renounce the devil and all his works;

c) from the entire history of the holy ascetics who, having left the world, went into the deserts and spent their entire lives there waging a fierce battle against the spirits of malice under heaven, which often appeared to them even in sensible form.

It is worth noting that belief in the existence of evil spirits has always been universal among humankind, just as has belief in the existence of good angels and in the existence of God Himself.[1172] Therefore, it can rightly be considered one of the traditions of the original, divinely revealed religion, which was later spread by the patriarchs—along with the spread of the human race—among all peoples, although it gradually underwent various changes and distortions.

§ 68. Evil spirits were created by God as good, but became evil of their own accord

This truth, which sound reason cannot help but accept on the basis of its innate conception of God as the most perfect being, was clearly attested to by Christ the Savior Himself, and by the holy Apostles as well. Christ the Savior, rebuking the Jews for their wickedness, said to them, among other things: “Your father is the devil, and you wish to carry out the desires of your father.” He was a murderer from the beginning and did not abide in the truth—έν τή αληθεία ούχ έστηκεν (John 8:44). If, then, the devil did not abide in the truth, it follows that he was placed in the truth, and it was up to him to abide in it or not. The Apostle Peter says that God did not spare the angels who sinned (άμαρτησάντων), but, having bound them with the chains of hellish darkness, delivered them to be kept in custody until the judgment for punishment (2 Pet. 2:4)—a direct expression of the idea that fallen spirits were created sinless but sinned of their own accord, for which they were condemned. The Apostle Jude likewise writes that God keeps the angels who did not preserve their dignity but abandoned their dwelling place in eternal chains, under darkness (Jude 6)—angels who did not preserve their dignity—τούς μή τηρήσαντας τήν έαυτών έρχήν: that is, those who did not preserve their origin, their original form, their original state; but who left their dwelling place—οίκητήριον, that is, the dwelling place that corresponded to their original state.

The Orthodox Church, through the words of its pastors and teachers, has always preached as an indisputable truth that the fallen spirits were created good, and have themselves become evil.[1173] Let us point out, for example, the words:

a) St. Irenaeus: “Since everything was created by God, and the devil himself became the cause of apostasy (from God) both for himself and for others, Scripture rightly calls those who remain in apostasy the sons of the devil and the angels of the wicked one.”[1174]

b) Tatian: “The firstborn (of the angels), through transgression of the law and ignorance, began to be a demon, and those who followed his vain example became hosts of demons, and of their own free will gave themselves over to their madness;”[1175]

c) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Before the devil, no one had sinned; he sinned not because he was born with an inherent inclination toward sin (otherwise the cause of sin would fall upon the One who created him as such)—but, having been created good, he became the devil of his own free will;”[1176]

d) St. Basil the Great: “Evil spirits did not, by their very nature, receive opposition to the good as their lot (for in that case the blame would fall on the Creator), but by their own free will, through the deprivation of the good, they turned to sin;”[1177]

e) Blessed Augustine: “The devil is an unclean spirit; he is good as a spirit, and evil as an unclean spirit; he is a spirit by nature, but unclean by sin; of these two properties, the first comes from God, the latter from the devil himself;”[1178]

f) Blessed Theodoret: “We do not say that the spirits of malice were created evil from the beginning by the Lord of all, nor that such a nature was given to them; but rather, that they themselves, through a perversion of the will, turned from the better to the worse.”[1179]

In setting forth the truth about the fall of the angels in this way as a dogma of the faith, Christian teachers sought at the same time, in order to clarify it, to resolve certain related questions concerning the circumstances of the fall, although they presented their answers only as private opinions. These questions are as follows:

1) Did the angels fall soon after receiving their existence from God? Those who held the view that angels were created shortly before the creation of man naturally had to assert that the demons fell very soon after their creation,[1180] and even, as it were, suddenly, as soon as they were created,[1181] because, shortly thereafter, the devil already appears as the tempter of man. But those writers who adhered to the doctrine that angels originated long before the visible world admitted that the fallen spirits remained in a state of grace for quite some time.[1182] In support of this idea, some pointed to the words of the prophet Ezekiel addressed to the prince of Tyre: “You were in Eden, the garden of God; your garments were adorned with every kind of precious stone...; you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until iniquity was found in you (Ezek. 28:13, 15)—noting that the fate of the prince of Tyre mysteriously mirrors and echoes the fate of the fallen morning star.[1183]

2) How did the evil spirits fall: did they all fall at the same time? No, the teachers of the Church usually replied. First, one fell—the chief one—and then he drew all the others down with him.[1184] This chief one, according to some, was, before his fall, the very first and most perfect of all created spirits,[1185] surpassing all the angelic hosts;[1186] while, according to others, he belonged, at the very least, to the number of the chief archangels (ταξιάρχων), to whose leadership the lower angelic orders are subject,[1187] and specifically to the number of those among whom the Lord distributed the governance of the parts of the world.[1188] As for the others whom the fallen morning star led astray—these were angels subordinate to him, under his authority, who were therefore able to be led astray by his example, his persuasions, or his deception.[1189] Those passages of Scripture that speak of the devil as the father of lies (John 8:44), that the devil sinned first (1 John 3:8), and likewise of his angels (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7, 9), may serve as a basis for this view.

3) By what sin did the fallen spirits fall? There were three main views on this:

Some believed that the angels’ sin consisted in their unnatural relations with human women, pointing to the words of the sacred Chronicler: “Then the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took them as wives, whichever ones they chose” (Gen. 6:2).[1190] But—

a) the words of God Himself that follow: “My Spirit shall not always strive with man [these], for they are flesh; let their days be one hundred and twenty years” (3)—show that these were human beings;

b) the event Moses speaks of took place before the Flood, whereas the angels fell much earlier, for the devil was already the tempter of the very first man;

c) According to the Savior’s words, angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30), and in general, as incorporeal spirits, they are incapable of being led astray by carnal lust;

d) In Holy Scripture, not only angels are called “sons of God,” but often also godly people, those who worship the true God (Deut. 14:1; Prov. 14:26; John 1:12). Therefore, the descendants of the godly Seth, who began to call upon the name of the Lord [God] (Gen. 4:26), could be called sons of God—in contrast to the sons and daughters of men, that is, the descendants of the wicked Cain, who, having forgotten God, followed only the lusts of the human heart. It was the intermingling of these very sons of God with the daughters of men that brought about universal wickedness on the earth before the Flood, which in turn brought down heavenly punishment upon it.[1191]

According to the second view, the sin of the fallen spirits consisted in envy: through the devil’s envy, says the Wise One, death entered the world (Wis. 2:24).[1192] But here the reference is to the earthly, human world itself, as is evident from the Wise One’s line of reasoning: God created man for immortality and fashioned him in the image of His eternal being; but through the devil’s envy, death entered the world (Wis. 2:23–24). “Through the devil’s envy,” notes St. Gregory the Great, “death entered the earthly world: when the evil spirit, our adversary, lost heaven himself, he became envious of man, who was created for heaven.”[1193]

Finally, the third view—that the devil, having led all the other evil spirits in his wake, fell because of pride—is a view that has a solid foundation in the Word of God. The Apostle Paul, in establishing the rule that no one who has recently been baptized should be ordained as a bishop, adds: so that he may not become proud and fall into condemnation (είς κρϊμα) with the devil (1 Tim. 3:2–6), that is, so that, having become proud, he might not be subjected to the same condemnation to which the devil was subjected. If, however, the same condemnation under the law of righteousness presupposes the same guilt, then it is natural to conclude from the Apostle’s words that the devil fell because of pride.[1194] And the wise son of Sirach speaks generally of sin: the beginning of sin is pride (Sir. 10:15); consequently, this can also be applied to the first sin in the world, which was the beginning of all subsequent sins, that is, to the sin of the devil.[1195] Among the Holy Fathers, the following held this view:

a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “The very first bearer of light, having become exalted, when—distinguished by preeminent glory—he coveted the royal honor of the great God, destroyed his own radiance, fell down here in disgrace, and, desiring to be a god, became entirely darkness;”[1196]

b) Saint Athanasius the Great: “Satan was cast out of heaven not for fornication or adultery, or a secret illicit relationship, but pride cast him into the very depths of the abyss—he who spoke these words: ‘I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will be like the Most High’” (Isa. 14:13–14);[1197]

c) Saint Ambrose: “Pride took its origin from the devil, who, deluded by his power and dignity given to him by the Creator, and imagining himself to be equal in glory to his Creator, was cast down from the heights of heaven along with those angels whom he had led astray into his wickedness;”[1198]

d) Saint Leo, Pope of Rome: “The devil first became proud, so that he might fall, and then envious, so that he might harm us.”[1199] In general, this view was almost universally accepted among the ancient teachers of the Church and is found in the writings of Origen, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, John of Damascus, and others.[1200]

As for what exactly constituted the pride of the fallen spirit—which was his first sin—opinions differed. Some, based on the words of Isaiah 14:13–14, believed it lay in the fact that the devil presumed to be equal to God in his nature and to sit with Him on the same throne, “[1201] ” or even dreamed of being higher than God, which is why he became a rebel and exalted himself above everything called God or holy (2 Thess. 2:4).[1202] Others, however, believed that the fallen morning star refused to worship the Son of God, envying His privileges,[1203] or, having seen through revelation that this Son of God would one day suffer, doubted His divinity and refused to acknowledge Him as God.[1204]

4) How deeply did the evil spirits fall? So deeply that they will never rise again—this was the usual response of the Church Fathers.[1205] And the Word of God testifies that the fallen angels are held in eternal chains, in darkness, for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6) and that eternal fire is prepared for them (Matt. 25:41). Why, then, cannot they repent? Because, as pure spirits, being free from any material shell and, consequently, from all temptations of the flesh, if they fell, they fell solely by the deliberate decision of their own will and by a pure inclination toward evil;[1206] and moreover, they fell precisely through a defiant rebellion against God Himself—a stubborn and fierce rebellion.[1207] “The fallen angels,” notes our own Holy Father, “have become so embittered that it is utterly impossible for them to come to repentance.”[1208]

5) Did God give them time to repent, or did He condemn them immediately, as soon as they fell? Some have suggested that He did—[1209] —and that it was only then, when these proud spirits refused to take advantage of God’s kindness, that they were cast down from heaven by Him and actually fell or were cast down: this fall (έκπτωσις) is, for them, complete death, after which there is no room for repentance, just as there is none for us after our physical death.[1210] But “before they fell (i.e., from heaven),” writes Nemesius, “they, like people during their lifetime, were granted the opportunity for forgiveness. And since they did not take advantage of it, they were justly subjected to a fitting, eternal, and irrevocable condemnation.”[1211] St. Basil the Great suggested that, even after the angels’ fall, repentance and purification were still possible for them, as long as the devil had not yet tempted man. “Perhaps,” reasons the Holy Father, “even before the creation of man, there was still some room for repentance for the devil. And this pride, however chronic the disease might have been, could nevertheless have restored itself to its original state by taking care to heal the disease within itself through repentance. But as soon as the creation of the world, the planting of the Garden of Eden, man in the Garden, God’s commandment, the devil’s envy, and the murder of the exalted one came into being, from that time on, the door to repentance was closed to the devil. For if Esau, having sold his birthright, found no room for repentance, is there any room for repentance left for the one who put the first man to death and, through him, brought in death? It is said, however, that a stain on clothing caused by human blood from a wound cannot be washed away at all, but the discoloration caused by the blood ages along with the garment. Therefore, it is impossible for the devil to wash away the bloodstain from himself and become pure.”[1212]

§ 69. The Nature of Evil Spirits, Their Number, and Their Ranks

1) Since fallen spirits were angels before their fall, it follows naturally that by their very nature they are, like angels, incorporeal spirits—superior human souls, though limited. Scripture, indeed, and—

a) He calls them spirits; or unclean spirits. Later, the Evangelist says, many who were possessed were brought to Him (Jesus Christ), and He cast out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick (Matt. 8:16). And further: “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over the unclean spirits, so that they might cast them out” (10:1). Likewise, when the seventy disciples returned to Him rejoicing, they said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name,” He remarked, “Do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:17, 20; cf. Matt. 12:43–45; Mark 9:20; Luke 11:24; Eph. 2:2).

b) He attributes mind and will to them. The Apostle Paul warns Orthodox Christians in one passage: “so that Satan may not outwit us, for we are not unaware of his schemes (noēmata)” (2 Cor. 2:11); and in another, he expresses his hope that those who have turned away from the truth of Christ may be freed from the snare of the devil, who has captured them in his will (θέλημα) (2 Tim. 2:26; cf. John 8:44; James 2:19; 3:15).

c) It provides grounds for concluding that they are devoid of any materiality or corporeality. These grounds are:

aa) in part, the very fact that they are called “spirits,” and the general concept of a spirit as found in the Word of God, namely, that a spirit has neither flesh nor bones (Luke 24:39);

bb) the instances mentioned in the Gospel that show that many demons can possess a single person at once; for example, the Savior cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9); in another person there was an entire legion of them, so that when they were cast out of that person and entered the pigs, the entire herd rushed into the lake (Luke 8:30, 33);

(c) Finally, the clear words of the holy Apostle Paul: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12).

d) It presents them as beings superior to man in strength, yet still limited. This is evident, first, from the actions of the devil when, by God’s permission, he tempted the righteous Job (Job, ch. 1, 2), and later Christ the Savior Himself (Matt. 4:1–11); second, from the instructions the Apostle gives to Christians regarding spiritual warfare: “My brothers, be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the devil’s schemes” (Eph. 6:10–13; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8). Finally, it is evident from the same Apostle’s account of the Antichrist, whose coming—through the working of Satan—will be with all power, signs, and false wonders (2 Thess. 2:9), and whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the appearance of His coming (8).

Among the ancient teachers of the Church, although some attributed to demons, like angels, subtle bodies—[1213] —the vast majority recognized evil spirits, just as they did good ones, as incorporeal spirits. For example—

a) St. Basil the Great writes: “The nature of the devil is incorporeal, according to the words of the Apostle, who said: ‘For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but… against the spirits of wickedness in the heavenly places;’”[1214]

b) Saint Epiphanius refers to a demon as “an unclean and incorporeal spirit;”[1215]

c) St. John Chrysostom calls demons “incorporeal powers;” [1216]

d) Eusebius—as “invisible and immaterial enemies;”[1217]

e) Saint Gregory the Great, in addressing the question posed to him as to whether fallen spirits are corporeal or incorporeal, asks: “What right-minded person would say that spirits are corporeal?”[1218] and elsewhere refers to angels and demons as “a spiritual nature, which is not composed of two parts, soul and body;”[1219]

e) Blessed Theodoret instructs: “When we hear in Holy Scripture that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and took them as wives (Gen. 6:2), we must not blame the (fallen) angels for this, for they have no bodies at all;”[1220]

g) St. John of Damascus says: “It is known to everyone that demons are incorporeal, even to those whose eyes of the mind are clouded,” that is, to pagans.[1221] And the idea of the superiority of evil spirits, by virtue of their natural powers, over the human soul, and at the same time their limitations, follows naturally from the teaching of the Fathers that demons, before their fall, were among the angels, and their leader, the devil, was even one of the highest-ranking spirits, as well as from the teaching that evil spirits can do nothing in the world except by God’s permission.[1222]

2) Scripture does not specify the number of fallen spirits, but it implies that the number is great when it refers to demons and unclean spirits—in the plural (Luke 10:17, 20; Eph. 6:12, etc.). It testifies that in the region of the Gadarenes, the Savior cast out many demons—a legion—from a single man (Luke 8:30), and presents the Savior’s saying: “If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?” (Luke 11:18). This means that unclean spirits constitute an entire kingdom. Some of the Church’s teachers, based on the words of the Book of Revelation—“his tail swept away a third of the stars from heaven” (Rev. 12:4)—speculated that the devil swept away a third of the angelic world with him.[1223] But others—the majority—held to the view that “they were cast out; they followed him, and with him fell a countless multitude of spirits subject to him,”[1224] without specifying exactly how many.

3) Is there any distinction or hierarchy among the fallen spirits? One must assume that there is. For the Savior also mentions an unclean spirit which, having come out of a person, subsequently brings into him seven others, more wicked than itself (Luke 11:26), of Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Matt. 12:24; Mark 3:2; Luke 11:15, 18), of the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41); and the holy Apostle distinguishes among them the principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness of this age (Col. 2:15; Eph. 6:12)—that is, he calls them, among other things, by the very names used to denote the various ranks of the angelic realm. On what, then, is such a distinction between evil spirits in their ranks and dignities based? One of the Church Fathers holds that it is either a remnant of the distinction and hierarchy that existed among the fallen spirits before their fall, or is based on the relatively different degrees to which each of them has excelled in evil.[1225]

§ 70. Moral Application of the Dogma Set Forth

1) There is an invisible world created by God, a world of pure spirits, unclothed in any flesh; therefore, it is possible for a spirit to exist without a bodily shell, and it is possible for it to exist outside the material world. May this thought serve to strengthen our faith in the immortality of our soul! The human soul, as a spirit, can continue its existence even after separation from the body, passing into another world.

2) The incorporeal spirits created by God are, by their very nature, superior to us; they are endowed with greater perfections and advantages than our own souls, and for this reason alone we are bound to honor God’s angels, since perfection naturally inspires reverence, and even among humans, we involuntarily show respect to those who surpass us in talent and strength.

3) God’s angels are all equal to one another by nature, but they differ in powers and perfections; consequently, there are lower and higher ones among them; there are those who are subordinate and those who are in authority; there is an unchanging hierarchy established by God Himself. So it must be among us as well: despite the unity of our nature, we are distinguished from one another by the Creator’s will through various abilities and advantages; and among us there must naturally be those who are lower and those who are higher, those who are subordinate and those who are in authority, and in our societies God Himself establishes order and hierarchy, enthrones His Anointed Ones (Prov. 8:15), grants all lower authorities (Rom. 13:1), and assigns to every person his or her own service and place.

4) One of the highest and most perfect spirits created by God failed to remain in his rank, rebelled against his Creator, dreamed of being His equal, and led many with him into the abyss of destruction — a lesson for all rational beings on how dangerous it is to oppose the will of the Almighty, to rebel against the order and arrangement that He Himself establishes both in heaven and on earth as He governs the world!

5) The sin by which the fallen spirits fell was pride—let us therefore learn to guard ourselves against this terrible sin, the progenitor of all other iniquities; let us learn to attribute all our advantages, if we have any, not to ourselves but to God—our Creator, from whom every perfect gift comes down to us (James 1:17)—and to firmly remember that, without His gracious assistance, we can neither conceive of nor accomplish anything truly good and perfect.

2. On the Material World

§71. The Teaching of the Church and a Brief Overview of False Opinions Regarding the Dogma

Regarding the origin of the material world from God, the Orthodox Church teaches as follows: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The earth was formless and void. Then God gradually brought into being: on the first day of the world—light; on the second day—the firmament, or the visible sky; on the third—the waters on the earth, dry land, and plants; on the fourth—the sun, the moon, and the stars; on the fifth—fish and birds; on the sixth—four-footed animals living on land...” (Extended Christian Catechism on the First Article).

Regarding this teaching, which is entirely borrowed from the sacred chronicler Moses, there have been—and especially now there are—three erroneous views. Some do not accept Moses’ account of the six-day creation as history, but seek to understand it in a figurative, mystical sense.[1226] Others, while accepting this account as history, interpret it arbitrarily, or are perplexed as to what Moses is speaking of here: whether the creation of the entire world, or only the creation of the earth; and furthermore, whether the earth’s original origin, or merely its transformation, and so on.[1227] Finally, a third group, though they also take this account as history, assert that it contains many inconsistencies and contradicts the findings of the natural sciences, and therefore does not deserve credence.[1228] These erroneous views directly point to the perspectives from which the revealed teaching on the origin of the material world, upheld by the Orthodox Church, must be examined.

§72. Moses’ account of the origin of the material world is a story

We are compelled to regard Moses’ account of the origin of the material world as a history because—

1. Moses himself regarded it as a historical account. He placed this account at the very beginning, as the foundation of his historical book, in which he intended to convey to the Israelites true and accurate concepts of God as the Creator of the world and of humankind; consequently, he would have acted contrary to his own intention if he had concealed here any mysterious meaning incomprehensible to anyone. And most importantly, Moses based the law of the Sabbath given to the Israelites on this account; in setting it forth with complete clarity, he says, he revealed his thoughts on the six-day creation. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;… therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20:8–11). And in another passage: “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant;… for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was at rest” (Ex. 31:16–17). This single reason for viewing the account in Moses’ narrative as history is entirely sufficient for our purpose, even if there were no other reasons, for there is no doubt that the words of any writer must be understood in exactly the sense in which he himself understood them.

2. Other sacred writers accepted Moses’ account as history. Moses, for example, relates in his account that God created the world by His word, and that the Spirit of God was hovering over the primeval, still unformed matter (Gen. 1:2)—and the Psalmist exclaims: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His lips” (Ps. 32:6), and further: “He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it appeared” (9). Moses recounts that darkness covered all that had been created in the beginning, and that God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light (3)—and the holy Apostle Paul expresses this in one passage: “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6)... Moses recounts that He separated the waters beneath the firmament from the waters above the firmament (7): the Psalmist also mentions these waters above the firmament when, calling upon various works of God to praise their Creator, he says: Praise Him (the Lord), you heavens of heavens and waters above the heavens (Ps. 148:4). Moses recounts that God created the heavenly bodies—the sun, the moon, and the stars—so that they might be lights in the firmament of the heavens [to illuminate the earth and] to separate day from night, and to serve as signs, and for seasons, and days, and years (14)—and the same Psalmist exclaims: “He created the moon to mark the seasons” (Ps. 103:19). Moses recounts that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day from all His works that He had done (Gen. 2:2)—and St. Paul writes: “But we who have believed enter that rest, for He has said: ‘I swore in My wrath that they shall not enter My rest,’ even though His works were completed at the very beginning of the world. For nowhere is it said of the seventh day: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all His works’ (Heb. 4:3–4).

3. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church accepted Moses’ account as historical, namely: Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others.[1229] “All of nature,” says, for example, St. Athanasius the Great, “was created in six days: on the first day, God created light; on the second, the firmament; on the third, having gathered the waters together, He formed the dry land; on the fourth, He created the sun, the moon, and the other stars; on the fifth, He brought forth the animals that dwell in the water and fly through the air; on the sixth, the four-footed creatures on the earth; and finally, He created man.”

4. There is no reason to depart from the historical meaning of Moses’ account, because even in this sense, as we shall see, it contains nothing contrary to the truth and, consequently, nothing inconsistent with the dignity of a divinely inspired writer.

§73. The Meaning of Moses’ Account of the Six-Day Creation

Looking more closely at the meaning of Moses’ account of the origin of the material world, we cannot help but notice that—

1. Moses distinguishes between two main types of creation, which followed one after the other. The first creation, in the proper sense, took place at the very beginning, when the Creator brought everything into being out of nothing: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), producing the very substance of the world, which contained within itself the beginnings or seeds of all its creatures. It was in this very sense that the wise son of Sirach said: “The One who lives forever created all things” (Sir. 18:1), — and the teachers of the Church also said: “It is known that none of the created things existed before the others, but all kinds of creatures were brought into being at once, at the very same moment ([1230] ); and, wishing precisely to say that God created everything together (άθρόως πάντα), the author of Genesis said: ‘In the beginning, or in the whole’ (έν κεώαλαίω), God created the heavens and the earth. For the meaning of both words is the same: ‘beginning’ and ‘whole’ express the same idea—‘together.’”[1231] As for the other creation—the creation from pre-existing, primordial, and as yet unformed matter, which took place over the course of six days—it was this creation, of course, that Solomon had in mind when he wrote that the almighty hand of God created the world from formless matter (Wis. 11:18), as did the holy martyr Justin when he repeated Solomon’s words: “We hold that God in the beginning created all things out of formless matter, έξ άμόρφου ύλης.”[1232] The ancient teachers of the Church distinguished between these two types of creation:

a) Hippolytus: “On the first day, whatever God created, He created out of nothing; but on the other days, He no longer created out of nothing, but arranged what He had created on the first day;”[1233]

b) Tatian (before his schism from the Church): “It is known that the entire structure of the world, and everything within it, is formed from matter, but matter itself was created by God;”[1234]

c) Augustine: “At first, a mixed and unorganized substance was created, from which everything that later appeared—divided and organized—came into being. I believe the Greeks call this substance ‘chaos,’ as we read elsewhere: ‘You created the world out of formless substance’ (Wisdom 11:18), or, according to other manuscripts, ‘out of invisible substance.’

This formless matter, which God created out of nothing, is called heaven and earth; and it is said: ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’—not because they actually came into being at that very moment, but because they were capable of coming into being; just as if, looking at a tree seed, we were to say that here are the roots, the vitality, the trunk, the fruit, and the leaves—we would say this, of course, not because all of this already exists, but because all of this is destined to come into being.”[1235] St. John Chrysostom, Hilary, Epiphanius,[1236] Ambrose,[1237] Severian, Gregory the Great, and others reasoned in a similar way.[1238]

2. Moses describes the origin of the entire material world (cosmogony), not just the earth (geogony). For he says, first of all, that God created the heavens and the earth—that is, the entire world; then he mentions the creation of light, the creation of the firmament, and the creation of the luminaries—the sun, the moon, and the stars. On the other hand, however, it is evident that Moses describes the origin of the earth and its various inhabitants in the greatest detail, while he touches upon the heavens and heavenly bodies only in passing, to the extent that they relate to the earth. That is why, in describing the third, fifth, and sixth days of creation, he speaks only of what God created on the earth and remains silent about what God created at the same time in the heavens or on the celestial bodies, although, in all likelihood, the creative power’s activity on those days was not limited to the earth alone.[1239] For the same reason, when recounting the creation of the heavenly bodies, he mentions only their specific purpose in relation to the earth, gives them names, and ascribes to them properties that can be given and ascribed to them only from the earth.

3. Moses recounts the original creation of the world and the earth, not their transformation. For he writes: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” that is, He created them when there was still nothing. Further: “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light… ‘Let there be a firmament’… ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens’…”: all such expressions clearly presuppose a preceding state of non-existence. Finally, he concludes his account with the words: “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their host” (Gen. 2:1); meaning that they were completed and finished only now, and did not exist before. It should be added that both the Jews and all Christians of the early centuries unanimously accepted that Moses is describing here God’s creation of the world and the earth, and not a transformation.

4. Moses testifies that God acted Himself, directly through His own power, not only during the initial act of creation, when He brought everything into being out of nothing, but also over the course of six days, when He formed the various parts and creatures of the world from matter that already existed. And God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light…; And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…” And it was so…; And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so…; And God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation…” And it was so…; And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…” And so it was…; And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” [And so it was.]...; And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds…” And so it was. Consequently, it is unjust to explain the original formation of the world and the earth by the forces and laws of nature; these forces and laws began to operate in the world only after the world had attained its perfect existence, and they were bestowed upon the world by God. But God Himself was by no means subject to them when He was still creating the heavens and the earth and bringing forth various classes of beings by His almighty power. Thus, He created the first humans (and indeed all land-dwelling animals) directly at a mature age, whereas according to the forces and laws of nature, it would have taken many years of life before the first humans could have reached maturity. Just as surely, the Almighty could, in a single day—or even in a single moment—create the entire internal structure of the earth as we now observe it, form its mountains with all their diverse strata, arrange the seas, rivers, and other features; whereas if all this were accomplished according to the forces and laws currently at work in nature, it would require, perhaps, not only centuries but millennia.

5. By the term “six days of creation,” Moses means ordinary days. For each of them is defined by evening and morning: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day…”; “And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day…,” and so on. Furthermore, as we have already noted, in accordance with these six days, during which God created all His works, and at the end of which He rested and sanctified the seventh day, He was able to command the Israelites that they, too, should work six days of the week and keep the seventh day, the Sabbath, holy to the Lord their God (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:16–17).

6. Moses describes the six-day creation of the world in a way that is understandable to all—not as a natural scientist, but as a wise and God-enlightened teacher of the faith.

Therefore, although he conveys only true concepts, he expresses them in a way accessible to the common human understanding: he speaks of the Creator’s exalted acts, as far as possible, in accordance with their dignity, yet in a tangible and human manner, and presents the various objects of the physical world as they appear to the untrained eye of the observer, rather than as they are known to the scientist.

Following these remarks regarding the meaning of Moses’ account of the six-day creation, it is now appropriate to address the objections raised against it.

§74. A Response to the Objections Raised Against Moses’ Account

These objections are as follows:

1. “Moses speaks of the creation of light on the first day and of the sun on the fourth day, whereas light emanates from the sun: therefore,…” But—

a) let us agree that light is indeed a form of matter emanating from the sun and other celestial bodies: why could it not be that God first created this light-bearing matter, and then, on the fourth day, concentrated it permanently in specific containers—that is, the heavenly bodies—just as water was created before its containers and was already separated on the third day from the dry land, which it had previously covered?

b) In more recent times, another view has emerged—one that is almost universally accepted by scientists—that light is not at all an emission from the sun, but rather a most subtle fluid diffused throughout space, completely independent of the sun and other celestial bodies, which are endowed only with the ability to set it into vibrational motion and thereby make it visible. If this is so, then it is superfluous even to ask whether light could have been created before the heavenly bodies.

2. “Moses says that plants were created before the sun, whereas they cannot exist without the sun”... But—

a) Moses specifically states that plants were created by God, not brought into being by the forces and laws of nature. Consequently, even if it is true that plants today cannot exist without sunlight, it does not follow at all that in the beginning they could not have come into being before the sun by the almighty word of God. Today, according to the laws of nature, plants take root in a seed and grow gradually, whereas from Moses’ account we can conclude that in the beginning God created them already fully grown (Gen. 1:12).

b) We must not forget that, according to Moses, plants were created before the sun, but not before light, which had existed since the very first day. Consequently, even if light was required for the very creation of plants, it was present.

3. “Moses mentions three days that preceded the creation of the sun, whereas everyone knows that there can be no days without the sun.” Today, indeed, there can be no day without the sun, but back then there could be. This required only two conditions:

a) that the Earth rotate on its own axis, and—

b) that the luminous matter, which already existed at that time, be set into a vibrating motion. But one cannot deny either that the Earth began to rotate on its own axis from the very first day of creation, or that the Creator could, during the first three days, directly set the luminous matter into vibrating motion by His own power—just as now, beginning on the fourth day, the heavenly bodies, having received this ability from God, set it into motion.[1240]

4. “In recounting the creation of the heavenly bodies, Moses commits a twofold error:

a) he suggests that the sun, moon, and stars were created specifically for the earth, to illuminate it and serve as signs and seasons;

b) he calls the sun and the moon “great lights,” whereas the moon is not only incomparably smaller than the sun and the stars, but also than the Earth.” There is no error whatsoever in the words of the Chronicler.

a) He does not say that the sun, moon, and stars were created solely for the Earth, and if he mentions one specific purpose of theirs in relation to the Earth while omitting other purposes, it is because, as we have already noted, having set out primarily to describe the origin of the Earth, he addresses other celestial bodies only to the extent that they relate to our planet.

b) Similarly, he calls the sun and the moon “great luminaries” not because of their relative size, but because of how they appear from Earth; however, even in this regard, he calls the moon a “great luminary” only in comparison with the stars at night, while in comparison with the sun he calls it a “lesser luminary.”

5) “Moses says that the world, and in particular our planet, came into being and was fully formed over the course of six days. But the science that studies the structure of the Earth (geology) finds, both on the surface and especially in its interior, many things that could have been formed only over the course of centuries or even millennia, and not in six days.” Without going into the details of this objection, we will limit ourselves to general remarks:

a) Moses, as has already been stated, writes that the world and the earth came into being and were formed over the course of six days, not by the forces and laws currently at work in nature, but by the direct word of God. But the Almighty could, without a doubt, have brought about in the shortest possible time—or even instantaneously—what, by the forces and laws of nature, would have taken centuries or millennia to form. These forces and laws began to operate in nature only after nature itself, together with existence, had been fully created by God—and it is unjust to extend their effect to the time that preceded this, or to subject the omnipotence of the Creator Himself to them during the initial creation of heaven and earth.

b) The aforementioned science, which studies the structure of our planet, has very little data on which to base any reliable and irrefutable conclusions regarding the Earth’s initial formation. Consequently, it is limited to mere conjecture and assumptions, constructing various theories and systems that are forgotten almost as quickly as they arise. There have been dozens of such systems, which are now recognized as false,[1241] and even the true geological system, according to the most impartial representatives of this science (Cuvier), is impossible. Is it fair, then, to contrast the findings of such a science with the account of the sacred Chronicler and to give priority to the former over the latter?

c) However, without denying the merits of this science, defenders of Revelation have proposed several ways to reconcile Moses’ account with its findings—ways that are more or less satisfactory in the judgment of impartial experts.[1242]

d) Among geologists themselves, many—and indeed, highly learned ones—[1243] testify that Moses’ account of the six-day creation is entirely consistent with the most reliable findings of their science, although some of these scholars interpret the days of creation as ordinary days, while others regard them as entire periods.

e) As geology advances, much of what was previously considered to contradict Moses’ account is now proving to be false and therefore not worthy of any attention.[1244] From this, one may conclude that with further advances in this science, all other objections to Moses’ account—derived from it—will dissipate of their own accord.

§75. The Moral Application of the Dogma

Moses himself demonstrated the moral application of the doctrine of God’s six-day creation when he commanded the Israelites: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God…” In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and on the seventh day He rested; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20:8–11). This commandment encompasses two other, more specific ones.

1. God Himself worked for six days, performing the works He did (Gen. 2:2), even though He could have created the world in an instant: so too must we, following the noble example of our Creator, work and labor for six days each week; we must develop and strengthen the powers and abilities He has given us, use the time He has granted us for our own good and that of our neighbors, and thus complete all our work in six days.

2. The Most High Himself rested on the seventh day from the work of His creation, “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:3); so too, after six days of labor, we must rest from our labors and sanctify—that is, dedicate exclusively to the service of our Lord—the seventh day of each week, which in the Old Testament was the Sabbath, and now, following the recreation of the world by the risen Giver of Life, has become Sunday; we must also, following this example, sanctify and dedicate to the service of God all other days which He Himself has sanctified through His special blessings to the human race, and which, by the authority granted by Him, the Holy Church has set apart from the other days and dedicated to the service of Him and His saints.

3. On the Small World—Man

§76. Connection to the Previous Section. The Church’s Teaching and the Structure of This Teaching

Having brought into being the spiritual world and then the material world out of nothingness, the Lord God, at the conclusion of creation, created man, who belongs equally to the spiritual world by his soul and to the material world by his body; and therefore he is, as it were, a synthesis of the two worlds,[1245] and is rightly called the “lesser world.”[1246]

The main features of the Orthodox teaching on this crown of God’s creation are as follows: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26). And God formed the body of the first man, Adam, from the earth, breathed the breath of life into his nostrils; He brought Adam into Paradise; He gave him food, including, among other fruits of Paradise, the fruit of the tree of life; finally, while Adam slept, He took one of his ribs and created the first woman, Eve, from it... God created man so that he might know God and the universe He created, love and glorify Him, and thereby enjoy eternal bliss.... But since man did not keep God’s commandment in Paradise while he was innocent, but took of the forbidden fruit and tasted it, he thereby lost his dignity and the state he had enjoyed in his innocence... And since, in the state of innocence, all people were in Adam, as soon as he sinned, all sinned in him as well and entered into a state of sin. And therefore, they are not only subject to sin but also to punishment for their sins.”.. (Simplified Christian Catechism on the First Article and the Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answers to Questions 22 and 24).

Thus, the teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding man as God’s creation consists, in particular, of the following teachings: 1) on the origin of human nature; 2) on the purpose and innocent state of man; 3) on the voluntary fall and the consequences of man’s fall.

3.1. The Origin and Nature of Man

§77. The Essence and Meaning of Moses’ Account of the Origin of the First Humans, Adam and Eve

The Sacred Chronicler testifies that God created the first humans, Adam and Eve, in a special way, different from the way He had previously created all His other creatures, and moreover, He created the man differently from the woman. Regarding the creation of man, in particular, the Chronicler says the following: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’—and God created man; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:26–27). Regarding the creation of man in particular: “Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Regarding the creation of the woman: “Then the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God fashioned the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to Adam” (21–22).

This account by Moses must be understood as history, and not as fiction or myth,[1247] because it was understood in a historical sense by:

1. Moses himself, as can be concluded from the nature of his entire book—which is purely historical—and in particular from the words that, according to his testimony, Adam spoke when Eve was brought to him: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of her husband” (Gen. 2:23), and then from the words that God spoke to the fallen Adam: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return (Gen. 3:19).

2. Subsequent Old Testament writers. For example, in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we read: “God created man for immortality and made him in the image of His own eternal being” (2:23); likewise, in the Book of Jesus, son of Sirach: “The Lord created man from the earth, and returns him to it.” He gave them a set number of days and a time, and gave them dominion over all that is in it. According to their nature, He clothed them with strength and created them in His own image (17:1–3; Eccl. 12:7; Ps. 8:5–10; Tob. 8:8).

3. Christ the Savior. Proving the indissolubility of marriage, He said to the Pharisees: “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8; Matt. 19:4–6). With these words, the Lord clearly confirmed the truth of all that Moses recounts about the origin of the first human couple (Gen. 2:18–24).

4. The Holy Apostle Paul. He testifies that the man was created first, then the woman: Adam was created first, and then Eve (1 Tim. 2:13). Regarding the creation of man, he says: the first man, Adam, became a living soul... the first man from the dust of the ground (1 Cor. 15:45...47); regarding the creation of woman: “Man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor. 11:8–9; cf. 6:16; Eph. 5:31).

5. The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. For example

a) Theophilus of Antioch: “God deemed only one thing worthy of His own hands—the creation of man...” and further: “God created a wife for Adam from his rib.”[1248]

b) St. Basil the Great: “The origin of man is superior to the origin of all else, for it is said that God took dust from the ground and formed man (Gen. 2:6); He deems it fitting to fashion our body with His own hand; no angel was employed for the creation, nor did the earth produce us of its own accord, like grasshoppers; He did not command the ministering spirits to do this or that, but, taking dust from the ground, He fashioned it with His own hand.”[1249]

c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “God, having taken a body from already created matter and having breathed into it life from Himself (which in the Word of God is called the soul or the image of God), creates, as it were, a second world—great within the small; He places upon the earth another angel, a witness to visible nature, a steward of the contemplative order of creation”;[1250]

d) Saint Ambrose: “It is not in vain that the woman was created not from the same dust from which Adam was formed, but from Adam’s own rib: so that we may know that in husband and wife there is one bodily nature, that there is one source of the human race, and therefore not two were created from the beginning—husband and wife—and not two wives, but first the husband, and then from him the wife”;[1251]

e) Saint John of Damascus: “From the visible and invisible natures, God created man with His own hands in His own image and likeness; from the earth He formed the body, and He imparted to man a rational and intelligent soul (λογικήν καί νοεράν) by His breath.”[1252]

On the other hand, we must remember that both in his account of the origin of the world in general and in the account of the creation of the first humans, the sacred Chronicler, wishing to be understood by all, often speaks of God in sensory and anthropomorphic terms, in accordance with the general meaning; therefore, although everything in this account should be understood in a historical sense, not everything should be taken literally.

“Some,” says St. John Chrysostom, “upon hearing the reading that says, ‘I will breathe into his face,’ assert that the soul proceeds from the essence (έκ τής ούσίας) of God… What could be worse than such folly? If, on the basis of the words of Scripture, ‘I will breathe into his face,’ they wish to ascribe lips to God, then it is necessary to ascribe hands to Him as well when it is said, ‘He created (έπλασε) man.’ So, when you hear the words of Scripture: ‘God created man,’ imagine a power like this: ‘Let there be’ (τήν άυτήν νόει δύναμιν τώ γνηθήτω); and when you hear, “He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” imagine that just as He brought into being incorporeal powers, so it pleased Him that this body, formed from dust, should also have a rational soul capable of using the members of the body.”[1253]

Blessed Theodoret reasoned in a similar way: “When we hear in the account of Moses that God took dust from the ground and formed man (Gen. 2:7), and we seek the meaning of this statement, we find in it God’s special favor toward the human race. For, in describing creation, the great Prophet notes that God created all other creatures by His word, but formed man with His own hands. But just as we understand the word there not as a command but as His will alone, so too here, in the formation of the body, we do not mean the action of the hands but the utmost care given to this work. For just as now, by His will, a fetus is conceived in the mother’s womb, and nature follows the laws that He prescribed for it from the very beginning, so too at that time the human body was formed from the earth by His very will, and dust became flesh.” And a little further on: “The divine Moses says that Adam’s body was formed first, and then the soul was breathed into him by God: ‘And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul’ (Gen. 2:7). The term “breath” here does not refer to any part of the Divine Being, as Kedron and Marcion thought, but rather denotes a property of the soul as a rational being.[1254]

Elsewhere, he makes a general observation: “We do not say that the Godhead has hands or requires any counsel or prior deliberation in order to fashion creation according to a preconceived idea, as Plato fancied; but we affirm that each of these expressions (in which the creation of man is described and mention is made, for example, of God’s prior counsel, etc.) merely demonstrate God’s greater care for man than for other creatures.[1255]

§78. The Descent of the Entire Human Race from Adam and Eve

This truth has two kinds of opponents: first, those who claim that people existed on earth even before Adam (pre-Adamites), and therefore Adam is not the progenitor of the human race; second, those who admit that, along with Adam, there were several progenitors of the human race (co-Adamites), and therefore, humans do not descend from a single root.[1256] Therefore, to thoroughly elucidate this truth, let us consider not only its positive proofs but also the opinions opposed to it.

1. The truth regarding the origin of the entire human race from Adam and Eve is very clearly set forth in the Word of God. Thus—

a) The Holy Chronicler relates that, before Adam came to be on earth, there was no human being to cultivate the ground (Gen. 2:5), and, before Eve was created, there was no helper suitable for man (20); Adam named his wife Eve, for she became the mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20). Consequently, Moses begins the genealogy of human existence precisely with this first couple (Gen. 5:1–2), whom God blessed with the command, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28).

b) Among the later Old Testament writers, Tobit says in his prayer to God: “You created Adam and gave him Eve as a helper, a support for his wife.” From them the human race descended (Tob. 8:6); and the Wise One calls Adam the first father of the world (Wis. 10:1).

c) The Holy Evangelist Luke traces the genealogy of Christ the Savior according to the human line no further back than Adam, and then calls Jesus the Son of God (Luke 3:38).

d) Finally, the Holy Apostle Paul testifies with complete clarity that the Lord created the entire human race from one blood to dwell upon the face of the whole earth (Acts 17:26), and on this truth he bases another, most important Christian truth concerning the transmission of original sin from the fallen first parents to the entire human race (Rom. 5:12).

In accordance with the Word of God, the Church of Christ has always believed in the origin of the entire human race from a single primordial couple: proof of this is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that she has always upheld the dogma of original sin and its transmission from Adam and Eve to all humanity.[1257]

It is quite remarkable that in the traditions of all peoples, both ancient [1258] and modern,[1259] the human race is traced back to a single couple, and the first parents are often called by names almost identical to those used by the sacred Chronicler.

2. Those who admit the existence of pre-Adamites, and consequently do not recognize Adam as the forefather of the human race, present the following evidence in support of their view:

a) “Moses himself, in the first chapter of Genesis, describes the origin of the first human couple differently than he later does in the second chapter—the origin of Adam and Eve: in the first chapter, he recounts that a man and a woman were created together and in the image of God; while in the second chapter he writes that first Adam alone was created from the earth, and some time later Eve was created from his rib, without attributing the image of God to them.” But Moses is not speaking of two creations, but of one and the same thing: only in the first chapter does he speak in general terms that God created man in His own image—creating both man and woman—without specifying whether they were created together or separately; while in the second chapter, he recounts in detail exactly how God created man and woman. This is how St. Basil the Great explained these two accounts: “Sometimes we are told in general terms, and sometimes it is narrated in detail exactly how something happened. And so, in the first chapter, it is stated only that God created, but the image is completely omitted; whereas here, in the second chapter, it is also shown how He created. For if it had simply been said, ‘He created (man),’ one might have thought that He created him in the same way as animals or as grass. Therefore, to prevent you from making such a generalization with regard to animals, the Word explains how God chose to create you specifically: God took dust from the ground. There it says only that He created, but here it says how He created: He took dust from the ground and formed you with His own hands.”[1260] For complete clarity that the first chapter speaks of the creation of Adam and Eve, and not of anyone else, it suffices to compare this account with the opening words of the fifth chapter of Genesis: “This is the account of Adam: When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; male and female He created them.”

b) “It is written of Cain and Abel that the former was a farmer and the latter a shepherd of sheep (Gen. 4:2). But in order to cultivate the land, various tools are needed, which, consequently, must have already been invented at that time...; by whom, if not by people who lived before them? And Abel could only protect his flocks from thieves: from whom, if there were no other people—pre-Adams—at that time besides his father, mother, and brother?” Adam himself, or even Cain, could have invented agricultural tools, especially since cultivating the earth’s still virgin soil—particularly in the East at that time—did not require such sophisticated and complex tools as are used today. And the purpose of herding sheep is not only to protect them from human kidnappers, but also to drive the sheep from one pasture to another—to better ones—to ensure that no sheep strays, to protect them from predatory animals, and so on.

c) “The subsequent story of Abel and Cain provides several grounds for concluding that there were already quite a few other people at that time, besides Adam and Eve and their two sons. Thus, having resolved to kill his brother, Cain says to him: ‘Let us go out to the field’ (Gen. 4:8). Here the word “field” is clearly contrasted with “town,” or, more generally, a place inhabited by people. After committing fratricide, Cain, among other things, says: “And whoever finds me will kill me” (14). Who, then, was he afraid of? His father or his mother? And God Himself places a mark on Cain so that no one who encounters him will kill him (15). After that, Cain goes to the land of Nod, takes a wife, and builds a city (16–17). Where, then, did he find a wife, and with whom did he populate the city?” From all the cases mentioned, it does indeed follow that there were already quite a few people on earth at that time; but it does not follow that these were pre-Adamites rather than descendants of Adam. Cain committed fratricide about 129 years later, or—according to the chronology of the 70s—about 229 years later (cf. Gen. 4:25; 5:3) from the time of Adam and Eve’s creation; and by that time they could already have had not only many sons and daughters, but also many grandchildren, especially when we recall the commandment given by God to our first parents immediately after their creation: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). It is unfair to conclude from the fact that Moses does not mention these descendants of Adam that they did not exist, when it is well known that Moses generally speaks very briefly and sparingly about the earliest, pre-Flood times. If this is the case, then

a) even in Cain’s day, when he committed fratricide, there may already have been places inhabited by people, or at least one such place;

b) Cain had someone to fear: he might have feared retribution for his brother’s blood—not only from his brothers but also from their descendants;

c) there were people from whom Cain could find a wife,[1261] and with whom to populate his city, which, without a doubt, was not like today’s cities but consisted of several tents or other similar structures, enclosed by a wall or rampart.

d) “Since the time of Adam’s origin, about six or, at 70 per year, about seven thousand years and a little more have passed. Meanwhile, even the ancient Egyptians counted tens of thousands of years of their political existence, while the Indians and Chinese count millions. Furthermore, as early as the time of Alexander the Great, the Chaldeans had astronomical records dating back 472,000 years, while the Indians and Chinese have astronomical records spanning millions of years.”[1262] However, according to the latest research, all these figures have been found to be false and completely unreliable.

a) The tens of thousands of years boasted of by the Egyptians and Chaldeans were rightly rejected even by ancient writers, who saw in them nothing but vain self-praise and fables;[1263]

b) the millions of years of Indian and Chinese history are equally fanciful: the earliest historical era of political organization in India dates back to the time of Abraham; and the reliability of Chinese history extends no further back than a little over two thousand years before the birth of Christ;[1264]

c) the astronomical observations of the Chaldeans and Egyptians date back barely eight hundred years before the birth of Christ, while the astronomical tables of the Indians and Chinese are even more recent.[1265] In general, all those historical monuments to which some attributed remarkable authenticity now turn out to be not nearly as ancient as once thought and date from the post-Flood era.[1266]

3. Those who claim that humans do not descend from a single ancestor but had several progenitors draw their evidence from:

a) From physiology, or the science that studies the properties of the human body, and point primarily to the marked difference in skin color among people—which, for example, is white in Europeans and completely black in Blacks—and to an equally marked difference in the angle of the face, which extends to 85 degrees in some and descends to 60 degrees in others. However, to explain these and all other differences observed among human tribes, it is by no means necessary to assume a difference in their origins—according to the testimony of the finest naturalists, these differences arise from accidental causes, such as: differences in climate and, in particular, varying degrees of temperature, evaporation from forests and swamps, the elevation of the soil above sea level, the number, height, and location of mountains, and wind patterns; as well as differences in diet, drink, lifestyle, and occupations; diseases of parents passed down to distant descendants; the intermingling of tribes; and so on. In particular, differences in skin color depend mainly on differences in climate and, above all, on temperature. Thus, the same Jewish people, scattered across different countries of the world, exhibit a full range of skin colors, from the palest white, which many of them have in Africa. Differences in facial angles depend on the varying development of mental faculties across different human generations: as intellectual abilities develop and advance in individuals and peoples, they influence the development of the brain, which is the direct organ of thought; and the development of the brain affects the formation of skulls, resulting in differences in facial angles. This is confirmed by numerous experiments on Black people, whose mental faculties are dormant and whose facial angle measures the fewest degrees. When some of these savages are accepted into an educated society and, with the assistance of others, begin little by little to make use of their cognitive abilities, to develop them, and to refine them, the structure of their heads gradually changes as a result, and their facial angle increases. While this may not yet be very noticeable in them, it becomes quite evident in their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. In the United States and the Antilles, such examples occur quite frequently. Furthermore, it is known that many indigenous peoples in America, the inhabitants of Sumatra and other East Indian islands, the Caribs, the Antillean Blacks, and others have long had the custom of giving their children’s skulls an arbitrary, preferred shape by deforming the infant’s head while still in the cradle using various artificial means.[1267]

b) From linguistics, the science concerned with the comparative study of languages. “It cannot be,” they say, “that such a multitude and such a variety of languages and dialects, known to us from history and statistics, could have originated from the language of a single person, a single progenitor of the human race.” But now the finest linguists, after long-term research, have come to the conclusion that all languages and all human dialects belong to three main classes: Indo-European, Semitic, and Malayo-Polynesian, and trace back to a single root, which they find in the Hebrew language, while others do not identify it.[1268] As for how different dialects could have arisen in the beginning among people descended from a single progenitor, the sacred Chronicler explains this in his account of the miraculous confusion of languages (Gen. 11:1–10).

c) From Geography. “It is said that America is completely separated from the Old World by oceans, and until the 15th century remained unknown to the inhabitants of that world. However, when it was discovered by Columbus in the 15th century, it was found to be quite densely populated. Where, then, do the Native Americans come from, if they did not have a specific progenitor of their own, one among many?” But today there is no longer any doubt that the ancients knew of the existence of America, as evidenced by the writings of Plato, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Josephus, Virgil, Pliny, Seneca, Saint Clement of Rome, and others.[1269] It has also been proven that many centuries before Columbus, the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Chinese, Tatars, Kamchadals, Koryaks, Kalmyks, and Scandinavians not only knew of America but also visited it, and often established colonies there. They even identify the very routes by which the inhabitants of the Old World could quite easily reach America, pointing to narrow straits such as Cook Strait and Bering Strait—which even today are easily crossed by the Chukchi when they go to war (which happens almost every year) with the inhabitants of the northeastern coasts of America; or to the chain of islands that stretches unbroken from Kamchatka to the Alaskan Peninsula in northwestern America, and so on. Clear evidence that the inhabitants of America are not indigenous but migrated there from the Old World is provided by the many beliefs and customs of the peoples of Asia and Europe that have been preserved among them to this day—for example: the legend of the Great Flood, the story of a single family being saved during it, the circumcision of infants, the observance of the Sabbath, and the celebration of a jubilee every fiftieth year; as well as temples and towers of Babylonian architecture, the signs of the Tatar zodiac, the facial features of the Kalmyks, Norman runes, the dialects of the Koryaks, and so on.[1270]

To the credit of modern science, it should be noted in general that today it, too—in the person of its finest representatives—[1271] willingly acknowledges the common origin of the entire human race.

§79. The Origin of Every Human Being and, in Particular, the Origin of Souls

Although all people thus descend from the first parents through natural birth, God is nonetheless the Creator of every human being. The only difference is that He created Adam and Eve directly, while He creates all their descendants indirectly—through the power of His blessing, which He bestowed upon our forefathers immediately after their creation, saying: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28), and which, having been spoken once as the word of the Almighty, will not lose its efficacy until the end of time. That is why Scripture states that God not only created our first parents, but also—

a) From one blood He brought forth the whole human race to dwell upon the face of the whole earth (Acts 17:26), and He Himself gave life and breath to all (25).

b) He creates every human being. “Your hands have worked on me and formed me entirely,” exclaim Job and the Psalmist (Job 10:8; Ps. 118:73) and in other passages: “The Spirit of God created me” (Job 33:4); “You surround me from behind and in front” (Ps. 138:5). God Himself says to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5).

c) He forms the human body: “You clothed me with skin and flesh; You knit me together with bones and sinews” (Job 10:11); “My bones were not hidden from You when I was being formed in secret” (Ps. 138:15; cf. Ps. 32:15)—these same sacred writers cry out before God.

d) He creates the human soul. This idea is expressed by Ecclesiastes: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7); and by the prophet Isaiah: “Thus says the Lord God, who created the heavens and their expanse, who spread out the earth with all that is on it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk upon it” (Isa. 42:5; cf. 57:16); the prophet Zechariah: “Thus says the Lord, who stretched out the heavens, laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). This belief of the Old Testament Church was expressed with the utmost clarity by a pious Jewish woman who, during the days of Antiochus’s persecution, while urging her children to face death for the sake of God’s law, said to them: “I do not know how you came to be in my womb; it was not I who gave you breath and life; it was not I who formed the composition of each of you.” Therefore, the Creator of the world, Who formed human nature and ordained the origin of all things, will once again grant you breath and life in His mercy, since you now spare not even yourselves for the sake of His laws” (2 Macc. 7:22–23).

As for the question of the origin of human souls in particular, the Orthodox Church, on the basis of the aforementioned texts, has always held—and continues to hold (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 28)—the view that they are created by God. This was indisputably attested to by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, , when, in condemning Origen’s view on the pre-existence of human souls [1272] , it stated: “The Church, following the divine words, affirms that the soul is created together with the body, and not such that one is created first and the other later, according to the false teaching of Origen.”[1273] At least with regard to the Eastern Church, Blessed Theodoret testified: Theodoret testified: “The Holy Church, believing in the divine Scriptures, teaches that the soul is created together with the body, but not in such a way that it comes into being from the very seed from which the body is formed, but that, by the will of the Creator, it immediately appears in the body upon its formation.”[1274]

On the part of the Western Church, this was attested to by Saint Leo, Pope of Rome, and Blessed Jerome. “The Catholic faith,” says the former, “confesses that every human being, in body and soul, is formed and animated in the womb by the Creator of all things, in such a way, however, that the stain of sin and death, passed down from the first parents to their offspring, remains.”[1275] And Blessed Jerome asks: “From where do all people receive their souls? Is it from their parents (ex traduce), like irrational animals, so that just as the body is born from the body, so the soul is born from the soul? Or do rational beings, having descended to earth out of a love for bodies, unite themselves with human bodies? Or is it truly, as the Church teaches on the basis of the Savior’s words: ‘My Father is still working, and I am working’ (John 5:17); and the words of Zechariah: “The Lord, who formed the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1); and the words of the Psalmist: “He forms the hearts of them all” (Ps. 32:15)—does God, whose will is already an act and who never ceases to be the Creator, create souls daily?”[1276] We will not even mention the individual teachers of the Church: Lactantius,[1277] Ambrose, Ephrem the Syrian, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius [1278] , and others, who clearly teach in their writings that human souls are created by God.

How, then, are we to understand this creation of souls? The Church herself does not define it precisely; but, based on the testimonies presented by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Blessed Theodoret, and especially St. Leo, and in accordance with other dogmas of the Church, it must be assumed that what is meant here is not God’s direct creation, but a mediated one—that God creates human souls, just as He creates bodies, by the power of that very blessing—“Be fruitful and multiply”—which He bestowed upon our first parents from the very beginning—creating them not out of nothing, but from the souls of their parents. For, according to the teaching of the Church, although human souls come into being through creation, they do so in such a way that the stain of original sin is transmitted to them from their parents—and this could not be the case if God created them out of nothing. Will it be said that such a creation of souls from the souls of their parents is completely inexplicable to us, since the human soul is a simple being? True. But it is also completely inexplicable to us that God, the purest Spirit, could beget His Son from His own being and proceed the Holy Spirit without undergoing any division... That is why even the ancient teachers of the Church repeated that the mystery of the creation of our souls is known only to God.[1279] By accepting the view that human souls are created from the souls of their parents, we naturally thereby reject:

a) the view that souls originate from the seed of the parents, from which bodies also originate—a view that obviously presupposes the materiality of the human soul and its mortality along with the body;[1280]

b) the view that souls arise of their own accord from the souls of their parents, just as bodies arise from bodies—a view that invariably presupposes the divisibility of the soul and, consequently, its materiality and mortality as well, because a being that is entirely immaterial can never, without a special creative omnipotence, produce any other being from itself;[1281]

c) finally, the view that human souls are created by God out of nothing and sent by God into bodies—a view that is difficult to reconcile with the dogma of the Orthodox Church regarding the transmission of original sin from parents to children through natural birth.[1282]

When, then, are human souls created and united with bodies? The formation of the body, as a material entity, takes place gradually in the mother’s womb; but the soul, a simple being, can be created only instantaneously, and is indeed created and given by God, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, “at the time when the body has already been formed and has become capable of receiving it” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 28). This is also what the ancient teachers of the Church taught: Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Theodoret, Gennadius, and others,[1283] and to support their words, they pointed to the words of the prophet Moses: Exodus 21:22–24. Here is how, for example, Blessed Theodoret explains his thought: “The same prophet (Moses) teaches even more clearly in his laws that the body is formed first, and then the soul is infused into it. For, speaking of one who strikes a pregnant woman, he gives this law: if anyone strikes a pregnant woman and her child is still unformed, then a fine shall be exacted from the guilty party, and he shall make restitution for the loss. But if the child is formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, and so on (Ex. 21:22–24). By this he makes it clear that an unformed or undeveloped child does not yet have a soul, whereas a formed child does have a soul.”[1284] On the other hand, one can point to other passages of Holy Scripture from which it is evident that infants, even while still in their mother’s womb and before their birth, possess souls. For example, regarding Rebekah it is noted: “The children struggled together within her” (Gen. 25:22); St. Elizabeth speaks of herself before the Most Holy Virgin Mary: “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped for joy in my womb” (Luke 1:44); cf. Jer. 1:5.

§80. The Composition of Man

According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, a human being “consists of an immaterial and rational soul and a material body” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 18); consequently, it consists of two parts. And this teaching is found in both the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old Testament, Moses, describing the origin of man, clearly distinguishes two parts in him: one formed from the earth, and the other breathed into him by God: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). Job, addressing his friends who were comforting him, says, among other things: “Be silent before me, and I will speak, whatever may befall me. Why should I torment my body with my teeth and put my soul in my own hands?” (Job 13:13–14). The psalmist cries out before God: “My flesh will rest in hope, for You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 15:9–10). Ecclesiastes, in accordance with what the sacred Chronicler says about the origin of man, speaks of his death: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7).

In the New Testament we read:

a) the words of Christ Himself to the Apostles: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28); where it is stated with complete certainty that a person consists only of body and soul;

b) the saying of the Apostle James: “The body without the spirit is dead, and so faith without works is dead” (2:26);

c) in the saying of the Apostle Paul: “Glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which belong to God” (1 Cor. 6:20); another: “The unmarried woman is concerned with the things of the Lord—how she may please the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit—but the married woman is concerned with the things of the world—how she may please her husband” (7:34); third: “And I, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already decided—as if I were with you— that the one who has done such a thing should be handed over to Satan in your assembly, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in union with my spirit, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (5:3–5).

From the passages of Scripture cited, it is evident that a person is sometimes described as having a body and a soul (ή ψυχή), and at other times as having a body and a spirit (τό πνεϋμα). This means that the soul and the spirit are merely different names for the same part. Other examples can also be cited to support this. The Savior, foretelling the separation of His human soul from His body at the time of His death for the sake of humanity, said: “Just as the Father knows Me, so I know the Father; and I lay down My soul (ή ψυχή μοϋ) for the sheep;... “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My soul, that I may take it up again” (John 10:15, 17), and before His crucifixion, He said to His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane: “My soul (ή ψυχή μοϋ) is deeply grieved” (Matt. 26:38). And at the very moment of His death on the cross, Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: “Father! Into Your hands I commit My spirit” (τό πνεϋμα μοϋ, Luke 23:46), and the Evangelists, describing this moment, write: “Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, gave up His spirit (τό πνεϋμα, Matt. 27:50),” or: “bowing His head, He gave up His spirit (τό πνεϋμα, John 19:30). St. Paul, having raised the young man Eutychus from the dead, said to those present: “Do not be alarmed, for his soul is within him” (Acts 20:10); and St. Luke, describing the Savior’s raising of the young girl, says: “And her spirit returned, and she arose immediately” (Luke 8:55).

It is true, however, that there are two sayings of Saint Paul in which the soul is clearly distinguished from the spirit, and in which the human being is described as consisting of spirit, soul, and body. The first passage is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword; it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12); the other is found in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). But if the Word of God cannot contradict itself; if it speaks so frequently and so clearly of only two parts in a human being; if the Apostle Paul himself depicts a human being as consisting of only two parts with such distinctness (1 Cor. 5:3–5; 6:20; 7:34)): then it cannot be that in the two passages mentioned, the soul and the spirit are distinguished in man as distinct, independent parts, rather than in some other sense. Indeed, in the first passage, they are distinguished only as two aspects or powers of the same spiritual nature of man: for the Apostle says that the Word of God penetrates just as far as the division of soul and spirit, as it does the joints and marrow; but the joints and marrow are merely parts of the same human body, not separate parts of man. On the basis of this same passage, one may conclude that in his second statement as well, Saint Paul distinguishes between the spirit and the soul in man only as two aspects of his one and the same spiritual nature, or specifically designates the spirit within the soul as its highest faculty. Or perhaps, as some of the ancients believed, by the term “spirit” the Apostle here actually means the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in all believers, about which he himself had just spoken: “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19; cf. 23).[1285]

Among the Church Fathers and teachers, the dual nature of the human person was clearly confessed by—

a) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Know yourself, what you are; know that you are a human being composed of two parts, soul and body, and that the same God is the Creator of both soul and body”;[1286]

b) St. Basil the Great: “Man is composed of soul and body; the flesh is taken from the earth, but the soul is heavenly”;[1287]

c) Saint Gregory the Theologian: “There is a dual nature within me; the body is created from the earth, and therefore is inclined toward the dust from which it came; but the soul is the breath of God, and always desires a better fate among the heavenly beings”;[1288]

d) St. John Chrysostom: “This is a dual creature—I am speaking of man, who consists of two natures: a soul that feels and thinks, and a body”;[1289] Blessed Augustine: “Man is not merely a body or merely a soul, but consists of soul and body”;[1290] St. John of Damascus: “From the visible and invisible natures, God created man with His own hands.... He created him as a composite of two natures, a contemplator of visible creation, a mediator of intelligible creation...; He created him with both spirit and flesh—the spirit to receive grace, the flesh to guard against pride.”[1291] St. Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Jerome, and indeed all the Fathers and teachers of the Church taught the same when they said that human life is nothing other than the union of the soul with the body, and death is the separation of the soul from the body.[1292]

If, however, some of the ancient teachers of the Church distinguished between spirit, soul, and body in man, it was by no means in the sense that the soul and spirit constitute distinct, independent parts. On the contrary—

a) Some, without a doubt, regarded the soul and the spirit in this context merely as two aspects or powers of the same spiritual nature of man—the lower and the higher—because in other passages of their writings they themselves clearly state that man consists of two parts, not three. Thus, Saint Justin expresses the idea in one passage that “the body is the dwelling place of the soul, and the soul is the dwelling place of the spirit,”[1293] while in another he acknowledges only two parts in man: the soul and the body.[1294] Likewise, Tertullian, in one passage, apparently distinguishes between the spirit, the soul, and the body in a human being,[1295] while in another he teaches that there are two natures in a human being, that the soul and the spirit are in no way different from one another and signify only two functions of one and the same invisible essence, which thinks and animates the human body.[1296] Clement of Alexandria also, in one passage, contrasts the soul—as the principle of bodily life—with the spirit—as the thinking and free principle—[1297] , while in others he asserts that only the body and the soul are the constituent parts of a human being, that the soul is the thinking and free principle within a human being, and that the soul and the spirit are two names for one and the same invisible essence of a human being, and if they are sometimes distinguished, it is only to denote the different functions and states of this essence.[1298]

b) Others understood the term “spirit” in a human being to mean the Spirit of God or the divine grace that gives life to a person. Saint Irenaeus, for example, says that a human being, as a human being, consists essentially of soul and body,[1299] but that his soul receives the Spirit of God as the source of the highest perfection,[1300] and that therefore the spirit (πνεϋμα) is found only in the pious, while the impious are deprived of it and consist of two parts, soul and body.[1301] In the same sense, Tatian also attributed the spirit exclusively to the pious.[1302]

c) Still others distinguished between the soul and the spirit in the spiritual nature of man, and regarded the spirit as the third part of man (of course, not in the strict sense) for the purpose of seeing in man the image of the Divine Trinity. For example, Saint Ephrem says that through the threefold invocation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are sanctified in body, soul, and spirit, so that our trinity becomes perfect;[1303] and in another passage he teaches with complete clarity that the same soul within us both animates the body and thinks.[1304]

In general, it should be noted that although the ancient teachers often mention the spirit, soul, and body in man, they do so without strict precision, failing to specify whether they distinguish between the soul and the spirit as two separate parts within us, or merely as two aspects of one and the same spiritual nature; and even if some clearly expressed the idea of three parts in a human being, they did so as a personal opinion, which they themselves revised in other parts of their writings. Especially since the appearance of the Apollinarians and Manichaeans—who, among other things, preached the tripartite nature of man, positing two souls within him—[1305] , the Church began to express even more clearly the doctrine that man consists of only two parts. “According to Apollinaris’s teaching,” writes Blessed Theodoret, “there are three constituent parts in man: the body, the animal soul, and the rational soul, which he calls the mind. But Divine Scripture recognizes only one soul, not two. This is clearly shown by the story of the creation of the first man.”[1306] And in another passage: “He (Jesus Christ) took upon Himself both the body and the soul endowed with reason. For Holy Scripture does not divide man into three parts, but says that this animal consists of a soul and a body. God, having formed the body from dust and breathed the soul into it, showed that there are two natures in man, not three. But the Lord Himself says in the Gospel: ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Matt. 10:28), and much of the same can be found in Scripture.”[1307] “We say,” Gennadius also testifies in his exposition of church dogmas, “that there are two souls in one person, as James and other Syriac theologians write: one is the soul that animates the body and is mingled with blood, and the other is the spiritual soul that governs the mind. But we say that there is only one soul in a human being, which both animates the body through its union with it and governs itself according to its own reason, possessing within itself the free will to choose whatever it desires through thought.” And further: “A human being consists of only two parts, the soul and the body... The spirit is not a third part of the human being, as Didymus thinks; but the spirit is the soul itself by virtue of its spiritual nature.”[1308]

§81. The Properties of the Human Soul

The soul, the highest and most excellent part of man, is—

1. An independent being, distinct from the body. This truth is evident from many passages of Scripture (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 15:9–10; Prov. 9:15; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 5:3–5), and especially—

a) the words of Ecclesiastes: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7), and

b) from the words of the Savior: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28); “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). The independence of the soul has been professed in the Church from its very beginning,[1309] and is clearly preached in all the writings on the soul composed by the ancient teachers of the faith.[1310] In particular, this truth was demonstrated by Eusebius,[1311] and defended by the blessed Theodoret and Nemesius against certain pagans who claimed that the soul is merely a form or harmony of the body’s constituent parts, or an attribute of the body.[1312]

2. An immaterial, simple being. This is what the Word of God teaches when it calls the soul a spirit—and does so very frequently: in addition to the examples we cited earlier (Eccl. 12:7; John 10:15; Matt. 26:36; cf. Luke 23:46; Matt. 27:50; John 19:30; Acts 7:59), we will also point to the statement of the Apostle Paul: “This very Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16); “Who among men knows what is in a man, except the human spirit that dwells in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11), and to the Apostle Paul’s testimony concerning the Savior, that He went down in the Spirit to those in prison and preached to those who were once disobedient, awaiting God’s long-suffering in the days of Noah (1 Pet. 3:19–20).

The ancient and renowned pastors of the Church also taught about the nature of the soul: Gregory of Nyssa,[1313] John Chrysostom,[1314] Basil the Great,[1315] Augustine,[1316] Theodoret,[1317] John of Damascus,[1318] and others.[1319] If, however, some attributed a certain corporeality or materiality to the soul, they did so in the same sense in which they attributed it to angels.[1320]

3. A free being. The idea of the freedom of the human soul is either explicitly stated or implied in countless passages of Holy Scripture—first, in all those where commandments are given to man and obedience to God’s Law is required of him; second, where various rewards—and especially eternal bliss—are offered to man for keeping the commandments; and finally, where various punishments, both temporal and eternal, are foretold for the guilty party who violates the commandments. In particular, this idea is expressed by:

a) Moses, speaking to the Israelites: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today: I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life, so that you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:19); cf. verses 15–18);

b) Joshua: “If serving the Lord does not please you, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve” (24:15);

c) The prophet Isaiah: “If you are willing and obedient, you will enjoy the good things of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, the sword will devour you—for the mouth of the Lord has spoken” (1:19–20);

d) The wise son of Sirach: “From the beginning, He created man and left him to his own will. If he wishes, he will keep the commandments and maintain a pleasing moderation” (15:14–15);

e) The Savior Himself: “If you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17; cf. 23:37; John 7:17);

f) The Apostle Paul: whoever is firmly resolved in his own heart—not being constrained by need, nor being a master of his own will—and has decided in his heart to remain unmarried—he does well (1 Cor. 7:37; cf. Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 5:10, 15–17).

The Church Fathers and teachers defended the freedom of the human soul against the pagans, Gnostics, and Manichaeans, such as: Justin,[1321] Theophilus of Antioch,[1322] Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,[1323] Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus [1324] and many others.[1325] They argued that we are conscious of our freedom;[1326] that freedom is an inalienable attribute of a rational being [1327] and distinguishes humans from lower animals;[1328] that only through free obedience and service can we please God;[1329] and that without freedom there is neither religion nor morality,[1330] nor merit.[1331] Furthermore—because God gives us commandments and inspires us to piety, just as He once did for our forefather Adam,[1332] and because those who deny human freedom contradict themselves through their own actions when, for example, they hold their subordinates accountable for their crimes.[1333]

4. The immortal being. Belief in the immortality of the soul was already known in the Old Testament. It was professed in:

a) Ecclesiastes: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (12:7); “for God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (—14);

b) The Psalmist: “But God will rescue my soul from the power of the grave when He receives me” (48:16; cf. 16:15);

c) The Wise One: “The souls of the righteous are in God’s hand, and no torment shall touch them” (3:1); “The righteous live forever; their reward is in the Lord, and the Most High cares for them” (5:15; cf. 4:7, 10:14);

d) All the Old Testament righteous also confessed this when they viewed earthly life as a journey toward their heavenly homeland (Gen. 47:9; Heb. 11:13–16), and death as a passing to be with their fathers (Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:29). This truth is set forth even more clearly in the New Testament. The Savior says: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28); “Whoever loves his soul will lose it, and whoever hates his soul in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25); and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; the rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, while in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom (Luke 16:22–23, cf. 23:43). The Apostle Paul writes: we know that when our earthly dwelling, this tent, is destroyed, we have a dwelling in heaven from God, a house not made with hands, eternal (2 Cor. 5:1); we do not have a permanent city here, but we seek the one to come (Heb. 13:14); “Our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:20). The Holy Fathers and the teachers of the Church all preached the immortality of the soul in unison,[1334] with the sole difference being that some recognized it as immortal by nature,[1335] while others recognized it as such by the grace of God.[1336]

§82. The Image and Likeness of God in Man

1. The most important distinction among God’s other creations is that the Creator deigned to adorn man with His image and likeness. And God said, as the sacred Chronicler recounts: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Gen. 1:26–27; cf. 5:1). God Himself later testifies to this distinction when He says to Noah: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made” (Gen. 9:6).

And in the New Testament, the Apostle James testifies, remarking on our tongue: “With it we bless God and the Father, and with it we curse people made in the likeness of God” (3:9). The Holy Church has always recognized the reality of the image of God in man, following the clear teaching of Holy Scripture.[1337] To some extent, this truth was known even to the pagans.[1338]

2. In what, then, does the image of God consist within us? “Church teaching,” replies Saint Epiphanius, “believes that man in general is created in the image of God, but it does not specify in which particular part that which is in the image is found.”[1339] This is because the Church Fathers and teachers themselves addressed this question in different ways, although their views do not contradict one another; rather, they address different aspects of the subject. On the contrary, if we bring these ideas together and examine them in light of a correct understanding of God, our archetype, then the nature of the image of God within us will be fully defined.

a) God, by His very nature, is the purest Spirit, unclothed by any body and uninvolved in any materiality. Thus, the image of God must be sought not in the human body, but in the human soul, which is immaterial: this is the idea that Clement of Alexandria, Origen,[1340] , and later—in opposition to the anthropomorphists—Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa,[1341] , Ambrose, Augustine,[1342] , Theodoret, and others sought to elucidate.[1343]

b) God, as Spirit, possesses the essential attributes of the spirit—mind and freedom—and is, by His very nature, immortal: therefore, in particular, one may conceive of the image of God, in agreement with some Church Fathers, as residing in the human mind ;[1344] in agreement with others, as residing in the human free will;[1345] and in agreement with still others, as residing in the indestructibility of the human soul and its immortality.[1346]

c) God, the purest Spirit, is one in essence but triune in Persons; and in this regard, following the teachers of the Church, we can find a certain faint image of God in the unity of our soul alongside the triunity of its essential powers, however one may choose to name them—whether memory, reason, and will; or mind, word, and spirit; or mind, will, and feeling. “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,” says, for example, Saint Ambrose, “but not three Gods, rather one God having three Persons: just as the soul is mind, the soul is will, the soul is memory; but not three souls in one body, but one soul possessing three powers (dignitates), and it is in these very three powers that our inner man, by his very nature, marvelously reflects the image of God.”[1347] “Just as God exists in three Persons,” reasons Saint Dimitri of Rostov, “so too does the human soul consist of three powers—mind, word, and spirit. And just as the word proceeds from the mind, and the spirit from the mind, so too do the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. Just as the mind cannot exist without the word and the spirit, so the Father has never existed and can never exist without the Son and the Holy Spirit. And just as the mind, the word, and the spirit are three distinct powers of the soul, yet there is one soul, not three souls, so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Persons of God, not three Gods, but one God.”[1348]

d) God, in relation to all other beings, is their Lord, King, and Ruler; in this sense, in agreement with Saints John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, one may conceive of the image of God as having been bestowed upon man at creation, along with kingly authority and dominion over all earthly creatures—all the more so because this idea is consistent with the very words of the Creator Himself, who, immediately after declaring: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” and immediately added: “and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the beasts, and all livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26).[1349] But it is evident that man’s dominion over the creatures of the earth is merely a consequence and an outward expression of the image of God found within the very soul of man—in his reason and in his freedom—which alone give us a complete advantage over all irrational animals. And in this sense, following the example of certain teachers of the Church, the reflection of the image of God can even be found in the human body, because its most noble structure and majestic form, turned upward, very clearly express both the properties of the rational and free soul and the royal dignity of man among all creatures of the earth.[1350]

Consequently, it can be said that the image of God is reflected not in any particular part, power, or ability, but in the whole person, to a greater or lesser extent.

3. Is there a difference between the image and the likeness of God in man, or not? The majority of the Church Fathers and teachers answered that there is, and said that the image of God is found in the very nature of our soul, in its reason, in its freedom; while likeness lies in the proper development and perfection of these powers by man,[1351] in particular—in the perfection of his reason [1352] and free will,[1353] or both together,[1354] in virtue and holiness,[1355] and in the acquisition of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.[1356] Consequently, we receive the image of God from God together with our very existence, but we must acquire the likeness ourselves, having received from God only the capacity to do so. This view of the distinction between the image and the likeness of God in man is also grounded in Holy Scripture. Thus—

a) In describing the counsel of the Trinity regarding the creation of man, Moses testifies: “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’” (Gen. 1:26); and speaking subsequently of the creation itself, he states: “So God created man; in the image of God He created him” (27). “Why, then,” asks Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “was what was intended not done? Why is it not said, ‘And God created man in the image of God and in His likeness’? Did the Creator lack the power? But it is impious to speak thus. Did the One who deliberated change His intention? But it is impious even to think so. Did He speak and then change His intention?—No. Neither does Scripture say this, nor did the Creator lose His power, nor did the intention remain unfulfilled. What, then, is the reason for the omission? ‘Let us make man in our image and in our likeness.’ The first (κατ’ εικόνα) we possess by creation; but the latter (καθ’ ομοίωσιν) we ourselves accomplish by our own free will. To be in the image of God is inherent in us from our very creation; but to become like God depends on our will. And this aspect, which depends on our will, exists within us only as a potential; it is actually acquired by us through our own activity. If the Lord, intending to create us, had not said beforehand, “Let us make man in our likeness,” and if He had not granted us the capacity to be in His likeness, then we could not, by our own power, be in the likeness of God. Now, however, in our creation we have received the potential to be like God. But in giving us this potential, God has left it up to us to be the agents of our likeness to God, so that He might grant us a pleasing reward for our activity; so that we might not be like soulless images created by painters.”[1357]

B) In some passages of Scripture, it is implied that the image of God is present even in fallen humanity, as is evident, for example, in God’s words to Noah after the Flood: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has man been made” (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9)—and yet, Christians are commanded to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God, in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Eph. 4:24). What does this mean, if not that in the first case it refers specifically to the very image of God, embedded in our very nature, inseparable from it and, like it, unchangeable; while in the latter case, only the likeness of God or the becoming like God is meant—a state dependent on our will, which we can therefore acquire but can also lose through our sins? “The image of God,” says Saint Dimitry of Rostov, “exists even in the soul of an unbeliever, while the likeness exists only in a virtuous Christian; and when a Christian commits a mortal sin, he is deprived only of the likeness of God, not of the image. And even if he is condemned to eternal torment, the image of God remains the same within him for all eternity, while the likeness can no longer exist.”[1358] “In my very creation,” reasons Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “I received the image, but by my own will I become the likeness... One thing was given, and the other was left incomplete, so that you, having perfected yourself, might become worthy of a reward from God. How, then, do we become like Him? Through the Gospel. What is Christianity? Becoming like God, as much as is possible for human nature. If you have decided to be a Christian, then strive to become like God, to clothe yourself in Christ.”[1359]

3.2. On the Purpose and Original State of Man

§83. The Purpose of Man

By exalting man above all earthly creatures, endowing him with reason and freedom, and adorning him with His own image, the Creator thereby predestined for him a special, exalted purpose. And—

1. In relation to God, man’s purpose consists in remaining steadfastly faithful to that exalted covenant or union with God (religion) to which the All-Good One called him at the very moment of creation, imprinting His image upon him, so that, as a result of this calling, he might constantly strive toward his Original Model with all the powers of his rational and free soul—that is, so that he might know and glorify his Creator, live for Him, and remain in moral union with Him. “He endowed them with the insight of the mind,” says the wise son of Sirach of God and the first humans; “He set His eye upon their hearts to show them the greatness of His works, so that they might glorify His holy name and proclaim the greatness of His works.” He imparted knowledge to them and gave them the law of life as an inheritance; He established an everlasting covenant with them and revealed His judgments to them (Sir. 17:6–10). Accordingly, the Savior also commanded us: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). The holy Apostles also commanded: “Glorify God in your bodies and in your spirits, which belong to God” (1 Cor. 6:20); “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). The ancient renowned teachers and writers of the Church also pointed to this purpose of man as the most important:

Lactantius: “We are born on the condition that we render just and due obedience to the Lord who begot us, that we know Him alone, and that we follow Him. Being bound by this bond of piety, we are united with God, from which religion itself derives its name... Thus, the name ‘religion’ derives from the bond of piety through which God has united man to Himself and bound him by piety: for it is necessary for us to serve Him as Lord and to obey Him as Father.”[1360]

Basil the Great: “You are a well-ordered vessel, brought into being by God: glorify your Creator. For you were created for no other purpose than to be a worthy instrument of God’s glory; and this entire world is, as it were, a living book for you, which proclaims God’s glory and reveals to you, who possess reason, the hidden and invisible greatness of God, so that you may come to know the God of truth. Keep what I have said firmly in mind.”[1361]

Gregory the Theologian: “It was fitting that worship of God should not be limited to the heavenly realms alone, but that there should also be some worshippers on earth, and that all might be filled with the glory of God (for all things are God’s): for this purpose man is created, honored as the work of God’s hands and in the image of God.”[1362]

John Chrysostom: “God gave us sight, speech, and hearing so that all our members might serve Him, so that we might speak and act in a way pleasing to Him, sing unceasing songs to Him, and offer thanksgiving to Him.”[1363]

Ambrose: “Someone rightly said, ‘We are His offspring’ (Acts 17:28). For the Creator has bestowed upon us, by His very nature—that is, a rational nature—so that we might seek that which is divine, which is not far from each of us (27), and in whom we live, move, and have our being (28).”[1364]

Macarius the Great: “The Lord created the soul so that it might be His bride and partner, with whom He might be united, so that it might be one spirit with Him, as the Apostle says: ‘Whoever is united with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord’ (1 Cor. 6:17).”[1365]

2. With regard to a person’s relationship to himself, his purpose is that, as one created in the image of God with moral faculties, he should strive constantly to develop and perfect these faculties by exercising them in good deeds, and thus become more and more like his Original Model. That is why, in the Old Testament, the Lord repeatedly commanded people: “Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7), and now in the New Testament we hear from our Savior: “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). However, this goal of man is fundamentally different from the first; on the contrary, it is contained within it and serves as a necessary condition for its attainment: for we can honor and glorify God primarily through good deeds (Matt. 5:16), and without good deeds, any other form of worship is displeasing to Him (Isa. 1:11, 20). The Holy Fathers and writers of the Church speak clearly about this purpose of man:

a) Gregory the Theologian: “We were created for good deeds, to glorify and praise the Creator and, as much as possible, to imitate God”;[1366]

b) Lactantius: “If anyone asks a person of sound mind why he was born, he will boldly and immediately answer: I was born to honor God, who created us for this very purpose, so that we might serve Him; and to serve God means nothing other than to uphold the truth and preserve it through good deeds”;[1367]

c) Basil the Great: “The structure of your body is a school for you regarding the purpose for which you were created: you were created upright so that you might not drag your life along on earth, but look up to heaven and to the God who dwells there, and so that you might not pursue animalistic pleasures, but, in accordance with the reason given to you, live a heavenly life”;[1368]

d) Titus of Bostria: “It must be said that man is called to life by the Creator so that he may concern himself with nothing else but piety and virtue: for, having attained these, he will truly attain life as well”;[1369]

e) John Chrysostom: “We were not born to eat and drink and clothe ourselves, but to, having received divine wisdom, avoid evil and strive for virtue...; for when creating man, God said: ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’—and we become like God not when we eat, drink, and clothe ourselves (for God neither eats, nor drinks, nor clothes Himself), but when we uphold righteousness, show love for our fellow man, are forgiving and meek, show mercy to our neighbor, and adorn ourselves with every virtue.”[1370]

But since, as a person progresses in virtue, he attains bliss, which is the consequence of good deeds and the reward for them, according to the Savior’s own teaching on the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:16); and since godliness, by its very nature, is beneficial in every way, holding the promise of life both present and future (1 Tim. 4:8): it can be said that man, created for good deeds (Eph. 2:10), is at the same time created for bliss, and that, consequently, bliss constitutes one of the ends of man, considered in relation to himself. And the Holy Fathers sometimes pointed to this end—

a) Gregory the Theologian: “We were brought into being to prosper: and we prospered after we were brought into being; paradise was entrusted to us so that we might enjoy it; we were given a commandment so that, by keeping it, we might merit glory”;[1371]

b) Gregory of Nyssa: “It was fitting that man, created to enjoy divine blessings, should have in his nature something akin to that which he would enjoy; that is why he is endowed with life, reason, wisdom, and all God-like attributes”;[1372]

c) John of Damascus: “As a benevolent God, He created us not to punish us, but so that we might share in His goodness.”[1373]

3. Finally, man’s purpose in relation to all of nature surrounding him is clearly defined in the words of the Triune Creator Himself: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the beasts, and all the cattle, and all the earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26). As the image of God, as a son and heir in the house of the heavenly Father, man is set, as it were, as a mediator between the Creator and earthly creation; in particular, he is destined to be, as it were, its prophet, so that through word and deed he may proclaim God’s will within it; a high priest, to offer up to God, on behalf of all earthly creatures, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and to bring down heavenly blessings upon the earth; a head and a king, so that, by concentrating within himself the purpose of the existence of all visible creatures, he might unite all things with God through himself, and thus maintain the entire chain of earthly creation in orderly harmony and union. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church spoke very often about this calling of man—to be king and lord over the nature surrounding him—especially when addressing the question of why man was created last. Here, for example, are the words—

a) St. Ambrose: “By virtue of his dignity, man appeared last, as the purpose of nature, created for righteousness, to be the arbiter of righteousness among the other animals… He rightly appeared last, as the crown of all creation, as the cause of the world, for which all things were created;[1374]

b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “If man, honored as God’s handiwork and image, appeared last in the world, this is not at all surprising: for it was fitting to prepare a royal dwelling for him, as for a king, and only then to bring the king into it, accompanied by all creatures”;[1375]

c) Blessed Theodoret: “God, the Creator of all things, after creating the visible and invisible creatures, brought forth man last, placing him, as it were, as His own image among the inanimate and animate creatures, visible and invisible, so that the inanimate and animate creatures might be of service to him, as a kind of tribute, and so that the invisible natures, by caring for man, might bear witness to their love for the Creator.”[1376]

§84. The Capability of the First Man to Fulfill His Purpose, or Perfection

In ordaining man for such a lofty purpose, the Lord God created him fully capable of achieving this purpose—that is, perfect. This idea—

a) follows from the testimony of Moses, who, as soon as he spoke of the creation of man, suddenly makes a general observation: “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31);

b) is necessarily accepted by sound reason on the basis of the very idea of God as an infinitely wise being, who could not have created anyone imperfect—that is, inadequate for the purpose. In particular—

1. Man came forth from the hands of his Creator perfect in soul, both intellectually and morally (The Rules of Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 23). As proof of Adam’s wisdom, it is fitting to point to the names he gave to the animals: “And the man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field” (Gen. 2:20). It is noteworthy here, first, that God Himself brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them: “And He brought them to the man to see what he would call them” (19); second, that whatever names Adam gave the animals, God confirmed those very names for them without any change, and consequently recognized them as good and appropriate to the nature of the various animals or, at least, to their principal characteristics: “Whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name” (19); finally—that Adam invented these names, which corresponded to the nature of the various animals, instantly, at a single glance at those he was naming, and not as a result of long-term study of their characteristics.

“Consider, my beloved,” says St. John Chrysostom, “the freedom of will and the abundance of wisdom possessed by Adam, and do not say that he did not know what was good and what was evil. He who was able to give fitting names to the livestock, the birds of the air, and the beasts, and in doing so did not confuse the order—did not call gentle animals by names proper to fierce ones, nor fierce ones by names corresponding to the nature of the gentle—but rather gave each its own name—was he not filled with all wisdom and knowledge?... God Himself approved of these names so much that He did not alter them in the least nor did He wish to abolish them, even if Adam had erred in any way.”[1377]

However, Adam’s wisdom should not be regarded as some kind of all-encompassing perfection, which belongs to God alone—the mind of the first man was, without a doubt, pure, clear, sane, free from prejudice and error, and capable of comprehending things with the greatest ease; yet at the same time, it was limited, unable to embrace everything at once or to penetrate everything—a fact that was soon confirmed during the fall of our first parents (Gen. 3:1–7). The mind of the first man was meant to develop and perfect itself more and more, just as the minds of the angels themselves are perfected—a thought frequently found in the writings of the Church Fathers.[1378]

Proof that the first man was completely pure and innocent in a moral sense is provided, on the one hand, by the observation of the sacred Chronicler: “Both Adam and his wife were naked, and they were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). “This,” says St. John of Damascus, “is the height of dispassion.”[1379] And on the other hand—the direct testimony of Ecclesiastes: “I have found only this: that God has made man upright” (Eccl. 7:29). However, the righteousness of the first humans, which the Holy Church has always professed,[1380] should not be understood to mean that they possessed all virtues from the very beginning and had nothing left to perfect; no, although Adam and Eve came forth from the hands of the Creator completely pure and sinless, they still had to establish themselves in goodness and perfect themselves with God’s help, through their own efforts. “Man, created and fashioned by God,” reasons Saint Irenaeus, “was made in the image and likeness of the uncreated God, by the will and command of the Father, through the action and creativity of the Son, and nourished and strengthened by the Spirit, while at the same time he himself gradually progressed and ascended toward perfection. It was fitting that man should first come into being, then grow as he came into being, mature as he grew, be strengthened as he matured, be perfected as he matured, be glorified as he was perfected, and, as he was glorified, be deemed worthy to see God.”[1381]

2. Man came forth from the hands of his Creator perfect even in body. As a creation of the infinitely Wise One, he—with his marvelous constitution, which he retains to this day—undoubtedly received from the Creator no defects whatsoever, neither internal nor external; and, being endowed with strength (Sir. 17:3), possessed fresh and uncorrupted powers, had not the slightest disorder within himself, and was therefore completely free from all sickness and suffering—which is why Moses presents sickness and suffering as the consequence of our first parents’ fall and as punishments for sin (Gen. 3:16). St. John Chrysostom depicts God speaking to Adam as follows: “When I brought you into the world, I desired that you should live a life free from sickness, toil, infirmity, and sorrow, in happiness and prosperity; that you should not be subject to bodily needs, but rather, rising above them all, dwell in complete freedom”; and speaking in the same way to Eve: “I desired that you should have a pain-free life and a life free from want, alien to all grief and sorrow, and filled with every pleasure.”[1382] “If we were still living in the paradise of bliss,” writes another Holy Father of the Church, “we would have no need for agricultural inventions and labor; and if we were not subject to suffering by virtue of the gift bestowed upon us at creation and preserved by us until the Fall, we would not need the aid of medical science for our relief.”[1383]

With such natural powers received from God, with such a state of mind and will—and even of the body itself—primordial man was, without a doubt, capable of fulfilling his purpose: that is, to know and glorify God, to perform good deeds and find bliss, and to be the master of the nature subject to him. But no matter how perfect man’s natural powers were, he, being a limited being and lacking life in himself, needed—even then, like all created beings—constant sustenance from God, who alone is the source of life for His creatures, both bodily and spiritual. And the infinitely good Creator at that very moment truly demonstrated His special providence toward the first man, and at that very moment revealed to him His direct assistance in achieving his goals.

§85. God’s Special Assistance to the First Man in Achieving His Destiny

This assistance consisted in the following:

1. The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had created (Gen. 2:8). “It was, in the words of St. John of Damascus, as it were a royal palace, where, dwelling there, man would lead a happy and blissful life...; it was a repository of all joys and pleasures: for Eden meant delight... There was perfect harmony there. It was surrounded by bright air, the finest and purest; adorned with ever-blooming plants, filled with fragrance and light, and surpassing every sensory conception of beauty and goodness. It was truly a divine land, a dwelling worthy of one created in the image of God.”[1384]

Since ancient times, there have been many opinions regarding the meaning of paradise, but there were three main ones.[1385] Some understood it in a sensory sense and sought it on earth;[1386] others in a spiritual sense, and often sought it in the higher realms of the world, or in the human heart;[1387] a third group, finally, understood it in both a sensory and a spiritual sense: the majority of the ancient teachers of the Church held to the latter view,[1388] — and among others, St. John of Damascus, who sets forth his thoughts very clearly and thoroughly. “Paradise,” he says, “is conceived by some as sensory, and by others as spiritual; but it seems to me that, just as man was created both sensory and spiritual, so too was his most perfect temple both sensory and spiritual, and thus had a dual nature. With his body, man dwelt in a divine and beautiful land, while with his soul he lived in an incomparably higher and more beautiful place, where he had God as his home and radiant garment; he was clothed in His grace and delighted in the sweetest contemplation of God, as if he were another angel... Therefore, I believe that the divine paradise was twofold; and for this reason, the teaching handed down by the God-bearing Fathers—some of whom described paradise as physical, and others as spiritual—is correct.”[1389]

2. To develop human intellectual faculties, and especially to instruct humanity in the truths of the Faith, God graced humanity with His direct revelations; to this end, He Himself appeared to our first parents, conversed with them, and revealed His will to them, as is evident from the account of the sacred Chronicler (Gen. 2), and as the wise son of Sirach testifies: He filled them with the discernment of the mind and showed them good and evil... He imparted knowledge to them and bequeathed to them the law of life; He established the eternal law with them and revealed His judgments to them (Sirach 17:6, 9–10). Thus, God Himself was the first guide and teacher to our first parents. Our forefather was even granted by God the gift of prophecy—as St. John Chrysostom demonstrates through the words spoken by Adam as soon as his wife, Eve, whom God had created, was brought to him: “Behold, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of her husband.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:23–24). Here Adam clearly defined how and from what Eve was created, even though she was created while he was in a deep sleep, and he foretold that the human race would multiply on the earth, that families would be formed within it, and that a man would leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. It was impossible for Adam to fathom and explain all this based solely on natural reasoning, and moreover so suddenly and without any doubt.[1390]

3. To strengthen the will of the first man toward the good and, in general, to ensure his success in the spiritual life, God bestowed His grace upon him from the very beginning, and this grace constantly dwelt in our first parents, serving for them, as it were, as heavenly clothing, in the words of the Holy Fathers, “[1391] ,” and it was through this grace that Adam and Eve remained in constant communion with God (see The Christian Catechism, Article 1, answer to the question: “Was the paradise in which the first humans dwelt material or spiritual?”). “The Creator, having created man,” says St. John of Damascus, “bestowed upon him His divine grace, and through it brought him into communion with Himself.”[1392] “Without the assistance (sine adjutorio) of God,” Blessed Augustine also argues, “man could not have lived piously even in paradise”;[1393] and elsewhere: “God granted man a good will, for He created him righteous; but He also granted him the capacity without which he could not have remained in it, even if he had wanted to; the will itself, however, He left to his own discretion. Thus, man could have remained in the good if he had wanted to, because he possessed the capacity by which this was possible.”[1394]

The ancient teachers deduced the necessity of grace for original man—and indeed for all rational creatures—on the one hand, from the very nature of these creatures, which, due to its limitations, cannot sustain itself but must receive everything necessary from God; and on the other hand, from the nature of their limited freedom, which is equally capable of choosing good and evil, and which, in order to choose and perform good, requires the assistance of grace.

The first idea is explained by:

St. Macarius the Great: “God, having created the body, did not ordain that it should receive life, food, drink, clothing, and footwear; rather, He determined that it should obtain everything necessary for sustaining life from outside sources, so that the body, created naked, cannot live on its own without external assistance—that is, without food, drink, and clothing—and if it were left to itself, without any external support, it would soon decay and perish; so too the soul, not possessing divine light within itself but being created in the image of God, does not derive spiritual food and drink, nor heavenly clothing—that is, its true life—from its own being, but from God, from His Spirit, and from His light. For the nature of God contains within itself both bread and life—He who said: “I am the living bread” (John 6:51), and living water, and wine that gladdens the human heart (John 4:10; Ps. 103:15), and the oil of joy, and a manifold spiritual nourishment, and the heavenly garment of light, proceeding from God Himself. In this consists the eternal life of the soul. Woe to the body when it is left to its own devices: it decays and dies. Woe also to the soul if it remains confined to itself alone, trusts only in its own deeds, and has no communion with the Spirit of God: it dies, deprived of eternal, divine life.[1395]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Virtue is not merely a gift from the great God, who has honored His own image; for one’s own striving is also necessary. It is not the work of your heart alone, for the most excellent power is required. Although my sight is very keen, it does not perceive visible objects by itself, nor without the great light that illuminates my eyes and is itself visible to the eyes. And for my success, I need not only two parts from the great God—namely, the first and the last—but also one part from myself. God created me receptive to goodness; God grants me strength, but in my heart—it is I who run the race.”[1396]

St. Basil the Great: “A creature is sustained, lives, and exists—certainly not as a creature that itself needs to be supported by the power of the Creator; certainly, God is not glorified by the action of the creature when it is said of Him Himself that in Him we live, and move, and have our being; but truly the Divine Spirit sustains in being all that is from God and through the Son. Therefore, to those who partake of Him, He grants the continuation of being. And in Him we live again, we who were once corrupted by our separation from Him.”[1397] “Holiness is impossible without the Spirit. Nor are the heavenly powers holy by nature—otherwise they would be no different from the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, according to the degree of one’s superiority over another, they possess a certain measure of holiness from the Spirit.”[1398]

Blessed Augustine: “If an angel or a human being had not been granted God’s assistance immediately upon their creation, then they (since their nature is not such that they could remain in goodness without God’s assistance, even if they wished to) would have fallen through no fault of their own: for they would not have had the assistance without which it is impossible for them to remain in goodness.”[1399]

We find this last thought:

a) in St. Basil the Great: “Invisible powers are free; consequently, they are equally inclined toward both virtue and vice, and therefore need the help of the Spirit”;[1400]

b) in St. John of Damascus: “God created man sinless by nature and free by will; sinless, I say, not because he was immune to sin—for the Divine Nature alone cannot sin—but because the possibility of sinning lay not in his nature but in his free will. Indeed, with the assistance of God’s grace, he could abide in and prosper in goodness; and likewise, by his own free will, with God’s permission, he could turn away from goodness and be in evil.”[1401]

4. To continually strengthen and renew the physical strength of the first man, and to sustain his life forever, God planted the tree of life in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9); by eating its fruit, man would have been free from sickness and immortal in body (The Expanded Christian Catechism, Article 1, answer to the question: “What is the tree of life?”). That is why Holy Scripture testifies that God did not create death (Wisdom 1:13), that He created man to be incorruptible (— 3:23), and that through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death passed into all men, because in him all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). Likewise, the Holy Fathers unanimously teach that man was created immortal or for immortality;[1402] and the Orthodox Church decreed at the Council of Carthage: “If anyone says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not, he would have died bodily—that is, departed from his body—not as a punishment for sin, but by the necessity of his nature: let him be anathema” (Canon 123). But, on the other hand, it is evident from Scripture itself that this immortality of man, even in the body, did not depend on the nature of his body itself—created from the earth—but on divine grace, and the instrument of this grace was the tree of life planted in Paradise: and now, said the Lord after the fall of our first father, unless he stretches out his hand and takes from the tree of life, and eats, and lives forever (Gen. 3:22). The ancient teachers of the Church also understood Adam’s immortality—even in the flesh—not to mean that he could not die by the very nature of his bodily constitution, but rather that he was merely destined for immortality,[1403] that he could have avoided death by God’s special grace had he remained faithful to God, as a reward for his obedience,[1404] and that the tree of life in Paradise served as the conduit for this gracious power of God.

“If we,” says St. Gregory the Theologian, “had remained what we were and kept the commandment, we would have become what we were not and would have come to the Tree of Life from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What, then, did we become? Immortal and close to God.”[1405]

“The human body,” says Blessed Augustine, “before sin could be called both mortal in one respect and immortal in another: mortal, because it could die; immortal, because it could choose not to die. It is one thing if someone cannot die, as God created certain immortal beings, and another if someone can choose not to die: in this sense, the first man was created immortal. This was communicated to him through the tree of life, not by the nature of his being; therefore, as soon as he sinned and was cut off from the tree of life, he became subject to death; whereas, had he not sinned, he might have avoided death. Thus, he was mortal by the nature of his spiritual body and immortal by the grace (beneficio) of the Creator.”[1406]

5. Furthermore, for the exercise and development of his physical faculties, God commanded Adam to cultivate and keep the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15); to exercise and develop his mental faculties and the gift of speech, He Himself brought all the animals to man to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19); to exercise and strengthen his moral faculties in goodness, He gave Adam a specific commandment—not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may eat from every tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16–17).

§86. The commandment given by God to the first man, its necessity and significance

To have a correct understanding of this first commandment of God to the human race, one must consider:

1. The person to whom it was given. The first man—

a) Necessarily needed a commandment, and a specific one at that. He received moral faculties from God and was created good by nature; but it was still up to him to develop and strengthen these faculties with God’s help; it was up to him to become good of his own free will. And human freedom is strengthened and established in any given matter only by acting for a very long time according to a single, specific rule, until one acquires deep proficiency in the chosen line of activity. From this perspective, the idea that the first man needed commandments is elaborated upon by Tertullian in his writings against the heretic Marcion and by Didymus of Alexandria against the Manichaeans.[1407]

b) He needed an external, positive commandment. Although the entire moral law resided in human conscience, it is well known that in our lives we cannot fulfill it except when frequent occasions arise and specific subjects are indicated to which the general requirement of this law can be applied. It was precisely such an occasion and subject that were indicated to our first parents in the commandment given to them by God. “God gave man,” says St. Gregory the Theologian, “the law as an object for his free will (ϋλην τώ αύτεξουσίω)—and the law was the commandment: which plants he should use and which he should not touch.”[1408]

c) He needed a commandment from God—so that, through its free observance, he might in some way merit the blessings he enjoyed and was yet to enjoy; and so that, possessing so many blessings without any merit of his own, he might not think too highly of himself or fall into pride.

“It would be of no benefit to a person (St. John of Damascus) to attain immortality before undergoing temptation and trial; in that case, he might become proud and fall under the same condemnation as the devil (1 Tim. 3:6), who, through his voluntary fall, because of his immortality, became unyieldingly and unrepentantly entrenched in evil, whereas the angels, through their voluntary choice of virtue, are unshakably established in goodness by grace. Therefore, it was important that man be tested first, for a man who is untested and untried does not deserve attention (Sir. 34:10); and that, when he proved himself perfect through keeping the commandment during the test, he might receive immortality as a reward for virtue.”[1409]

St. John Chrysostom had expressed a similar thought even earlier: “Our Lord, when He entrusted all visible things to man, settled him in Paradise and allowed him to enjoy everything in Paradise, then commanded him not to eat from one tree, prescribing a severe punishment for violating the commandment. This was so that man, as his thoughts gradually soared, would not think that all visible things exist of their own accord, nor would he imagine himself to be of great worth; but rather, he would remember that he, too, has the Lord, by whose goodness he enjoys all blessings.”[1410]

2. On the commandment itself. The commandment given to the first man was specific, that is, it concerned a particular case; and therefore, at first glance, it does not seem very important. But—

a) It actually expresses the entire law that defines our relationship with God and requires our complete obedience to our Lord: “Through this small commandment, God wished to show man His dominion over him (St. John Chrysostom).”[1411]

b) In a sense, it also encompassed the entire moral law, which is nothing other than the will of God, and in the broadest sense requires of us only obedience to God.

“In the law given to Adam, we find included all the commandments that were later revealed through Moses, namely: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul’ (Deut. 6:5); love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18); you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Ex. 20:13–14); honor your father and your mother (12), do not covet what belongs to your neighbor (Deut. 5:20)—so that the first law given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is, as it were, the mother of all God’s other commandments. Indeed, if Adam and Eve had loved the Lord their God, they would not have disobeyed His commandment; if they had loved their neighbor—that is, one another—they would not have believed the serpent’s persuasion, and consequently would not have committed murder against themselves by losing their immortality through the violation of the commandment; they would not have committed theft by secretly tasting the fruit of the tree and trying to hide under the tree from the presence of God; they would not have become accomplices of the devil, who bears false witness, by believing his claim that they would be like gods (Gen. 3:8) and, thus, would not have offended their Father—God, who formed them from the dust of the earth, as if from their mother’s womb; finally, if they had not coveted what belonged to another, they would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit. Thus, this general and original law of God contained, in particular, all the commandments of the subsequent law, which were revealed in due time and were in force (Tertullian).”[1412]

3. On God, who gave this commandment to the first man. It reveals both the goodness and the wisdom of the Lawgiver. Immediately after the creation of man, the Lord—

A) Himself gave him a specific commandment to train and strengthen him in goodness, and in this way He Himself became his teacher.

B) Gives a positive commandment to teach man, from the very first days, what is most necessary and beneficial for his entire future life—that is, complete and unconditional submission to his Creator, which (St. Augustine) “is the beginning and the summit of piety in human beings and in every rational creature.”[1413]

C) He gives a commandment that is very easy: first, it is adapted to human will, which, naturally, first had to be trained to fulfill what is easier, and only then gradually move on to what is more difficult; second, so that man might more easily stand firm during the temptation that the Lord had foreseen, and so that, upon falling, he would have no right to excuse himself by citing the difficulty of the commandment or to complain against the Lawgiver.

D) The commandment is accompanied by a dire threat for its violation: this is so that, if in moments of temptation a person’s love and gratitude toward the Creator waver, at least fear would keep him from violating God’s commandment and serve as his salvation.

Finally, regarding the very tree of the knowledge of good and evil, from which the first man was forbidden to eat,

a) Although some of the ancients sometimes understood this tree in a spiritual sense—just as they did the tree of life and the entire Garden of Eden—[1414] , the majority of the Church’s teachers understood it in a sensory sense, because Moses clearly states that God caused every tree to grow out of the ground, “pleasant to the sight and good for food,” and the tree of life in the midst of the Garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9), and therefore defines the very location of the Garden on earth, naming the rivers that flowed from it (10–14).[1415]

“Divine Scripture says (Blessed Theodoret) that both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew from the earth; consequently, they are similar in nature to other plants. Just as the cross is an ordinary tree, yet because of the salvation obtained through faith in the One crucified on it, it is called the tree of salvation, so too these two trees are ordinary plants that grew from the earth; but, by divine decree, one of them is called the tree of life, and the other—since it served as an instrument for the knowledge of sin—the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The latter was offered to Adam as an opportunity for a trial, and the tree of life as a kind of reward for keeping the commandment.”[1416]

b) This tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not because it supposedly had the power to impart to our first parents a knowledge of good and evil that they did not previously possess, but because, by eating from the forbidden tree, they came to know through experience the full distinction between good—as noted by Blessed Augustine, from which they had fallen, and the evil into which they had fallen”[1417] — a thought unanimously preached by the ancient teachers of the Church.[1418]

c) This tree, according to some teachers of the Church, was by no means pernicious or poisonous by its very nature,[1419] on the contrary, it was beneficial, just like all of God’s other creations. And it was chosen by God merely as an instrument for testing man and forbidden, perhaps because it was still too early for the first man to eat of its fruit.

St. Gregory the Theologian says: “The Tree of Knowledge was planted in the beginning without malice, and it was not forbidden out of envy (let not the God-fighters open their mouths at this, nor imitate the serpent); on the contrary, it was good for those who used it at the right time (because this tree, in my view, was a form of contemplation that only those who had been perfected through experience could safely approach), but not good for those who were still simple and for those who were intemperate in their desire, just as perfect food is not beneficial for the weak and those who still need milk.”[1420] “The tree is good,” says Blessed Augustine, speaking on behalf of God—he who already understood the forbidden tree in a sensory sense—“but do not touch it. Why? Because I am the Lord, and you are a servant: that is the whole reason. If you consider this a small thing, then you do not wish to be a servant of God. And what could be more beneficial for you than to be under the Lord’s authority? How, then, will you be under the Lord’s authority if you do not obey His commandment?”[1421]

§87. The Bliss of the First Man

Based on what has been said about the original state of our first parents, we can conclude that it was the most blissful state. Adam and Eve were perfect in soul and body. Their bodies knew neither sickness nor fatigue; on the contrary, they flourished with constant strength and health. Their souls were pure and innocent, with fresh and active powers, and they enjoyed the undisturbed peace of conscience.

The external natural world, with all its kingdoms—animal, plant, and mineral—was subject to man, serving him as its king and lord; and being beautiful both as a whole and in its parts, it gave him great pleasure through its very beauty.

As a dwelling place, man was given a paradise of delight (Gen. 2:15), the very best place on earth, filled with all kinds of plants, pleasant to the eye and good for food (Gen. 2:9), and containing everything that could possibly satisfy the needs of a rational and sentient being, instilling and constantly sustaining in him a sense of perfect bliss.

But the first and foremost source of bliss for our first parents was the Lord God; it was union with Him.[1422] He constantly dwelt within them through His grace; He often appeared to them and spoke to them visibly, as a Father does to His beloved children; He conversed with them, guided them, and with extraordinary love and tenderness sought to nurture them toward the spiritual life, and surrounded them with everything that could contribute to the fullness of their happiness.

And there is no doubt that the bliss of the first humans would not only have continued undiminished over time, but would have increased more and more as they continued to improve, had they remained faithful to the commandment that the Lord gave them in the beginning. Unfortunately, both our very first parents and all their descendants broke this commandment and thereby destroyed their bliss.

3.3. On the Voluntary Fall and the Consequences х of Man’s Fall

§88. The Nature of Our First Parents’ Fall

Moses describes how the fall of our first parents took place. After speaking of the blissful dwelling of the first man, of the commandment given to him by God in Paradise, of Adam naming the animals, of God creating a helper for him, and of their innocent state, the sacred Chronicler continues: The serpent was more cunning than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had created. And the serpent said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the Garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees, but God said, ‘You must not eat the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden; you must not even touch it, or you will die.’” Then the serpent said to the woman, “No, you will not die; but God knows that on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; and she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate (Gen. 3:1–6). From this description, it is clear that—

1. The primary cause of our first parents’ fall, or the occasion for their fall, was the serpent. Who, then, is meant here by the name “serpent”? Moses calls it the wisest of all the beasts that are on the earth; consequently, he classifies it among earthly animals. But judging by the fact that this serpent speaks, reasons, slanders God, and tries to entice Eve toward evil, we see that hidden within the natural serpent is the spiritual serpent, the devil, the enemy of God. And Holy Scripture leaves no doubt about this. The Wise One says that through the devil’s envy, death (and sin) entered the human world (Wis. 2:24); the Savior Himself calls the devil a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies, and all sinners the children of the devil (John 8:44); finally, St. John the Theologian testifies twice and with complete clarity that the great dragon, the ancient serpent, is none other than the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9; 20:2).

This is how the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church consistently viewed the serpent as the tempter; for example:

a) Irenaeus: “The devil, being a fallen angel, can do nothing but what he did in the beginning, that is, to stir up and entice the human mind to transgress God’s commandments and, little by little, to darken his heart”;[1423]

b) John Chrysostom: “Those who follow Scripture must know that the words [of the serpent, the tempter] are the words of the devil, driven to such deception by his own envy, and he used this animal merely as a suitable instrument (‘όργάνω’);”[1424]

c) Gregory the Theologian: “Because of the devil’s envy and the seduction of the woman—to which she herself, being the weaker, succumbed, and which she brought about, being skilled in persuasion (O my weakness! For the weakness of the first parent is also my own)—man forgot the commandment given to him and was overcome by the bitter taste”;[1425]

d) Augustine: “Thus the serpent is called ‘the most cunning’ because of the devil’s cunning, who carried out his deceit in and through it”;[1426]

e) John of Damascus: “Man was overcome by the devil’s envy; for the envious hater of good—the demon, cast down to the depths because of his pride—could not bear that we might be made worthy of heavenly blessings,”[1427] and others.[1428]

2. The second cause of our first parents’ fall—the cause in the true sense—was themselves. The tempter addresses the woman (perhaps because she had heard the commandment not directly from God but from her husband, and therefore was more easily swayed) and begins his speech with a slander against God: “God has said, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’” (Gen. 3:1). Based on this opening statement alone (John Chrysostom), the woman should have realized that there was deceit at work here; she should have turned away from the serpent, who was speaking contrary to what God had commanded, and turned to her husband—for whom she had been created—with a question. But, due to extreme inattention (άπροσεξίαν), Eve not only did not turn away from the serpent, but also revealed to him God’s very commandment, to her own ruin. And the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of every tree in the garden, but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’” (2:3). Then the tempter, with even greater audacity, began to assert the exact opposite of what God had said, and sought to portray God Himself as if He were envious and hostile toward humanity. And the serpent said to the woman, “No, you will not die; but God knows that on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (4:5). This made it all the easier for the woman to recognize the deceiver and all the more reason not to believe his words. But she believed the serpent more than her Creator and Lord; she was carried away by the dream of becoming equal to God, and as a result, a threefold desire arose within her—the root of all lawlessness (1 John 2:16): And the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was a delight to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and desirable to make one wise (worldly pride); and she took of its fruit and ate (6).[1429] Thus, although Eve fell through the devil’s seduction, she did not fall out of necessity but entirely of her own free will: the tempter’s words were not such as to lead her into sin involuntarily; on the contrary, they contained much that should have brought her to her senses and kept her from committing the offense. How, then, did Adam fall? Moses is silent on this point; but from the words of God the Judge to the fallen Adam—“Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’” (17)—we can conclude that Adam fell as a result of his wife’s persuasion and his attachment to her—which means that he, too, fell not out of necessity but of his own free will. Whatever his wife’s persuasions and Adam’s love for her may have been, he was bound to remember God’s commandment; he had the intellect to decide whom to obey—his wife or God—and he himself is to blame for having heeded his wife’s voice.[1430]

It follows, then, that the blame for the fall of our first parents does not in the least rest upon God. Having created man free, God gave him a commandment—and, moreover, the easiest one—expressed it with complete clarity, backed it up with dire threats, and provided man with all the means to fulfill it (for in addition to the perfection of the natural powers of the first man, the grace of God also dwelt in him constantly) — yet man refused to fulfill the will of his Creator and Benefactor—he heeded the first voice of the tempter...

But “why,” people ask, “did God give Adam this commandment when He foresaw that he would break it?” Because this or that commandment—and one could not have devised an easier one—but a specific commandment, as we have already seen, was necessary for the first man to exercise and strengthen his will in goodness, and so that he himself might earn glory and attain the highest bliss.[1431] “Why did God not prevent Adam from falling, and why did the devil tempt him, when He foresaw both?” Because to do so would have required Him to restrict their freedom, or even to take it away from them; but God, who is infinitely wise and unchanging in His decrees, having once granted freedom to any of His creatures, can neither restrict it nor take it away again.[1432]

“Why did God not endow man with sinlessness in his very nature, so that he could not fall, even if he wanted to, in the midst of all temptations? For the same reason, let us say with Basil the Great, that you do not consider servants to be good when you keep them bound, but when you see that they voluntarily fulfill their duties. That is why God is pleased not with what is done under compulsion, but with what is done virtuously. Virtue, however, arises from free will, not from necessity; and free will depends on what is within us—that is, it is free. Therefore, whoever reproaches the Creator for not making us sinless by nature does nothing other than prefer an irrational nature to a rational one—a nature endowed with free will and self-determination—to one that is immobile and devoid of any aspirations.”[1433]

“Why did God even create us, when He knew in advance that we would fall and perish? Would it not have been better if He had not granted us either existence or freedom at all?” But who dares to fathom the plans of the infinitely Wise? Who can explain to us that the creation of man, as a sensual and spiritual being, was not necessary within the universe? Moreover, if God foresaw our fall, He also foresaw our redemption. And just as He determined to create man, who was destined to fall, so too did He determine to restore the fallen through His only-begotten Son.

“God not only foreseen (John Chrysostom) that Adam would sin, but also that He would restore the fallen one through the Incarnation. And He did not know of the fall before He had foreseen the resurrection. He knew that man would fall, but He also prepared the remedy for restoration, and He allowed man to experience death in order to teach him what he could achieve on his own and what he had enjoyed through the Creator’s goodness. He knew that Adam would fall; yet He saw that from him would come Abel, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Elijah, the prophets, the wondrous Apostles—the adornment of the human race—and the God-bearing clouds of martyrs, radiating piety.”[1434]

§89. The Gravity of Our First Parents’ Sin

The sin of Adam and Eve, consisting in their eating of the fruit of the tree forbidden by God,[1435] may seem insignificant. But we will understand its full importance and magnitude if we pay attention to:

a) Not on the outward form, but on the very spirit of the commandment broken by our first parents. What did this commandment require of them? It was an artificial commandment, not a natural one; that is, our first parents could not, by themselves, through the voice of the natural law inscribed in their consciences, come to the conclusion that they should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, nor explain to themselves why they should not, — but they received this commandment externally from God and were bound to obey it solely because God had so commanded. Consequently, in its essence, it required their unconditional obedience to God; it was given to test their obedience.[1436] Thus, by breaking it, they fell into the sin of disobedience to God or rebellion, as the Apostle puts it (Rom. 5:19), and in this way fundamentally violated the entire moral law, which is, in general, nothing other than the will of God and requires of man only obedience to this will. That is why Blessed Augustine: “Let no one think that the sin (of the first humans) was small and easy simply because it consisted in eating from the tree—and not even a bad or harmful tree, but merely one that was forbidden—for the commandment demanded obedience, a virtue which, in rational creatures, is, as it were, the mother and guardian of all virtues.”[1437]

b) On the ease of this commandment. “What could have been easier than this?” asks St. John Chrysostom. God allowed man to live in Paradise, to enjoy the beauty of all that is visible, to partake of the fruits of all the trees of Paradise, and forbade him to eat from only one: and man did not even want to fulfill this... That is why the divine Scripture says: ‘The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree— —that was pleasing to the eye and good for food’ (Gen. 2:9), so that we might know, seeing what abundance he enjoyed, that man, through great intemperance and carelessness, broke the commandment given to him.”[1438]

c) The motivations for fulfilling this commandment. On the one hand, such motivations were—and should have been—the greatest and most special blessings bestowed upon man by the Creator, who fashioned him with His own hands, adorned him in His own image, made him king over all creatures of the earth, settled him in the paradise of delight, called him to fellowship with Himself, endowed him with immortality of soul and body, and destined him for eternal bliss—and for all these graces, He demanded of the beneficiary only one thing: obedience. On the other hand, there were terrible threats for violating the commandment: “On the day you eat of it,” God added when giving it to our first parents, “you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Could one imagine stronger incentives, especially for fulfilling such an easy commandment?[1439]

d) Regarding the means for fulfilling it. We must remember that Adam and Eve were still completely pure and innocent, with fresh, strong powers, unblemished by sin, and that, moreover, God’s almighty grace constantly dwelt within our first parents. Consequently, all they had to do was choose to resist the tempter and stand firm in goodness, and they would have succeeded: everything depended on their will alone, and they had more than enough strength.

e) The number of specific sins contained within the sin of our first parents. These included:

1. Pride: because our first parents were first and foremost enticed by the serpent’s promise: “You will be like gods”;[1440]

2. Unbelief: because they did not believe God’s words: “You will surely die”;

3. Apostasy from God and defection to the side of His enemy, the devil: because, disobeying God, they obeyed the deceiver and believed his audacious slander, as if God, out of envy or ill will, had forbidden them to eat from the tree in question;

4. The greatest ingratitude toward God for all His extraordinary mercies and generosity. Or, to put it in the words of Blessed Augustine: “Herein lies pride: because man desired to be under his own power rather than God’s; and desecration of the sacred: because he did not believe God; and murder: because he subjected himself to death; and spiritual fornication: because the purity of the human soul was violated by the serpent’s persuasion; and theft: because he took from the forbidden tree; and covetousness: because he desired more than he ought to have been content with.”[1441] Tertullian, meanwhile, saw in our first parents’ violation of the first commandment a violation of the entire Decalogue.[1442]

E) Finally, regarding the consequences that arose from the sin of our first parents. If this sin had not been great, it would not have produced the terrible consequences that resulted from it; and God, the righteous Judge, would not have subjected our first parents to such punishment. “God’s commandment,” says Blessed Augustine, “forbade only eating from the tree, and therefore the sin appears to be a minor one; but how great He who cannot err considered it is quite evident from the severity of the punishment.”[1443]

§90. The Consequences of the Fall of Our First Parents

These consequences were first manifested in the souls of our first parents, then extended to their bodies and to all their external well-being.

Consequences in the soul: these are—

1) The severing of the covenant with God (religion), the loss of grace, and spiritual death. As soon as Adam and Eve fell and were defiled by sin, their communion with God was immediately and inevitably severed, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, which dwelt in their hearts, departed from them; for there is no common ground between light and darkness, not even for a single moment (2 Cor. 6:14). And immediately thereafter, the threat of God the Lawgiver was fulfilled upon them: “On the day you eat of it, you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). They then died in their souls, which cannot live in separation from God, the source of life, nor can they live without grace, just as the body cannot live without air and food.[1444] The Church Fathers unanimously pointed to this consequence of Adam’s Fall,[1445] for example:

a) Tatian (before his apostasy): “When people followed the most cunning deceiver and, though he opposed God’s commandment, regarded him as a god, then God, by the power of His word, deprived both the instigator of such folly and his followers of communion with Himself; and man, created in the image of God, having been separated from the Almighty Spirit, became dead”;[1446]

b) Basil the Great: “Just as Adam sinned because of his evil will, so he died because of sin: the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23); to the extent that he departed from life, to that extent he drew near to death: for God is life, and the deprivation of life is death; therefore, Adam brought death upon himself by departing from God, as it is written: ‘Those who turn away from You perish’ (Ps. 72:27)”;[1447]

c) Gregory of Nyssa: “After his fall, the first man lived for many more hundreds of years; but God did not lie when He said: ‘On the day you eat of it, you will surely die’ (Gen. 2:17)—for because man had estranged himself from true life, the sentence of death was carried out upon him on that very day, and after some time, bodily death also overtook Adam”;[1448]

d) Augustine: “As soon as the commandment was broken, God’s grace immediately departed from the first parents, and they were ashamed of the nakedness of their bodies.”[1449]

2) The clouding of the mind (Orthodox Confessions, Part 1, answers to questions 23 and 27). This became evident immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve, when, upon hearing the voice of God walking in the Garden of Eden, they thought to hide from Him among the trees of the garden (Gen. 3:8). “There is nothing worse than sin” (John Chrysostom); once it enters us, sin not only fills us with shame but also drives people—who were once reasonable and distinguished by great wisdom—into madness. See how foolishly he now behaves—he who until now was distinguished by a measure of wisdom, who by his very deeds demonstrated to the One who had granted him wisdom, and even prophesied... How much folly there is in their attempt to hide from the omnipresent God, from the Creator Who brought all things into being out of nothing, Who knows what is hidden, Who formed the hearts of all people and searches all their deeds (Ps. 32:15), who tests hearts and innermost thoughts (Ps. 7:10), and who knows the most secret movements of the heart![1450]

3) The loss of innocence, the perversion of the will, and its inclination toward evil rather than toward good (The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answers to Questions 23 and 27). This is evident:

a) from the fact that as soon as our first parents sinned, their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked (Gen. 3:7), something they had not noticed before;

b) from the fact that toward God, their Father and Benefactor, instead of their former filial love, they suddenly felt a servile fear: “Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Adam, where are you?’ And he said to Him, ‘I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid myself’” (9:10);

c) finally, from the fact that, when giving an account to God of their sin, they chose to offer a deceitful excuse instead of repentance. Adam blamed his wife and even God, who had given her to him: Adam said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate” (12); and his wife blamed the serpent: the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (13).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have stated that through the Fall, Adam lost the garment of holiness, became evil, turned to other thoughts, and that the devil established the law of sin in his nature. We find such expressions, for example:

a) in Irenaeus: “And Adam said: ‘Through disobedience, I lost the garment of holiness that I had received from the Holy Spirit’”;[1451]

b) in Basil the Great: “Soon Adam found himself outside of Paradise, outside that blessed life, having become evil not out of necessity but out of folly”;[1452]

c) in Athanasius the Great: “Having transgressed God’s commandment, Adam succumbed to sinful thoughts, not because God had created these thoughts that ensnare us, but because the devil sowed them by deception into the rational nature of man, which had fallen into transgression and turned away from God, so that the devil established in human nature both the law of sin and death, which reigns through sin.”[1453]

4) The distortion of the image of God. If the image of God is imprinted in the human soul—and primarily in its faculties, intellect, and free will—and these faculties have lost much of their perfection and have been distorted by Adam’s sin, then the image of God in man has also been distorted along with them. This idea is affirmed by:

a) Basil the Great: “Man was created in the image and likeness of God; but sin has distorted (ήχρείωσεν) the beauty of the image, drawing the soul into passionate desires”;[1454]

b) Macarius the Great: “If a coin bearing the image of a king is defaced, then the gold loses its value, and the image serves no purpose: Adam experienced the same thing”;[1455]

c) Theodoret: “Adam, desiring to be God, destroyed even his very status as the image of God.”[1456]

Consequences for the body:

1) Illnesses, sorrows, and exhaustion (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the True Faith, Chapter 6). Having corrupted all the powers of the soul, the sin of the first parents, as an unnatural act, inevitably caused a similar disturbance in their bodies, sowing within them the seeds of all manner of diseases, weariness in labor, weakness, and suffering. To the woman He said: “I will greatly increase your pain; in pain you will give birth to children” (Gen. 3:16). And to Adam He said: “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it,’ the ground is cursed because of you; you shall eat of it with toil all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:17). “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (19). All of this was recognized as the consequences of the original sin by the teachers of the Church,[1457] for example:

a) Theophilus of Antioch: “From sin, as if from a spring, sicknesses, sorrows, and sufferings poured out upon man;[1458]

b) Irenaeus: “As punishment for sin, man accepted sorrows and earthly toil, and the necessity of earning his bread by the sweat of his brow...; likewise, woman accepted sorrows and labors, and sighs, and the pains of childbirth...”[1459]

2. Death (Extended Christian Catechism, on Article 3, p. 43). “By the sweat of your face,” God said to Adam, “you shall eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Physical death became an inevitable consequence of the Fall of our first parents, on the one hand, because sin introduced into their bodies the destructive principle of sickness and weariness; and on the other hand, because God banished them forever from the tree of life after the Fall: and the Lord God said: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, were it not for the fact that he stretched out his hand and also took from the tree of life, and tasted of it, he would not have lived forever” (22). This is how the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church viewed death,[1460] in particular:

a) Ambrose: “The cause of death was disobedience; therefore, man himself is to blame for his death, and not God”;[1461]

b) John Chrysostom: “Although our first parents lived for many more years, as soon as they heard, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return,’ they accepted the sentence of death—they became mortal, and from that moment on, one could say that they had died; To signify this, Scripture says: ‘On the day you eat of it, you will surely die,’ that is, you will hear the verdict that from now on you are mortal”;[1462]

c) Blessed Augustine: “Among Christians who hold the true Catholic faith, it is recognized as beyond doubt that even bodily death itself has befallen us not by the law of nature—for God did not create death for man—but as a consequence of sin.”[1463]

Consequences regarding the external condition of man:

1. Expulsion from Paradise. Paradise was a blissful dwelling place for the innocent human being, and was prepared for him solely through the infinite goodness of the Creator; now that man has sinned and provoked the wrath of his Lord and Benefactor, the guilty one has become unworthy of such a dwelling and has been justly expelled from Paradise: and the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken (Gen. 3:23), — a thought that the teachers of the Church have often repeated.[1464]

2. The loss or diminution of dominion over animals (The Right Believer, Part 1, answer to question 22). This dominion was based on the fact that man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26); consequently, as soon as the image of God was marred in man through sin, his dominion over the animals was inevitably weakened.

“Behold,” says St. John Chrysostom, “while Adam had not yet sinned, the beasts were his servants and obedient to him, and he named them as he would servants; but when he defiled his nature through sin, then the beasts no longer recognized him, and the servants became his enemies... As long as Adam kept his nature pure, created in the image of God, the beasts obeyed him as servants; but when he defiled that nature through disobedience, they, no longer recognizing their master, came to hate him as a stranger.”[1465] “However,” he adds, “although Adam violated every commandment and transgressed the entire law, God did not deprive him of all honor nor take away all his authority, but removed from his dominion only those animals that were not particularly useful to him for the necessities of life; but those that are necessary and useful and can serve us greatly in life—all of those He left in our service.”[1466]

3. The Curse of the Earth in Human Affairs: “Cursed is the ground because of you… it will produce thorns and thistles for you” (Gen. 2:17–18). “And this curse is just (John Chrysostom), for just as the earth was created for man so that he might enjoy all that comes from it, so now, because of man’s sin, it is subjected to a curse, so that its curse may serve to harm man’s well-being and peace of mind.”[1467] From the words of the Chronicler, we may conclude that this curse primarily concerns the fruitfulness of the earth: it will bring forth thorns and thistles for you; but the Apostle extends his curse much further: Creation was not subjected to vanity of its own free will, but by the will of the One who subjected it; we know that all creation collectively groans and suffers to this day (Rom. 8:20–22). We cannot precisely define what exactly constitutes the vanity to which creation was subjected as a result of the Fall of man.[1468]

§91. The Transmission of the Sin of Our First Parents to the Human Race : Preliminary Remarks

The sin committed by our first parents in Paradise, with all its consequences, passed from them to all their descendants and is known in the language of the Church as original sin (Catechism of the Orthodox Church, Part 1, Answer to Question 24).

1. The doctrine of original sin, which spread from Adam and Eve to the entire human race, is of utmost importance in Christianity. If people do not have original sin and their nature is not corrupted, if they are born pure and innocent before God—just as the first man emerged from the hands of the Creator—then redemption is unnecessary for them; the Son of God would have come to earth in vain and tasted death, and the Christian faith would be undermined at its very foundations. That is why Blessed Augustine argued that the sin of Adam and the atonement accomplished by Christ the Savior are, as it were, two focal points around which the entire Christian doctrine revolves.[1469]

2. In its teaching on original sin, the Orthodox Church distinguishes, first, the sin itself, and second, its consequences within us. By the term “original sin,” it means specifically that transgression of God’s commandment, that deviation of human nature from God’s law—and consequently, from its proper ends—which was committed by our first parents in Paradise and has been passed down to all of us from them. “Original sin,” we read in the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, “is the transgression of God’s law, given in Paradise to our forefather Adam. This original sin passed from Adam to the whole human race, since we were all then in Adam; and thus, through one Adam, sin spread to all of us. Therefore, we are conceived and born with this sin” (Part 3, answer to question 20). The only difference is that in Adam this deviation from God’s law and from his purpose was free and voluntary, whereas in us it is hereditary and inevitable—we are born with a nature that has deviated from God’s law; in Adam, it was a personal sin, a sin in the strict sense of the word—in us, it is not a personal sin, it is not sin proper, but only the sinfulness of nature, which we receive from our parents; Adam sinned—that is, he freely violated God’s commandment—and thereby became a sinner, that is, he turned his entire nature away from God’s law; but we personally did not sin with Adam, yet we became sinners in him and through him (through the disobedience of one man, many became sinners, Rom. 5:19), having received from him a sinful nature, and we are born by nature as children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). In short, the term “original sin” in the first parents refers both to their sin and to the sinful state of nature with which and in which we are born. This is the understanding taught by the Orthodox Church when it states in its confession: “Since all people were in Adam in a state of innocence, as soon as he sinned, all sinned in him and entered into a sinful state” (Part 1, answer to question 24).

By the consequences of original sin, the Church means precisely those consequences that sin produced directly in them and which pass from them to us, namely: the darkening of the mind, the perversion of the will and its inclination toward evil, bodily illnesses, death, and others. “And by the burden and consequence of the Fall,” say the Eastern Patriarchs in their Epistle on the Orthodox Faith, “we do not mean sin itself..., but the inclination toward sin, and those calamities with which Divine justice has punished man for his disobedience, such as: exhausting labors, sorrows, bodily infirmities, birth defects, the arduous life on earth as a sojourner for a time, and finally, bodily death” (Art. 6). “Although the human will,” the Orthodox Confession also states, “is corrupted by original sin, nevertheless it still remains within the power of every person’s will to be either a good child of God or an evil one and a son of the devil” (Part 1, answer to Question 27); and here the corruption of the will—that is, its inclination toward evil—is distinguished from original sin and recognized as its consequence within us.

This distinction between original sin and its consequences must be firmly kept in mind, especially in certain cases, in order to correctly understand the teaching of the Orthodox Church. For example, the Church teaches that baptism erases and destroys original sin within us: this means that it purifies the very sinfulness of our nature, inherited from our first parents; that through Baptism we emerge from a sinful state, cease to be by nature children of God’s wrath—that is, guilty before God—and become completely pure and innocent before Him, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, as a result of the merits of our Redeemer; but this does not mean that baptism eliminates within us the very consequences of original sin—the inclination toward evil rather than toward good, sickness, death, and others—because all these specified consequences remain, as experience and the Word of God (Rom. 7:23) testify, even in those who have been born again.

3. However, original sin is sometimes understood in a broader sense, for example, when expounding the doctrine of the reality of this sin and its universality. And it is precisely under the name of original sin that both the sin itself and its consequences within us are understood: the corruption of all our faculties, our inclination toward evil rather than toward good, and so on.[1470] This is because, in Scripture itself, the doctrine of original sin and its consequences is set forth, for the most part, inseparably; and, on the other hand, because when the reality of original sin or its universality is demonstrated, the reality or universality of its consequences is demonstrated at the same time.

4. There are two false teachings regarding original sin.

One is held by those who completely reject the reality of this sin, claiming that all are born as pure and innocent as Adam was created, and that sickness and death are natural consequences of human nature, not consequences of original sin—this was taught in ancient times by the Pelagians,[1471] and in more recent times by the Socinians and rationalists in general.[1472]

Another doctrine is that of the Reformers, who fall into the opposite extreme by exaggerating the consequences of original sin in us: according to this teaching, the sin of our first parents has completely destroyed in man his freedom, the image of God, and all spiritual powers, so that human nature itself has become sin; whatever a person desires or does is sin; even his virtues are sins; and he is absolutely incapable of anything good.[1473] The Orthodox Church rejects the first of these false views through its teaching on the reality of original sin within us, with all its consequences (i.e., original sin understood in a broad sense); it rejects the latter through its teaching on the consequences.

§92. The reality of original sin, its universality , and the manner of its transmission

The Orthodox Church teaches that original sin, along with its consequences, has been transmitted from Adam and Eve to all their descendants through natural birth, and therefore undoubtedly exists.

1). This teaching has a firm foundation in Holy Scripture. The relevant passages of Scripture can be divided into two categories: some primarily express the idea of the reality and universality of original sin in human beings; others primarily express the idea of its reality and the manner of its transmission.

From the first category:

1.1. The most important and clear passage is found in the fifth chapter of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Drawing a comparison here between Adam and the Lord Jesus Christ in relation to the human race, the Apostle writes, among other things: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all have sinned” (12). For if, because of the transgression of one, many died, how much more will the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to many (15). For if, through the offense of one, death reigned through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus Christ. Therefore, just as the transgression of one brought condemnation to all people, so the righteousness of one brings justification leading to life to all people. For just as through the disobedience of one man many became sinners, so through the obedience of one many became righteous (17–19).

From these words it is clear:

a) that sin entered the world, and through sin, death also entered as its consequence through the one man, Adam: through one (δι’ ένός) man, sin entered the world, and through sin (διά τής άμαρτίας), death;

b) that it was precisely through the sin of the one that death entered into all people, and not through their own sins: thus (οϋτως) death passed to all people; for in him all have sinned...; through the transgression of the one, many were subjected to death… through the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one (διά τοϋ ένός);

c) that along with death—which is the consequence of sin—the sin of the one man also entered into all people, and that it was precisely through this sin, before their own sins, that people became sinners: in him all have sinned; through the disobedience (διά τής παρακοής) of one man, many became sinners (κατεστάθησαν—became, were made);

d) finally, that it was precisely through the sin of the one that another consequence of sin—condemnation—entered into all people before they themselves began to sin: through the transgression of the one (δι’ ένός), condemnation came upon all people. Consequently, those who reject the transmission of original sin from the first parents to the entire human race are wrong to claim that the Apostle’s words under consideration convey such a meaning. “Adam sinned first and therefore died; all other people sin by following his example, and therefore die as a result of their own sins—and thus, Adam’s sin entered the world only through imitation, and is not transmitted to people through birth.” In addition to the observations we have presented, which clearly refute such an interpretation, we will offer a few more:

a) As if to guard against this interpretation, the Apostle deliberately stated in that very chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: “Death reigned from Adam even until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (14);

b) According to the Apostle, through sin, death passed to all people, and indeed all people die, even the very youngest infants; but infants have no sins of their own and cannot sin by following Adam’s example;

c) “If the Apostle (St. Augustine) had intended to speak of the sin of imitation, he would rather have said, following the Savior (John 8:41–44), that sin entered the world through an angel, because the angel sinned first”;[1474]

d) “Many sin by their very actions, without giving any thought at all to Adam’s sin: how, then, does Adam’s sin harm them by its example?”;[1475]

e) The Apostle states that through one man—that is, Adam—sin entered the world (έισήλθεν), meaning that this sin did not remain confined to its source but spread, passing from it to all people, so that the first sinner begot sinners subject to death.[1476] The same idea is contained in the passage under consideration in the Apostle’s words: just as in Adam (έν τώ Άδάμ) all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). If all people die in Adam, then they die the same death as he did, which occurred as a result of sin.

1.2. Another, less clear passage is found in the Book of Job. In describing the misfortunes of human life, the holy man says, among other things: “Who can be born pure from the impure? No one, if his days are numbered” (Job 14:4–5). Here, clearly, the text refers to some kind of defilement from which no human being is free, and from the very moment of birth. What, then, is this defilement? Since, according to Job, it is the cause of the misfortunes of human life (vv. 1–2) and makes a person liable to God’s judgment (v. 3), we must conclude that what is meant here is moral impurity, not physical impurity—which is itself a consequence of moral impurity and cannot, in and of itself, make a person liable before God— — that is, the sinfulness of our nature, which is passed down to all from our first parents.

Passages of the second type include:

1. The Savior’s words in His conversation with Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God… That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:5–6). The meaning of these words is that a person born in the natural way, whoever he may be—Jew or Gentile—cannot in any way enter the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of grace, and subsequently the kingdom of glory, unless he is born again from above through the sacrament of baptism. This means that—

a) all people, by their very nature, are now subject to a certain impurity, namely moral impurity, because it serves as an obstacle to their entry into the moral kingdom of Christ; and—

b) this impurity extends to all people through their natural birth. To explain this passage, we may recall the words of the Apostle that we are by nature children of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3).

2. The Psalmist’s statement in his penitential psalm: “Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and my mother bore me in sin” (Ps. 50:7). Here, one cannot understand this as referring to the personal sin of the king-prophet, because, as he says, “in this sin I was conceived and born”; this sin, therefore, was inherent in him from the very time when he had not yet engaged in any personal activity. Nor can it be understood as the sin of David’s parents, as if he had been conceived unlawfully—it is known that David was not the product of a crime, that Jesse, his father, led the life of a righteous man, and that his mother was Jesse’s lawful wife. Therefore, the “iniquity” into which David was born must be understood as something else—the sin that, having originated from Adam’s first disobedience, is passed down from him to all his descendants. The natural law of conception and birth is the same for all people; consequently, there is no reason why only the king of Israel should have been conceived and born in original sin, while all other people would be free from it.

2). Having such firm foundations in Sacred Scripture, the doctrine of original sin has no less firm foundations in Sacred Tradition.

The following serve as evidence of this tradition:

2.1. The Church’s custom of baptizing infants, which has existed since the time of the Apostles themselves, as attested by the ancient teachers: Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, and many others.[1477] And she has always performed this baptism, according to the testimony of those same teachers and her creeds, for the remission of sins. But what sins, when infants are not yet capable of sinning on their own? Origen says: “Infants are baptized for the remission of sins.” What sins, then? Or when have they sinned? And how could the baptismal font be necessary for them, if not in the sense we have just mentioned: no one will be free from defilement if even a single day of his life on earth remains? And since the defilements of birth are cleansed through this sacrament of baptism, infants are also baptized.”[1478] That is why Blessed Augustine boldly points to the baptism of infants to the Pelagians as confirmation of the idea that the Church has always recognized the reality of original sin in human beings.[1479] It should be added that during the baptism of infants, just as with adults, the Church has from ancient times used incantations to drive away from the newly baptized “every evil and unclean spirit, hidden and dwelling in his heart.”[1480] What, then, would these incantations mean if the Church considered infants to be pure and uninvolved in original sin? Moreover, the Pelagians themselves did not deny the antiquity of these incantations.[1481]

2.2. The Councils Held in the Fifth Century in Response to the Pelagian Heresy. It is known that from 412 to 431, in various parts of the Christian world—both in the East and especially in the West—there were more than twenty councils that examined this heresy, and all unanimously condemned it.[1482] How, then, can one explain such a unanimous outcry against the Pelagian heresy if the doctrine of original sin had not been widespread and deeply rooted in the Church of Christ since the time of the Apostles themselves? It would be superfluous to cite the decrees of all these councils against the Pelagians; it suffices to quote the words of the most important of them, the Council of Carthage (418), which the Orthodox Church counts among its nine local councils.

“Whoever rejects the necessity of baptizing infants and newborns from their mother’s womb, or says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet they do not inherit anything from Adam’s original sin that would need to be washed away by the bath of rebirth (from which it would follow that the rite of baptism for the remission of sins is applied to them not in its true sense, but in a false one), let him be anathema. For what the Apostle said—“Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all have sinned in him” (Rom. 5:12)—must be understood in no other way than as the Catholic Church, widespread and universal, has always understood it. For according to this rule of faith, even infants, who are incapable of committing any sins of their own accord, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that through rebirth, that which they inherited from their former birth may be cleansed within them.”

2.3. Sayings of individual teachers of the Church who lived before the emergence of the Pelagian heresy, such as:

a) Justin: “Christ chose to be born and to taste death not because He Himself had any need of it, but for the sake of the human race, which through Adam (άπό τοϋ Άδαμ) was subjected to death and the temptation of the serpent”;[1483]

b) Irenaeus: “In the first Adam, we offended God by failing to keep His commandment; in the second Adam, we were reconciled to Him, becoming obedient even unto death; we were indebted to no one else but to Him whose commandment we had broken from the beginning”;[1484]

c) Tertullian: “From the beginning, man was deceived by the devil into breaking God’s commandment and was therefore condemned to death; consequently, the entire human race, descended from his seed, became implicated (traducem) in his condemnation”;[1485]

d) Cyprian: “If even great sinners, who have previously sinned greatly against God, are granted forgiveness of sins when they come to faith, and no one is denied baptism and grace, all the more so should this infant not be denied it, who, having just been born, has sinned in nothing except that, being descended from the flesh of Adam, he has contracted (contraxit) the contagion of ancient death through very birth itself, and who is all the more fit to receive the remission of sins, since it is not his own sins but those of others that are forgiven him;[1486]

e) Hilary: “Through the error of one Adam, the entire human race went astray… from one, the sentence of death and the toil of life spread to all”;[1487]

f) Basil the Great: “Atone for the original sin by providing food—for just as Adam passed on sin to us through a harmful taste, so we will erase this harmful taste if we satisfy our brother’s need and hunger”;[1488]

g) Gregory the Theologian: “This newly implanted sin came to wretched people from the first parent... all of us who shared in that same Adam, were deceived by the serpent, were put to death by sin, and were saved by the heavenly Adam”;[1489]

h) Ambrose: “We have all sinned in the first man, and through the inheritance of nature, the inheritance of sin has spread from one to all…; thus, Adam is in each of us: in him human nature sinned, because through one man sin passed into all.”[1490] i) John Chrysostom: “How did death enter and reign? Through the sin of one: for what else does it mean that ‘in him all have sinned’? After Adam’s fall, even those who did not eat of the tree all became mortal from that time on... this sin caused universal death.”[1491]

We do not cite similar sayings from many other teachers of the Church who lived during the same period;[1492] and those cited are quite sufficient to see the utter folly of the Pelagians, both ancient and modern, who assert that Augustine invented the doctrine of original sin, and, on the other hand, to recognize the full truth of the words of Blessed Augustine in addressing one of the Pelagians: “It was not I who invented original sin, in which the Catholic faith has believed from time immemorial; but you, who reject this dogma, are undoubtedly a new heretic.”[1493]

3). Finally, we can be convinced of the reality of original sin, which is passed on to all of us from our first parents, in the light of sound reason and on the basis of undeniable experience.

3.1. Anyone who looks within themselves with full attention and delves deeply into their own soul cannot help but say, along with the holy Apostle Paul: “I know that nothing good dwells in me—that is, in my flesh—because the desire to do good is within me, but I do not find the strength to carry it out. The good that I want to do, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want to do, I do. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find this law at work: that when I want to do what is good, evil is present with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but in my members I see another law, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin that dwells in my members (Rom. 7:18–23). In particular, anyone who observes himself and his neighbors closely cannot help but acknowledge the following truths:

a) there is a constant struggle within us between the spirit and the flesh, the mind and the passions, the aspirations toward good and the inclinations toward evil;

b) in this struggle, victory almost always goes to the latter: the flesh prevails over the spirit within us, passions rule over reason, and inclinations toward evil overpower the desire for good; we love good by nature, desire it, and take pleasure in it—but we cannot find the strength within ourselves to do good; we do not love evil by nature, yet we are irresistibly drawn to it;

c) We acquire the habit of all that is good and holy with great effort and very slowly; whereas the habit of evil is acquired without the slightest effort and extremely quickly—and conversely—

d) it is extremely difficult for us to break the habit of any vice or to overcome any passion within ourselves, even the most insignificant one; yet to undermine a virtue we have acquired through many feats, all it takes is some trivial temptation. This same predominance of evil over good in the human race, which we now observe, has been noted by others throughout the ages. Moses writes of the people before the Flood: “Every intention of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), and later of the people after the Flood: “The inclination of the human heart is evil from youth” (Gen. 8:21). David testifies that all have gone astray, have become equally depraved; there is none who does good, not even one (Ps. 13:3; cf. 25:4). Solomon says that there is no righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin (Eccl. 7:20); that even the righteous fall seven times a day (Prov. 24:16). The writings of the Prophets are generally filled with complaints and rebukes against the iniquities of their contemporaries. The Apostles preached that the world lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19); that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Even the pagan sages themselves lamented that the entire human race is corrupt, and that some irresistible, innate human inclination draws people toward evil.[1494] Where, then, does such disorder in human nature come from? Where does this unnatural struggle of forces and desires come from, this unnatural dominance of the flesh over the spirit, of passions over reason, this unnatural inclination toward evil that overpowers the natural inclination toward good?

3.2. All the explanations that people have devised for this are unfounded, or even unreasonable; the only fully satisfactory explanation is the one offered by Revelation through its teaching on the original sin of our first parents. And—

a) We cannot accept the views of the ancients that the source of all evil existing in man lies in his body, that the matter in which the human spirit is clothed, by its very nature, opposes all his spiritual aspirations, clouds his reason, causes disorder in his will and heart, and, through delusions, inevitably leads to vice. This view, first of all, leads to the most disastrous consequences, which contradict common sense. If matter is the source of sin, then God is to blame for sin; for He is the Creator of matter—He created our body as well as our soul and united them. This means we bear no responsibility; we are innocent when we do evil, because we act in accordance with the nature God has given us. This means there is no difference between good and evil, and the moral law should have no significance for us. Second, this view contradicts experience without offering any explanation. If, in fact, the spirit and the flesh within us are in conflict by their very nature; if, while the spirit naturally draws us toward good, the flesh also naturally draws us toward evil—then why is it not the spirit within us that is stronger than the flesh, but rather the flesh that is stronger than the spirit, whereas one would naturally expect the opposite? Why, according to common experience, does the inclination toward evil in us prevail over the inclination toward good, so that I do not do the good I want to do, but do the evil I do not want to do (Rom. 7:19)? Why, at the very least, are the inclination toward good and the inclination toward evil in us not equally strong? On the other hand, although it is true that certain passions and vices have their basis in our physical constitution—for example, anger, to which people of a choleric temperament are particularly prone, and the like— there are other passions and vices—such as self-love, pride, envy, and ambition—that cannot be attributed to temperament; they arise and develop directly in the soul and, consequently, take root there, and by no means in the body.

b) It is unjust to hold the view, shared by some even among the most recent thinkers, that evil in man is an inevitable consequence of his limitations. “Man,” they say, “is by nature limited, and a limited being is necessarily imperfect; from this imperfection in all of man’s faculties arise his errors, and from these errors evil naturally arises.” It is true that every finite being is imperfect in comparison with another being that is less finite, and all finite beings are imperfect in comparison with the Infinite Being; but this does not mean that every finite being is imperfect in and of itself, that it is insufficient for its own purpose, or incapable of fulfilling the laws to which its nature is subject. Thus, angels are also limited and imperfect in comparison with God; nevertheless, they are perfect within their own order, each in its proper place; they are sinless because they fulfill their purpose and observe the moral law to the extent that they are able to do so in accordance with their limitations; for they love their Creator with all the power of love bestowed upon them. Likewise, although human beings are even more limited and imperfect in comparison with God than angels are, they could remain perfect within their own order in relation to their purpose; they could fulfill the moral commandments to the extent of their limitations; they could love God with their entire human being; could occupy a lower degree of holiness compared to the angels, yet despite this, remain innocent before God and sinless. To be imperfect means to possess qualities less exalted than those of another being placed higher on the ladder of existence; but to be sinful means, through the abuse of freedom, to violate the relationships that ought to exist between the Creator and rational creatures; it means to willfully stray from the path of God’s commandments and to act contrary to one’s own purpose. God does not demand of us virtues that are beyond our capacity; He does not oblige us to a holiness that is inaccessible to our nature; He demands only what is entirely natural to us and what we are capable of doing within our own strength. And if this is so, then man’s violation of God’s law can no longer be regarded as a mere consequence of his limitations and relative imperfection: no, it is a real evil, testifying to the corruption of his nature.

c) Equally unjust is the view that has emerged in recent times among those who assert that the source of human evil lies not in human nature but in the shortcomings of one’s upbringing—that every person is born pure and innocent, as Adam was created, but becomes evil and depraved as a result of poor upbringing, bad examples, and the like. If this were true, then—

aa) one cannot help but wonder how, over the course of more than seven millennia, while constantly striving to improve its upbringing, humanity has still not learned to preserve the primordial purity and innocence with which everyone is supposedly born; it is incomprehensible by what bitter necessity all people both receive and pass on to others precisely this poor upbringing. It is well known, on the contrary, that—

bb) in recent times, many civilized nations have taken every possible measure to improve the public institutions where young people are educated; the most effective means are employed to protect students from vice and accustom them to virtue—and yet the power of evil persists; the inclination toward vice apparently prevails in people, as it always has, over the inclination toward virtue, and new crimes, previously unknown, often even appear. All of this remains an unsolvable mystery if we assume that man is born good, and that in our upbringing, we must concern ourselves not with correcting the flaws already present in us—with which we were born—but only with preserving our inherited innocence. Finally, it must be said that—

(bb) although poor upbringing can indeed increase evil within us and accelerate its development—just as good upbringing usually weakens its power and can partly suppress it at the very outset—evil exists within us even before any upbringing takes place. To be convinced of this, one need only make a simple observation of an infant who has not yet been subjected to the influence of any system of upbringing, and upon whom the advantages or disadvantages of whatever method is chosen for the development and correction of his abilities have not yet had a chance to take effect. Even the most casual observer cannot fail to notice that a baby already clearly displays a disposition toward anger, pretense, lying, and disobedience—not because the baby has seen all these flaws in his parents and acquired them through imitation, but because he is drawn to them by an innate inclination. The same must be said regarding the influence of bad examples on a depraved person. If a person is born good, without any predisposition or inclination toward evil, then why does he inevitably allow himself to be led astray by bad examples and fail to find within himself enough strength to resist them? Why do bad examples have a stronger effect on us than good ones? Why is it much easier for us to do evil, than to do good? Why do the seeds of evil manifest themselves even in infants, who have not yet attained self-awareness and cannot imitate others?

d) The most satisfactory solution to all these questions for the mind, and the most just explanation of the evil that exists in the human race, is offered by divine Revelation, which states that the first man was indeed created good and innocent, but that he sinned against God, and thus corrupted his entire nature; consequently, all people descended from him are naturally born with original sin, a corrupted nature, and a predisposition toward evil. There is nothing incomprehensible or implausible here. We see from experience that children inherit their parents’ illnesses, and often these illnesses take root for a long time and are passed down from generation to generation in certain families. We know from experience and by simple reasoning that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Matt. 7:18), that a contaminated spring naturally produces a contaminated stream, and that when the root of a tree is corrupted, its trunk cannot remain uncorrupted. Consequently, humanity, corrupted at its root, must inevitably be corrupted in its branches. And if the first man became sinful and corrupted his entire nature, then his descendants cannot help but inherit this very same sinful and corrupted nature.

§93. The Consequences of Original Sin in Us

Passing in this way from our first parents to the entire human race, original sin inevitably brings with it all the consequences it produced in our first parents. The most important of these consequences are:

1. The darkening of the mind and, in particular, its inability to comprehend spiritual matters pertaining to the realm of faith. The natural person does not accept what comes from the Spirit of God, for he regards it as folly; and he cannot understand it because such things must be judged spiritually (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, one of the first blessings desired for new believers is that “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him” (Eph. 1:17). But one should not imagine this darkening of the mind in exaggerated terms and think that, as a result of original sin, people have become completely incapable of understanding spiritual matters; on the contrary, the same Apostle testifies concerning the Gentiles themselves that what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it known to them. For His invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen since the creation of the world through what has been made, and for this reason they are without excuse: since they knew God, they did not glorify Him (Rom. 1:19–20). And if fallen man had no capacity whatsoever left to understand matters of faith, then it would be impossible to communicate divine Revelation to him, which he could neither know nor assimilate. The Church Fathers also recognized this as a consequence of original sin within us.[1495]

2. The perversion of free will and its inclination toward evil rather than toward good. The holy Apostle describes this lamentable state of our active faculty in detail when he says: “I know that nothing good dwells in me—that is, in my flesh—for while I have the desire to do what is good, I cannot carry it out. The good that I want to do, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want to do, I do. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find this law at work: that when I want to do what is good, evil is present with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but in my members I see another law, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin that dwells in my members (Rom. 7:18–23). On the other hand, however, it is unjust to claim that original sin has completely destroyed our freedom, so that we cannot even desire anything good, and our entire nature has become evil (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 27; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 14). This idea is contrary to

a) the words of the Holy Apostle just cited, which state that, at the very least, it is within our power to will the good, even if we hate it (Rom. 7:17), and that there is still a remnant of goodness within the inner man, who delights in the law of God. It is contrary to—

b) all those very numerous passages in which commandments, counsel, exhortations, promises, and threats are addressed to fallen humanity—such as, for example, the entire Decalogue (Exod. 20:3 ff.) and all the promises and threats to the people of Israel set forth in the final chapters of Deuteronomy (28–32)—these passages would have no meaning whatsoever if a remnant of freedom were not presupposed in man. Contrary to this—

c) nearly as many passages of Scripture where it is not merely implied but explicitly stated that fallen man possesses free will—specifically with regard to the spiritual life—and that he is the master of his own actions, capable of both obeying and resisting God’s will. For example: “If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24); “If you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17); “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor... and follow Me (21); whoever wishes to do His will will know whether this teaching is from God or whether I speak on My own (John 7:17); Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing (Matt. 23:37); whoever is firmly resolved in his heart and, not being constrained by necessity but being master of his own will, has decided in his heart to remain celibate, does well (1 Cor. 7:37). Contrary to this is—

d) the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, who, though they regarded freedom in fallen man as weak, nevertheless affirmed that original sin by no means destroyed it within us,[1496] and now it is within the will of each of us to choose good or evil, despite all the temptations surrounding us,[1497] and therefore they filled their writings with countless instructions and exhortations to Christians, urging them to strive, for their part and with the help of God’s grace, to fight against sin and excel in virtue.[1498] Finally, it is contrary to—

d) the conscience of every person and the conviction of all peoples. We all feel that we often choose among various possible courses of action, and when we decide on one, we do so without any coercion and of our own free will; that it is up to us to carry out the chosen action in one way or another, that we can leave it unfinished and choose another in its place, and so on. Therefore, all peoples have always had certain laws governing their actions; all have held the notion of a distinction between good and evil actions, and both were held accountable to people.

3. The obscuring, but not the destruction, of the image of God. Obscuring is inevitable as a consequence of the obscuring of reason and the perversion of freedom in human beings. But its destruction is impossible, because neither reason nor freedom—with their natural inclinations toward truth and goodness—were destroyed in man by the sin of the first parents. And Scripture indeed testifies that the image of God remains in us even after the Fall. Thus, God Himself, in blessing Noah and his sons after the Flood, among other things, affirms their dominion over all animals (Gen. 9:1– 2), which, as we have seen, served as one of the essential features of the image of God in man; and furthermore, by forbidding the shedding of human blood, He expresses His will in the following words: “Whoever sheds human blood, by human hands shall his blood be shed” (6). The Church Fathers have also always acknowledged the remnants of the image of God in fallen man,[1499] and have rebuked the Origenists for their false teaching that original sin has completely obliterated this image within us.[1500] And if the image of God, which serves as the sole foundation for our union (religion) with God—our Original Image—were completely destroyed within us, then we would be incapable of reuniting with Him—and Christianity would have no meaning whatsoever.

4. Death, with all its precursors: illness and suffering. The holy Apostle testifies to this when he says: “Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death spread to all men” (Rom. 5:12), and in another place: “Just as death came through a man, so also the resurrection of the dead comes through a man” (1 Cor. 15:21). The ancient teachers of the Church also testify unanimously:

a) Tatian: “We were not created for death, but we die of our own accord; our own will has brought about our ruin”;[1501]

b) Theophilus: “Through disobedience, man was subjected to sickness, sorrow, and suffering, and finally fell into death”;[1502]

c) Basil the Great: “Adam brought death upon himself by turning away from God...; thus, it was not God who created death, but we ourselves brought it upon ourselves through our own deceitful consent”;[1503]

d) Gregory the Theologian: “As many calamities as I have seen—calamities in which there is no solace—so I have not seen a single blessing that would be completely free from sorrow, ever since the fatal bite and the enemy’s envy branded me with bitter disgrace”;[1504]

e) Ambrose: “Through Adam’s transgression, we were subjected to death,”[1505] and others.[1506]

§94. The Moral Implications of the Dogma

By reflecting on the origin and nature of man, on his purpose and original state, on his fall and the consequences of that fall, we can learn a great deal.

1) The Lord was pleased to set man apart from the very moment of his creation—before creating man, He held counsel in the mystery of the Holy Trinity; therefore, He formed man’s body with His own hands and personally breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, whereas He created everything else in the visible world by His word and command alone. This teaches us, on the one hand, to appreciate our superiority over all other creatures on earth,[1507] and on the other hand—to give thanks to our Creator, who, even before we came into being, already loved us so much, out of His infinite goodness.

2) The first woman was created from her husband’s rib. Hence—

a) a lesson for both husband and wife—to live in mutual love and harmony with one another: for both share exactly the same nature;

b) a lesson, in particular, for the wife—to be subject to her husband: for “the husband is not from the wife, but the wife is from the husband,” as the Apostle notes (1 Cor. 11:8).

3) The entire human race descends from one original couple, Adam and Eve. Therefore, despite the great number and diversity of the human tribes inhabiting the earth, we are all brothers and sisters to one another, all of the same nature. How clear, then, should the Lord’s words be to each of our hearts: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31)!

4) Not only did the Lord God create our first parents directly in the beginning, but He also creates each of us indirectly—He not only forms our body in our mother’s womb, but He also bestows upon us a soul. And therefore, if by the very inclination of nature we honor and love our parents, our father and mother, should we not all the more honor and love our Creator, who in an even truer sense is our father and mother?[1508]

5) It pleased the Lord that we, by our very nature, should consist of two parts: the soul and the body. The Holy Apostle commands us: “Glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which belong to God” (1 Cor. 6:20).

6) The soul is the most excellent part of our being; it is entirely spiritual, endowed with reason, freedom, and immortality, whereas the body is taken from dust and is capable of returning to dust at any time. The soul, therefore, must be the ruling principle within us, and the body must be subject to it; we must care for the soul first and foremost, and only then for the body.

7) The Creator was pleased to create us in His image and likeness: “Be perfect,” the Savior says to us, “just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48); live in such a way that the image of God truly shines within you.

8) Man’s calling is lofty: he is called to be in a religious union with God, to live for God and to please Him; he is called to gradually unfold and ceaselessly perfect his spiritual powers, and thereby attain various degrees of bliss; called to be king and lord over all of nature subject to him—may this lofty goal, toward which we are bound to strive, always be before our eyes, and may it illuminate for us, like guiding stars, the entire dark path of life.

9) The Lord created man perfect in soul and body, and having created him, prepared for him the most blissful dwelling on earth, Paradise; He Himself aided in the development and strengthening of man’s spiritual powers, graced him with His direct revelations, dwelt within him through His grace, granted him the tree of life and immortality even in the body, and, to open before him a field for deeds and merits, gave him His commandment. But man violated God’s commandment, angered his Creator, and lost his original glory; he became imperfect and corrupted in his entire being, and was subjected to sickness, calamities, and death. This is the most striking proof of how dangerous it is to violate God’s will, how ruinous and destructive sin is in and of itself, and how terrifying it is to fall into the hands of the living and righteous God!

10) The sin of our first parents, with all its consequences, has passed on to the entire human race, so that we are all conceived and born in iniquity, weak in soul and body, and guilty before God. May this serve as a living, unceasing lesson for us in humility and in the awareness of our own weaknesses and shortcomings, and may it also teach us to ask the Lord God for His gracious help and to gratefully make use of the means of salvation granted to us in Christianity.

Chapter 2.
On God as the Provider

§ 95. The Teaching of the Church and the Structure of This Chapter

The teaching of the Orthodox Church on God as the Provider is expressed in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith as follows: “We believe that all that exists, both visible and invisible, is governed by Divine Providence; however, evil, as evil, God only foresees and permits, but does not will it, since He did not create it. And evil that has already occurred is directed toward something beneficial by the Supreme Goodness, which does not itself create evil, but only directs it toward the better, as far as possible” (Art. 5). And in the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, “God knows (γνωρίζει) everything precisely, from the smallest to the greatest, and providentially cares for every creature in particular” (Art. 1, answer to Q. 29).

In accordance with the order in which we have set forth the Church’s teaching on God as the Creator of the world, we will now set forth the teaching on God as the Provider; that is, we will first speak of God’s providence in general, and then of God’s providence in particular with regard to the principal kinds of God’s creations: the spiritual world, the material world, and the microcosm—man.

1. On Divine Providence in General

§ 96. The Concept of Divine Providence, Its Actions and Forms, and an Overview of False Opinions Regarding the Dogma

From time immemorial, the term “Divine Providence” has been understood to mean the care that God exercises over all creatures in the world;[1509] or, as this idea is more fully expressed in the Extensive Christian Catechism: “Divine Providence is the unceasing action of God’s omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness, by which God preserves the existence and powers of creatures, directs them toward good ends, assists every good, and either prevents the evil that arises from straying from the good, or corrects it and turns it toward good outcomes” (on Art. 1, p. 36, Moscow, 1840).

Thus, within the general concept of God’s providence, three specific actions of His are distinguished: the preservation of creatures, the promotion or assistance of them, and the governance of them.

The preservation of creatures is that action of God by which the Almighty sustains in existence both the entire world and all the individual beings within it, along with their powers, laws, and activities.

Promotion or assistance to creatures is that action of God by which the All-Good, while allowing them to make use of their own powers and laws, at the same time provides them with His help and support during their activities. This is particularly evident in relation to rational and free creatures, who constantly need God’s grace to prosper in the spiritual life. However, with regard to moral beings, God’s active assistance occurs only when they freely choose and perform good; in all those cases where they, of their own free will, choose and commit evil, there is only God’s permission, and by no means His cooperation, because God cannot create evil, nor does He wish to deprive moral beings of the freedom that He Himself has granted them.

Finally, the governance of creatures is that action of God by which the infinitely Wise directs them, along with their entire lives and activities, toward their intended ends, correcting and transforming, as far as possible, even their worst deeds into good outcomes.

From this it is clear that all the aforementioned acts of God’s providence differ from one another. Preservation encompasses both the existence of creatures and their powers and activities; assistance pertains specifically to their powers; governance pertains to both the powers and actions of creatures. God preserves all beings in the world; He assists the good, while allowing the wicked to carry out their evil deeds; He also governs them all. And none of these acts is contained within another—it is possible to preserve a creature without assisting or governing it; it is possible to assist a creature without preserving or governing it; it is possible to govern a creature without preserving or assisting it. But, on the other hand, it must be noted that all three actions of God’s providence are distinguished and separated only by us, due to the different ways in which He manifests Himself in the limited and diverse beings of the world and as a result of the limitations of our reason; and in themselves they are indivisible, constituting a single boundless act of God: for just as God “sees all together and each in particular at once,”[1510] so He accomplishes all things through a single simple, uncomplicated act. He indivisibly preserves all His creatures, assists them, and governs them.

God’s providence is usually divided into two kinds: general providence and particular providence. General providence is that which encompasses the entire world in general, all genera and species of beings; particular providence is that which extends to the most particular beings of the world and to each of the indivisible, no matter how small they may seem. And the Orthodox Church, believing that God “knows everything precisely, from the smallest to the greatest, and provides for every creature in particular” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 29), evidently acknowledges both of these types of providence.

The concepts of divine providence set forth above completely exclude—

a) the false teachings of the Gnostics, Manicheans, and other heretics, who, by subjecting everything to fate, or by regarding the world as the product of an evil principle, or by considering God’s care for the world to be superfluous, completely rejected God’s providence along with all its actions;[1511]

b) the false teachings of the Pelagians, who rejected God’s actual cooperation with both irrational and rational creatures, considering this incompatible with their perfection and freedom;[1512]

c) the opposing heresy of various sectarians who, believing in God’s unconditional predestination (praedestinationismus), exaggerate God’s cooperation with rational creatures to such an extent that they almost annihilate their freedom, and regard God as the true cause of all their actions, both good and evil;[1513]

d) finally, the false doctrine of certain thinkers, both ancient and modern, who admit only general providence and reject particular providence, considering it unworthy of God.[1514]

§ 97. The Reality of Divine Providence

That God truly providentially governs the world and cares for all His creatures is taught in countless passages of Holy Scripture. For example:

a) in the Book of Job: “For He (God) Himself looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under heaven” (28:24), or: “In His hand is the soul of every living thing and the spirit of all human flesh” (12:10);

b) in the Book of Psalms: “You have established the earth, and it stands firm. By Your decrees all things stand to this day, for all things serve You (118:90–91); the eyes of all look to You, and You give them their food in due season; You open Your hand and satisfy every living thing according to Your good pleasure (144:15–16);

c) in the Book of Proverbs: The eyes of the Lord are in every place; they watch the wicked and the righteous (15:3);

d) in the Book of Nehemiah: [And Ezra said:] “You, O Lord, are one; You have created the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You sustain all these things, and the heavenly hosts worship You” (9:6);

e) in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon: “He created both the small and the great, and cares for all alike” (6:7); “for apart from You there is no God who cares for all” (12:13);

f) in the Gospel of Matthew: “Be sons of your heavenly Father, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (5:45);

g) in the Book of Acts: (God) has not ceased to bear witness to Himself through His good deeds, giving us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filling our hearts with food and joy (14:17).[1515]

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in defending the Christian doctrine of divine providence against pagan philosophers [1516] and heretics [1517] , proved the existence of providence through sound reason, based on concepts regarding, on the one hand, God as the Creator of the world, and on the other, the world as God’s creation.

In the first case, they pointed out:

1) The infinite goodness of the Creator, by which He cannot possibly abandon His own creatures—whom He created solely out of goodness—to their own devices. “What craftsman,” asks Saint Ambrose, “would neglect his own work? Who would abandon and reject what he himself desired to create? If it is unreasonable to provide for something, is it not even more unreasonable to create, when there is no injustice in not creating something, but to neglect what one has created is the height of mercilessness.”[1518] “How,” asks another teacher of the Church, “can He who created His creatures out of His abundant goodness fail to care for them?”[1519] “God alone,” we read in St. John of Damascus, “is by nature Good and Wise. As the Good One, He provides for them, for one who does not provide is not good; (both humans and dumb animals naturally care for their young, and whoever does not care for them is subject to censure); and as the All-Wise One, He cares for what is best for His creatures.”[1520]

2) On the omnipresent Creator. Filling all that exists with Himself, He is directly present in every creature, every thing, and every being; He directly perceives their condition and needs; and consequently, He could fail to provide for the world only if He were either not good or given over to inactivity and idleness.[1521] “God, filling the world,” says Blessed Augustine, “acts and does not withdraw anywhere; He does not, as it were, merely move this vast structure that He has created; by the presence of His majesty, He does what He does; by His presence, He governs what He has made.”[1522]

3) The omnipotence of the Creator, by virtue of which it requires not the slightest effort on His part to provide for the world. “Even if tens of thousands of such worlds were needed, or even an infinite number of them,” says St. John Chrysostom, “God would still be sufficient for all of them—not only to create them, but also to provide for them after their creation.”[1523] “He willed to create all things,” writes another Church Father, “and they were created; He wills that the world continue to exist, and it continues, and everything comes to pass according to His will.”[1524]

In general, the teachers of the Church observed, to reject God’s providence is to reject God’s very existence—for if God exists, the most perfect Being, then He necessarily provides for the world; and if He does not provide for it, then He does not exist.[1525]

In addressing the world, the teachers and writers of the Church primarily emphasized the following:

1) That without God’s providence, the world could not exist on its own, having been called into being from nothingness and constantly hovering above that same nothingness. This idea is expressed by:

a) Lactantius: “Nature, if deprived of the providence and power of the Creator, is utter nothingness;”[1526]

b) Athanasius the Great: “The nature of creatures, having been brought forth from nothingness, is in and of itself changeable, impermanent, and mortal...; therefore, so that all that is created—which by its very nature is changeable and perishable—might not actually be destroyed, and the world might not revert to its former nothingness, He who created all things by His eternal Word and gave nature to creatures did not leave them to their own devices, lest they return to their former nothingness, but in His goodness preserves them and governs them by His Word, which is God Himself;”[1527]

c) Cyril of Alexandria: “The Creator of all things gives life to everything, being life by His very nature, and in an incomprehensible way infusing His power into all things; for otherwise, beings that originated from nothing could not be preserved and sustained in existence; otherwise, they would suddenly revert to their own nature, that is, to nothingness;”[1528]

d) Augustine: “The might of the Creator and the power of the Almighty and All-Encompassing One are the cause of the existence of every creature; and if this power were ever to cease governing creatures, then their forms would instantly cease to exist, and all of nature would perish. For although a building erected here on earth remains standing even after the builder, having finished his work, leaves it and departs, the world could not stand even for the blink of an eye if God were to withdraw His providence from it.”[1529]

2) That without God’s providence, the world could not maintain the marvelous order that is observed; on the contrary, everything would go beyond its limits, fall into disorder, and descend into chaos. This is the reasoning of St. Gregory the Theologian, Blessed Augustine, Blessed Theodoret, and others. The first says: “We must believe that there is a Providence that sustains and binds together all things in the world—for those beings who require a Creator also require a Provider; otherwise the world, tossed about by chance like a ship in a whirlwind, would, because of the disorderly movements of matter, instantly be destroyed, fall apart, and return to its original chaos and disorder.”[1530] The second writes: “Not for a single day does God cease from the work of governing creatures, lest they immediately stray from their natural paths, by which they are led and guided to attain the fullness of their development, and each remain within its own kind as it is. And indeed, they would cease to be anything at all if that movement of God’s wisdom—by which the Lord governs them for their benefit (Wis. 8:1)—were taken away from them.”[1531] Finally, Blessed Theodoret argues as follows: “Those who do not believe in the existence of divine providence and foolishly assert that the world, consisting of heaven and earth, moves in such harmony and order without a helmsman, seem to me to be acting as if someone, sitting on a ship and crossing the sea, and seeing how the helmsman directs the oars and steers the rudder as he should, — were to assert the obvious falsehood that there is no helmsman at the stern, that the ship has no oars, that it is not guided by the movement of the rudder, but rather sails of its own accord, overcomes the force of the waves on its own, withstands the onslaught of the winds, and needs no assistance from the sailors or the helmsman, who would give the necessary orders to all the oarsmen. Those who think this way, clearly and unquestionably seeing the Lord of the universe, who governs the creation He has made and guides and moves all things in harmonious order..., willfully turn a blind eye or act shamelessly; and while receiving the gifts of Providence, they at the same time dishonor them, and by the very things they enjoy, they arm themselves against the Provider.”[1532]

§ 98. The Validity of Each of the Acts of Divine Providence

While attributing to God the providence of the world in general, Sacred Scripture—and the teachers of the Church following it—attribute to Him, in particular, each of the acts of providence, such as:

1) The preservation of creatures. This is taught in Scripture by—

a) the Psalmist throughout Psalm 103, and especially in the following verses: “They all wait for You to give them their food in due season” (27); You give to them—they receive; You open Your hand—they are filled with good (28); You hide Your face—they are troubled; You take away their breath—they die and return to the dust (29); You send forth Your Spirit—they are created, and You renew the face of the earth (30);

6) The prophet Isaiah: “Lift up your eyes to the heights of the heavens and see: Who created them? Who brings out their host by number? He calls them all by name; by the multitude of His might and the greatness of His strength, not one is missing” (Isa. 40:26);

c) the Apostle Paul: “God is not served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives life and breath and everything to all” (Acts 17:25); “He (the Son of God) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

The teachers and writers of the Church echo the same truth; for example:

a) Athenagoras: “It is necessary for those who acknowledge God as the Creator of all things to attribute to His wisdom and truth the preservation (φυλακήν) of all that exists, if they wish to remain faithful to their own principles;”[1533]

b) Basil the Great: “Every created being, whether visible or intelligible, needs God’s care for its sustenance;”[1534]

c) Athanasius the Great: “The almighty and most holy Word of the Father, pervading all things, manifesting His power everywhere, and illuminating all that is visible and invisible, contains and embraces all things within Himself, so that nothing remains outside the reach of His power, but through everything and in everything—each being individually and all beings collectively—He gives life and sustains them;”[1535]

d) Jerome: “Let us recognize that we are nothing if God Himself did not preserve within us what He has bestowed upon us, as the Apostle says: ‘not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy’ (Rom. 9:16).”[1536]

2) God’s cooperation with or permission of created beings. The idea of God’s cooperation with created beings—especially moral beings—is expressed in Holy Scripture when it says that God upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) and that He is the source of all life (1 Tim. 6:13); that although the actions of created beings differ, God is one and the same, working all things in all (1 Cor. 12:6); that God works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13), and that in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). The idea of God’s permission is expressed, for example, by St. Paul the Apostle when he writes about the Gentiles: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1:24), and further: “Therefore God gave them over to shameful passions” (26), and again: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to commit what is unseemly” (28); or, when he speaks of the Jews: “God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear” (Rom. 11:8), “God has consigned them to disobedience” (32).[1537] The Evangelical Fathers and teachers of the Church also teach this:

a) John Chrysostom: “Everything is governed by God’s providence; but some things happen by God’s permission (συγχωροϋντος), and others by His active intervention (ενεργούντος)”[1538] and in another passage: “Know that God ordains all things, provides for all things, that we are free, that God acts in our favor in some things and merely permits others, that He does not will any evil, that not everything happens by His will alone, but also by ours—every evil only by our will, every good by our will and together with His active participation;”[1539]

b) Dorotheus: “Everything that happens occurs either by God’s permission or by His good will;”[1540]

c) Theodoret: “Nothing happens without God’s will; but either God acts to bring about good, or He permits misfortunes because of sins committed previously;”[1541]

d) Damascene: “What depends on providence occurs either by God’s good pleasure or by His permission. By His good pleasure comes all that is unquestionably good; by His permission, the opposite... The choice of actions depends on us; the outcome of good deeds, however, depends on God’s assistance—for God, according to His foreknowledge, justly assists those who choose the good with a righteous conscience; and the outcome of evil deeds depends on God’s abandonment of a person, since God justly abandons a person according to that same foreknowledge.”[1542]

3) The governance of creatures. This action of God is mentioned in the following passages of Holy Scripture.

1 Chron. 29:11–12. Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; and all that is in heaven and on earth is Yours: Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom, and You are exalted as Sovereign over all. 12 Both riches and honor come from Your presence; You rule over all, and in Your hand are strength and power; and it is in Your power to exalt and to strengthen all.

Dan. 2:21. He changes times and seasons; He deposes kings and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and understanding to those who have understanding

Wis. 8:1. It (the wisdom of God) spreads swiftly from one end to the other and arranges all things for the good.

Wis. 14:3. Your providence, O Father, steers the ship, for You have provided a path through the sea and a safe course through the waves.

Matt. 11:25. Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”

1 Tim. 1:17. To the King of the ages, the incorruptible, the invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever.

Rev. 17:14. He is the Lord of lords and King of kings (cf. 1 Tim. 6:15).

This work of God is also preached by the teachers of the Church:

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Let those who do not comprehend the unfathomable depth of God’s providence, by which all things are accomplished, not be surprised by this! Let not those be surprised who entrust the governance of the world to the Artist, who is, of course, wiser than we are, and who guides His creation to whatever and however He pleases—without any doubt toward perfection and healing, even though those being healed may be distressed! According to such decrees, he (Julian) is not incited to evil (the Divine Nature, which is good by nature, is in no way guilty of evil, and evil deeds belong to those who freely choose evil), but is not restrained in his inclination.”[1543]

St. John Chrysostom: “That Providence governs all things can be seen from what happens to us. For nothing happens without Providence, but even flocks and everything else require guidance. And that everything in the past did not happen by chance is shown by Gehenna, as well as by the Flood in Noah’s time, the fire, the drowning of the Egyptians, and the events that took place in the wilderness.”[1544]

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem: “Divine Scripture and the teaching of truth acknowledge one God, who, though He reigns over all with His power, also endures many things according to His will. He reigns even over idolaters; yet He endures them out of His benevolence. He reigns over the heretics who reject Him; yet He endures them out of His great forbearance; He reigns over the devil as well, yet He endures him too; He endures him not out of weakness, as if He were to be overcome by him... O all-wise providence of God! It turns evil will into a means of salvation for the faithful. For just as it turned the brothers’ hatred of Joseph into a means for the establishment of his own household, and, by allowing them to sell their brother out of hatred, opened the way for the enthronement of the one it itself desired, so too did it allow the devil to wage war against people, so that the victors might be awarded crowns, and so that, upon achieving victory, he himself—having been defeated by the weakest—suffered greater humiliation, while the people were more glorified, since they had defeated the one who was once an Archangel.”[1545]

Saint Ephrem the Syrian: “I see buildings, and I infer the builder; I see the world, and I recognize the divine providence; I see that a ship without a helmsman sinks; I have seen that human affairs come to nothing unless God directs them. I see a city and the various structures of civil societies, and I realize that everything is sustained by God’s providence. The flock depends on the shepherd, and everything that grows on earth depends on God. It is up to the farmer to separate the wheat from the tares; it is up to God to ensure the wisdom of those living on earth in their mutual unity and harmony. It is up to the king to deploy his armies; it is up to God to establish a specific order for all things. Nothing on earth exists without a head, for God is the beginning of all things. Rivers flow from springs, and laws from God’s wisdom. The earth bears fruit, but if there is no rain from heaven, it cannot produce anything on its own. The day contains the essence of light, but it needs the sun to be fulfilled. So too, good deeds are performed by people, but they are brought to fulfillment by God.”[1546]

Blessed Theodoret: “The Creator governs creation, and He has not left the ship He built without guidance; but He Himself is both the shipbuilder and the gardener who has nurtured matter. He created matter, built the ship, and constantly steers its helm.”[1547]

§ 99. The Reality of Both Types of Divine Providence

Divine Providence, with all its actions, extends not only to the world in general, to the genera and species of beings, but also to every created being in particular—that is, there is not only general Providence but also particular Providence.

This is what Holy Scripture teaches, for example:

a) in the words of the Psalmist: “The eyes of all look to You, and You give them their food in due season; You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 144:15–16); or: “Sing praises to the Lord in turn; sing to our God with the harp. He covers the sky with clouds, prepares rain for the earth, causes grass to grow on the mountains [and grain for the benefit of man]; He gives food to the cattle and to the young ravens when they cry out to Him (Ps. 146:7–9);

b) in the words of the Wise One: You love all that exists, and You despise nothing that You have created, for You would not have created it if You had hated it. And how could anything endure if You had not willed it? Or how would that which was not called into being by You be preserved? But You spare all things, for all things are Yours, O Lord, lover of souls (Wisdom 11:25–27);

c) in the words of the Savior Himself: “Be sons of your Heavenly Father, for He commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45); Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (6:26). If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, you of little faith! (6:30). Are not two small birds sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father’s will; and even the hairs of your head are all numbered (10:29–30).

This is what the Holy Fathers and the writers of the Church teach:

a) Irenaeus: “If anyone were to ask us whether everything that is created and comes to be is known to God, and whether, according to His providence, every creature experiences everything that happens to it, we would unanimously answer that nothing that is created, comes to be, or is to come into being is hidden from God’s knowledge; on the contrary, by His providence, every creature receives its own nature, structure, number, and quality, and absolutely nothing happens by chance...”[1548]

b) Athenagoras: “It is necessary to know that neither on earth nor in heaven does anything remain without care or providence; but the Creator’s care extends equally to all that is invisible and visible, small and great: for all creatures are in need of the Creator’s care, just as each one individually is, according to its nature and its purpose;”[1549]

c) Clement of Alexandria: “A doctrine in harmony with Christ’s acknowledges God as the Creator of all things, and His providence extends even to individual beings (μέχρι τών κατά μέρος);”[1550]

d) Cyprian: “To say that nothing, not even the smallest thing, happens without God’s will does not yet mean to give honor to God, when we know and believe that everything is governed by His motion and decree;”[1551]

e) Cyril of Alexandria: “Among the prerogatives of the divine nature is that God can both sustain all things at once and extend His providence over every creature, even to the most insignificant objects.”[1552]

This, after all, is what sound reason teaches. If God does not provide for all His creatures, or if His providence encompasses only the great things of the world—only the genera and species of beings—but does not extend to small things and to each of the indivisibles, then this is possible for two reasons: either because God cannot provide for all His creatures, or because He does not will to do so. But neither the first nor the latter reason can be accepted.

If God cannot provide for all the objects of the world and all its beings, each one in particular, then it is either because He does not know all these objects and beings, due to their extraordinary multitude, or because of a lack of wisdom and power to dispose of and govern such numerous, diverse, and varied objects and beings. But God is the most perfect Being; therefore, He is omniscient, infinitely wise, and omnipotent.

If God does not wish to provide for His creatures—all in general and each one in particular—then it is either due to a lack of goodness; or due to carelessness and indifference; or because providing for small objects and indivisible beings is unworthy of His majesty. But the first two assumptions are obviously such that no right-thinking person would entertain them even for a moment. As for the last assumption—the more plausible one, which is therefore primarily cited by those who acknowledge only general providence and reject particular providence—it is impossible to agree with this assumption either. For, first of all, if God did not consider it unworthy of His majesty to create small and indivisible beings, then, without a doubt, His providence over them cannot be unworthy of His majesty either. Second, objects and beings appear small and great only to us when we compare them with one another; but before God, the Infinite Being, they are all infinitely small. Consequently, if it is unworthy of God’s greatness to provide for beings and objects that appear great only to us, then why is it unworthy of Him to provide for objects and beings that appear small to us? Or to put it another way: objects are great and small only in relation to one another and according to our concepts; but before the boundless greatness of the Creator and Almighty, nothing is great, just as before His boundless goodness, nothing is small among those to whom He Himself has deigned to grant existence. Third, the greatest objects in the world consist of small parts, and the most extensive genera and species of beings are merely mental conceptions of aggregates of indivisibles, which alone exist in experience. What, then, would general providence be without particular providence, and is it possible to separate the former from the latter? Fourth, it is well known that great events in the world often arise from causes that seem, at first glance, to be of the least importance—for example, a spark can cause fires that destroy entire, populous cities, and the discord of a few individuals can lead to terrible wars between nations. How, then, is universal providence possible if there is no particular providence? That is why God’s providence—both universal and particular—was recognized not only by Christian thinkers,[1553] but also by sensible pagans.[1554]

§ 100. The Participation of All Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the Work of Providence

Just as with the work of creation, so too with the work of Providence, the Orthodox Church equally attributes both to all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity: God the Father is called the Almighty (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed); God the Son—the Wisdom that sustains the whole (the Creed of Gregory the Wonderworker); God the Holy Spirit—the Life-Giving Lord and the Life in whom the living find their source (in the same Creeds).[1555]

This teaching is drawn from Holy Scripture, where the providence over the world is likewise attributed to all three Persons of the Godhead, namely:

1) God the Father. For example, in the words of the Savior: “My Father is still working, and I am working” (John 5:17). “Be sons of your Father in heaven, for He commands the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (6:26). Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will He clothe you, you of little faith (6:28–30). For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:16–17). Truly, truly, I say to you: whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you (John 16:23; cf. John 14:16, 23, 26; 15:1, 2; 17:11, 15, 17; Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:4).

2) God the Son. He is before all things, as the holy Apostle says, and all things hold together through Him (Col. 1:17), upholding all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). “My Father is still working, and I am working,” testifies the Son of God Himself (John 5:17). “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20; cf. John 1:9–13; 10:16; Eph. 1:22; 2:20; Col. 2:19).

3) To God the Holy Spirit. The Psalmist proclaims His providence over the physical world in his appeal to God the Father: “They all wait for You to give them their food in due season.” You give to them—they receive; You open Your hand—they are filled with good; You hide Your face—they are troubled; You take away their breath—they die and return to the dust; You send forth Your Spirit—they are created anew, and You renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:27–30). The Apostle teaches about divine providence in the moral realm: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit… to each is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good… Yet all these things are produced by the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:4, 7, 11).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also expound this same teaching regarding the participation of all the Divine Persons in the work of Providence:

a) St. Athanasius the Great: “The Father does everything through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the Holy Trinity is preserved, and the Church proclaims one God, who is above all, and through all, and in all of us (Eph. 4:6)—above all: as the Father, as the beginning and source; through all: this is through the Son; in all: this is in the Holy Spirit;”[1556]

b) St. Basil the Great: “The Divine Spirit always definitively accomplishes all that proceeds from God through the Son;”[1557] and elsewhere: “The Spirit, in every action, is united and indivisible with the Father and the Son; together with God, who assigns the division of ministries, the Holy Spirit also coexists, exercising full authority in the distribution of gifts according to each one’s worth;”[1558]

c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Divinity is called God, although it consists of the three highest: the Cause, the Creator, and the Accomplisher—that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;”[1559]

d) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Everything is accomplished by God the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit;”[1560]

e) Blessed Augustine: “Having come to understand, to the extent permitted to us in this present life, the Trinity, we believe without a doubt that every creature—whether rational, spiritual, or physical— has come into being, possesses its own form, and is wisely governed by the one and same creative Trinity—not, however, in such a way that the Father produced one part of all creation, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit a third, but rather that the Father created everything in general and each nature in particular through the Son by the gift (dono) of the Holy Spirit;”[1561]

e) St. John of Damascus: “God (the Father) creates through thought, and this thought becomes an act, brought to fulfillment by the Word and accomplished by the Spirit.”[1562] It is not difficult for a believer to explain why all three Persons of the Godhead participate in the work of Providence. This is because Providence over the world is an act of God’s omniscience, omnipresence, wisdom, omnipotence, and goodness—attributes that equally belong to all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

§101. The Relationship of Divine Providence to the Freedom of Moral Beings and to the Evil That Exists in the World

Although God’s providence encompasses everything in the world and governs all things, it does so in such a way that the freedom of moral beings is not in the least infringed upon, and the various forms of evil existing in the world do not cast any blame upon the Ruler of the World.

1. Divine Providence does not infringe upon the freedom of moral beings. This is confirmed to us both by the Word of God and by our own conscience and reason, which equally affirm that we are all constantly subject to God’s providence (see §§81, 93) and that we are all free in our moral actions (§§ 97–99). As for how God’s providence, in all its arrangements in the moral world, does not infringe upon the freedom of moral beings—although we cannot fully explain this, we can to some extent bring it within the reach of our understanding.

a) God is an unchanging, omniscient, and infinitely wise Being. As an unchanging Being, having once chosen to grant freedom to His rational creatures, He cannot alter His decision and restrict that freedom or destroy it entirely. As the all-knowing One, He knows in advance all the desires, intentions, and actions of free beings. And as the infinitely wise One, He will always find a way to direct these actions so that the freedom of those acting remains inviolable.

b) God’s providence toward creatures is expressed in the fact that He preserves them, assists or permits them, and governs them. When God preserves moral beings—preserving their existence and powers—then, without a doubt, He does not restrict their freedom—this is self-evident. When He assists them in doing good, He likewise does not restrict their freedom—because they remain the agents, that is, those who choose and perform a certain action, while God merely assists or aids them. When He permits them to commit some evil, He restricts their freedom even less, but merely allows it to act on its own, without His assistance, according to its own will. Finally, in governing moral beings, God’s providence actually directs them toward the end for which they were created, but the proper exercise of their freedom consists in their striving toward the ultimate end of their existence. Consequently, God’s governance in no way restricts moral freedom, but merely assists it in its striving toward that end.

c) We know from experience that we, too, very often through our words, gestures, and various other means, we can incline our neighbors toward certain actions, we can guide them without, however, restricting their freedom—is not the infinitely Wise and Almighty all the more capable of finding ways to guide moral beings in such a way that their freedom suffers not in the least?..

2. The evil that exists in the world does not bring reproach upon the Ruler of the World.

First, moral evil, which consists in the transgression of God’s moral law (Rom. 2:23), does not depend on the Ruler of the World, but on the moral beings themselves, to whom He, having granted freedom, merely permits the commission of sin, but in no way facilitates it.[1563] On the contrary, at the same time, He takes every measure to keep them from sin, forbids it through His laws, threatens sinners with punishment for it (Ex. 20:1–18, etc.), and indeed punishes them (Gen. 7:7 ff.; 19:24–29; Exod. 17:8, 14, etc.), and arranges and ordains circumstances so that the power of sin already committed may be limited and diminished, and good consequences may ensue (Gen. 50:20).[1564] Furthermore, for the gradual weakening and eradication of evil in the world, the Lord, who cares for the world, has not hesitated to employ supernatural means: He has granted His Revelation to people, sent Prophets to them, delivered His only-begotten Son to death, established His Holy Church on earth, bestows His saving grace upon all, and has worked and continues to work countless miracles (cf. §§ 14, 21).

Physical evil, which consists in the imperfection of certain objects that cause harm and suffering to thinking and sentient beings, —

a) in and of itself—that is, without relation to these beings—is not evil, but also serves the perfection of the whole and may be necessary or beneficial for the common good. Such are, for example, earthquakes, storms, and harmful plants. It is well known that even poison, when used correctly, sometimes serves as a medicine, and the color black in paintings, in harmony with other colors, enhances the beauty of the whole.[1565] The only reason we often call certain phenomena on earth “physical evils” is that we view them in isolation, or solely in relation to ourselves, and are unable to consider them as part of the whole and determine their significance.[1566] If, however—

b) When considering the physical evil we observe on earth as it pertains to sentient and rational beings, we must remember that it arose and exists as a consequence of the moral evil committed by the first man: “Cursed is the ground because of you, O man” (Gen. 3:17); for creation was subjected to futility not of its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it (Rom. 8:20); and with regard to man himself, it is a natural consequence of his sins and a just punishment for them (§ 90). On the other hand, God’s providence uses this evil, which arose as a result of man’s fall, as a means of calling sinners to repentance and conversion to the path of truth (1 Kings 9:9; 2 Chron. 33:12, 13; Neh. 9:27; Dan. 4:30), to keep people from falling into sin (Ps. 118:71; 2 Cor. 1:9), to purify them from sin (Prov. 17:3), and to perfect them in virtue (James 1:2–4; Rom. 3:3; 2 Thess. 1:4).

“Diseases in cities and among peoples,” St. Basil the Great argues, “dryness in the air, the barrenness of the earth, and the calamities that befall everyone in life—all these curb the growth of sin. And every evil of this kind is sent by God to prevent the birth of true evils. For both bodily sufferings and external calamities are devised to restrain sin. Thus, God eradicates evil, but evil does not come from God. And a physician eradicates disease, but does not introduce it into the body. As for the destruction of cities, earthquakes, floods, the defeat of armies, shipwrecks, and every mass slaughter of people—whether occurring on land, at sea, in the air, by fire, or for any other reason—these occur in order to keep the survivors on the straight and narrow path; for God disciplines the vices of the whole people through punishments that affect the whole people.”[1567] It goes without saying that in this regard as well, due to the limitations of our reason, we are very often unable to comprehend those hidden plans by which the all-wise Providence allows sentient beings to suffer physical evil.

§102. The Moral Application of the Dogma

Faith in God’s Providence, which cares for everyone and everything in the world, teaches us:

1. To glorify and give thanks to our Lord and Master, as the common Father of all creatures, who, solely out of infinite goodness, granted them existence, and who, solely out of that same goodness, provides for them.

2. To place all our hope in God, fully convinced that whatever may happen to us, He will wisely arrange for our good.

3. To turn to Him in prayer in our times of need, while remembering the words of the Savior: “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him!” (Matt. 7:11).

4. To observe attentively and reverently the ways of God’s providence in our own lives, and to align our conduct with them with all diligence.

5. Following the example of our heavenly Father, who, in His providence for the world, commands His sun to rise on the wicked and the good alike and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45), do good to all—not only to our friends but also to our enemies.

2. On God’s Providence Regarding the Principal Kinds of God’s Creation

2.1. Concerning the spiritual world

§ 103. Connection to the Previous Section and Perspectives on the Subject

From the general doctrine of God’s providence, which encompasses the entire world, naturally follows the specific doctrine of God’s providence with regard to the spiritual world, the material world, and the microcosm—humanity. However, certain features of this specific doctrine are such that they are entirely clear and understandable in light of the general doctrine set forth above and therefore require no further explanation; for example, the idea that God, who preserves the entire world from destruction, also preserves the spiritual world in particular; or that all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity participate in Providence regarding the material world. Other parts, however, although they are also based on the general doctrine of Providence, require a more detailed exposition for greater clarity and ease of understanding on our part, or because of their complexity and relevance to us.

Thus, speaking of God’s Providence in relation to the spiritual world, which consists of good angels and evil angels, the Orthodox Church teaches, on the one hand, that God assists the good angels and governs them in accordance with the purpose of their existence; and on the other hand, that He merely permits the evil activities of the evil angels and, as far as possible, has limited and continues to limit them, while at the same time directing them toward good outcomes.

§ 104. God Assists the Good Angels

The Church’s teaching on God’s assistance to the good angels can be seen in the following words: “They (the angelic orders) are arranged in such a way that the lower angels receive God’s enlightenment and blessings through the higher ones. These angels have been established in God’s grace forever; since they did not agree with Lucifer to rebel against God, they have received His grace in such a way that they can no longer sin—not by their own nature, but by God’s grace” (The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 20). That is to say:

1. God assists the angel’s mind in its pursuit of truth by imparting enlightenment and revelations from Himself. This idea is grounded in those passages of Holy Scripture where it is stated:

a) that angels dwell in heaven (Matt. 22:30; Mark 13:32), surround the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), and always behold the face of My Heavenly Father (Matt. 18:10); consequently, they know God directly, and through Him, all things;

b) that God is spiritual light (1 John 1:5), eternal light (Isa. 60:19–20); consequently, as He spreads His rays, He first and foremost illuminates with them the preeminent spirits surrounding His throne;

c) finally, that God often reveals His will to the angels—either in a special way or on special occasions—in order to communicate it to people (Dan. 9:21, 27; Luke 1:26–38, etc.).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have repeated this idea very often; for example:

a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Such (i.e., above the passions) is, first of all, the most radiant and great God; and following Him, such are also God’s servants, who stand near the high throne, receive upon themselves the first ray of the pure God, and, enlightened by it, impart light to mortals;”[1568] and in another place: “These (angelic) natures—as another might sing of them—are either illuminated by the purest radiance from the First Cause, or, according to their nature and rank, receive a different illumination in a different manner; they have so conceived and imprinted the Good within themselves that they have become secondary lights, and through the outpouring and transmission of the first Light, they are able to enlighten others;”[1569]

b) Saint Athanasius the Great: “The thrones, seraphim, and cherubim are taught directly by God, as the highest of all and closest to God; then they teach the other orders, and in this way, the higher ones teach the lower ones in order;”[1570]

c) St. Ephrem the Syrian: “When the heavenly spirits wish to learn something about the Son, they turn with their questions to the higher angels, and these are taught by the prompting of the Spirit;”[1571]

d) Blessed Augustine: “The true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world” (John 1:9)—this same light also enlightens every luminous angel, provided that he is light not in himself but in God; but as soon as an angel turns away from God, he becomes dark, just like all the so-called dark spirits, who are now no longer light in the Lord but darkness in themselves, having been deprived of communion with the eternal Light;”[1572]

d) St. John of Damascus: “Angels are the second rational lights, deriving their illumination from the first and eternal Light”...; and further: “All angels were created by the Word and received perfection from the Holy Spirit through sanctification, becoming partakers of illumination and grace, according to their dignity and rank...; they possess sanctification not from their own essence, but from the Spirit; they prophesy by the grace of God....; They differ from one another in illumination and rank, either by possessing a rank corresponding to their illumination or by participating in illumination in proportion to their rank, and by enlightening one another according to the preeminence of their rank or nature. But it is known that the higher ones impart illumination and knowledge to the lower ones.”[1573]

2. God supports the angels’ free will in its activity through His almighty grace, by means of which they have already become so firmly established in goodness that they cannot fall and will remain good forever. The first half of this thought follows naturally, on the one hand, from the fact that angels, as finite beings who do not have life in themselves (John 5:26), but having received it from the source of life (Ps. 35:10), necessarily require, for the continuation of their life and activity, constant sustenance from God, and, like all creatures, look to Him to provide them with food (Ps. 103:27), which for them can be nothing other than God’s grace. On the other hand—since, as Scripture teaches, God sustains all things, and consequently the angels, by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), and gives life to all things, and consequently to the angels (1 Tim. 6:13; Neh. 9:6); that in His hand is the soul of every living thing (Job 12:10), and although there are distinctions in the world regarding spiritual gifts, ministries, and works, it is the same triune Lord who works all things in all (1 Cor. 12:4–6), and consequently, in the angels as well. The second part of this thought—namely, that angels are immune to evil by the grace of God and are established in goodness forever—is confirmed by passages of Scripture where angels are called God’s servants who carry out His will (Ps. 102:21; cf. Matt. 6:10), and as His chosen angels (1 Tim. 5:21); they are depicted as living in heaven in the presence of God Himself (Matt. 22:30) and enjoying the blessed vision of Him (Matt. 18:10); and where it is stated that the angels will remain holy even at the end of the world, when, together with them, the Lord will appear to judge the living and the dead (Matt. 25:31), and that they will remain members of the Church triumphant in heaven (Heb. 12:22–23), or the kingdom of glory, which is to exist forever and ever (Rev. 22:5).

Among the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, the idea we are exploring is expressed with particular force by:

St. Basil the Great: “They (the angels) are impervious to sin, being, as it were, immediately covered by sanctification as if by a certain substance, and possessing steadfastness in virtue through the gift of the Holy Spirit.”[1574] “The principalities and powers, and every similar creature that possesses holiness within itself as a result of attentiveness and diligence, cannot, in all fairness, be called holy by nature, because, desiring good, they receive a measure of holiness in proportion to their love for God. And just as iron placed in the midst of fire does not cease to be iron, but, having been heated to the utmost resemblance to fire and having taken on all the properties of fire, and in both color and action comes to resemble fire—so too do these holy Powers, as a result of their communion with the Holy One by nature, possess within themselves a holiness that has already permeated their entire being and become united with their nature. The difference between them and the Holy Spirit, however, is that in the Spirit holiness is His very nature, whereas in them it is sanctification through communion.”[1575]

“If we were to mentally remove the Spirit, the angelic ranks would be disrupted, and the archangelic principalities would be destroyed; everything would fall into confusion, and their lives would become lawless, disorderly, and indefinite. For how could the angels, without receiving power from the Spirit, say, ‘Glory to God in the highest’ (Luke 2:14)? No one speaking by the Spirit of God will utter a curse against Jesus, and no one can call Jesus ‘Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).” “Just as at night, if you take a light out of the house, your eyes are blinded, your strength remains idle, and the worth of things is not recognized, and gold and silver are trampled underfoot like the earth out of ignorance, so too it is impossible for wise officials to live in accordance with the law without the Spirit, just as order in an army is impossible without a commander and harmony among a choir of singers is impossible without a choirmaster to bring them into harmony. As the seraphim would say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts ( )” (Isa. 6:3), if they had not been taught by the Spirit, how many times over would the proclamation of this praise be pious? Therefore, if all His angels praise God, and all His powers praise Him, it is by the working of the Spirit. If thousands upon thousands of angels and multitudes of those who serve them stand before Him, it is by the power of the Spirit that they perform the work of their service without blemish. Therefore, all that heavenly and ineffable harmony—both in service to God and in the mutual agreement among the pre-eternal powers—cannot be preserved except under the guidance of the Spirit.

Thus, in creation, the Holy Spirit is present in creatures not as something gradually perfected, but as something already perfect from the moment of creation, and He imparts to them from Himself the grace for the perfection and fulfillment of every being (τής ύποστάσεως).”[1576]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “It is entirely foreign to God—the first and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is peaceful and serene)—to sin; and likewise, I dare say, to the angelic nature, or the nature closest to God, by reason of that very closeness.”[1577] “I would like to say that they are immovable toward evil and have a single movement toward the good, as beings existing in the presence of God (for the earthly realm enjoys a secondary illumination); but the Morning Star, by virtue of her brightness, convinces me to acknowledge and call them not immovable, but hard to move; whereas the one who, through pride, became and is called darkness, along with the godless powers subject to him—who, through their separation from the good, have become the cause of evil and draw us into it.”[1578] “The Holy Spirit acted, first of all, in the angelic and heavenly powers—those who are first after God and surround God—for their perfection and illumination, as well as their resistance to or immovability from evil, come from none other than the Holy Spirit.”[1579]

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem: “You have seen His (the Holy Spirit’s) power at work throughout the world; do not remain on earth, but ascend to the heights; lift your mind to the first heaven, and behold there the countless myriads of angels. If you can, let your thoughts soar even higher. Look upon the archangels, look upon these spirits, look upon the powers, look upon the principalities, look upon the authorities, look upon the thrones, look upon the dominions. The Comforter for all of them is the Ruler from God, the Teacher, and the Sanctifier.”[1580] “He has life and self-existence; He speaks, acts, and is the Sanctifier of all rational beings created by God through Christ—that is, angels and humans.”[1581]

Ambrose: “Just as the Holy Spirit, in sanctifying the Apostles, did not become a partaker of human nature, so too, in sanctifying the angels, principalities, and powers, He does not become a part of creation. And whoever were to think that angels possess holiness not from the Holy Spirit, but some other grace by virtue of their nature, would in truth be acknowledging angels to be inferior to humans. For if it is impossible—as everyone will agree—to compare angels to the Holy Spirit and to deny that the Holy Spirit is poured out into the hearts of people, and that sanctification by the Spirit is a gift from God, then surely there must be people who possess the greatest sanctification, whom it would be necessary to place above the angels. But since angels are sent to help people (Heb. 1:14), it must be understood that the nature of angels is higher than that of humans and is more receptive to spiritual grace.”[1582]

St. John of Damascus: “Angels are not easily inclined toward evil, but they are not entirely immune to it. Now, however, they are completely immune, not by their very nature, but by grace and by their constant closeness to the one Good.”[1583]

§ 105. God directs the good angels in their service to God

When it is said that God governs the angels, as He does all His creatures in general, this means that He directs them toward the purpose of their existence or employs them in accordance with their calling. But “angels, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, were brought by God from non-existence into existence so that they might glorify Him and serve Him, and furthermore serve people in this world, guiding them into the kingdom of God” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 19). Thus, the Almighty’s governance of the angels consists in His employing them, in accordance with their purpose:

a) to serve Himself, and—

b) to serve people.

The angels’ service to God is of two kinds:

1) They serve God directly by standing before Him, worshiping Him, and glorifying Him. The prophet Isaiah saw that the seraphim stood around the throne of God, and they called out to one another, saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts! The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isa. 6:3). The prophet Daniel was also granted a vision of the Ancient of Days, seated on the heavenly throne, with thousands upon thousands of angels serving Him and multitudes standing before Him (Dan. 7:10). The psalmist repeatedly calls upon the angels to praise the Lord (Ps. 148:2), to bless Him (102:20), and to worship Him (96:7). The seer of the New Testament testifies concerning the heavenly hosts: neither by day nor by night do they rest, crying out, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Rev. 4:8); and in another place: all the angels stood around the throne... fell on their faces before the throne, and worshiped God, saying: “Amen! Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen” (7:11–12).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also reiterate this same truth about the angels’ direct service to God:

a) St. Basil the Great: “The occupation of the angels is to glorify God. The entire heavenly host has but one task—to ascribe glory to the Creator;”[1584] or: “The primary and nature-appropriate purpose of their life is to fix their gaze on the beauty of God and to glorify God unceasingly;”[1585]

b) Saint Gregory the Theologian: “In second place (after God) are the great ministers of the highest Light, as close to primordial Goodness as the ether is to the sun;”[1586] “They sing of God’s greatness, contemplate His eternal glory, and do so eternally;”[1587]

c) St. Athanasius the Great: “What is the occupation of the heavenly powers? Unceasing praise and constant love for divine majesty;”[1588]

d) Blessed Theodoret: “The service of the angels consists in singing songs of praise. For regarding the seraphim, the blessed Isaiah says that they call out to one another and say: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!’ (6:3). As for the cherubim, the divine Ezekiel said that he heard them saying: ‘Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place’ (3:12);”[1589]

d) St. John of Damascus: “They (the angels) dwell in heaven, and their sole task is to sing the praises of God and serve His divine will.”[1590]

It should be added that, since angels are completely incorporeal spirits, their presence before God, their praise, and their worship should be understood in a spiritual sense.

2) They serve God as instruments of His providence over the universe. This is confirmed by Scripture, which refers to them primarily as angels (άγγελός, messenger) (Heb. 1:4–6; 1 Tim. 5:1, etc.), angels of God (Matt. 22:30; Luke 15:10), angels of the Lord (Matt. 1:20; Acts 5:19; 12:7)—that is, beings sent by God into the world to carry out His commands; it also refers to them as His powers ( ) and His servants who carry out His will (Ps. 102:20–21), and presents numerous instances of their actual mission to the world (Gen. ch. 18:19, 28; Dan. 9:21; Luke 1:28; Matt. 1:20, etc.). The teachers of the Church also preach this, for example:

a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Of them (the angels), some stand before the great God, while others, through their assistance, sustain the entire world;”[1591] and further: “These minds have each taken upon themselves some part of the universe, or have been assigned to some particular thing in the world, as was known to Him who arranged and distributed all things, and they all lead to one end, at the behest of the Creator of all things;”[1592]

b) Blessed Theodoret: “They not only sing songs of praise, but also serve God in the works of His divine providence;”[1593]

c) St. John of Damascus: “They are powerful and ready to fulfill God’s will, and by the swiftness of their nature they immediately appear everywhere the Divine will commands. They also guard the parts of the earth, rule over peoples and places as appointed by the Creator, order our affairs, and help us.”[1594]

In particular, angels serve as instruments of God’s providence:

1. Concerning the angelic world itself. From the very beginning, the Lord God, in accordance with the differences among incorporeal spirits in terms of their natural powers and perfections, divided them into classes and established a hierarchy or sacred order among them, so that there are higher and lower ranks among them, there are those in authority and those under authority, and some, in relation to their service, are called, for example, principalities, dominions, and powers (Col. 1:16), others—archangels (1 Thess. 4:19), and still others—simply angels (1 Pet. 3:22) (see § 66 above). As a result of this structure of the heavenly world, the Most High governs the angels only through the angels themselves, and the lower orders of angels receive enlightenment and sanctification from God, and are led by Him to the ultimate goal of their existence, only through the higher ones. We have already had occasion to examine the teachings on this subject by certain Holy Fathers, such as Athanasius the Great, Ephrem the Syrian, and John of Damascus.[1595]

Now it suffices to cite, albeit in abbreviated form, the thoughts on this subject of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, who delved most deeply into and gained insight into the mysteries of the heavenly hierarchy. He specifically states:

a) that “the highest hierarchy—the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones—being especially close to the incomprehensible Being, presides over the second hierarchy, which is farther removed; and the second, consisting of the holy dominions, powers, and authorities, governs the hierarchy of principalities, archangels, and angels, which is situated even farther from the Lord;”[1596]

b) that “in every hierarchy—not only among the higher and lower orders, but also among those of the same rank—there are first, middle, and last ranks and powers, and the higher ones serve as secret guides and leaders to the lower ones;”[1597]

c) that this very leadership and activity of the heavenly orders “is divided into their own reception and the communication to others of true purification, divine light, and perfecting knowledge: the first hierarchy, situated directly around God and close to God, receives all this from Him Himself and communicates it to the second; the second, receiving no longer directly from God but from the first, transmits it to the third. And therefore—

d) the first minds are called perfecting, enlightening, and purifying powers in relation to the lower ones, and these latter, through the former, are raised to the highest Principle of all, and become, as far as possible, partakers of the mysterious purifications, enlightenments, and perfections.”[1598] In this way—

d) “every rank of the hierarchy, to the best of its ability, participates in the divine works and in the providential power through the communication of its powers to the lower ones.”[1599]

2. On the material world. At the very least, the Book of Revelation contains accounts of four angels holding back the four winds of the earth (7:1), of the angel of the waters (16:5), and of the angel who has authority over fire (14:18). Based on these references, there has long existed in the Church of Christ—if not a dogmatic teaching, then at least the view—that God entrusts to the angels the governance of parts and elements of the visible world. The holy martyr Justin expresses this idea: “God has entrusted the care of human beings and of all that is under heaven to the angels, whom He has set over all these things.”[1600] Even more emphatically, Athenagoras states: “God, the Creator and Architect of the world, divided them (the angels) by His word and placed them over the elements, over the heavens, over the world, over all that is in it, and over its order.”[1601] Next come Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory the Theologian, Jerome, Augustine, John of Damascus, and our own Russian saint, Dimitry of Rostov.[1602] Some accepted the existence of specific angels placed over various parts of the organic and inorganic world,[1603] over animals,[1604] over plants [1605] and, in general, over all visible objects.[1606]

3. On the lesser world, or the human race. In this regard, the holy Apostle Paul speaks clearly about angels: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb. 1:14)? But this last type of angelic ministry, because of its importance and its closeness to us, deserves the most detailed consideration.

§ 106. God directs the good angels in their service to humanity in general

The Orthodox Church teaches the following regarding the service of angels to people: “They are sent to guard cities, kingdoms, regions, monasteries, churches, and people, both spiritual and secular... In the Old Testament, before the Law of Moses was given, angels taught our forefathers the Law and the will of God, and showed them the path to salvation; and afterward, when the Law was given, they instructed them and guided them toward the good... They also proclaim the works of God—for example, at the birth of Christ, they revealed to the shepherds that Christ had been born in Bethlehem. Furthermore, by God’s command, they are present everywhere with every person” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 19). From this it is evident that the ministry of angels to humankind is divided into three distinct spheres. Angels—

1) served the entire human race when they took an active part in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, or the Church of God, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament;

2) serve human communities: these are the guardian angels of kingdoms, regions, and churches;

3) serve individual people: these are the guardian angels of private individuals.

The sacred books clearly testify that angels served all of humanity in the establishment of the Church of God on earth:

In the Old Testament Church—

1. Angels often taught people God’s will even before the Law, during the patriarchal period, when they appeared to the righteous, for example: to Abraham (Gen. ch. 18), Lot (19), and Jacob (28:12; 32:1–2)—either to reveal the future to them, to protect them from destruction, to comfort them, or to offer them a helping hand; and sometimes they were sent to execute sinners according to God’s righteous judgment—for example, the inhabitants of Sodom (Gen. 19:13)—for the instruction and edification of all who dwell on earth (2 Pet. 2:6).

2. Through the mediation or participation of angels, the Law itself was given to people, written on tablets, as is evident:

a) in part from Moses’ account that God the Lawgiver appeared on Mount Sinai with a host of holy ones (Deut. 33:2);

b) even more so from the words of the first martyr Stephen to the Jews: “You who received the Law through the ministry of angels (είς διαταγάς άγγέλων) and did not keep it” (Acts 7:53); and—

c) from the statement of the holy Apostle Paul that the Law was given through angels (διαταγείς δι’ αγγέλων) (Gal. 3:19; cf. Heb. 2:2).

3. Finally, angels often instructed people even after the written law had been given to them, appearing to prophets such as Daniel (9:21) and Zechariah (3:1) and revealing to them God’s will concerning human salvation.

In the history of the New Testament Church:

1. We see angels as servants of the very Author and Finisher of our faith at all the most crucial moments of His exalted ministry to the human race. Specifically—

a) at His coming to earth, when angels announced the conception of His Forerunner (Luke 1:28) and His own (Matt. 1:20), and proclaimed and glorified His birth (Luke 2:9);

b) at the beginning of His public ministry as a teacher, when, after the Lord’s temptation by the devil in the wilderness, the angels came and ministered to Him (Matthew 4:1);

c) before His death on the cross, by which He redeemed us from the curse of the Law, in the Garden of Gethsemane, an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him (Luke 22:43);

d) at His ascension into heaven (Acts 1:11), from where He sent down the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

2. Angels also served the holy Apostles, to whom the Lord, upon His ascension into heaven, entrusted the task of completing the establishment of His kingdom of grace on earth, a work He Himself had begun. Thus, an angel freed the Apostles from the prison where the enemies of the Cross of Christ had imprisoned them (Acts 5:19); an angel later freed the Apostle Peter from prison (Acts 12:7); an angel instructed the Gentile Cornelius to invite this apostle to his home and receive baptism from him (Acts 10:3); an angel comforted the holy Apostle Paul during a terrible storm at sea that threatened him and those with him with death (Acts 27:23), and so on.

§107. Guardian Angels of Human Societies

The Lord entrusts entire human societies to the care of angels.

1. There are guardian angels of kingdoms and nations. The basis for this teaching is found in the Book of Daniel (ch. 10). It is recounted there that once, when Daniel intensified his prayers to God for the deliverance of the Jews from Persian oppression and prayed for three weeks (3), an archangel (Gabriel) appeared to him and said: “From the very first day, as soon as you began to pray, your words were heard, and I came at your request to the throne of the Most High to intercede for you.”[1607] But for a full twenty-one days (that is, three weeks), while I was praying with you for the deliverance of your people from the yoke of Persia, the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood against me (13) and pleaded with God to keep the Jews under Persian rule. And it was not until Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me in my intercession for the Jews that I remained there with the kings of Persia. And now I have come to tell you what will happen to your people in the last days (13–14). “Now I must return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I have gone out, behold, the prince of Greece will come (20). However, I will reveal to you what is written in the true Scripture; and there is no one to support me in this except Michael, your prince (21).” Let us not forget that the one who spoke these words was sent to Daniel by God from heaven; therefore, the event of which the heavenly messenger spoke took place in the heavenly realm, to which he was hastening to return in order to fight against the prince of Persia. If so, then the names of the princes of the Persian, Greek, and Jewish kingdoms must be understood not as earthly princes but as heavenly ones—that is, angels— to whom God had entrusted those kingdoms. This is all the more certain because the Jewish prince is explicitly named Michael—a name that belongs to one of the archangels of the heavenly powers; and on earth, in the days of Daniel, there was no prince named Michael among the Jews.[1608] On this basis,[1609] the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have consistently taught that there are guardian angels for entire nations, as is evident from the words:

a) St. Dionysius the Areopagite: “Theology entrusts the spiritual leadership over us to the angels when it calls Michael the prince of the Jewish people, just as it calls other angels the princes of other nations;”[1610]

b) St. Basil the Great: “All angels share both a single name and, of course, the same nature common to all; however, some of them are appointed to rule over nations, while others are appointed to be companions to each of the faithful. But to the same extent that an entire people is preferable to a single person, so too, without a doubt, is the dignity of the angel who rules over a people necessarily higher than that of the angel entrusted with the care of a single person;”[1611]

c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Each (angel) is granted special authority by the King to oversee people, cities, and entire nations;”[1612]

d) Blessed Theodoret: “The divine prophet Daniel says that some of them are entrusted with authority over nations: ‘the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood against me’ (10:13). He also mentions the prince of Greece, and adds that there was no one who could help him intercede before God for the freedom of the Jews, except Michael, their prince (Dan. 10:20–21)...; some of the angels rule over entire nations, while others are entrusted with the care of each individual person;”[1613]

d) St. John of Damascus: “They (the angels) guard parts of the earth and rule over peoples and places, as appointed to do so by the Creator;”[1614] and many other Holy Fathers.[1615]

What, then, does the ministry of the angels who govern nations consist of? Undoubtedly, it consists in promoting in every way the good of the peoples entrusted to them and in protecting them or delivering them from all evil; in guiding them along the path of civic improvement, and especially in leading them to God, to enlightenment through the saving faith of Christ, if they have not yet been enlightened, and along the path of Christian piety, if they have already been enlightened—this is self-evident from the concept of God the Provident, who entrusts the care of the peoples to the angels, and from the concept of the good angels themselves, to whom such a commission is given. “All angels,” says Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, ‘each placed over his own people, lift up to God, as their source, as much as they can, those who willingly obey them; and other peoples (besides the Jewish people) were not ruled by some foreign gods, but by the one Source of all, and the angels, each presiding over his own people, led their followers to Him.’”[1616] “These minds,” notes St. Gregory the Theologian ( ), “each received a certain part of the universe, or were assigned to a particular thing in the world, as was known to the One who arranged and distributed all things, and they all lead to a single end, at the behest of the Creator of all things.”[1617]

The guardian angels of nations have two primary means of achieving their purpose. The first is intercession before God and prayer for the peoples entrusted to them, as is evident from the prayerful discourse of the angels who govern the nations before the throne of God, mentioned in chapter 10 of the prophet Daniel, and from another intercession for the Jewish people by Michael, their prince, which is mentioned further on (ch. 12:1). And the prayer of the most perfect spirits and those closest to God can undoubtedly be stronger and more effective than the prayer of human beings themselves or even of entire nations. The second is the instilling in people—especially kings and other rulers—of thoughts and intentions pertaining to the welfare of the nations: “Thus,” notes St. Dionysius, “Pharaoh was informed by an angel (Gen. 41:1–28) appointed over the Egyptians, and the king of Babylon was informed by his angel in visions about the Providence and power of the Lord who governs all and reigns over all.”[1618] And since angels are comparatively more perfect in intellect, they can better understand the needs of the kingdoms and peoples entrusted to them and inspire rulers with the most beneficial counsel than any that humans can offer.

2. There are guardian angels of individual churches or communities of believers. Evidence of this can be found in the Book of Revelation, in the words of the Lord who appeared to John: “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in My right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (1:20). Here it clearly speaks of the angels of the churches (the seven in Asia Minor); and although later (in chapters 2 and 3), as one might conclude, this title is applied to the bishops or visible leaders of the aforementioned churches, it is applied figuratively—precisely because there are also invisible leaders and guardians of the churches, who are the angels of the churches in the proper sense. Thus, or in a similar manner, the following argued:

a) Origen: “Judging by what John wrote in the Book of Revelation, an angel is assigned to every church in general;”[1619]

b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “I am certain that a special angel watches over every church, as John teaches me in the Book of Revelation (1:20);”[1620]

c) Saint Epiphanius: “John, in the Book of Revelation, wrote on behalf of Christ the Lord to one of the churches—or to the bishop presiding over it—with the assistance of the holy angel who is the guardian of the altar: ‘It is good that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate’ (Rev. 2:6).”[1621] We also find this teaching about angels who oversee communities of believers:

a) in St. Ambrose: “To protect God’s flock, the Lord not only appointed bishops but also assigned angels;”[1622]

b) in St. Basil the Great—who wrote to the presbyters of the Church of Nicopolis: “You are grieved that you have been cast out from the protection of the walls; but you dwell in the shelter of the heavenly God, and with you is the guardian angel of the Church (i.e., of Nicopolis);”[1623] and in the writings of others.[1624]

The purpose for which God assigns guardian angels to individual churches can be none other than for them to be the guides of these churches and all their members toward the heavenly homeland; so that, as those who are stronger before God, they may intercede before His throne on behalf of the spiritual flocks entrusted to them, and, as wiser beings, may instruct the shepherds themselves and inspire them with saving counsel for their flock—this is what sound concepts of God, who entrusts, and of the angels, to whom the communities of believers are entrusted for safekeeping, teach us to believe. St. Gregory the Theologian writes the following about this in one passage, albeit in passing: “The Lord calls out to the guardian angels (for I am certain that a special angel watches over every church, as John teaches me in the Apocalypse): Prepare the way for the people! Level, level the road; remove the stones (Isa. 62:10), so that there may be no hindrance or obstacle for My people in their divine procession and entry—now into man-made temples, and later into the heavenly Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies there.”[1625]

§ 108. Guardian Angels of Individuals

1. The doctrine of guardian angels for individuals has a firm foundation in Holy Scripture.

1.1. Traces of this teaching can already be found in the books of the Old Testament. Thus, the Psalmist, describing the condition of those who fear God and trust in Him, says in one passage: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them” (Ps. 33:8); and in another: “No evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your dwelling; for He will command His angels concerning you—to guard you in all your ways” (Ps. 90:10–11). From this it is evident, at the very least, that God sends angels even to individuals, who encamp around those who fear Him and preserve them in all their ways; consequently, they preserve them constantly, throughout their entire lives—although it is not yet clear whether a specific, designated angel is assigned to each such person.[1626]

1.2. In the New Testament, the Savior Himself clearly expresses the idea of special guardian angels assigned to each of those who believe in Him. In response to His disciples’ question: “Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?” (Matt. 18:1), the Lord called a little child, set him in their midst, and said: “Truly I tell you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven; therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven; and whoever receives one such child (here, obviously, the child is understood in a spiritual sense—that is, anyone who has turned to Christianity and humbled himself like this child) in My name receives Me: but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble (an even clearer indication that “the little ones” or “children” here refer to believers in Christ, the meek and humble of heart), it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea (2–6). After saying a few more words about temptations—how numerous and destructive they are in the world, and how to fight against them (vv. 7–9)—the Lord again turned His thoughts to those little ones whom He had just called believers in Him, and concluded: “See that you do not despise any of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Heavenly Father” (10). It is precisely in these final words that we find the clear teaching that every believer in Christ has his or her own special guardian angel. For—

a) as we have seen from the entire context of the Savior’s discourse, by “the little ones” or “infants” He meant precisely His followers—infants in the spiritual sense—and

b) it is of them that He spoke: “Their angels” (οΐ άγγελοι αυτών), that is, the angels assigned to each of them, their own personal angels. The most eminent Church Fathers—Basil the Great, Chrysostom, and others—understood the Savior’s words about the little ones and their angels in precisely this sense.[1627]

1.3. As a result of such clear teaching from the Lord Himself, the belief in the existence of a special guardian angel for every Christian already existed in the Apostolic Church, as the following incident demonstrates (Acts, chapter 12). The Apostle Peter, by order of Herod, was imprisoned and kept under the strictest guard (4). The entire church prayed earnestly for his release (5). And one night, when many had gathered in Mary’s house and were praying (12), the Apostle, having been miraculously led out of prison by an angel, suddenly arrived at that house and knocked on the door. A servant girl, rushing out at the sound of the knock, recognized Peter’s voice, and, overcome with joy, without even opening the door, hurried back with the news that Peter had arrived. Stunned by the surprise, the Christians did not want to believe the servant, thinking she had made a mistake, and when she insisted, they finally said, “Surely it is not he himself, but his angel”—they said, “It is his angel” (15). What is important here, first, is the very expression: “his angel,” that is, a special angel assigned personally to the Apostle Peter; and second, the fact that they put it this way. Consequently, this was what all the Christians present at the prayer meeting believed at that time, and there were many of them.[1628]

1.4. Finally, the idea of guardian angels for individuals can be derived from the Apostle Paul’s words about angels: are they not all ministering spirits, sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14)? If angels are sent to minister to those who are to inherit salvation, and all who have been baptized into Christ and believe in Him certainly belong to the number of those who desire it, then it follows that angels are sent to minister to each and every believer in Christ.

2. The Holy Fathers and pastors of the early Church not only unanimously taught that there truly are guardian angels for individuals, but, whenever possible, they even explained this teaching in detail. They sought to determine: 1) to whom exactly and from what time a guardian angel is assigned; 2) whether the guardian angel remains with the person constantly from that time onward; and 3) what exactly his ministry to the person consists of.

2.1. Drawing on the words of the psalmist about the angel of the Lord who encamps only around those who fear God (Ps. 33:8), as well as the words of the Savior that it is precisely the little ones who believe in Him who see the face of My Heavenly Father (Matt. 18:10), and finally the words of the holy Apostle regarding the sending of angels to those who desire to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14), the most eminent teachers of the Church concluded that a guardian angel is not given indiscriminately to every person, but only to Christians; and consequently, is granted as soon as they become Christians, that is, from the time of baptism; and some added that in the Old Testament it was granted only to those Jews who believed in the coming Messiah. This idea is expressed, for example, by:

Origen: “To each of us, even the least among us, who is in the Church of God, a good angel is assigned—an angel of the Lord—who instructs, persuades, and guides us; who, to correct our deeds and intercede for us, always beholds the face of the Heavenly Father, as the Lord said in the Gospel.”[1629]

St. Basil the Great: “To each of the faithful is assigned an angel worthy to behold the Heavenly Father;”[1630] and elsewhere: “No one will dispute that with each of the faithful there is an angel who, as a guardian and shepherd, guides his life, remembering the words of the Lord, who said: ‘Do not despise even one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Heavenly Father’ (Matt. 18:10). And the Psalmist says: ‘The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him’ (Ps. 33:8).”[1631]

St. John Chrysostom: “Formerly, the angels were as numerous as the nations, but now they are as numerous as the believers. How do we know this? Listen to what Christ says: ‘See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Heavenly Father’ (Matt. 18:10). Know, then, that every believer has an angel, and every righteous person of old had an angel, as Jacob says: ‘May the angel who delivers me from all harm bless these young men’ (Gen. 48:16).”[1632]

Saint Ambrose: “God sends His angels to protect and assist those who have been granted the right to inherit the promised blessings in the life to come.”[1633]

Saint Anastasius of Sinai: “To those who have been deemed worthy of baptism and who soar to the heights of virtue, God grants angels who care for them and assist them in their spiritual enlightenment... The Lord assures us of this when He says that there are guardian angels for everyone who believes in Him.”[1634]

Similar thoughts about guardian angels are also found in the writings of many other teachers of the Church.[1635] However, some expressed these ideas in less definite terms, saying that a guardian angel is given to every person,[1636] or that an angel is assigned to the soul from the very moment of a person’s birth.[1637]

2.2. Based on the very same words of the Psalmist—that angels encamp only around those who fear God (Ps. 33:8)—the ancient teachers of the Church concluded:

a) that a guardian angel remains with every believer constantly, throughout his entire life, as long as he remains God-fearing; and

b) that the guardian angel sometimes leaves a Christian when he ceases to fear God and turns to wickedness—or, in other words, that our sins can drive our angels away from us. This was the reasoning of, for example:

a) Basil the Great: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him—the angel will not depart from all who have believed in the Lord, unless we ourselves drive him away by our evil deeds; for just as smoke drives away bees and stench drives away doves, so too does a grievous and foul-smelling sin drive away the guardian of our life—the angel;”[1638] and elsewhere: “Since each of us has a holy angel who stands guard around those who fear the Lord, he may, upon being exposed in sin, become subject to calamity; the wall—that is, the protection of the holy powers—will cease to shield him, for as long as they remain with a person, they keep those they guard invincible;”[1639]

b) Hilary: “If the angels of little ones see the face of our Heavenly Father every day (Matt. 18:10), can we then fail to fear the testimony of those who, as we know, dwell with us daily and stand before God?”[1640]

c) Evagrius: “The wicked person separates himself from the angel given to him from childhood, because spiritual fellowship is possible only through virtue and the knowledge of God, through which we enter into communion with the holy angels.”[1641]

2.3. Finally, in accordance with the words of Saint Paul: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister on behalf of those who are to inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14), the teachers of the Church held that, in general, “the ministry of angels (guardians) to us consists in promoting our salvation, according to God’s will.”[1642] In particular, they taught that angels are:

a) Our faithful guides in faith and piety (2 Kings 1:3, 15–17; Zech. 2:3; Judg. 2:1–6). “(Angels) are our helpers in understanding God’s commandments and will,” writes Hilary, “bringing us blessed peace... Our eyes are lifted up to them: for through them, by means of their instruction, the mind’s ascent to the highest and eternal is accomplished .”[1643] “When I longed for great success,” John Climacus testifies of himself, “an angel appeared to me and enlightened me.”[1644]

b) The guardians of our souls and bodies (Ps. 90:10–11). The following testimonies pertain to this:

aa) St. Basil the Great: “Just as city walls, encircling the city, repel enemy attacks from all sides, so too does the angel serve as a wall in front, guard from behind, and leave nothing unprotected on either side. That is why a thousand and ten thousand may fall at your side and on your right hand; but no blow from any of your enemies will come near you (Ps. 90:7), for He commands His angels concerning you (11);”[1645]

bb) Ambrose: “Christ’s servants are protected from calamities more by those who are invisible—that is, the angels—than by those who are visible;”[1646]

cc) Hilary: “In our weakness, we would be unable to withstand all the malicious attacks of so many spiritual enemies if angels had not been given to us for protection;”[1647]

dd) Theodore the Studite: “You have the Lord, whom you love, close to you; you also have an angel, the guardian of your life, whose duty is to deliver you from all evil.”[1648]

c) Our intercessors and advocates before God (Matt. 18:10; Rev. 8:3; Tob. 12:15–20). They are described as follows:

a) Hilary: “It is an indisputable truth that angels are present during the prayers of the faithful; thus, the prayers of those saved by Christ are daily offered up to God by the angels;”[1649]

b) Nilus, a disciple of St. John Chrysostom: “For the holy angels exhort us to prayer and stand with us, rejoicing together and praying for us;”[1650]

c) John Climacus: “When, during any part of your prayer, you feel inner delight or tenderness, pause there; for then your guardian angel is praying together with us.”[1651]

d) They do not abandon us at the very moment of death and lead the souls of the departed to the realm of eternity (Luke 16:22). The following authors write about this:

a) Theodore the Studite: “Always keep the thought of death in your mind...; reflect on the very separation of the soul from the body—a separation that will take place under the watchful care of your angel; reflect also on the subsequent leading of the soul into the heavenly realm;”[1652]

b) Cyril of Alexandria: “It (the soul) is supported by the holy angels as it journeys through the air, and as it ascends, it encounters the toll-houses that guard the ascent, holding back and stopping the ascending souls;”[1653]

c) Hilary: “The righteous are filled with joy when, having been led by angels to the abode of eternal rest, they turn their thoughts to the retribution deserved by sinners.”[1654]

3. Regarding the objections raised by those of erroneous thinking concerning the service of angels to humans in general, we note the following:

3.1. That this ministry by no means can be called superfluous in light of God’s providence, because angels are merely instruments of God’s providence, and providence generally operates in the world in two ways: not only directly, through its almighty power, but also through beings subject to Him. Thus, God provides for the kingdoms of the earth (Dan. 4:14, 22); but He appoints kings and other lower authorities as the visible instruments of His providence over them (Rom. 13:4). He also provides for His holy Church (Eph. 1:22); yet He visibly governs it through pastors and teachers (Acts 20:28). He also provides for the nature we see (Matt. 6:26, 30); but He warms and sustains it through the light of the sun and other agents of nature itself (Matt. 5:45). In the same way, He may appoint angels as the invisible instruments of His care for humanity.

3.2 That this service of angels to people is in no way humiliating for the former—just as it is not humiliating for kings to care for the welfare of their subjects, and consequently to serve them; it is not humiliating for shepherds to serve their flock; nor for teachers to serve the young people under their guidance; in general, for those in authority to serve those entrusted to their supervision and care. It is not demeaning for angels to serve people, especially since the Son of God Himself deigned to come down to earth and become incarnate in order to serve people and give His life (Matt. 20:28).

3.3. In this service of angels to people, one should see God’s providential care for the angels themselves. Here He reveals to them the most vast and entirely worthy field of activity—a place to exercise and develop their powers, to perform lofty deeds of the purest and most ardent love, and to demonstrate, in countless instances, self-sacrifice, forbearance toward sinners, patience, and many other virtues. And just as Christ the Savior’s ministry to sinful people led Him to glory (Luke 24:26), and in the very acts of this ministry He already saw His own glory (John 13:31); so too does the ministry of the angels to the sinful human race contribute to their own glory—it provides them with opportunities for new and higher merits before God’s infinite righteousness, and reveals the perfections of the spirits who minister to us before the entire moral world.

§ 109. God merely permits the activity of evil angels

while assisting the good angels in their good works and guiding them in accordance with the purpose of their existence. The Lord God merely permits the evil activities of the evil angels and limits them, directing their consequences toward good ends whenever possible. Regarding this evil activity of the fallen spirits, which God’s providence merely permits because He does not wish to restrict their freedom—this is what the Orthodox Church teaches: “They (the evil spirits) are the perpetrators of all wickedness, blasphemers of God’s majesty, corrupters of human souls... However, they cannot use violence against any person… unless God permits them to do so” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 21). That is, the devil acts: 1) as an enemy of God, and at the same time—2) as an enemy of man.

1). The devil expresses his enmity toward his Creator primarily by the fact that he has always sought—and continues to seek—to destroy the kingdom of God on earth, establishing his own kingdom in its place, and thus usurping from people the honor that belongs to the one true God. That is why

1.1. The Savior Himself called the devil His enemy, who sows tares in the field where He, the Son of Man, sows good seed (Matt. 13:37, 39); the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), who has his own kingdom, completely opposed to the kingdom of God (Matt. 12:26, 28), and expressed the idea that this power of Satan is paganism (Acts 26:18) and, in general, the sinful condition of people, whose father is the devil (John 8:44).

1.2. The Holy Apostles referred to the devil and his angels as principalities, powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this age (Eph. 6:12); his kingdom as the dominion of death (Heb. 2:14), the power of darkness, opposed to the kingdom of the Son of God (Col. 1:13), and affirmed that all the activity of evil spirits is directed toward maintaining paganism and ungodliness among people and opposing the progress of Christianity (Rev. 2:9, 13, and 24; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Cor. 4:4).

1.3. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also affirmed that the devil reigned in the pagan world;[1655] that before Christ’s coming, “all nations were under the power of demons; temples were built for demons, altars were erected for demons, priests were appointed for demons, and sacrifices were offered to demons;”[1656] that spirits of malice dwelt in pagan idols, delighting in blood and incense , in sacrifices, and in divine honor unworthy of them;[1657] that they beguiled the human race with the fables of poets,[1658] mysteries,[1659] oracles,[1660] and divination;[1661] and that even now, after the coming of Christ—just as He, Christ, is the Head of His kingdom of grace, the Church—so too is the devil the head and leader of all the wicked who carry out his desires.[1662]

2) The devil’s enmity toward people consists in the fact that—

2.1. He, having been a murderer from the beginning—that is, having tempted our first parents even in the Garden of Eden (John 8:44)—has not ceased since that time to tempt and lead every person into moral evil by every possible means.

According to the teaching of God’s Word, he prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8): in some, he blinds their minds so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ may not shine upon them (2 Cor. 4:4); in others, for whom this light has already shone, he snatches the word from their hearts so that they may not believe and be saved (Luke 8:12); and for a third group, like the righteous Job (Job 1:9 ff.), by God’s permission, it pursues them with calamities; and it will cast some of you into prison to test you (Rev. 2:10), and so on.

According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers:

a) “Ever since evil entered through sin, he (the devil) has had free access to the soul, speaking to it daily as one person speaks to another and offering it absurdities;”[1663]

b) “and our battle is against the enemy who wages war and opposes us from within, who—using us ourselves as weapons against us (which is the most terrible thing of all!)—delivers us to a sinful death;”[1664]

c) “He observes each person’s habits, notes their inclinations, discerns their passions, and attacks from the direction where he sees the greatest advantage for himself;”[1665]

d) “Sometimes taking advantage of natural impulses, and sometimes of forbidden passions, he uses them to lead those who are not vigilant over themselves into deeds characteristic of those passions;”[1666]

e) “He adapts himself to everything and everyone, so that by this adaptation he may subdue them to himself and, under a plausible pretext, prepare their ruin.”[1667]

In general, the Holy Fathers and ascetics, who knew the wiles of the tempter from their own experience, expound the doctrine of diabolical temptations in great detail and with complete certainty regarding their reality.[1668] Some of the Church Fathers believed that each person is assigned a specific spirit of temptation, just as they are assigned a guardian angel;[1669] but this was only a minority opinion.

2.2. He himself or his demons often even entered—by God’s permission—[1670] and continue to enter a person in order to torment him. The Gospel accounts of the demon-possessed undoubtedly convince us of this:

a) The Savior Himself regarded the possessed as human beings. who truly had demons within them; and therefore, when He spoke to the demon-possessed, He directed His words not to the people but directly to the demons, clearly calling them unclean spirits and commanding them to come out of the people: “Come out of this man, you unclean spirit” (Mark 5:8; cf. 1:25); “You who are mute and deaf! I command you, come out of him and never enter him again” (Mark 9:25).

b) The demons dwelling in people—as real beings distinct from the individuals in whom they resided—recognized Christ as the Son of God and trembled at His power and authority over them, crying out: “What do You have to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? Have You come here before the time to torment us?” (Matt. 8:29; Mark 5:7); and on one occasion they begged Him to allow them, when they came out of the man, to enter the pigs (Luke 8:32–33).

c) When the Savior’s enemies accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Luke 11:15). The Savior replied: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and a house divided against itself will fall; if even Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?” (17–18). And continuing His discourse, He said: “When an unclean spirit comes out of a person, it wanders through arid places, seeking rest, and, finding none, says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order; then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they enter and dwell there—and the final condition of that person is worse than the first (24–26).

d) When the disciples asked Jesus why they could not cast out an unclean spirit from a certain demon-possessed man, the Lord replied: “This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29). When the seventy disciples, returning from their mission, joyfully told Him, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name,” He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:17–18). When He sent out His eleven disciples to preach to the whole world, He said, among other things: “These signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons;… they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:17–18).

e) From the Book of Acts, we know that the Apostles also cast out unclean spirits from people; for example, the Apostle Paul cast one out of a young girl when he turned to the spirit and said, “In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you to come out of her.” And the spirit came out at that very moment (Acts 16:18).

f) The sacred writers, in their accounts of the possessed, clearly distinguish them from people afflicted by illness. For example, the evangelist Matthew testifies: “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (10:1); the evangelist Mark writes: “When evening came, after the sun had set, they brought to Him all who were sick and those possessed by demons…,” And He healed many who were suffering from various diseases; He cast out many demons, and did not allow the demons to say that they knew He was the Christ (1:32–34); the evangelist Luke: who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases, as well as those afflicted by unclean spirits; and they were healed (6:18); or: many from the surrounding towns also came to Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those possessed by unclean spirits, and they were all healed (Acts 5:16).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church not only unanimously recognized all the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel as truly possessed by unclean spirits, not only confessed that such demoniacs existed in their own time and could always exist, but they also boldly pointed out to the pagans themselves the numerous instances of how Christians cast out unclean spirits from people by the authority granted by the Savior, and boldly declared:

“And now you can learn from what is taking place before your very eyes. For many who are possessed by spirits, throughout the world and in your city, have been healed—and are still being healed—by many of our people, Christians, who invoke the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, whereas no other incantations, neither sorcery nor medical treatments, could heal them.”[1671]

“We not only despise demons, but we also defeat them, put them to shame daily, and cast them out of people, as is well known to many.”[1672] “Let anyone appear here before your courts who is undoubtedly possessed by a demon: this spirit, at the command of any Christian whatsoever, will speak and truly confess that he is a demon, whereas elsewhere he falsely calls himself a god.”[1673]

“Most of you know all this—that the demons themselves bear witness to who they are, as many times as we have cast them out of bodies through the torment of words and the fire of prayer.”[1674]

“Many Christians cast out demons from those possessed by them, and they do so without any aid of magic or sorcery, but by prayers and simple incantations alone.”[1675]

§ 110. God has limited and continues to limit the activities of evil spirits, while at the same time directing them toward good outcomes

However, while permitting the evil activities of fallen spirits so as not to deprive them of their freedom, the Lord God, being infinitely just and wise, has limited and continues to limit these activities, but in such a way that they produce, as far as possible, a good outcome.

1). He has limited and continues to limit them:

1.1. By subjecting the evil spirits to their deserved punishment as soon as they fell, binding them with the chains of hellish darkness, and delivering them to be held in custody for judgment and punishment (2 Pet. 2:4). Whatever this punishment of the fallen angels may consist of—though it is not yet final—they cannot help but feel that the One against whom they dared to rebel is powerful enough to destroy them in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28); they know that they are being reserved by Him for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6), when they will have to give an account of all their deeds; and consequently, the more they now allow themselves to wage war against God and against people, the greater the condemnation they will face then.[1676]

1.2. By having already partially destroyed and continuing to destroy the kingdom of the spirits of wickedness on earth. For this reason, among others, the Son of God took on our flesh and blood, so that through death He might deprive of power the one who holds the power of death—that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14); and He came into the world to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). When He began His public ministry, He openly declared: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out” (John 12:31); He even testified, after repeatedly demonstrating His power over demons by casting them out of people: “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” (Luke 10:18). Having then truly abolished the one who holds the power of death through His own death, having bound the strong one (Matt. 12:29) by His descent into hell, and, after His resurrection, having sent the Apostles to open their eyes (those of the people) so that they might turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, and through faith in Me receive the forgiveness of sins and a share with the sanctified (Acts 26:18), Our Savior has further destroyed this domain of Satan, and ever since, from age to age, through the ceaseless expansion of His kingdom of grace, the constant regeneration and sanctification by His grace of the former sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2) and children of the devil (1 John 3:10), He has curtailed and continues to curtail Satan’s dominion over the human race.[1677]

1.3. Since everything necessary for life and godliness has been granted to us through His divine power (2 Pet. 1:3), by means of which we can quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one (Eph. 6:16)—and the most reliable means of resisting the devil and overcoming him, which are:

a) Invoking His most holy name: “These signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons” (Mark 16:17). And indeed, “the power of the name of Christ,” as we say with the holy martyr Justin, “makes demons tremble and be terrified; and even now, when invoked by the name of Jesus Christ crucified, they obey us;”[1678] or, together with St. Gregory the Theologian: “even to this day, demons still tremble at the name of Christ; the power of this name has not been weakened by our vices.”[1679]

b) Prayer, fasting, and spiritual vigilance: “This kind,” said the Savior concerning the spirits of wickedness, “this kind cannot be driven out except by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29); “Watch and pray, lest you fall into temptation” (Matthew 26:41). “For our struggle,” writes St. Basil the Great, “is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12); therefore, it is necessary to prepare for this struggle through self-control and fasting;”[1680] and in another place: “When the devil sets out to weave his schemes and, with great force, strives to instill his thoughts—like some kind of burning arrows—into a soul that is silent and at peace, suddenly setting it ablaze and producing in it lasting and indestructible memories of what has once been imprinted upon it, then such attacks must be repelled with sobriety and the utmost vigilance, just as a wrestler, with the strictest caution and agility of body, deflects the blows of his opponents; and yet everything—that is, both the cessation of the struggle and the repelling of the arrows—must be attributed to prayer and the invocation of help from above. For this is what Paul teaches us, saying: “Above all, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one” (Eph. 6:16).”[1681] “When the devil sees—as St. John Chrysostom also notes—that we are watchful and sober-minded, he, realizing how futile his efforts will be, withdraws from us and hides.”[1682]

c) Making the sign of the cross with faith in your heart. “It is not enough,” the same Holy Father instructs, “to make the sign of the cross merely with your finger; it must be preceded by a disposition of the heart and complete faith. If you make the sign on your face in this way, not a single unclean spirit will be able to approach you, seeing that sword by which it was wounded, seeing that weapon from which it received a mortal wound. For if even we gaze with trepidation upon the places where criminals are executed, imagine how terrified the devil and the demons are when they see the weapon with which Christ destroyed all their power and cut off the head of the serpent.”[1683]

1.4. Finally, because He never allows the devil to tempt us beyond what we can bear. “God is faithful,” wrote the holy Apostle Paul to his children in Corinth, “God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to endure it (1 Cor. 10:13).” And no matter how much the Lord allowed the devil to tempt His servant Job, He nevertheless set a limit on the actions of the malicious tempter: “And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, all that he has is in your hand; only do not lay a hand on him’” (Job 1:12). Given this arrangement, the devil by no means forces us into sin: “He could not,” says St. John Chrysostom, “persuade Job, despite countless temptations, to utter even a single blasphemous word; from which it is clear that it is within our power to follow or not to follow his counsel, and that we suffer no violence, no tyranny (τυραννίδα) from him.”[1684] “He harms us, in the words of Blessed Augustine, not by compelling us to evil, but merely by counsel; he does not wrest our consent from us, but seeks it.”[1685] Therefore, by steadfastly resisting his counsel, we can drive him away from us: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). And if the struggle against him is difficult, it is so only for those who are weak in faith: “For those who love God with all their soul, the battle against him (the devil) is as good as nothing, but for those who love the world, it is difficult and unbearable,” testifies St. Ephrem the Syrian.[1686]

2) The purpose for which the Lord permits all the wiles of the ancient deceiver, who seeks our ruin, is our moral benefit, our salvation. For the devil’s temptations, like all temptations permitted upon us by God:

2.1. Often serve as a remedy to heal us from spiritual illnesses, or are punishments for our past sins, so as to bring us to our senses, keep us from committing new sins, and save us from greater, eternal punishments: for this reason, the Holy Apostle wrote to the Corinthians, “Many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dying.” For if we were to judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But since we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:30–32). Among the temptations of this kind are, in particular, those in which demons, by God’s permission, enter a person and torment him. “God, who loves mankind,” says St. Basil the Great, “uses their (the demons’) cruelty for our healing, just as a wise physician uses the venom of a viper to cure the sick. For such people are handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved (1 Cor. 5:5). But both Figellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim. 1:15) were handed over to Satan by Paul so that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20);”[1687] and elsewhere: “Since the devil became an apostate, an enemy of God, and an enemy of human beings created in the image of God (he is a misanthrope for the same reason that he is a blasphemer; he hates us as creatures, and he hates us as images of God); therefore, the wise and provident Architect of human affairs made use of his cunning for the instruction of our souls, just as a physician uses the venom of a viper in the composition of a life-saving remedy.”[1688] Likewise, St. Chrysostom reasons: “The future torments are greatly alleviated for us by the punishments or calamities sent upon us by God in this present life. Evidence for this can be drawn from Scripture. Paul (and when I speak of Paul, I mean the commandments of Christ Himself, for this blessed soul was moved by Him), when writing to the Corinthians about the fornicator, commands that he be handed over to the torment of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:5). Do you see this ineffable love for humanity and this abundance of kindness? Do you see how God employs every means so that we, even having sinned, may suffer a punishment lighter than we deserve—or even be delivered from it entirely?”[1689]

2.2. They protect us from spiritual pride and teach us humility, without which there can be no true virtue. The holy Apostle expressed this thought when he said of himself: “Lest I become conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, to torment me, so that I might not become conceited.” Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But the Lord said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will all the more gladly boast in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me (2 Cor. 12:7–9). And St. John of Damascus remarks on this occasion: “In some cases, God allows a saint to suffer evil so that the saint may not stray from a righteous conscience or fall into pride because of the strength and grace given to him; this was the case with Paul (2 Cor. 12:7).”[1690]

2.3. These trials provide us with the most opportune occasion to bear witness to the steadfastness of our faith and hope in God, and to grow ever stronger in goodness. The wise son of Sirach also said: “For gold is tested in fire, and those who please God—in the crucible of humiliation” (Sir. 2:5). And the holy Apostle Peter wrote to Christians: “Rejoice in this, though now for a little while, if necessary, you may have to suffer various trials, so that your faith, once tested, may be found more precious than gold—which perishes even though tested by fire—to the praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:6–7). This is how the Holy Fathers of the Church viewed trials as well. For example, Basil the Great wrote: “Sufferings themselves, by the will of the Lord who sends them upon us, befall God’s servants not in vain, but to test through experience our true love for God, who created us. For just as the hardships endured by wrestlers during their contests lead to victory, so too do trials in temptations lead Christians to perfection, if we accept the Lord’s dispositions toward us with due patience and with all gratitude.”[1691] St. John Chrysostom argues even more specifically: “If anyone were to ask, ‘Why did God not destroy the ancient tempter?’ (we would answer that) He did this out of His great care for us. For if the evil one had taken hold of us by force, this question would have some merit; but since he does not possess such power, and only tries to lead us astray (while we are free not to be led astray), why do you remove the opportunity for merit and reject the means of attaining the crowns?... God has left the devil for this very purpose: so that even those who have already been overcome by him might overthrow him, and so that the valiant might have an opportunity to demonstrate their (steadfast) will... The devil is evil for himself, not for us: for if we so desire, we can gain much good through him—of course, against his will and desire—and in this lies a special miracle and God’s extraordinarily great love for humanity... “When the evil one frightens and confuses us, then we come to our senses, then we come to know ourselves, and then we turn to God with great zeal.”[1692]

4. And consequently, they provide us with the most favorable opportunity to attain ever greater rewards from the righteous Bestower of Rewards: “Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been tested, he will receive the crown of life” (James 1:12). “God, who directs our affairs,” says St. Basil the Great, “provides those capable of enduring great struggles with more significant opportunities for glorification.”[1693] “Therefore, the greater the trials you face, the more valuable the reward you may expect from the righteous Judge.”[1694]

§ 111. The Moral Application of the Dogma

1. Even God’s angels, from the lowest to the highest, despite the perfection of their intellect, need inspiration and enlightenment from the Sun of Truth; and despite the perfection of their will, if they are steadfast in goodness, they are so only by the grace of the Almighty; Is it not all the more necessary, then, for our intellect—which is less perfect and clouded by sin—to receive enlightenment from the Lord? Is not God’s grace all the more necessary for our will, which is weak and corrupted? Let us therefore learn not to boast of the powers of our reason or will, but, in a spirit of humility, to subject our minds to the obedience of faith, and to gratefully make use of the Revelation that the Lord has granted us, and of the means through which He communicates His grace to us.

2. God’s angels, who are by their very nature more perfect than we are, also have a ministry that is so exalted and so beneficial to us—they are the closest servants of the Most High, directly surrounding His throne and carrying out His will; they are the instruments of His providence over the various parts of the universe, especially over human societies and over each individual; they protect us from visible and invisible enemies; they guide us along the path of truth and righteousness; they intercede for us before God through their prayers; and they accompany those who have departed in the faith even into the afterlife. Consequently, out of a sense of justice and grateful love, and out of an awareness of the beneficial nature of the angels’ ministry to us, we are bound to honor the angels (Nahum 5:14; Judges 13:20; Dan. 10:9; Rev. 22:8–9), and to invoke them in our prayers, as the Holy Church teaches us to do,[1695] to celebrate the feasts established in their honor, to venerate the churches dedicated to them, and to bow reverently before their sacred images.[1696]

3. However, as we honor the angels and invoke them in our prayers, let us not forget that they are merely servants of the Almighty and beneficent instruments of His fatherly providence toward us. Consequently, we must honor them in such a way that all honor is directed primarily toward them and our Lord, and by no means deify them or offer them divine worship; we must guard ourselves in every way against that pernicious superstition from which the Apostle himself warned Christians—[1697] —and which was later condemned by the Council of Laodicea as incompatible with the worship of the one, true God, our Lord Jesus Christ.[1698]

4. In particular, bearing in mind the relationship our guardian angels have with us, let us learn:

a) to heed them as our faithful guides on the path of truth and goodness, and to this end, to always keep our minds and hearts open to receiving their good counsel;

b) to turn to them in prayer in all our needs and trials, as our intercessors before God and guardians of our souls and bodies;[1699]

c) to love them and thank them for all the tender and caring love with which they carry out their ministry to us sinners, and for all the blessings they bestow upon us;

d) not to grieve them with our inattention and wicked deeds, but rather to bring them joy through our turning to God and our virtuous lives (Luke 15:10).

5. Finally, with regard to evil spirits, whom the Lord sometimes permits to tempt us for our own good, let us remember:

a) the Savior’s instruction: “Watch and pray, lest you fall into temptation” (Matthew 26:41); and—

b) the Apostle’s instruction: “Put on the full armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the devil’s schemes…” So stand firm, having girded your loins with truth and put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the readiness to preach the gospel of peace; and above all, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the spiritual sword, which is the Word of God. Pray at all times with all kinds of prayers and requests, through the Spirit (Eph. 6:11, 14–18).

We have sufficient means to resist the devil and overcome him! And even if we fall in the struggle, even if we sin, let us not be afraid of evil, nor give in to despair: we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Righteous One (1 John 2:1). Let us call upon Him alone, with sincere repentance for our failure and with sincere faith, and He will raise us up and once again clothe us in the full armor of God so that we may resist our ancient enemy.

2.2. On the Material World

§ 112. Connection to Previous Topics

It goes without saying that the material world, just like the spiritual world, could not continue to exist and would turn into nothingness if God did not ceaselessly sustain it. But God’s assistance and guidance do not appear to be as necessary in the material world as they are in the spiritual: there, in the realm of incorporeal spirits, reason and freedom operate—conscious powers which, for various reasons and of their own volition, may stray from truth and goodness, and therefore require assistance and guidance from a higher Power; here, in the realm of inanimate nature, only mechanical forces are at work, forces that are never capable of arbitrarily deviating from the laws of necessity to which they are subject. Consequently, it seems sufficient to have set this enormous machine in motion at the beginning and then merely to maintain it so that it might proceed of its own accord toward its intended goal.

But—

a) even mechanical forces, taken as a whole—as finite forces—acting ceaselessly, necessarily require reinforcement, renewal, and assistance from the Infinite Power;

b) given the extraordinary vastness of the material world, and the diversity and even opposition of the forces and elements acting within it—albeit according to the laws of necessity, yet blindly and unconsciously—clashes of forces and struggles of the elements would inevitably occur within it if all this were not constantly governed by a higher, rational Force;

c) the physical world, among other things, is intended to serve as a dwelling place for many moral beings; and therefore it is natural that the course of life within it, among other things, should be attuned to the course of life and the nature of the activities of these beings, whether as a reward for their virtues or as punishment for their sins. Consequently, it is necessary that the mechanical forces of nature, subject to the laws of necessity, be at the disposal of the One who governs the moral world and can alter their course according to His wise plans.

Divine revelation, indeed, teaches us that God also assists and supports the beings of the material world in their lives, and that He governs them.

§ 113. God works on behalf of the creatures of the visible world

Scripture expresses this truth very clearly:

1. When it is generally understood that visible creatures are, as it were, merely instruments of the Almighty’s power, while He Himself acts within them and through them to bring all things into being: The Lord… turns the shadow of death into the light of dawn, and makes the day as dark as night (Amos 5:8); You establish Your heavenly palaces above the waters, make the clouds Your chariot, and ride on the wings of the wind (Ps. 103:3)—fire and hail, snow and mist, the stormy wind that carries out His word (Ps. 148:8), all serve You (Ps. 118:91).

2. When He points out in detail the ways in which He sustains various visible creatures, testifying:

a) that You have sent springs into the valleys..., and water the mountains from Your heights (Ps. 103:10–13);

b) that You cause grass to grow for the cattle, and green plants for the benefit of man; the trees of the Lord are satisfied, the cedars of Lebanon (Ps. 103:14 and 16);

c) that He gives food to the cattle and to the young ravens when they cry out to Him (Ps. 146:9), clothes the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:28), and feeds the birds of the air (26);

d) that He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Ps. 146:4); He brings up clouds from the ends of the earth, creates lightning with the rain, sends forth the wind from His storehouses (Ps. 134:7), and so on.

The Church Fathers and writers depicted these truths very concretely; for example:

a) St. John Chrysostom: “When you see the rising of the sun or the course of the moon, when you see lakes, rivers, rains, and the workings of nature evident in seeds, in our bodies and in the bodies of irrational animals, and you see all that of which this world is composed, then recognize the unceasing work of the Father—He commands His sun to rise on the wicked and the good alike and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45);”[1700]

b) Lactantius: “Failing to comprehend the artistry of God’s power in the arrangement of the paths of the stars, the philosophers themselves regarded the stars as living beings, as if they moved along their courses with their own feet and of their own free will, rather than by God’s will and assistance;”[1701]

c) St. Athanasius the Great: “By the gesture and power of the Ruler and Governor of the universe, God the Word, the heavens revolve, the stars move, the sun shines, the moon wanders, the air is warmed, the winds blow, the mountains stand firm, the sea surges, and all who dwell in it are nourished...; in short—everything comes to life and moves; fire warms, water refreshes, springs gush forth from the earth, rivers flow, the seasons alternate, rain falls, clouds fill, there is hail, snow, ice; birds fly, snakes slither, aquatic creatures swim, the earth is sown and sprouts in its season, plants and trees grow;”[1702]

d) Saint Ambrose: “The Lord’s wisdom permeates all things and ordains all things, and this is far better demonstrated by the senses of irrational beings than by the reasoning of rational ones, for the testimony of nature is stronger than the proof of science. Every animal knows how to defend its life, namely: if it has strength, through resistance; if it has speed, by fleeing; if it has cunning, by taking precautions. Who taught them to feed themselves and imparted knowledge about plants? We humans are often deceived by the appearance of plants, and for the most part find those harmful that we consider beneficial... Animals, however, can distinguish by smell alone what is harmful to them and what is beneficial.[1703]

One should not, however, think that in the material world God alone acts directly; no, He merely assists those forces which He Himself bestowed upon nature, and those laws which He established at the very beginning as the statutes of heaven and earth (Jer. 33:25), and according to which, ever since, with God’s assistance, everything flows unchangingly, so that throughout the days of the earth, sowing and reaping, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease (Gen. 8:22).

§ 114. God governs the visible world

The Word of God assures us of the truth that the visible world, in all its parts, even the smallest ones, is entirely under the control of the all-wise Ruler, not only through general testimonies regarding God’s governance of the world (1 Chr. 29:11–12; Wis. 8:1; 14:13), but especially through:

1. Numerous accounts of God’s miracles in the world, by which the ordinary course of events has been halted or interrupted on more than one occasion, and which would undoubtedly be impossible if God did not govern the universe. Thus He once stopped the waters of the sea: Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind all night long and turned the sea into dry land, and the waters parted (Exodus 14:21). He halted the course of the sun and the moon: Jesus cried out to the Lord… “Stand still, O sun, over Gibeon, and you, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon!” And the sun stood still, and the moon remained… (Josh. 10:12–13). He even turned back the course of time: “Then the prophet Isaiah cried out to the Lord, and He turned the shadow back on the steps… ten steps” (2 Kings 20:11).

2. The teaching about the power of faith and prayer, through which God’s people—as promised by the Savior Himself—can perform, and indeed have performed, such miracles in accordance with the laws of nature. Truly I tell you, the Savior testifies: if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Rise up and be cast into the sea,’ it will happen; and whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive ( ) (Matt. 21:21–22). Elijah was a man just like us, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit (James 5:17–18).

The Holy Fathers and pastors of the Church also taught that God governs the material world. For example:

Saint Clement of Rome: “The heavens, moved by His rule, obey Him in the world—day and night follow the course prescribed for them, without hindering one another. The sun, the moon, and the constellations, at His command, revolve in harmony within their appointed bounds, never deviating from their course. The fruitful earth, by His will, brings forth in its season abundant food for humans, beasts, and all the animals upon it, without altering or changing the laws He has prescribed. The unfathomable and incomprehensible laws of the abyss and the underworld are likewise governed by His commands. The boundless sea, gathered into basins according to His design, does not go beyond the boundaries set for it, but acts as He has commanded it. For He said: “This far you may come, but no farther; here is the limit to your proud waves” (Job 38:11). The ocean, impassable to humans, and the worlds beyond it are governed by the same commands of the Lord. The seasons—spring, summer, fall, and winter—follow one another peacefully. The winds, each in its own direction and at its appointed time, perform their service without ceasing. The inexhaustible springs, created for enjoyment and health, ceaselessly provide people with the water necessary for their lives. Finally, the smallest animals live together in peace and harmony. The great Creator and Ruler of all maintains all this in harmony and peace, and bestows His grace upon all.”[1704]

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: “By uniting the elements of material nature—heat and cold, moisture and dryness—He (God the Word) ensures that they do not conflict with one another but form a single, orderly harmony. Through Him and His power, neither fire is in conflict with cold, nor moisture with dryness; but, though they are opposites by their very nature, they appear together as friendly and kindred, and serve as the principles of existence for bodies. For just as a virtuoso, tuning a lyre and skillfully combining high, middle, and low notes, produces a single harmonious song; so too does God, sustaining the universe with His wisdom, just as a lyre, and uniting the aerial with the earthly, the heavenly with the aerial, and governing all by His will and command, wondrously and beautifully preserves a single world and a single order.”[1705]

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “God, as soon as He created the world, from the very first moment, according to great and immutable laws, moves and guides it, like a top spinning in circles under the force of a blow. For the nature of this vast and beautiful world—to which nothing comparable can even be imagined—is not left to chance, nor has it been subject to random laws for such a long time... And the harmony of singers is disrupted if no one directs them. But it is not the nature of the universe to have any other ruler than the One who created it.”[1706]

Blessed Theodoret: “Look at the nature of visible creatures, at their arrangement, order, posture, movement, proportion, usefulness, beauty, diversity, change, and pleasantness... Look at God’s providence, which is evident in every part of the world...., in the heavens and in the heavenly bodies—the sun, the moon, and the stars; in the air and in the clouds; on the earth and in the sea; and in all that exists on earth—in plants, grasses, and seeds; in animals, both rational and irrational, those that walk the earth and those that fly, aquatic creatures, reptiles, and amphibians, the tame and the wild, the domesticated and the untamed. Consider this for yourselves: Who sustains the celestial spheres? How is it that, for so many millennia, the heavens have stood firm and have not grown old? How is it that, despite the passage of time, they undergo no change, even though they possess a nature capable of change, according to the teaching of the blessed David (Ps. 101:27–28)? It has a changeable and perishable nature, yet it remains to this day as it was created, because it is sustained by the power of the Creator. For the Word that created it preserves it and governs it, imparting to it constancy and firmness as long as it pleases Him.”[1707]

§ 116. The Moral Application of the Dogma

The certainty that the material world in which we live, though subject to mechanical laws, is nevertheless entirely at the disposal of the all-governing Providence—this certainty teaches us:

1. To ask the Lord for all those blessings that are necessary to us in the external world: timely rains, the life-giving warmth of the sun, the fruitfulness of the earth, a pleasant climate, an abundance of earthly fruits, and so on. For it is not by blind chance nor as a result of the laws of necessity that all these blessings are granted—or withheld—from us, but always according to the will of the One in whose power both we and all of nature are held.

2. We should ask the Lord for deliverance from all the evils that befall us in the natural world: from famine, earthquakes, floods, fire, deadly plagues, and countless other causes that destroy our possessions, ruin our health, and cut short our lives.

3. Not to lose heart in the midst of all dangers, no matter how the raging elements of the physical world may threaten us; on the contrary, to place our hope entirely in God’s providence, believing that not even a hair on our head will perish without the will of the Heavenly Father (Luke 12:7; 21:18), recalling how many times and in what wondrous ways the Lord has saved His chosen ones from certain destruction, and crying out to Him together with the Psalmist: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil” (Ps. 22:4).

4. But, on the other hand, we must not deliberately and recklessly expose ourselves to any dangers in the belief that God, in whom we trust, will miraculously save us from all evil: for that would mean tempting God (Matt. 4:7); it would mean presumptuously demanding that the actions of the infinitely Wise One—who does not squander His miracles in vain—be subject to our childish whims and folly.

2.3. To the small world, to man

§ 117. Connection to the Previous Section: God’s Special Care for Man

God’s providence, which encompasses the entire visible world, undoubtedly extends to humankind as the inhabitants of this world. But having exalted man above all visible creatures even at the time of his creation, having bestowed upon him alone a rational and free soul, having honored him in His own image, and having made him ruler over all of nature, the Most Wise and All-Good Creator is pleased to manifest a special providence toward man. “Look,” said the Savior to His disciples, “at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?… Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these; if then God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, you of little faith! (Matt. 6:26, 28–30)?

In particular, God’s care for humanity is expressed in the fact that the Lord provides for: 1) entire kingdoms and nations; 2) individuals, each one separately; and 3) primarily the righteous.

God provides for kingdoms and nations.

Scripture sets forth this truth quite clearly when it says:

1. That God is the great King over all the earth (Ps. 46:3, 8; 94:3), that He reigns over the nations (Ps. 46:9), is Lord over the nations (21:29), that His eyes are upon the nations (65:7), and that He rules over the tribes of the earth (66:5).

2. That He—

a) Himself appoints kings over the nations: The Most High rules over the kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He wills (Dan. 4:22, 29; cf. Sir. 10:4); He deposes kings and sets up kings (Dan. 2:21)_, He has appointed a leader for every nation (Sir. 17:14; cf. Wis. 6:1–3);

6) He appoints them as His visible representatives in every kingdom: “I said, ‘You are gods,’ He says to them, ‘and all of you are sons of the Most High’” (Ps. 81:1–6; cf. Exod. 22:28);

c) and for this purpose grants them authority and power from Himself (Wisdom 6:3), crowns them with glory and honor (Ps. 8:6), and anoints them with His holy oil (Ps. 88:21; cf. 1 Sam. 12:3–6; 16:3; 19:16; 24:7; Isaiah 41:1), so that from that day forward the Spirit of the Lord rests upon them (1 Kings 16:11–13);

d) Finally, He Himself rules over earthly kingdoms through kings: “By Me kings reign, and rulers enact justice” (Prov. 8:15). The king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand, like streams of water: wherever He wills, He directs it (Prov. 21:1).

3. That He—

a) establishes through His Anointed Ones, as well as all other, lower authorities: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God; and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1); Therefore, submit yourselves to every human authority for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king as the supreme authority, or to governors as those sent by him (1 Pet. 2:13–14);

b) and appoints them as His servants for the good of human societies: those in authority are not to be feared for good deeds, but for evil ones. Do you want to avoid fearing the authorities? Do what is right, and you will receive their approval, for the ruler is God’s servant, working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is God’s servant, an avenger who brings punishment on those who do wrong. And so you must obey not only out of fear of punishment, but also out of conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are God’s servants, constantly engaged in this very task (Rom. 13:3–6).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also very often repeated that God governs human kingdoms and sends kings and other authorities to them. Here, for example, are the words of

St. Irenaeus: “Just as the devil lied in the beginning, so he lied later, saying, ‘I will give you authority over all these kingdoms and their glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’ (Luke 4:6). It was not he who established the kingdoms of this world, but God, for the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand (Prov. 21:1); and through Solomon, the Word says: ‘By me kings reign and rulers enact justice; by me rulers rule, and princes establish justice; and all the judges of the earth (Prov. 8:15–16); and the Apostle Paul said the same thing: Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God; and those that exist have been instituted by God (Rom. 13:1); and further: for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is God’s servant, an avenger who brings punishment on the one who does evil (4)... Thus, earthly kingdoms are established by God for the good of the peoples (and not by the devil, who is never at rest and does not wish to leave the peoples in peace), so that, fearing human authority, people might not destroy one another like fish, but, obeying the laws, might put aside the manifold pagan wickedness... That is precisely why God’s servants, who are constantly engaged in this very task—demanding tribute from us—are constantly engaged in it (Rom. 13:6)... By whose command people are born, by the same command kings are appointed, suited (apti) to those over whom they reign. For some of them are given for the correction and benefit of the subjects, and for the preservation of justice; some for fear and punishment; and still others for the humiliation of nations, or for their exaltation, depending on what these nations deserve according to God’s righteous judgment, which extends equally to all.”[1708]

Tertullian: “So, do you see? Is it not He who distributes the kingdoms—to whom belong both the universe over which they reign and man himself, who reigns? Is it not He who, in this present age, apportions the lots of governments according to the times—He who existed before all time and made the age a receptacle of times? Is it not He who exalts authorities or deposes them?”[1709]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “O kings! Recognize how important is the trust entrusted to you, and how great a mystery is being accomplished in your midst. The whole world lies at your command, held in check by a small crown and a short robe. What is above belongs to the one God, and what is below belongs to you; be (I will speak boldly) gods to your subjects. It is said (and we believe) that ‘the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord’” (Prov. 21:1).[1710]

St. John Chrysostom: “Why did the Apostle exhort us to pray for kings (1 Tim. 2:2)? At that time, kings were still pagans, and much time passed afterward while pagans succeeded one another on the throne... So that the Christian soul, upon hearing this, as was likely, would not be confused and would not reject the exhortation—as if one were required to offer prayers for a pagan during the divine services—look at what the Apostle says and how he points out the benefit, so that, even in this way, they might accept his exhortation: “Let us live a quiet and peaceful life in this present age,” he says. That is, their (the kings’) well-being brings us peace... For God has established authorities for the common good. And would it not be unjust if they bore arms and waged war so that we might live in peace, yet we did not even offer prayers for those who face dangers and wage war? Therefore, this matter (praying for kings) is not flattery, but is done in accordance with the law of justice.”[1711] And in another passage: “Destroy the courts of law, and you will destroy all order in our lives; remove the helmsman from the ship, and you will sink the vessel; take away the commander from the army, and you will deliver the soldiers into the hands of the enemy. Thus, if you take away the rulers from the cities, we will behave more foolishly than speechless beasts—we will begin to devour one another (Gal. 5:15): the rich devouring the poor, the strong devouring the weak, the arrogant devouring the meek. But now, by God’s grace, nothing of the sort happens. Those who live godly lives, of course, have no need for corrective measures from the authorities: “The law is not meant for the righteous,” as it is written (1 Tim. 1:9). But wicked people, if they were not restrained by the fear of the authorities, would fill the cities with countless calamities. Knowing this, Paul also said: “There is no authority except from God; the authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1). Just as the beams hold the houses together, so do the authorities hold the cities together. If you destroy the beams, the walls, having come apart, will collapse upon one another of their own accord; so too, if you were to remove from the universe the authorities and the fear they inspire, then houses, cities, and peoples would attack one another with great audacity, because then there would be no one to restrain and stop them, or to compel them to remain calm through the fear of punishment.”[1712]

Blessed Augustine: “God, the source and bestower of happiness—for He alone is the true God—Himself distributes earthly kingdoms to both the good and the wicked... And He distributes them not without purpose, not by chance, not by luck, but in accordance with the course of events and the times—hidden from us but fully known to Him—to which, however, He is not subject, but which He Himself governs and directs as Lord and Ruler.”[1713] “In truth, human kingdoms are governed by Divine Providence.”[1714] “And not without the providence of the Almighty, in whose power it lies that in war, some may be defeated and others may triumph, some may receive kingdoms, and others may become subjects of kings.”[1715]

§ 118. God Provides for Individuals

The Word of God states that God—

1. Himself gives existence to each of us: He does not require the service of human hands, as if He were in need of anything, but He Himself gives life and breath and everything to all (Acts 17:25). Specifically:

a) He Himself forms our body in our mother’s womb: “He clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews” (Job 10:11; cf. Ps. 138:15).

b) He Himself gives us a soul: Thus says the Lord God, who created the heavens and their expanse, who spread out the earth with all that is in it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk upon it (Isa. 42:5; cf. Eccl. 12:7; Zech. 12:1).

c) He Himself endows us with various qualities: The Lord said [to Moses], “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord [God]?” (Exod. 4:11; cf. Ps. 93:9; James 1:17)?

d) He Himself brings us into the world from our mother’s womb: “But You brought me out of the womb; You gave me hope at my mother’s breast. I have been entrusted to You from the womb; from my mother’s womb You have been my God” (Ps. 21:10–11; cf. 138:13).

2. To preserve us throughout our lives: for—

a) He grants us everything necessary to sustain and sweeten our existence: “Admonish those who are rich in this present age not to be conceited, nor to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17; cf. Acts 17:25).

b) He cares for the welfare of each of us: “Cast all your anxieties on Him, for He cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:7). “I trust in You, O Lord; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My days are in Your hand” (Ps. 30:15–16). The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord protects the sojourner; He upholds the orphan and the widow, but He thwarts the way of the wicked (Ps. 145:8–9).

3. He assists us in our endeavors:

a) He sends us help and strength: “My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth” (Ps. 120:2). “The Lord will give strength to His people” (Ps. 28:11, etc.).

b) He guides and directs us: “A man’s steps are directed by the Lord; how then can a man know his own way?” (Prov. 20:24). “Every man’s way seems right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts” (Prov. 21:2; cf. 16:1).

c) Without His help, we could do nothing: unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain (Ps. 126:1).

4. Finally, He Himself sets the limit of our earthly life and activity: “His days are numbered, and the number of his months is with You; for You have set a limit that he cannot cross” (Job 14:5).

Among the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, it suffices to cite the sayings of three of the most renowned:

Basil the Great: “Our affairs are not left to chance, as we know from the Gospel that not even a sparrow falls without the will of our Father (Matt. 10:29). Therefore, whatever happens to us happens by the will of the One who created us. And who can resist His will (Rom. 9:19)?”[1716] “Although the reasons for God’s decrees are hidden from us, nevertheless everything that happens by the decree of the all-wise and loving God, no matter how difficult it may be, must certainly be pleasing to us. For He knows how to grant each person what is beneficial to them, and why it is necessary to set different limits on our lives; and there is a reason, incomprehensible to humans, why some are taken from this world sooner, while others are left to suffer longer in this life full of afflictions. For all these reasons, we must give thanks for His love for humanity.”[1717] “Everything is governed by the Lord’s goodness. Whatever happens to us, we must not regard it as distressing, even if, in the present moment, it keenly touches our frailty. Although we do not know the laws by which everything that happens to us is sent to us by the Lord for our good, we must nevertheless be certain that what has happened to us is, without a doubt, beneficial.”[1718] “God, without a doubt, directs our affairs better than we ourselves would have planned.”[1719]

Gregory the Theologian: “We must believe that our Creator or Builder (whether you call Him by one name or the other) cares for our fate in a special way, even though our life is spent amid various adversities, the causes of which may be and remain unknown, so that, not comprehending them, we may all the more marvel at the exalted Mind. For everything we easily understand, we also easily disregard; but on the contrary, the higher something is above us, the more incomprehensible it is, the greater the wonder it arouses in us.”[1720]

John Chrysostom: “That God cares not only for everyone in general, but also for each person in particular, can be heard from Him Himself when He says: ‘It is not the will of your Father in heaven that even one of these little ones should perish’ (Matt. 18:14), referring to those who believe in Him. And even for those who do not believe in Him, He desires that all be saved, having repented and come to faith (in Him), as Paul also says: ‘Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2:4); and He Himself said to the Jews: “I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9:13); and also through the Prophet: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6). Even if, after such care for them, they refuse to repent and come to know the truth, He still does not abandon them; but since they have voluntarily deprived themselves of heavenly life, He provides them, at the very least, with all the blessings of this present life; He commands His sun to rise on the wicked and the good alike, sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous, and provides everything else necessary for the continuation of this present life (Matt. 5:45). If, then, He cares so much for His enemies, would He ever leave those who believe in Him and please Him to the best of their ability without care? No, no; He cares for them more than anyone else; and as for you, He says, even the hairs of your head are all numbered (Luke 12:7).”[1721]

§119. God Provides Primarily for the Righteous: Resolving the Doubt

1. Although God, as the All-Good, extends His fatherly providence to all people, whatever they may be, commanding His sun to rise on the wicked and the good alike and sending rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45); yet, as a just God, He focuses His special care on the righteous. Scripture confirms this truth through numerous sayings and examples.

Such are the sayings:

The eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to Him (2 Chron. 16:9).

The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to blot out their memory from the earth. The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; He delivers them from all their troubles. The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and will save those who are humble in spirit. The righteous face many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all. He protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken (Ps. 33:16–21; cf. 1 Pet. 3:12).

Cast your cares upon the Lord, and He will sustain you. He will never let the righteous be shaken (Ps. 54:23; cf. 32:18–19).

The righteous flourish like a palm tree; they grow tall like a cedar in Lebanon. 14 Planted in the house of the Lord, they flourish in the courts of our God; 15 even in old age they remain fruitful, lush, and fresh, 16 to proclaim that the Lord is righteous, my stronghold, and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 91:13–16).

As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him… The Lord’s mercy endures from everlasting to everlasting toward those who fear Him, and His righteousness extends to the children’s children—to those who keep His covenant and remember His commandments to obey them (Ps. 102:13, 17–18).

The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and saves them. The Lord preserves all who love Him, but He will destroy all the wicked (Ps. 144:18–20).

Blessings rest upon the head of the righteous, but violence will silence the mouth of the wicked (Prov. 10:6).

Are not two small birds sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father’s will; and even the hairs of your head are all numbered (Matt. 10:29–30).

You will be hated by all because of My name, but not a single hair on your head will be lost (Luke 21:17–18).

The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:9).

For those who love God, who have been called according to His purpose, all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28).

Among the many examples of God’s special providence toward the godly, we will point out a few:

a) the righteous Noah and his family, whom the Lord preserved from destruction during the universal flood (Gen. 7:18; 8:4);

b) Abraham, the father of the faithful, with whom God’s right hand was always present, strengthening him amid all temptations and delivering him from calamities (Gen. 12:1; 22:2); c) on the chaste Joseph, who was sold by his brothers and taken to Egypt, and who later confessed to his brothers: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good” (Gen. 50:20);

d) King and Prophet David, who so clearly saw the hand of God upon him, especially during his persecutions by Saul and by his own son Absalom, and who so often confessed this in the Psalms (see Ps. 17:22; 26:33; 102, etc.);

e) the prophet Elijah, who was miraculously provided for by ravens (1 Kings 17), and later by an angel (ch. 19);

f) all the holy Apostles, who, sensing God’s special providence over them, testified: “We are unknown, yet we are recognized; we are regarded as dead, yet behold, we are alive; we are punished, yet we do not die; we are grieved, yet we always rejoice; we are poor, yet we enrich many; we have nothing, yet we possess everything (2 Cor. 6:9–10).

2. “But if, as they say, there is indeed a special providence of God regarding man, and if God, being just, cares more for the righteous than for sinners, then why do we not see confirmation of this in life itself? Why is it that the righteous often suffer hardship on earth, while sinners prosper and enjoy all the blessings of happiness?” In response to this perplexity, which has been voiced since ancient times and is so often repeated, in addition to what we have already said (in § 21), let us further observe:

2.1. We often err in our judgments about virtuous and wicked people because we judge both by outward appearances alone, being unable to penetrate to the very depths of their hearts and know their secret deeds. We often consider virtuous those who wear only a mask of piety and skillfully conceal their vices, even though they secretly indulge in them constantly; while we regard as sinful and wicked those whom, despite their innocence, envy and malice defame with slander, or who may have, perhaps only once out of carelessness, stained themselves with some flagrant unlawful act, and then sincerely repented of it and zealously lead a pious life. The Lord alone searches all hearts and knows all the movements of the mind (1 Chron. 28:9); He alone can judge without error who are truly righteous and who are sinful.

2.2. We are also often mistaken in our judgments about the happiness or unhappiness of our neighbors. For example, we call a certain sinner “happy” simply because he is rich, enjoys distinctions and honors, and indulges in pleasures. Yet we do not know that this person may be suffering the greatest family misfortunes, which he merely conceals; that this person may be bearing the cross of his own soul-tearing passions and vices, which exhaust his strength, expose him to various illnesses, and bring him prematurely to the grave; that he is often tormented by pangs of conscience, shame, and fear of temporal and eternal punishment. On the contrary, we call a righteous person “unfortunate” simply because he is poor, does not receive worldly honors, and does not enjoy pleasures—whereas the soul of the truly righteous does not at all crave earthly goods, which, consequently, could not constitute happiness for him; but true happiness for the righteous lies in the awareness of their righteousness and innocence, in a clear conscience, in spiritual joy (Rom. 14:17), and in the hope of attaining eternal bliss after death.

2.3. If God does indeed often allow godly people to suffer misfortunes on earth, it is for their own good. And, first of all, there is not a single righteous person who is completely free from all sin (Prov. 24:16; 1 John 1:8): in the midst of trials and sorrows, the righteous person’s soul is purified, like gold in a crucible (Wisdom 3:6; 1 Peter 1:6–7). Second, trials and temptations increasingly strengthen the righteous in goodness, elevate their moral dignity, make their love for God and their virtues purer and more selfless, and reveal new virtues in them: patience, generosity, courage, and others; and not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame (Rom. 5:3–5); therefore we do not lose heart; but even though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). Thirdly, afflictions and trials contribute to the exaltation of the future glory of the righteous: for although they are punished in the eyes of men, their hope is full of immortality. And though they are punished a little, they will be greatly blessed, because God has tested them and found them worthy of Him (Wisdom 3:4–5); for our light and momentary affliction produces an eternal glory that far outweighs it (2 Cor. 4:17).

Furthermore, even if God allows the righteous to experience misfortune and sorrow on earth, He—

a) He never leaves them without His help, nor does He tempt them beyond what they can bear: we are hard-pressed on every side, but not crushed; we are in desperate circumstances, but not in despair; we are persecuted, but not forsaken; we are struck down, but not destroyed (2 Cor. 4:8–9); God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but with the temptation He will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it (1 Cor. 10:13);

6) He never leaves them without His comfort: for just as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so also our comfort abounds through Christ (2 Cor. 1:5). That is why the trials and sorrows sent by God to the righteous serve as a testimony of His love for them, as the Apostle says: “The Lord disciplines those He loves; He punishes every son He accepts.” If you are being disciplined, God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline? But if you are left without discipline—which is common to all—then you are illegitimate children and not sons (Heb. 12:6–8).

2.4. If, on the other hand, God often bestows earthly blessings upon wicked people, He does so for a good purpose. Through His blessings upon sinners—those who oppose His will—He seeks to warm their cold hearts, to touch them with His fatherly love and win them over to Himself, to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21), to stir up in them a spirit of repentance (Rom. 2:4), to pull them out of the abyss of vice, and to set them on the path of virtue (2 Pet. 3:9; Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20). And if sinners do not heed this gentle voice calling them to repentance, if they do not strive to make use of God’s blessings as a means to their salvation, and remain in wickedness—because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you yourself are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and the revelation of God’s righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5).

2.5. It must be remembered that the misfortunes suffered by the righteous often depend on people, on their injustice and malice; just as the fortunate circumstances of sinners often depend on people as well—on their goodwill, partiality, and similar causes. Consequently, human freedom is at work here. But God, just as He does not restrict the freedom of His creatures in general, so He cannot and does not wish to restrict it here either; just as He generally permits people to do evil, so, in particular, He permits them to commit this kind of evil, by which they unjustly persecute the righteous and favor the sinners. That is precisely why the Savior said to His disciples: “If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” Remember the word I spoke to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you (John 15:18–20). That is why the Apostle foretold: “All who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). This is only natural: the world, lying in wickedness, cannot love the children of light—the righteous—without persecuting them. God merely draws, as much as possible, some moral good for the righteous out of the evil that sinners often inflict upon them.[1722]

2.6. This present life is a time of deeds: both the righteous and the sinners are still active here—some in one way, some in another—and have not yet completed their course. Therefore, their reward must not be given here, but only after their deeds are finished. And so it will be—this most just recompense—in the life to come, the life after death, where the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43), and the sinners will be cast into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). “Since the kingdom of heaven has been revealed to us,” says St. John Chrysostom, “and the reward in the life to come has been shown, there is no longer any need to inquire why the righteous suffer here, while the wicked live in pleasure. For if a reward according to one’s merits awaits everyone there, why be troubled by the events here, whether happy or unhappy? Through these trials, God trains those who are submissive to Him as courageous warriors; and He first instructs the weaker, the careless, and those unable to endure anything difficult to do good deeds.”[1723]

2.7. Finally, it is well known that not all the righteous on earth suffer, nor do they suffer always; on the contrary, they often enjoy the blessings of life, and the homes of the godly are visibly blessed by God (Prov. 3:33). Likewise, not all sinners prosper here, nor do they do so always; rather, they often suffer from their own sins (Wisdom 11:17), often endure deserved punishment from people, and often the Lord’s curse is palpable to all in the homes of the wicked (Prov. 3:33). And there are reasons for this as well. “If, however, the opposite often happens,” continues St. John Chrysostom, “if many righteous people live in peace and honor, while the wicked live in disgrace and extreme misfortune, then this refutes the objection raised against us earlier, the strength of which lies in the fact that the righteous suffer here, while the wicked are blessed. But if we must resolve this as well (that is, why even here the virtuous are sometimes happy while the wicked suffer), I will say that God arranges our well-being in different ways; yet, being inexhaustible in His means, He paves many paths to salvation. Since many are unwilling to accept the teachings about the afterlife and the resurrection, He presents here, in a small measure, a foreshadowing of the judgment—that is, when He punishes the wicked and rewards the good. This will be fully accomplished at the future judgment, but it is partly accomplished here and now, so that those who have given themselves over to sin because of the remoteness of that judgment might at least be brought to their senses by what is happening in the present. If none of the wicked were punished at all here, and none of the righteous received a reward, then many of those who do not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection would turn away from virtue as the cause of evil, and would love sin as the cause of good; on the other hand, if everyone here received according to their merits, they would think that the doctrine of judgment is superfluous and false. Therefore, so that this doctrine might not be called into question, and so that the numerous and ignorant masses might not become worse through negligence, God punishes many of the sinners and rewards some of the righteous even here; and by not doing this to everyone, He confirms the doctrine of judgment; and by punishing some before the judgment, He awakens those who are fast asleep. Because of the punishment that befalls the wicked, many are reformed out of fear that the same might happen to them; and because not everyone here receives what they deserve, many unwittingly begin to think that this (full retribution) is deferred to another time. A just God, of course, would not allow so many wicked people to depart from this life unpunished, nor would He allow the good to endure countless misfortunes, if He had not prepared a different state for both in the age to come. That is why He punishes and rewards not everyone, but only some.”[1724]

§ 120. The Ways in Which God Provides for Man and the Transition to the Next Part

The ways in which God provides for humankind are numerous and varied; but they all fall under two main categories, one of which is called the natural way, and the other, the supernatural way.

God’s natural providence for mankind consists in His preserving them, assisting them in good works, and guiding them toward the ultimate purpose of their existence by natural means—that is, through the powers and laws inherent in human nature itself and in the external world, and through the natural course of events and circumstances in the world. For example:

a) by sending us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filling our hearts with food and joy (Acts 14:17);

b) when He guides us along the path of truth and goodness through our conscience—as is the case with the Gentiles, who show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts, as their conscience and their thoughts bear witness (Rom. 2:15)—or through civil laws (Prov. 8:15) and through rulers, who are nothing but God’s servants—for your good—and he is God’s servant, an avenger who punishes those who do evil (Rom. 13:3–6);

c) when He prevents us from doing evil by removing opportunities for sin, as seen in the example of Saul (1 Sam. 19:11), or by opposing our lawless efforts with greater power, as He did with Absalom (2 Sam. 18);

d) when He punishes sinners in a natural way to bring them to their senses and correct them (1 Cor. 11:32), or to bring others to their senses and correct them through the sinners’ punishment (2 Pet. 2:6); e) when He arranges circumstances so that good consequences for people result from evil deeds, as exemplified in the story of Joseph (Gen. 50:20).

God’s supernatural providence toward people occurs when the Lord, who cares for us, employs supernatural and miraculous means for our good. Thus, He miraculously sustained the poor widow of Zarephath during a two-year famine; miraculously healed the Syrian commander Naaman of leprosy; miraculously saved the three youths in the Babylonian furnace; miraculously delivered the Apostle Peter from prison; miraculously converted Saul to Christianity; and so on and so forth. But in addition to these specific instances of God’s supernatural providence toward humanity—which are extremely varied and diverse—this category also includes, in particular, the entire series of supernatural acts of divine providence that the Lord has performed and continues to perform specifically as the Redeemer of the human race as a whole, and which will be the subject of the next part of our study.

§ 121. The Moral Application of the Dogma

1. The fate of earthly kingdoms lies in the right hand of the Almighty. He blesses the nations with peace (Ps. 28:11), bestows upon them the bounties of the earth, exalts and glorifies them when the nations are faithful to His law; He also sends calamities upon them, humbles, and even destroys nations (Ps. 43:3) when they are unfaithful to Him and give themselves over to wickedness (Jer. 18:6–10). From this follow three important lessons for every nation:

a) first and foremost, to strive to please God through true faith and good deeds: for He judges the nations (Ps. 66:5; 95:10), and will repay each person according to their deeds (Rom. 2:6)—which is why the The Wise One, that it is righteousness that exalts a nation, while lawlessness brings disgrace upon nations (Prov. 14:34);

b) to attribute all their true successes in various spheres of public life—their well-being, prosperity, glory, and all happy circumstances—not to themselves but to God (Ps. 126:11), and to thank Him, exclaiming together with the Psalmist: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Your name give glory, for the sake of Your mercy, for the sake of Your truth” (Ps. 113:9);

c) In times of public calamities or dangers, first and foremost turn to Him with fervent pleas for mercy and help, and strive to win His favor through sincere repentance for sins and reform of one’s character.

2. In governing the kingdoms of the earth, the Most High Himself appoints kings over them, bestows power and authority upon His chosen ones through the sacramental anointing, and crowns them with honor and glory for the good of the peoples. Hence, it is the duty of every son of the fatherland:

a) to revere his monarch as the Anointed One of God (Ps. 104:15; cf. Ex. 22:28);

b) to love him as a common Father, given by the Most High to the great family of the nation, and burdened with concern for the happiness of each and every one;

c) to obey Him as one invested with authority from above, and as one who reigns and is guided in his royal decrees by God Himself (Prov. 8:15; 21:1); d) to pray for the King, that the Lord may grant him, for the happiness of his subjects, health and salvation, success in all things, victory and triumph over his enemies, and that He may grant him many years (1 Tim. 2:1).

3. Through kings, as His anointed ones, God sends all lower authorities to the nations. Hence, it is the duty of every citizen:

a) to submit to every human authority for the Lord’s sake (1 Pet. 2:13)—for whoever resists authority resists God’s ordinance (Rom. 13:2);

b) to give to everyone what is due: to whom tribute is due, tribute; to whom tax, tax; to whom respect, respect; to whom honor, honor (7); and

c) to pray for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity (1 Tim. 2:2).

4. The fate of each of us also lies in the right hand of the Almighty. He kills and gives life, brings down to the grave and raises up; He makes poor and enriches, humbles and exalts (1 Sam. 2:6–8). Therefore,

a) even if our affairs go well, let us not be proud, for whatever we may possess is not our own but depends on God’s providence, who, having granted us these blessings, can also take them back from us (1 Cor. 4:7; James 1:17);

b) if misfortunes befall us, let us not despair: for even misfortunes are sent upon us by Providence, which is all-wise and all-good, and which measures them according to our strength (1 Cor. 10:13), and directs them toward our own moral benefit (1 Pet. 1:6–7; Rom. 5:3–5);

c) Let us always and in everything rely on God, giving thanks to Him in times of happiness for all His mercies and bounties, and in times of misfortune asking for His help and intercession.

5. While caring for all people, the Lord loves the righteous in a special way (Ps. 145:8), and it is upon them that He primarily bestows His wondrous mercy; He guards them as the apple of His eye (Ps. 16:7–8) — may this serve as an incentive for each of us to guard against sin and train ourselves in godliness (1 Tim. 4:7), so that we too may be numbered among God’s elect, for whom all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28).

[1] See A. M., *Introduction to Orthodox Theology*, §§ 151, 152, 160, 162, 177, and 178.

[2] For example, when it is said of the Savior that He abolished the law of commandments (δόγμασι) through His teaching (Eph. 2:15), or that He blotted out the handwritten code (δόγμασι) that stood against us through His teaching (Col. 2:14). St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret, St. Theophylact, and certain other teachers, in explaining these passages, understand “dogmas” here to refer specifically to the teaching of the Gospel.

[3] Δόγματα θεΐα (Theodoret, Epist. ad Johan. Antioh.)—of God (Orig., in Matth., vol. 12, n. 23; Clem. Alex., Strom. 3:2; 6:15).

[4] The doctrines of Jesus Christ (Ignatius to Magnesians 13; Martyrdom of St. Justin, n. 4; Basil, on Psalm 46, n. 4).

[5] Strive to be established in the doctrines of the Lord (Ignatius to the Ephesians, § 13).

[6] The doctrines of the Gospels (Athanas. in Matth. serm. 9); apostolic (Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. 1. 2. 7).

[7] .... you have circumvented those who counterfeit the divine doctrine as if it were a coin (Synes. Epist. V). He ordained them and instructed them in the preaching of his doctrine and teaching (Lactantius, *De mort. persccut.*, n. 2. Conf. St. Basil, Hexaëm. orat. 6).

[8] Teachers of the doctrine—apud Origen, *Contra Celsum*, Book III.

[9] Those of the doctrine—in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Chapter 30.

[10] For example, it is said: δόγματα έλληνικά (Sozom., Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 16).

[11] .... De suis decretis, quae philosophi vocant dogmata (Cicero, *Quaestiones Academicae*, IV, Ѳ). For this reason, Saint Isidore of Pelusium calls Socrates *ten attic dogmaton nomotheten*. Book I, Letter II to Ophelius the Grammarian.

[12] In Sacred Scripture, the following are sometimes referred to as dogmas: the decrees of Caesar or the king (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:17; Dan. 2:13), a royal command (Dan. 6:8 and 9), a royal decree (15), and the word — έδογμάτισαν — is used both in reference to kings (Esth. 3:9) and in reference to the decisions of the popular assembly acting in the spirit of governmental authority (2 Macc. 10:8; 15:36).

[13] See “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M., § 127. St. Petersburg, 1847.

[14] The Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith, Articles 2 and 12; for further details, see the aforementioned Introduction, §§ 134–140.

[15] See The Guide, or the Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers—on the first pages.

[16] Δόγματα έκκλησιαστικά (Cyrill Alex. in Amos. 2:7; VI, 2; Chrysost. in Matth. 21:23); τά τής έκκλησίας δόγματα (Gregor. Nyss. contra Eunom. orat. XII, in tom. II, pag. 815.Paris . 1638; Chrysostom, Homily VI on the Epistle to Philip); ecclesiastical discourses (Origen, on Matthew, Vol. XI, n. 17; Vol. XII, n. 23).

[17] Ecclesiastical (Greg. of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Oration II, in Opp., vol. II, p. 481, ed. Morel.); those who gather in the church (Epiphanius, Heresies, LXI, n. 4); those from the church (Origen, Against Celsus, V, 61).

[18] In this sense, St. Chrysostom speaks of himself: “For you have observed that much of what is said by us is preached polemically, not dogmatically.” In Matth. XXI, 23, in Coteler. Monum. eccles. gr. III, 145.

[19] The orthodox doctrines of the Church (Cyril of Alexandria, *Defense Against the Anathemas*, X; Chrysostom, *Homilies on Genesis*, II, n. 5); soundness (Origen, *Commentary on John*, Vol. VI, n. 2; Vol. XX, n. 22); piety (Origen, in Matthew, Vol. XVII, n. 7; Cyril of Alexandria, in Amos 6:2); pious (Cyril, in Symbol, ad Monach.).

[20] Doctrines of impiety (Chrysostom, vol. VIII, Sermon V, ed.Paris , p. 133); impia et irreligiosa dogmata (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Preface, n. 1); δόγματα μυσαρά (Theodoret, on Isaiah Nav. quaest. XVI); atheistic (Eusebius, in Ps. LVII, 12); pestilential and deadly doctrines (Augustine, De Civitate Dei XVIII, 51, n. 1). Rule VII of the Third Ecumenical Council also states: “the vile and perverse doctrines of Nestorius.”

[21] See the Kormchaya or Book of Rules.

[22] The way of godliness consists of these two things—pious and precise dogmas, and good deeds. Satech. IV, p. 2.

[23] Christianity, along with the correctness of its dogmas, requires a healthy polity. Chrysostom, Homily XXVII on John. The Holy Father repeats this in his Homily II on Genesis, n. 5, and Homily XIII on Genesis, n. 4.

[24] See the entry: heresy—in the alphabetical index appended at the end of the latest edition of The Book of Rules... (St. Petersburg, 1843).

[25] On the various meanings of the word “symbol” (σύμβολον), as well as on the origin of symbols in the Christian Church, see the biblical-historical His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, pp. 599–601, 4th ed., and in Switzer’s *Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus* under the entry: *σύμβολον*.

[26] Thus, for example, the words of the ancient creeds: “I believe in… the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,” protected the Orthodox from the false teachings of heretics—the Simonian and Menandrian heresies, which appeared as early as the apostolic age and taught that the world was created not by God but by angels; the teaching of those same creeds regarding the conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and His birth from the Virgin Mary protected them from the false teachings of other heretics of that time—the Cerinthians and the Ebionites—who taught that Jesus was conceived and born just as people are generally born, and that He is the son of Joseph and Mary.

[27] The ancient symbols of the churches known to this day—those of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Aquileia—are also found in the writings of individual teachers of that time: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory the Wonderworker, and in the Apostolic Constitutions. Some of these creeds are shorter, while others are more extensive. In addition to differences in certain words and expressions, they also differ in the order in which certain clauses are presented. See the creeds themselves in Bingham, *Origin. Eccles.*, Book X, Chapters 3 and 4.

[28] For example, in the creed of the Church of Aquileia, after the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty,” the words “invisible and impassible” (invisibilem et impassibilem) are added. This is specifically directed against the Sabellians and Patripassians. “It is necessary to know,” says Rufinus, who himself belonged to the Church of Aquileia, “that these two words are not found in the creed of the Roman Church, but were added by us against the Savellian heresy, known as Patripassianism, which teaches that the Father (Pater) Himself was born of the Virgin, became visible, and suffered (passus est) in the flesh. To remove this blasphemy against the Father, our forefathers, it seems, added the aforementioned words—that is, they described the Father as invisible and incapable of suffering” (Rufin. in Exposit. symboli). For the same reason, of course, clauses concerning the descent of Jesus Christ into hell and the communion of saints were subsequently added to some of the ancient creeds, although it is unknown exactly when they were added. Apud. Bingham. Op. cit. lib. X, cap. 3, § 7.

[29] We make no mention here of the so-called Apostolic Creed, which was used specifically in the Roman Church during the first three centuries and is still held in special esteem in the West, — we make no mention of it because the Eastern Church—the Orthodox Church—did not use this creed either during the first three centuries, when it employed other creeds, or in all subsequent times, and consequently it never regarded it, in the strict sense, as the Apostolic Creed, nor did it ever prefer it to all other ancient creeds, which, according to tradition, could just as well have originated from the Apostles, if not in letter, then in spirit and content (Bibliographical History His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, p. 600, 4th ed.). “We,” said the representatives of the Orthodox Church at the Council of Florence, “neither have nor have we seen a creed of the Apostles,” in response to the Latins, who, pointing to their ancient creed, claimed it originated from the Apostles themselves. Concil. Florent. sect. VI, cap. 6.

[30] It should be noted, however, that the development of ecclesiastical-theological language began in part even before the First Council of Nicaea: a) at certain local councils, such as the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, which introduced the term “consubstantial” (ομοούσιος) into its creed; and b) in the writings of individual teachers, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, who also used the same term (in epist. ad Dionys. Roman.), and Theophilus of Antioch, in whose works we encounter for the first time the term “Trinity”—τριάς (Ad Apostolic. II, n. 15); — this practice continued even after the Council of Nicaea, in response to the emergence of new heresies, against which, in order to define Orthodox doctrine with the utmost precision, it was necessary to establish the meaning of the terms themselves more precisely. The most important terms of the ecclesiastical-theological language thus formed, each having its own strictly defined meaning, are: a) in the exposition of the doctrine of God, that He is one in the Trinity, one in essence, triune in persons or hypostases...... that the personal attribute of the Father is being unbegotten, of the Son—being begotten by the Father, and of the Holy Spirit—proceeding from the Father; b) in the exposition of the doctrine concerning Christ the Savior, that He was incarnated or became human, that in Him there is one person and not two natures—divine and human—united without mixture, without change, without division, and inseparably, and so on.

[31] The 3rd Ecumenical Council, Canon 7; the 6th Ecumenical Council, Canons 1 and 2. For the view of the Council of Chalkedon (the 4th Ecumenical Council) on this matter, see Lyabbey—*Concil. tom. IV, p. 567; for the definition of the Council of Constantinople (867), which was long regarded in the East as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, see Voskreseniye Chteniya, vol. IV, p. 400. Cf. “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M., pp. 565–570, St. Petersburg, 1847. From the time of the Second and especially the Third Ecumenical Council, strict care began to be taken to ensure that, in expressing the fundamental truths of the faith, words were not used arbitrarily or invented, but rather those defined by the Church; and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in examining the case of the former Patriarchs of Constantinople—Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, as well as some of their like-minded associates—charged them specifically with introducing new terms contrary to the Orthodox faith (See Labbeus, *Concil. Vol. VI, pp. 610–611)—and reaffirmed the dogmas of the Holy Fathers, not only to accept them according to the meaning they had adopted, but also to express them in the same words as they did and to resolutely introduce nothing new (apud Labb. ibid., p. 1028).

[32] It is worth noting that the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, in setting forth the creed of the First Ecumenical Council in greater detail, — a) endeavored to use primarily words and entire phrases from Holy Scripture, and — b) borrowed the last four clauses—which were not found in the Nicene Creed—from earlier creeds used in the Church prior to the Council of Nicaea.

[33] We cannot fail to mention here the Address (προσφωνητικός) of this Ecumenical Council to Emperor Marcian, which is of great importance to us in the present context; in it, the Fathers thoroughly explain the idea that the gradual revelation or development of dogmas in the Church is necessary, precisely in response to the emergence of heresies, that the Church always has the right to do so, and that, in such a revelation of dogmas, she introduces nothing new. Apud Labb. Concil. Vol. IV, pp. 819–828.

[34] All the creeds and statements of faith of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and of the Holy Fathers, as cited by the Council of Trullo, can be found in *The Compass*, or *The Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers*, published in St. Petersburg in 1839 and 1843.

[35] See the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith at the beginning.

[36] For more details on these books, see § 149 of A. M.’s *Introduction to Orthodox Theology*.

[37] From this it is evident how unjust are the accusations leveled by Roman writers against the Eastern Orthodox Church, as if by strictly adhering only to the seven ancient Ecumenical Councils and not recognizing the living organ of infallible ecclesiastical teaching in the person of the Pope, it thereby became immovable, lifeless, and dead. Yes, the Orthodox Church is indeed firmly and unshakably grounded in the seven Ecumenical Councils, as in the seven pillars upon which the wisdom of God has built her house (Prov. 9:1); Throughout the centuries, the Orthodox Church has neither distorted nor rejected a single dogma affirmed at the Ecumenical Councils, nor has it adopted a single new one unknown to the ancient universal Church; and that is why it is called Orthodox. But at the same time, it has always had—and continues to have—a living body through which to express its infallible teaching: this is the voice of all its pastors; this is their councils; at the same time, it has never ceased—following in every respect the seven Ecumenical Councils and the ancient Holy Fathers—to expound its unchanging dogmas in greater detail and with more thoroughness, in response to newly arising heresies and errors, as a guide for the Orthodox, just as it did against the errors of the Roman Church and later against Protestant errors. Consequently, the Orthodox Eastern Church continues to this day to live and act exactly as the ancient Ecumenical Church lived and acted before the Roman Patriarchate broke away from it.

[38] See note 33 above. One of the ecclesiastical writers of the fifth century, Vincent of Lirius, also wrote very judiciously on this subject: “Perhaps someone will say: ‘Will there then be no progress in the religion of the Church of Christ?’ Let there be progress, and the greatest kind. ‘Nam ’” Who is this man, so hated by men and so abhorred by God, who would attempt to forbid this? Yet this must be so that it may truly be a progress in the faith, not a change. For progress involves the expansion of each thing within itself; change, however, involves the transformation of something from one state to another. Therefore, it is necessary that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance greatly and vigorously—both in individuals and in the whole, both in a single person and in the entire Church—through the stages of age and the passage of centuries... For it is permissible for those ancient dogmas of heavenly philosophy to be refined, polished, and developed over time; but it is impermissible for them to be altered.... Let them indeed acquire clarity, light, and distinction; but they must retain their fullness, integrity, and proper nature. Commonis, 1, chap. 38.

[39] In ancient times, the symbol was given special names as a testament to its particular importance. It was called: a) truth—άλήθεια (Iren. adv. haeres. lib. 1, p. 9, n. 5; p. 10, n. 2), and the rule of truth—κανών τής αληθείας (ibid., Book I, p. 9, n. 4); b) faith—πίστι (ibid., Book III, p. 1, n. 14), the Catholic faith (Augustine, *De fide et symbolo*, ch. 1), the rule of faith (Tertullian, *Adversus Praxitum*, ch. 2; Augustine, Sermon CCXIII on the Tradition of the Symbol), the veil of faith (Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1), the foundation of catholic faith (Augustine, Sermon on the Symbol to the Catechumens, ch. 1); c) the apostolic teaching (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 24; Book IV, ch. 33), the universal teaching—διδασκαλία καθολική (Apostolic Constitutions, Book VI, p. 14); d) the faith of the Church (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 24), the canon or rule of the Church (Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 9), the ancient system of the Church for the whole world—τό άρχαϊον τής έκκλησίας σύστημα κοίτα, παντός τού κόσμου (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 33). This last designation of the creed is particularly significant for the science or system of Orthodox dogmatic theology.

[40] For other statements of faith in which the symbolic teaching of the Orthodox Church can also be found—and which, consequently, can be used in Orthodox dogmatic theology—see A. M.’s “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” § 149.

[41] Or, as is commonly put, “the stewardship of salvation”—a literal translation of the Greek: οίκονομία τής σωτηρίας—although this expression is not entirely easy to understand (see the entry “stewardship” in the Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian, compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, vol. 1).

[42] Johan. Damasc. *De fide orthodoxa*, Book 1, Chapter 2. Excerpts from other Holy Fathers confirming this idea can be found in Petavius (*De Theologia dogmatica*, Vol. I, Prolegomena, chap. 1, and vol. V, book IV, chap. 1), who, for his part, based on the excerpts presented, makes the following general observation: “All discourse concerning God is divided into two parts, one of which is called theology—θεολογία—and the other, oikonomia—οίκονομία. The word *theologia* refers specifically to that which pertains to the Divine Nature itself and the Divine Persons, that is, to the nature of God and His attributes, whether they are independent (absolutae proprietates) or unrelated to the world, or whether they are related to it (relativae). Oikonomia, on the other hand, encompasses that which concerns the state and actions of God, who cares for our salvation—what the Greeks call ensarcon oikonomian, and the Latins call the Incarnation (incarnatio) and the life in the flesh of Christ the Savior.”

[43] It is desired, then, that such a distinction be made between simple theology and economic theology. And then it immediately adds that the Church designates as the subject of simple theology the doctrine of God in Himself and of God as Creator and Provider, leaving, consequently, everything else for the second part: “Simple theology,” he teaches, “must set forth the knowledge that God is the only One, and One precisely by essence; that He is without beginning, unbegotten, uncreated, and eternal; that He is the Creator of all things visible and invisible, and is also the Ruler, Provider, and Preserver of every creature, visible and invisible” (Confess, cathol. et apostol. in Oriente Eccl., ed. Helmst., chap. 1). It is worth noting that St. John of Damascus’s *Theology* itself, in one of the Greek manuscripts—though not an ancient one—is also divided into two parts, the first of which, according to the editor of John’s works, Leken—on theology, that is, on the one, triune God, Creator and Provider, and the latter on the economy, or on God incarnate, the Redeemer and Rewarder (See the prologue to the Book of St. John of Damascus on the Orthodox Faith, according to the Paris Lekene’s edition of this Father’s works, vol. 1, p. 119). Even if one cannot yet agree, based on this alone, that such a division was made by St. John of Damascus himself—for it does not appear in any other Greek manuscripts of his *Theology*— at the very least, one cannot fail to see here further confirmation of the words of Mitrofan Kritopoulos, that in later times in the Orthodox East, it was indeed customary to divide dogmatic Theology in this manner. However, St. Damascene himself, who divided his *Theology* only into chapters—beginning with the chapter “On the Divine Economy” (περί τής θέιας οίκονομίας)—begins this section only after having expounded on the Triune God and on His creation and providence (See *De Tide Orthod.*, chap. 45, or Book III, chap. 1).

[44] For greater clarity on all this, see “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” § 131: on the characteristics of apostolic tradition, and § 132: on the importance and use of Sacred Tradition.

[45] We highlight the following passages: a) Cyril of Alexandria: “Faith is knowledge, and knowledge is faith; thus, in relation to a certain divine reality, both conformity and non-conformity arise” (Strom. lib. II, p. 4); b) St. Chrysostom: “For we believe all the more when we learn both the cause and the reason by which it comes to pass” (in Hebr. hom. XII, p. 2); c) Blessed Augustine: “Far be it from God to despise this in us, in which He has created us superior to other living beings. Far be it, I say, that we should believe for this reason, or that we should accept or seek reason, since we could not even believe unless we possessed rational minds.” Thus, in certain matters pertaining to salutary doctrine—which we are not yet able to comprehend through reason, but will be able to do so in time—faith precedes reason, through which the heart is purified so that it may grasp great truths and bear forth the light; this is certainly a matter of reason (Epist. ad Consent. CXX, n. 3); d) Hilary: The Apostle did not leave us with a faith that is bare and devoid of reason: which, although it is most powerful for salvation, will nevertheless, unless instructed by doctrine, have a safe refuge to which to flee amid adversity, but will not retain the constant security of victory; and it will be like a camp for the weak after their flight, but not like the undaunted fortitude that accompanies those who possess weapons (Book XII); d) Blessed Theodoret: “Faith requires knowledge, just as knowledge requires faith; for neither can there be faith without knowledge, nor knowledge apart from faith” (Græcar., affect., curat., p. 1); Faith, however, precedes knowledge, while knowledge follows faith (Græcar., affect, curat., p. 479).

[46] It would be superfluous to cite specific examples from the writings of the Church Fathers to support this idea: there are so many of them that one can find several in almost every notable work by the most learned Fathers and teachers of the Church: Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and others. It suffices to note in general: 1) that the holy Fathers by no means disregarded secular learning, but on the contrary considered it useful for the Christian theologian: “I believe,” says, for example, St. Gregory the Theologian, “that anyone of sound mind will acknowledge learning to be the foremost good for us—and not only this most noble form of our education, which, despising all ornamentation and eloquence, is concerned solely with salvation and with contemplative beauty, but also the higher education, which many Christians, out of ignorance, despise as clumsy, dangerous, and leading away from God... In the sciences, we have adopted research and speculation, but rejected everything that leads to demons, to error, and into the depths of perdition. We have extracted from them what is useful even for piety itself, learning the better through the worse, and turning their weakness into the strength of our teaching. Therefore, education should not be disparaged, as some argue; on the contrary, we must recognize as foolish ignoramuses those who, holding this view, would wish to see everyone like themselves, so that in general deficiency they might conceal their own deficiency and avoid being exposed as ignorant” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers,” Russian trans., published by the Moscow Theological Academy, vol. IV, pp. 63–64); 2) that many of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church enjoyed studying philosophy, especially that of Plato, advised other Christians to study it, and themselves often made use of it in expounding Christian doctrine (see, in Volume 1 of the Essays of the fifth-year students of the Kiev Theological Academy, 5th-year course—the essay: “How the Church Fathers of the First Five Centuries Viewed Philosophy in General and Platonic Philosophy in Particular,” and cf. Baltus: *Defense of the Holy Fathers, Accused of Platonism*...); and 3) that, finally, of all the secular sciences, the branch of philosophy they valued most highly and considered necessary for a Christian theologian was dialectic: “For the power of dialectic is a wall to doctrines, preventing them from remaining unchallenged.” “and it is an impregnable fortress against those who wish to attack them,” argued St. Basil the Great (in chap. 2 of Isaiah). “The discipline of disputation is of the greatest value for penetrating and resolving all kinds of questions found in the Holy Scriptures,” says Blessed Augustine as well (De doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 31). Similar remarks on dialectic can be found in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book I, p. 319; Book VI, p. 655), Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection, vol. III, p. 201, ed. Morel.), Jerome (vol. III, p. 995), and others. And St. Gregory the Theologian recounts of St. Basil the Great that, though he had a perfect command of all the sciences and was highly proficient in philosophy, he was particularly skilled “in that part of it which deals with logical arguments and oppositions, as well as debates, and is called dialectics,” — and that “it was easier to find one’s way out of a labyrinth than to escape the snares of his words when he deemed it necessary” (Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian translation, vol. IV, pp. 78–79).

[47] See, for example, Irenaeus, *Contra Haereses*, Book II; Tertullian, *Adversus Hermogenem* and *Contra Maxion*; Epiphanius, *Haereses* XXXI, XLI–XLIV; Gregory of Nyssa, *Contra Manicheus: Decem Syllogismi*, *Opp.*, Vol. II, ed.Paris , 1615.

[48] See, for example, from the works of Basil the Great, the book on the Holy Spirit and the five books against Eunomius; from St. Gregory the Theologian, the five discourses on theology against the Eunomians; and from Blessed Augustine, the fifteen books on the Most Holy Trinity.

[49] See especially Book 1, Chapter V: proof that there is one God, not many; Chapter VI: on the Word and the Son. Proof of God’s existence from reason; Chapter VII: proof of the Holy Spirit from reason; also the third book, which deals primarily with the two natures in Jesus Christ and the incomprehensible manner of their union and mutual communion.

[50] The ancient teachers of the Church sought to explain the relationship between reason and faith that should exist in this case by means of a simile: faith, they said, should be the mistress, like Sarah in Abraham’s house, while reason or philosophy should be the servant, like Hagar (Clemen. Alex. Strom. 1, pp. 284–285; Hieron. epist. 146 ad Magn.).

[51] “Faith is the foundation of knowledge.” Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. VII, c. 10. See also Iren. adv. hær., ed. Massuet., lib. I, e. 1–10; lib. II, c. 28; Athanas. epist. 1 ad Serapion. cap. 20.

[52] St. John Chrysostom said: “Knowledge comes through faith, and without faith there is no knowledge” (Chrysostom, Homily XI on the Epistle to the Philippians); “Understanding is the work of faith” (Homily XXI on Hebrews, n. 1); St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Knowledge comes after faith, and not before faith” (Caten. in cap. 6 Joann.). See also St. Cyril of Jerusalem—Catech. V, 2—and St. Theophylact of Bulgaria—in cap. I ad Titum.

[53] It was rightly said by the prophet: “Unless you believe, you will not understand” (Isa. 7:9). There he clearly distinguished between these two, and gave the counsel that we should first believe so that we might be able to understand what we believe. Therefore, it is reasonable that faith should precede reason. Augustine, Epistle CXX to Consentius. The same is found in Clement of Alexandria—Stromata, Book II, p. 4—and in St. Basil the Great—Homily on Psalm CXV.

[54] Faith, then, is more fundamental than knowledge, and it is the criterion of knowledge. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. Book II, Chapter 4.

[55] We must always exercise caution in our thinking, especially when we speak or hear anything concerning God. Chrysostom, Homily II on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[56] It is not fitting to be carried away by excessive precision, nor to endure what is beyond reason in extreme inquiries. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Address to Emperor Theodosius.

[57] “It must be elaborated…,” says Saint Ambrose, “so that no one may undermine our assertion through philosophy. For we have seen the Arians fall into heresy when they sought to explain Christ’s generation in terms of the customs of this world.” They have abandoned the Apostle and follow Aristotle; they have abandoned the wisdom that is with God and have extolled the tricks of argumentation and the snares of words according to the discipline of dialectics (in Ps. CXVIII, homily XXII, n. 10). See also Tertullian (De praescriptione haeresium, chap. 7), St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Ps. CXV, n. 1), St. Basil the Great (Against Eunomius, Book 1), and Blessed Augustine (Sermon 87 on Time).

[58] Basil the Great, Homilies on Psalm 115; Augustine, On the Doctrine of Christ, Book II. The words of Clement of Alexandria are also worth noting here: “By the term ‘philosophy,’ I do not mean any particular system—Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, or Aristotelian—but rather that which is true in these schools, that which teaches truth and godly conduct; all such things, taken as a whole, I call philosophy” (Stromat. lib. 1, cap. 7).

[59] Thus, the very doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, which is now presented by the Roman Church as a dogma, was at first (in the 7th century) merely the private opinion of a very few.

[60] Even St. Gregory the Wonderworker urged Christian theologians: “Let us not scrutinize the Gospel message with dry words, nor sow endless disputes and arguments, nor roughen the smooth and gentle word of faith” (quoted by Damascenus in *Eclog. Tit. 76* from the book *On the Incarnation and Faith*).

[61] General History of the Christian Religion and Church by Aug. Neander, Hamburg 1826, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 163–181: Opposition to Christianity through the Writings of the Pagans.

[62] These include: Justin the Philosopher, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Hermas, Quadratus, Aristides, Castor, Tertullian, and many others.

[63] Neander’s aforementioned work, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 397–537: History of the Sects.

[64] They were located in Ephesus, Smyrna, Antioch, Alexandria, Caesarea, Carthage, and other places. Fleurii—Diss. II in hist. eccles. §§ 13–15. Cf. Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, Part 1, pp. 4–5, based on the fourth edition.

[65] Philosophy, therefore, prepares the way for what is brought to completion by Christ. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, Book I, p. 282. Origen also repeats this: *Philocalia*, Chapter XIII, pp. 41–42.

[66] Dialectic helps one avoid falling prey to the heresies that are on the rise. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. I, p. 319. See also note 46 above.

[69] Fleurii—Hist. Eccles., vol. VII, book 32, § 6.

[70] Evidence can be found in “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” A. M., § 128.

[71] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book III, Chapters 2 and 3; Tertullian, *On the Prescription of Heretics*, Chapters 19, 20, 21, and 22; Origen, Preface to Book I of *On the Principles*, n. 2, p. 47. Ed.Paris , 1572.

[72] Thus, even the presbyter Caius (2nd century), in proving the divinity of Jesus Christ against the heretic Artemon, referred to hymns composed by early Christians in honor of Jesus Christ as God (See: Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, Book V, Chapter 28, p. 157, Amsterdam 1795, and apud Phot. — Biblioth. cod. 48); Saint Justin and Tertullian demonstrated the Trinity of God through the ancient form of baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Just. Apolog. 1, n. 61; Tertullian, *Adversus Praxeas*, ch. 27, and *Contra Marcion*, Book I, ch. 28); St. Basil the Great—the divinity of the Holy Spirit—through the words of the ancient evening hymn, or the “Sun-like” thanksgiving, in praise of the Most Holy Trinity (De Spiritu Santo ad Amphil., ch. 29, n. 73); St. John Chrysostom, in support of the idea that angels are angels of peace, pointed to the words of the ektenia, in which the deacon asks God for an angel of peace (Homil. XXXVIII, p. 477, vol. V, Francof. 1698); Blessed Augustine demonstrated the importance of the doctrine of prayers for the dead by citing the universal practice of the Church and the fact that “in the prayers which the priest offers before the altar, the intercession for the dead occupies a special, indispensable place” (Tractat. de cur. pro mort. ger., chap. IV).

[73] The Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian Translation, Vol. IX: St. Basil the Great—On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, and the Christian Readings for 1846, Part I: Blessed Theodoret—On the Unchangeable Incarnation of the Word of God, pp. 69–75.

[74] For example, St. Basil the Great, in the same Chapter 29 on the Holy Spirit, points to the hymn of the martyr Athenogenes—which he left to his disciples as he was being led to the stake—to support his argument.

[75] This can be seen most clearly in the four words of St. Athanasius the Great against the Arians and in the writings of Blessed Augustine against the Pelagians.

[76] In works against the pagans, for example, reference was made to the well-known Acts of Pilate (Justin, Apology I, chap. 35; Tertullian, Apology Against the Gentiles, chaps. 5 and 21; Chrysostom, Homily XXVI, on 2 Corinthians), to Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan (Tertull. Apolog. adv. gentes, chap. 2), and also cited passages from pagan philosophers, poets, historians, and other writers. V. Luטרי — Histor. theologico-crit. de vita, scriptis atque doctrina S. Patrum... par. II, p. 6, ed. Aug. Windelic. 1784.

[77] The most detailed confirmation of the idea regarding the method employed by the ancient Holy Fathers in expounding the dogmas of the faith, as outlined here, can be found in Cellius’s *Historie génér. des auteurs sacrés...*, where he analyzes the writings of various teachers, particularly Athanasius of Alexandria (in vol. V), Basil the Great (in vol. VI), Gregory the Theologian (in vol. VII), and Augustine (in vols. XI and XII).

[78] Unfortunately, this famous work has not survived to us either in the original or in Blessed Jerome’s translation; it has been preserved only in Rufinus’s translation, which is highly flawed and arbitrary, containing abridgments and alterations, as Rufinus himself admitted (in prolegom. de princip.). For this reason, it is extremely difficult to pass a completely accurate and precise judgment on this work.

[79] Specifically: — a) he viewed the world as a necessary consequence of God’s omnipotence, and therefore posited a countless series of worlds that preceded the present one, and an equal series of other worlds that are to exist after the present one throughout all eternity; b) he regarded human souls as fallen spirits who are sent down into the sensory world and united with bodies for purification, and after purification once again become pure spirits, as they were before the fall, and return to their proper place; c) Consequently, he inevitably refuted the Church’s teaching on original sin, which is transmitted among people from their first parents; d) he rejected the eternity of torments; and—e) while not directly rejecting the resurrection of the body, he nevertheless maintained that the body would then be transformed into some kind of ethereal, spiritual essence. Photius found in this work by Origen other errors concerning the Persons of the Holy Trinity themselves (Photius, Biblioth., cod. VIII).

[80] They are also known in Russian in two translations: one by Archbishop Ambrose of Moscow and another produced at the Yaroslavl Seminary.

[81] It was translated into Russian by P. Todorsky and published in a collection under the title: “The Three Books of Blessed Augustine,” St. Petersburg, 1795.

[82] Published in *Chron. Quarta* 1844, vol. IV, pp. 173–229 and 311–389.

[83] The best edition of this work, with variants and commentaries, is included in volume 58 of the *Patrolog. curs., compl.*, edited by Abbot La Min, Paris, 1847.

[84] It has been published repeatedly, but only in Latin translation, not in the original (see Casimiri Oudini, *Commentar. de script. eccles. autiqu.*, vol. 1, pp. 1663–1664, Leipzig, 1722). It was also used in our region in a Slavonic translation and was included in the *Collection of a Brief Exposition on the Articles of Faith*, published under Patriarch Joseph in Moscow in 1649 (see Bergii—*de statu eccles. et relig. Moscoviticae, p. 25, Stockholm, 1704, and Sakharov—Review of Slavic-Russian Bibliography, vol. 1, book 2, no. 510). Today it is commonly printed in our country alongside the Psalter of the Church.

[85] We do not list all these patristic works, given their sheer number. A catalog of them can be found in the theological library of Valchius (vol. 1, ch. 2 and ch. 5, sect. 2). A catalog and the content itself are found in the well-known patristic works of Lümper, Dupin, and Seillier.

[86] *Ekdosis* or *Exthesis* of the Orthodox Faith. It is known to us in four translations: that of John, the Bulgarian Exarch, made as early as the 9th century or the beginning of the 10th; that of Epiphanius of Slavenitsa—in the 17th century; that of Ambrose, Archbishop of Moscow—in the latter half of the 18th century; and finally, in a translation made at the Moscow Theological The first three translations are in Slavonic, while the last is in Russian.

[87] The number of chapters in various lists and editions of St. John of Damascus’s *Theology* varies: in some, there are 96; in others, 100; in still others, 102; in yet others, 103; and in some, as many as 149 and more (see Petri Lambecii, *Commentar. de Aug. Bibliotheca Caesar. Windobonensi, Book IV, pp. 269, 468, 469, and Book V, p. 13, ed. Kollarii); in the Slavonic translation by John, the Bulgarian Exarch, there are 112; in Ambrose’s version—111 (Kalaydovich, *On John, the Bulgarian Exarch*, pp. 20 and 56, Moscow, 1824). The discrepancy stemmed from the fact that some chapters were grouped under a single number or presented as separate sections. The division of this *Theology* into four books, which does not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts but is found only in the Latin manuscripts, was most likely devised in the West during the Middle Ages, where such a division of *Theology* was in use (See the prologue to the book of St. John Dantasceni de fide orthod., Mich. Lekena, in vol. 1 of the works of this Father published by him, pp. 119–120.)

[88] There is, for example, no teaching on grace, on justification, or on the holy sacraments, except for two: baptism and the Eucharist.

[89] Such as the treatises on light, fire, and the heavenly bodies—the sun, moon, and stars—on air and winds, on waters, on the earth, on sorrow, fear, anger, the faculty of thought, memory, and the like.

[90] See Book II, chapters 6 through 22, and Book IV, chapters 4, 5, 7, and others.

[91] Such as: Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and others. See the Prologue to St. John of Damascus’s *De fide orthodoxa*, in Leken’s edition of this Father’s works.

[92] On Scholasticism, see the church histories by Mosheim or Alexander Natalis—covering the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries—and, for more detail, Bulaei’s *Histor. Universitatis Parisiensis*, ed.Paris , 1665–1673, in four volumes.

[93] *Corpus Hist. Bysant.*, vol. XXI, pp. 208–209, Venice ed.; *Philippi * Cyprii—Chronicon eccles. Graecae, pp. 258, 280, etc., Leipzig, 1687; in particular—Institut. Hist. Eccl. Moshemii—11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, in Part II, Chapter 1.

[94] The 11th-century manuscript (1069) is housed in our Imperial Public Library (see *Catalog of the Manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum*, p. 240, St. Petersburg, 1842); the 12th-century manuscript is in the Synodal Library in Moscow (Accurat. codic. Graec. MSS. biblioth. Mosqu. S. Synodi notitia et recensio, ed. by Christ. Frid. de Matthaei, Leipzig, 1805, Vol. 1, No. 376); several such ancient manuscripts from various centuries, most of which were written in Constantinople before its capture by the Turks, are housed in the Imperial Library in Vienna and in various libraries in England (Petri Lambecii Hamburgensis, *Commentarion de Aug. Bibl. Caesar. Windobonensi, 2nd ed., by Kollari, vol. III, pp. 260, 294, and 303; vol. IV, pp. 269 and 478–479, and especially vol. V, pp. 2–14 and 535; also—Catalog, librorum manuscript. Angliae et Hiberniae, in unum collect... Oxoniae 1797—see the alphabetical index under the entry: Damascenus Johannes).

[95] Kalaydovich, John—Exarch of the Bulgarians, Ch. III, pp. 17–58.

[96] A 12th-century manuscript formerly in Kalaydovich’s possession and now held in the Synodal Library in Moscow (Ioann., Bulgarian Exarchate, pp. 17, 26–28); a 15th-century manuscript is in the Rumyantsev Museum (Catalog of this museum — p. 508), 16th-century manuscripts—in the same museum (pp. 236–240), in the library of the Volokolamsk Monastery (Kalaydovich, John, Bulgarian copy, p. 75), in the Imperial Public Library among Count Tolstov’s manuscripts (Catalog of these manuscripts, Section II, No. 217, p. 365), 17th-century copies—among the same manuscripts (Catalog, Section II, Nos. 8, 136, 175, and 249), in the library of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery (see the catalog of manuscripts from this library in *Russian Ancient Monuments*—Sakharov, Vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1842, p. 6), and elsewhere (see the *Proceedings of the Imperial Moscow Society for History and Ancient Russian Studies for 1846, articles: Sylvester Medvedev, Father of Slavic-Russian Bibliography—p. XXVII, and following that: a list of books and their compilers—pp. 29 and 32).

[97] A Dogmatic Armory of the Orthodox Faith (that is, a collection of dogmas), containing, in a single volume, the writings of the blessed and God-bearing Fathers, arranged in order and with careful harmony by Euthymius the Monk of Sigaden. The original was published only once in Wallachia in 1710, while the Latin translation has been published repeatedly (Walhii—Bibl. Theolog. 1, p. 617).

[98] Petri Lambecii—Comment, from the Augustinian Library of Bonn, vol. III, p. 420, and vol. V, p. 698; Cave—Script, Ecclesiastical History of Literature of the 12th Century, under the entry: Evthymius Zygabenus.

[99] And even then, only in a Latin translation, among other places—in *Max. Biblioth. Patrum*, vol. XXV, p. 54 et seq. (See Casimiri Oudini—*Comment. de Script. Eccles. antiqu.*, vol. II, p. 1711, Leipzig 1722; Walch, *Bibl. Theol.* 1, p. 619). The contents of all the books are listed by Monfaucon (*Palaeograph. graec.*, vol. IV, chap. 9, p. 327. Cf. Fabricius, *Biblioth. graec.*, vol. XI, p. 420).

[100] The full title is as follows: Ecclesiastical Dialogues of the Archbishop and the Clergy Against Atheists, Both Greeks and Jews, and Against Various Heresies, and Concerning the One Faith of the Lord, God, and our Savior Jesus Christ. All drawn from the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, and compiled as a defense against the questions posed to him from time to time by various heretics. Included in the complete collected works of Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki, published in Greek in Venice in 1820.

[101] Published in Russian in the journal “Voskresnoye Chtenie,” vol. V, pp. 17–11, Kyiv, 1841.

[102] Included in the aforementioned Greek edition of this Saint’s works, pp. 451–479, under the title: *Interpretation of the Holy Symbol of the Orthodox Faith of Christians*.

[103] See Kimmel: *Libri Symbol. Eccl. graecae*, pp. 1–24, Jena, 1843.

[104] Philip of Cyprus—Chron. eccl. graecae, pp. 434, Leipzig 1687.

[105] These epistles were published together with the epistles to Jeremiah by the Württemberg theologians, under the title: *Acta et scripta Theolog. Wirtemb. et Patriarchae Constantinop. D. Hieremiae.... graece et latine ab iisdem Theolog. edita*, Wirtemb. 1584.

[106] Catalog of Rumyantsev’s Manuscripts, No. 295; Catalog of Old-Printed Books, Count Tolstov, Church Press, No. 26; and Sakharov’s Review of Slavic-Russian Bibliography, vol. 1, book 2, No. 80.

[107] Sakharov’s Review of Slavic-Russian Bibliography, vol. 1, book 2, No. 176.

[108] Ibid., No. 235. What did our ancestors rely on in matters of faith before the publication of the catechisms? In addition to the works of the Church Fathers in general—many of which had long been translated into the Slavic language—specifically: 1) The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus (see note 96 above); 2) certain other works of a similar nature, though more concise, by the ancient teachers of the Church, which had also long been translated into the Slavonic language, such as: a) Theological Questions and Answers, a kind of fairly detailed catechism, by Anastasius of Sinai, Patriarch of Antioch (†599), found as early as in Svyatoslav’s Collection—11th century (Catalog of Rumyantsev Manuscripts No. 356) and later in 15th-century copies (ibid., No. 6); b) Rules on Faith and the Christian Life—by Saint Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (†471), found in a 14th-century manuscript (Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian Translation, p. 1, Moscow, 1845); c) “To Prince Antiochus on Many and Necessary Matters...” by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as a kind of catechism in the form of questions and answers, found in 16th-century manuscripts (Catalog of Count Tolstov’s Manuscripts, Section 1, No. 304); d) The Book of Catechism, expounding the doctrine of the faith and the most essential sins pertaining to it, found in 16th-century manuscripts (ibid., Section II, No. 340)—a work by an unknown author, but included in the Catechism published in Moscow in 1649 under Patriarch Joseph, alongside several patristic statements of faith (Sakharov, Obzor. Slavic-Russian Bibliography, vol. 1, book 2, No. 510). In addition to those mentioned above, other printed catechisms in the Slavic language are known; but they were either not used in our country or were even non-Orthodox. These are: a) a catechism published in Venice in 1527 (Dictionary of Russian Ecclesiastical Writers by Evgeny, vol. 1, p. 262, 2nd ed.); b) a Lutheran catechism, translated by the apostates from Orthodoxy Matthew Kavechinsky, Simeon Budny, and Lavrenty Kryshkovsky, and published in Nesvizh in 1561, and later in Rome in 1583 (ibid. and Russian Historical Collection, vol. VI, p. 302, Moscow 1843); c) a catechism translated by Angon Dalmat and Stefan Istrianin, published in Tübingen in 1561 (in the same historical collection and on the same page); d) a catechism translated from Latin and published in Vilnius in 1585 (Bergii—de statu eccl. et relig.Moscow , p. 31, and Sakharov—Chronological Catalog of Russian Bibliography in Russian Ancient Monuments, St. Petersburg, 1842); e) two Slavic catechisms, but published in Latin script in 1582 and 1603 (Russian Historical Collection, vol. VI, p. 303); f) a catechism published by Matfey Divkovich in Venice in 1611 (ibid.).

[109] See His Eminence Innocent—Outline of Church History, 9th–17th Centuries, in the section “On Ecclesiastical Writers”; Mich. Heineccii—Abbildung der alten und neuen griechischen Kirche, Leipzig, 1711. Appendix, pp. 70–72 and 78; Walchii—*Bibl. Theolog.* 1, pp. 630–642; His Eminence Eugene—*Dictionary of Russian Ecclesiastical Writers*, under the names of the Russian writers we have mentioned.

[110] History of the Russian Church, His Eminence Filaret, Vol. III, p. 81; Vol. V, p. 72 ff., 1847 ed.

[111] Chronicon of the Greek Church by Ph. of Cyprus, pp. 461–464.

[112] Leon Allatii—On the Perpetual Consensus of the Western and Eastern Churches, Book III, Chapter 7, Note 7, p. 986, ed.Colon . Agripp.

[113] History of the Russian Church, by His Eminence Filaret, vol. III, pp. 84–85; A Brief Critique of the Modern Greek Church..., by Constantine Ikonomos, 1839, pp. 299 and 360; Authentic Monuments of the Religion of the Greeks... by Joh. Aymon, pp. 8–15, ed. 1708.

[114] See note 108 above and the letter from Patriarch Adrian of All Russia regarding the book: “The Orthodox Confession.”

[115] Chronicon Eccl. Graecae, Ph. Cyprii, p. 481: Ecclesiastical History of Meletius, vol. III, pp. 430 and 447; Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, 17th century, in the article: “On Ecclesiastical Writers in Greece.”

[116] Disputes on this subject between Papists and Protestants began as early as the late 16th century, on the occasion of the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and the Württemberg theologians, and at that time several treatises were written on this subject by both sides; but they intensified considerably in the first quarter of the 17th century, on the occasion of the so-called confession of Cyril Lukaris; and subsequently, the number of works written by both Papists and Protestants multiplied, with the aim of proving whether the Greek Church agrees in its doctrine with the Roman Church or with the Protestant Church. A list of these works can be found in Heinekt’s *Abbildung der alt. und neuen griech. Kirche* (Leipzig, 1711), Appendix, pp. 80–82.

[117] This is evident: a) from the decision of the Eastern Patriarchs to establish schools in every diocese, adopted as early as their council in 1593 (the Acts of this council were published in *Skrižali*, edited by Patriarch Nikon in 1656); b) from the actual establishment at that time of several schools in southern Russia (History of the Russian Church, by His Eminence Filaret, III, 65; IV, 95–99); c) the appearance at that time of several works, both in Greece and in Russia, aimed at defending Orthodoxy against the claims of the Papists and the Reformers (see Heineccii—Abbildung der alten und neuen griech. Church, App. pp. 71, 78, and History of the Russian Church by His Eminence Filaret, IV, 104).

[118] Thomae Aquinatis—*Summa Theologiae*, published in numerous editions. It consists of three parts and sets forth not only dogmatic but also moral teachings. Walchii—*Bibl. Theolog.* 1, p. 28.

[119] History of the Kiev Academy, by Hieromonk Makarii Bulgakov, St. Petersburg, 1843, pp. 36–39, 61–62, 69–74, 136–138.

[120] He divides all theology into two parts, calling the first *pars Theologiae de fide seu de credendis* and the latter *pars Theologiae de faciendis* (see *Prolegom.*, chap. 3).

[121] After a fairly detailed exposition of his plan for Dogmatic Theology, Theophanes concludes: “To summarize this more concisely: God must be considered internally in His essence and persons, and externally in His activity, which consists in creation and providence.” Providence, however, is twofold: one is general, the other particular, in which the whole matter of our salvation lies (ibid.).

[122] However, Theophan’s *Dogmatic Theology*, according to the outline he had drawn up, was completed in its entirety by Metropolitan Samuel of Kyiv and published in three volumes in 1782 in Leipzig.

[123] Dictionary of Historical Figures Among the Clergy in Russia, vol. II, p. 314, 2nd ed.

[124] History of the Kyiv Academy, St. Petersburg, 1843, pp. 139–141.

[125] It was published under the title: *Compendium orthodoxae Theologicae doctrinae, ab Arch. Hyacinto Harpinski concinnatum*. Leipzig, 1786.

[126] It was published twice (in 1799 and 1805) under the title: *Compendium Theologiae classicum didactico-polemicum doctrinae orthodoxae Chrietianae, maximo consonum per theoremata et quaestiones expositum... et caet.*

[127] It has also been published and is preserved in manuscript form. See a summary of it in *History of the Kyiv Academy*, pp. 141–142.

[128] Christianae, Orthodoxae, Dogmatico-Polemicae Theologiae. Formerly embellished by the most illustrious Theoph. Procopowicz and his successors, a compendium adapted for the use of Russian youth, and completed with the addition of the last six books in accordance with the outline of the same illustrious Theoph. by Archimandrite Irineus Falkowski. Moscow, 1802.

[129] The Dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Christian Doctrine of Beliefs..., St. Petersburg, 1818. For an outline of the plan itself, see § 22, p. 67.

[130] It was published several times. See the Dictionary of Spiritual Writers by M. Evgeny, under the entry: Platon Levshin.

[131] Published twice: in 1783 and 1790, in St. Petersburg.

[132] Published in Moscow in 1806.

[133] Published twice: in 1838 and 1843.

[134] Such a textbook for secondary theological educational institutions has, in fact, recently appeared in our country under the title: “Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, with the addition of a general introduction to the course of theological sciences—taught at the Kiev Theological Seminary by Rector Archimandrite Anthony.” Seminary by Rector Archimandrite Anthony.

[135] Turcograeciae libri octo by Mart. Crusio.... ed. Basil., pp. 94, 205, 246, and 537; Chronicon Eccl. graec. Phil. Cyprii, p. 507. “Throughout all of Greece,” Crusio specifically states, “scholarship flourishes nowhere; they have no academies or public professors, except for trivial schools, in which boys are taught to read the horologion, the octoechos, the Psalter, and other books used in the Mass.” Very few among the presbyters and monks truly understand them... Crete remained the sole refuge for the sciences (Turcograec., p. 537). The first Greek school in Constantinople was founded during the reign of Muhammad IV (r. 1644–1689) by the wealthy merchant Manolakis (History of Jerusalem by Patriarch Dositheus, vol. II, p. 477).

[136] Some attend academies in Italy, where they study the ancient language, the principles of philosophy, and the theology of the Fathers (Turcograec... p. 205). Despite all the adverse circumstances, however, the number of scholars among the Greeks—and primarily among Greek clergy—remained consistently significant. Demetrius of Moschopolis counts them, throughout the 16th century and part of the 17th, at ninety-nine (Demetrius Procopius of Moschopolis, A Brief Survey of Greek Scholars of the Previous Century, and of Some Who Are Still Flourishing in Our Own Time, written in 1720. See Fabricius—*Biblioth. Graec.*, vol. XI, pp. 770–804, Hamburg, 1722).

[137] See the article: “The State of Education in Modern Greece from the Beginning of the Last Century to Recent Events There, That Is, Up to the War of Independence (1821),” in *Moskvityanin* (1843), Part VI, pp. 367–403, and *Dictionary of Spiritual Writers*, Moscow: Evgeniya, under the entry: Evgeny Bulgar.

[138] 'Omoologia tis Anatoliki Ekklisias tis Katholikis kai Apostolikos.... by Mitrophanos, Hieromonk, published with a Latin translation, Helmstadii 1661.

[139] The original text, with a Latin translation, can be found in Kimmel’s *Libri symbol. Eccl. graecae*, and it was published in Russian under the title: *Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith*.

[140] It was printed in Hellenic Greek in Amsterdam in 1765.

[141] See the entry on him in M. Evgeny’s Dictionary, under the entry: Theophan Prokopovich.

[142] See also the same source under the entry: “Platon Levshin.”

[143] Among other catechisms published during this period, the following are known in Greece: (a) *Synopsis of the Divine and Sacred Dogmas of the Church*—by Gregory Protosyncellus, Venice, 1635; (6) *Sacred Catechism... by Nicholas Bulgaras, Venice, 1861; c) *Sacra tabula fidei Apostolicae, sanctae, oecumeuicae ac orthodoxae graecae orientalis Ecclesiae...*, published (in Latin only) by Theocletus Polyides, archbishop of the Holy Mountain, 1736; II) in Russia: a) A Brief Catechism, or a Compendium of the Articles of Faith, by Peter Mohyla, published in Kyiv in 1645, in Lviv in 1646, and in Moscow in 1649; b) A Book on the One, True, Orthodox Faith and on the Holy Church, published in Moscow in 1648; c) Catechism, or A Brief Instruction in the Faith of the Holy, Orthodox-Catholic Church..., Set Forth According to the Teaching of the Holy Eastern Churches, Chernitsa, 1715; d) A Collection of Cases Necessary for Clergy, printed in Supraśl in 1722; e) The New Mentor, or Instruction for Youth, by Archimandrite Makarii Susalnikov, published in St. Petersburg in 1785; f) Catechism by Priest Alexander Belikov, published in Moscow in 1818, and others.

[144] For the titles of the works by the Greek writers mentioned here, see Heinekt’s *Abbildung der alt. und neuen griech. Kirche* (Leipzig, 1711), Appendix, pp. 70–80; for some, see Fabricius’s *Biblioth. Graec., vol. X, pp. 789–799, and vol. XI, pp. 770–804, Hamburg, 1722. As for Russian writers, see the Historical Dictionary… by Metropolitan Eugene—under their respective names.

[145] Conversations with a Speaking Old Believer, published in *Christian Readings* 1835–1836.

[146] The Truth of the Holy Solovetsky Monastery Against the Falsehood of the Petition Known as the “Solovetsky Petition” Concerning the Faith, St. Petersburg, 1844, and others.

[147] For example: 1) the doctrine of God, inasmuch as He is one, and 2) the doctrine of God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, Christian Readings, 1822, VI, pp. 50 and 166; 3) a discourse on the Guardian Angel, 1823, XI, 301; 4) on the Holy Spirit and His works, 1833, 11, 163; 5) on the reconciliation of God with man through the intercession of Jesus Christ, 1833, IV, 317; 6) on the establishment by Jesus Christ of His Church on earth, 1839, III. 43 and 174; 7) on the Holy Church of Christ, 1846, IV, 70; 8) on predestination, 1845, IV, 301; 9) a treatise on the commemoration of the departed, 1824, XVI, 169, and others.

[148] For example: 1) on the grace of the Holy Spirit, Year V, p. 59; 2) on the glorification of the saints, VI, 73; 3) Old Testament prefigurations relating to the person and ministry of the Mother of God, VII, 293; 4) the commemoration of the departed, VIII, 251; 5) the teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Most Holy Virgin Mary, XI, 273, and others.

[149] Namely: 1) on the Orthodox Church of Christ and 2) on God’s Providence (in Part 1 of the Addenda); 3) on the threefold ministry of Jesus Christ (in Part 2); 4) on the preparation of the human race to receive the Savior of the world (in Part 3); 5) on the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (in Part 5), and others.

[150] Such are, for example, the following treatises: 1) on the calling of the saints; 2) on the veneration of the Antelons; 3) on the commemoration of the dead; 4) on the descent of Jesus Christ into Hades; 5) on the veneration of the holy relics; 6) on the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel (in Part III of Exercises for Students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 6th Academic Year, published in St. Petersburg, 1825); 7) on the origin of the Holy Spirit (in Volume 1 of Essays by Students of the Theological Academy, 5th Academic Year, Kyiv, 1832); 8) on the ways of God’s Providence in the conversion of sinners... (in Volume 1 of *Collected Works of Students of the Kyiv Theological Academy*, Kyiv, 1839); 9) on the Divinity of the Son of God, 10) on Confirmation, and 11) on the Commemoration of the Departed (writings by students of the Moscow Theological Academy, published separately).

[151] Thus teaches the Orthodox Church: I) on the essence of God: “What God is in His essence, no creature—not only the visible but also the invisible, that is, not even the angels themselves—can know; for there is no comparison whatsoever between the Creator and the creature. But for our piety, it is sufficient—as Cyril of Jerusalem testifies—that we know we have one God, a God who is and who is eternal, who is always like Himself and is the same” (Orthodox Confession, Part I, answer to question 8); II) on the Trinity of Persons in God: “No likeness can fully explain this mystery or present it separately in our minds—how God is one in essence and triune in Persons... No mind, not only human but also angelic, can comprehend Him, nor can any tongue express Him. Believing in this way, we investigate nothing further... It is enough for us that the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, speaking of the one God, reveal to us the Trinity of Persons... Both the Holy Scriptures and the teachers of the Church speak of this repeatedly” (ibid., answer to question 10); III) On the attributes of God: “Just as God is incomprehensible, so too are His attributes incomprehensible. However, since we can gain knowledge from Holy Scripture and the teachers of the Church, to that extent we can also think about them and speak of them” (—answer to question 11). The same teaching is presented in the extensive Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, in the explanation of the first clause of the Creed, and is very often expressed in liturgical books, for example: 1) in the Service Book: “It is right and just to pray to You... for You are the God who is ineffable, unknowable, invisible, and incomprehensible...” (Service Book, p. 81, published in Moscow in 1817); 2) in the Book of Liturgical Rites: “O King without beginning, invisible, unfathomable, incomprehensible, and ineffable...” (fol. 234, published in Moscow in 1836); 3) in the Octoechos: “Not even the incorporeal angelic orders can comprehend You, O One, O Eternal Trinity” (Part 1, fol. 94, published in Moscow in 1838).

[152] Other relevant texts: Exodus 33:18–20; Job 11:7–9; Wisdom 9:13; Sirach 43:33, 34.

[153] In these words of the Holy Apostle, one of the most important questions not only of theology but also of philosophy is resolved: the question of whether, and to what extent, metaphysical knowledge—whose primary object is God—is possible for us. The Apostle states plainly that such knowledge is possible for us, but he notes: 1) that we now see God only as in a mirror (as in a mirror—δί' έσόπτρου), and consequently, we do not see Him directly and face to face, as we see objects of the physical world, but we see only an image of God reflected for us in the mirror of the world and of revelation. This is not enough: even with the aid of a mirror, one can still know objects sufficiently, provided their images are reflected in it clearly and distinctly—but the Apostle adds— 2) that the image of God, on the contrary, appears to us in a mirror as a vague reflection, veiled, in the form of a riddle (in a mystery—έν αίνίγματι); and a riddle must still be solved, and solving a riddle is always more or less difficult and can lead only to guesses and more or less fortunate assumptions. Therefore, the Apostle concludes—3) that we now know God only in part, that is, we do not know God in His entirety, and what we do know of Him, we know imperfectly; and—4) that, consequently, the nature of our metaphysical knowledge is faith: we walk by faith, not by sight. It is natural here to recall the words of God Himself to Moses, who desired to see His face: “You will see Me from behind, but My face shall not be seen [by you]” (Ex. 33:23).

[154] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 28, Note 9.

[155] Aetius said of himself: “I know God so clearly and perfectly that I cannot know even myself to the same extent that I know God” (See Epiphanius, *Haeresia* 76); Eunomius boasted that he knew the very essence of God with precision and, in general, possessed the same knowledge of God that God has of Himself (Theodoret, *Haeres. fabul.*, Book IV, p. 3).

[156] See note 154, as well as in Chr. Cht. 1838, III, pp. 3–19, the article: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon—on the fact that, when investigating the divine mysteries, one must never deviate from the rule of truth and from the correct understanding of God, and that one must believe in Holy Scripture rather than delve into the investigation of that which transcends the limits of our reason.

[157] St. Gregory of Nyssa: *Contra Evnomium Orationes Duodecim* (in Vol. II, ed. Morel); St. Gregory the Theologian: *Five Discourses on Theology Against the Eunomians* (Chronicle of Readings, 1841, in Parts I, II, and III, and *Works of the Holy Fathers* in Russian translation, Vol. III); St. Basil the Great: A Refutation of the Defensive Speech of the Wicked Evnomius (Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian trans., vol. VII); St. John Chrysostom: Five Discourses on the Incomprehensible Against the Anomoeans (Chronicle Readings 1841, parts III and IV, and 1842, 1); St. Ephrem the Syrian: Against Those Who Investigate the Essence of God (Chronicle Readings 1838, I, 20).

[158] “The Divine Nature must necessarily be limited if it is comprehended by the mind: for even a concept is a form of limitation” (Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian trans., Vol. III, p. 26). This is also expounded by Saint Justin (Tryphon, ch. IV), Athenagoras (Legat., X), and Irenaeus (Against Heresies, IV, 19). Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus, 1.3), Athanasius the Great (Decree of the Council of Nicaea, n. 22), and Blessed Augustine (The City of God, Book XII, Chapter 18).

[159] “Between us and God stands this bodily mist, just as the cloud once stood between the Egyptians and the Hebrews. And this is what it means—perhaps: ‘He has made darkness His covering’ (Ps. 17:12); that is, our corporeality, through which few see and see only a little” (Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian trans., vol. III, p. 28; cf. p. 20).

[160] “Not everyone can philosophize about God, for only those who have tested themselves, who have spent their lives in contemplation, and who have first and foremost purified—or at least cleansed—both soul and body are capable of this. For the impure, however, it may not be safe even to touch the Pure One, just as it is not safe for one with weak eyesight to look at a ray of sunlight” (Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, p. 7). “Therefore, we must first purify ourselves, and only then converse with the Pure One” (Ibid., 11, p. 165; cf. p. 174).

[161] This argument is elaborated in detail by: St. Irenaeus (Chron. Readings 1838, III, pp. 5–7), St. John Chrysostom (Chron. Readings 1841, IV, p. 59), St. Basil the Great (Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 36–37), and especially St. Gregory the Theologian (Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 38–51).

[162] This evidence is also thoroughly discussed by the last three Church Fathers: John Chrysostom (Chron. Readings 1841, III, 373–379; IV, 200), Basil the Great (Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 35 and 37), and Gregory the Theologian (III, 33–36).

[163] St. John Chrysostom devotes his entire third homily against the Anomoeans and most of his fourth to this idea (Chron. Readings 1841, IV, 165–206).

[164] For God, when conceived, is not God (Athanas. *Quaest. ad Antioch.*, respons. ad quaest. 1; also *Chron. Readings* 1842, II, 213).

[165] “Inexpressible” (Justin, Apology 1, n. 61), “nameless” (Maximus of Tyre, Discourse VIII, § 10), “unnameable” (Gregory the Theologian in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian trans. III, 96), “unnamed” (Tatian, ad Gr., n. 5; Theophilus, ad Autolycus 1:3), “unutterable” (Gregory of Nyssa, Oration XII against Evnomus), άνέφραστος (Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel IV, 1), inenarrahiIis (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 20, n. 6), ineffabilis (Augustine, on Psalm LXXXV, n. 12), and the like.

[166] “There is not a single name that, while declaring the whole nature of God, would be sufficient to reflect it fully” (St. Basil the Great, Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 31). “Following the testimony of Scripture, we have learned that the Godhead is unnameable and ineffable (άκατονόμαστόν τε καί άφραστόν), and we affirm that every name—whether devised by humans or taught in the sacred books—has the power to denote only something of what is conceived regarding the divine nature (περί τήν θείαν φύσιν νοουμένων), and does not express the nature itself” (Gregor. Nyss. tract. quod non sint tres dii, vol. III, p. 18, ed. Morel.), “What we affirmatively ascribe to God does not reveal His nature to us, but only what pertains to nature (τά περί τήν φύσιν). One must consider that each of the attributes ascribed to God does not express what He is in essence, but rather indicates either what He is not, or some of His relation to that which is opposed to Him, or something flowing from His nature (τί τών παρεπομένων τή φύσι), or His action” (St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, pp. 9 and 32, Moscow, 1844). Something similar is stated by St. Gregory the Theologian (Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 96). Of all the names of God, some ancient scholars accorded a special distinction to the name “The Existent” alone, claiming that it partly denotes the very essence of God. “As far as we can comprehend,” reasons St. Gregory the Theologian, “the names: ‘The Existing One’ and ‘God’ are, in a certain sense, names of the essence, and this name—‘The Existing One’—is especially so, not only because the One who spoke to Moses on the mountain, when asked what His name was and how He should be called, named Himself thus and commanded that it be said to the people: “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex. 3:14)—but also because we find this name to be the most fitting for God” (Works of the Holy Fathers III, 96–97). “Of all the names,” St. John of Damascus also says, “attributed to God, the most proper one seems to be ‘Ho ōn’ (the Existing One), just as He Himself, responding to Moses on the mountain, said: ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: “Ho ōn has sent me to you”’ (Ex. 3:14). For God encompasses in Himself all of existence, as it were, a boundless and infinite sea of being” (Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, p. 32). The same idea is found in Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divin. Nomin., chap. V), Epiphanius (Haeres. 69), Ambrose (Commentary on Ps. 43), and Jerome (Epistle 136).

[167] Theophilus, *Ad Autolycus*, 1:3–4; Gregory of Nazianzus, *Hymn on God*; Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 1, § 5; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, ch. IV, pp. 8–9. “God is ineffable; it is easier to say what He is not than what He is,” observes Blessed Augustine (in Ps. 85, n. 12).

[168] “For no one has ever been able to name the ineffable God, and if anyone were to dare to say that He exists, he would be guilty of reckless madness” (Justin, Apology II, 6). The same is found in John Chrysostom (Hom. II, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 438), Augustine (Tract. on Ps. 35), and others.

[169] Theophilus, ad Autolycus 1, 3, 4; Gregory of Nazianzus, Hymn on God; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Oration XII, p. 757. Morel.

[170] Among the Javanese writers, many regarded God as utterly incomprehensible. There is a well-known story about Simonides, who, when asked by the tyrant Hieron what God is, asked for one day to think it over; then, when asked again, he asked for three, then six, twelve days, and so on, and finally replied: “The more I reflect on this subject, the more obscure it becomes to me.” Cicero, *De Natura Deorum*, n. 22. See also Plato, *Timaeus*, p. 28.

[171] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book I, Chapter 27, n. 1; Book III, Chapter 24, n. 2; Book IV, Chapter 20, n. 6.

[172] Ibid., Book IV, Chapter 6, n. 4.

[173] One way of knowing God is through all of creation, while another—no less significant—is through the conscience (Chrysostom, Homily XI, vol. V, p. 53). Thus God has adorned creation so that, though He is not seen in His nature, He may nevertheless be known through His works (Athanas. orat. contra gent., vol. 1, p. 38). In all things, the knowledge of God is naturally imbued by Him; and this creation itself, as well as its cohesion and governance, proclaims the greatness of the divine nature (Cyrill. Alex., lib. de S. Trinit. p. 1). St. Dionysius the Areopagite even identified all three paths by which we proceed from created things to the knowledge of God: through the removal of all things and their transcendence, and through the cause of all things (De divin. nomin. VII), that is, to use the terminology of the Scholastics: the way of negation—via negationis—when we remove from God all imperfections observed in created beings; the way of causality—via causalitatis—when we ascribe the perfections of created beings to God as their cause; and the way of excellence—via eminentiae—when we ascribe these perfections to Him in the highest degree. Other Holy Fathers, however, referred to these three ways as only two: the way of negation and the way of affirmation—since the way of causality and the way of eminence converge in that they both teach us to affirm something about God (Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 31; St. John of Damascus, Exact. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 12, p. 39).

[174] Isidorus of Pelusium, 396, Book 1, p. 96; Athanasius of Alexandria, *Oratio contra Gentiles*, No. 1, and others.

[175] Having stated that there is no single name that fully expresses the very essence of God, St. Basil the Great continues: “But many and varied names, taken in their proper sense, constitute a concept that is, of course, obscure and very meager in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Of the names attributed to God, some indicate what is in God, while others, on the contrary, indicate what is not in Him. For by these two means—that is, by the negation of what is not there and by the affirmation of what is there—a sort of image of God is formed within us” (Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 31). See also Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Divine Names, ch. 4), Theodoret (Sermon II, On the Principles), and St. John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9, pp. 32–33 and 39).

[176] “I call ‘incomprehensible’ not the fact that God exists, but what He is. For our preaching is not in vain, nor is our faith vain.... Do not turn our sincerity into a pretext for godlessness” (Gregory the Theologian in The Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 20–21).

[177] John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Incomprehensible, Chr. Readings 1841, III, 370–371; Hilarion, in Ps. 120, n. II; Gregory of Nyssa, Book 12 Against Eunomius; Augustine, The City of God, Book XV, Chapter 25.

[178] Chrysostom, Homily XI on the Epistle to the Philippians; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 10; Athanasius, First Epistle to Serapion, Chapter 20; Augustine, Epistle 120 to Consentius.

[179] Also noteworthy are the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Someone might say: if the essence of God is incomprehensible, then why should you speak of it at all? But just because I cannot drink the entire river, does that mean I should not take water from it in moderation for my own benefit? Just because my eyes are unable to take in the whole sun—does that mean I should not look at it as much as I need to? Just because I cannot eat all the fruit when I enter a large garden, would you want me to leave it completely hungry?” (Catechetical Homilies VI, 5, in the Russian translation, pp. 100–101).

[180] For example: a) in the creed of the Church of Jerusalem: πιστεύω έίς ένα Θεόν...; b) of the Church of Caesarea: πιστεύομεν έις ένα Θεόν...; c) of the Church of Antioch: credo in unum et solum Deum... (apud Cassian, *De Incarnatione*, Book VI, p. 1272); d) in the creed of the Church of Alexandria: πιστεύομεν έίς ένα Θεόν (apud Socrat., Book 1, Chapter 26); e) in the creed included in the Apostolic Constitutions: πιστεύω καί βαπτίζομαι έίς ένα άγέννητον, μόνον άληθινόν Θεόν...; f) — in Irenaeus: “For the Church... received from the Apostles... the faith in one God...” (Contra Haereses, Book 1, Chapter 1, n. 1); g) — in Tertullian: “There is but one rule of faith, immutable and unchangeable, namely, to believe in the one almighty God” (On the Veil of the Virgin, Chapter 1), etc.

[181] For example: a) Gregory the Wonderworker: “One God, Father of the living Word…”; b) Athanasius the Great: “We believe in one unbegotten God” (Orr., vol. 1, par. 1, p. 99); c) Basil the Great: πιστεύομεν καί όμολογοΰμεν ένα μόνον άληθινόν καί άγαθόν Θεόν (Serm. de fide, vol. II, p. 227, ed. Garnier.), and others.

[182] Justin Cohort, ad Graec., chap. 36: “It is possible for you to learn that there is one and only one God; this is the first mark of true piety.”

[183] Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, Century II, Section VII, on Heresies and Schisms.

[184] In the same History, Centuries III and IV, Section VII.

[185] The Tribonites sect owes its existence in particular to a certain Philoponus—a grammarian who lived in Alexandria around 580 (John of Damascus, *De haeresis*, n. 88, ed. Le-Quien, and *Outline of Church History* by His Eminence Innocent, 6th century, Section VII). Some of the Scholastics subsequently adhered to these errors, namely: Godeschalk (9th century), Roscelin (11th century), and Peter Abelard (12th century), as well as Sherlocke and Peter Taidit (in the late 17th century).

[186] Photius—On the Resurgence of Manichaeism (in vol. XIII, ed. Galland); Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, 9th–11th Centuries, Section VII. In more recent times (the 18th century), the well-known French writer Bel was a defender of the dualist system, but he himself soon admitted its fragility and folly (Bayle, Eclaircissements sur les Manichéens, following the Dictionn. crit.).

[187] Clem. Alex. Paedag. Book 1, ch. 8: “Is there one God, and beyond that one, a unity superior to it?” Origen, *De Principiis* 1.6.... so that God might not be thought to contain within Himself anything greater or inferior, but that He might be, in every respect, *monas* and, so to speak, *en*...; Bufin. — Exposit. fidei, p. 18: “When we say that the Eastern Churches believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, and in one Lord, it must be understood here that He is called ‘one’ not in number, but in totality (unum non numero dici, sed universitate). Thus, if someone speaks of one person or one horse, in this case “one” is understood numerically: for there may be a second person, a third, just as there may be a second or third horse. But when “one” is used in such a way that a second or third cannot be added, the term “one” is taken not numerically but in its entirety. If, for example, we say, “one sun,” here the word “one” is used in the sense that neither a second nor a third can be added. All the more so with God: when He is called “one,” it is understood that He is one not numerically, but in its entirety—one precisely in the sense that there is no other God.”

[188] so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices to their idols (Lev. 17:7). Thus says the Lord: “What injustice did your fathers find in Me, that they turned away from Me and followed after vanity, and became empty?” (Jer. 2:5).

[189] Do not turn to idols, and do not make for yourselves any cast gods (Lev. 19:4). And you shall destroy all their cast idols (Num. 33:52).

[190] Their tongues (the gods of Babylon) have been carved by an artisan... and they cannot speak (Jer. 7; cf. 58). My hand has taken possession of the kingdoms of the idols, in which there are more idols than in Jerusalem and Samaria (Isa. 10:10). Why have they provoked Me to anger with their foreign, worthless idols? (Jer. 8:19). And now they have added to their sin: they have made for themselves cast idols of their silver, according to their own design—the work of skilled craftsmen (Hos. 13:2). I will destroy your idols and your images from among you, and you will no longer worship the works of your own hands (Mic. 5:13).

[191] This is virtually the common view of the most recent rationalists.

[192] Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II; Isidore of Pelusium, Book III, Letter 112; Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book V, and On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 16; Cyril, Against Julian, Book 1; Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Book VIII; Theodoret, On Genesis, Question 19; Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 1, Chapter 7, and others.

[193] St. John Chrysostom (in Psal. 50) notes that pagan idols are sometimes called gods in Scripture—not by honor, nor by the grace of the title, but because of the deception of those who have been led astray and thus call them by that name. It is also known that in Scripture the name of “gods” is sometimes attributed to kings, rulers, judges, and priests (Exod. 22:28; Ps. 81:1 and 6; 135:2, etc.). It was in reference to these very gods that Moses could call the Most High the God of gods and the Lord of lords, and not merely in reference to pagan gods or idols.

[194] Such are also the words of the Savior: a) to the Jews: “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the one God?” (John 5:44), and—b) to the devil: “Get behind Me, Satan! It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only’” (Luke 4:8).

[195] The following texts also pertain to this: “You believe that God is one; you do well; even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19). To the one and only wise God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and majesty, power and authority before all ages, now and forevermore (Jude 1:25. Cf. Rom. 14:26).

[196] Augustine, *Contra Faustus*, Book X, p. 10; Lactantius, *Institutio*, Book I, Chapter 3; Orosius the Presbyter, *Histor.*, Book VI, Chapter 1, p. 986 in Vol. 31 of the *Patrologia Cursus Completus*. Saint Justin refers to this universal tradition and belief as *καθολική δόξα* in his *De Monarchia Dei*, Chapter 1.

[197] This argument was used against the Iavichians by: Athenagoras (Legat., chs. 6 and 7), Justin the Martyr (Cohort, ad Graec., chs. 18 and 19; Dialog. cum Tryphon, ch. 6), Tertullian (De testim. animae, ch. 1), Minucius Felix (Octavius, pp. 18–20), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. Book V, ch. 14), Lactantius (Instit. Book I, ch. 6), Cyril (Against Julian, Book I), Augustine (Against Faustus, Book XX, Chapter 10; The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 31), Prudentius (Apotheosis Against the Sabellian Heresy, V, 23, 59), and others. Among the passages they cite from pagan writers, we will point out a few:

a) the words of Orpheus:

“There is one who is self-begotten; all things have come into being from him.”

6) — Xenophanes:

There is one God, the greatest among both gods and men.

c) — Sophocles:

In truth, there is one God,

who has encompassed the heavens and the vast earth,

and the joyful roar of the winds over the sea.

[198] Tertullian, *Apology*, p. 17; also *On the Testimony of the Soul*, chs. II and VI; see the Russian translation by E. Karneev, published in St. Petersburg in 1847, pp. 42, 194–197, and 203. The same idea is repeated by: Minucius Felix: “I hear the common people, as they stretch out their hands toward heaven, saying nothing other than ‘God’: ‘God is great,’ ‘God is true,’ and ‘if God wills.’ Is this the natural speech of the common people, or the prayer of a professing Christian?” (Octav., ch. 18); Arnobius (Ad Gentes, Book II) and, in greater detail, Lactantius (Divine Institutions, Book II, Chapter 1).

[199] “The undeniable proof that there is one Creator of all that exists,” says St. Athanasius the Great, “is that there is one world, not many”—and he then develops this idea throughout Chapter 39 of his treatise against the pagans. This idea is also expressed by Eusebius (Praeparat. Evangel., Book III, p. 13) and Ambrose: “The common nature of all things testifies to one God, for there is one world” (De fide, Book I, Chapter 1).

[200] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book II, Chapter 27, Note 2; Justin Martyr, *Adagium*, Chapter XVII; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, 1, 3, and 5; Athanasius, *Oration Against the Pagans*, Chapter 38; Gregory the Theologian—in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VI, p. 224; Gyrill. Alex. on the Holy Trinity; Augustine, On True Religion, chs. 32, 33, 36, and 40. “The very order of the world,” says St. Athanasius the Great in the passage cited, “and the perfect harmony of all its parts clearly show that there is one ruler and governor of the universe, and not many. For if there were many rulers, this order could not be maintained; on the contrary, everything would be thrown into confusion and disorder—because each would act according to his own whim and oppose the other. And just as we have said that polytheism is godlessness, so too must pluralism of rulers necessarily be called lawlessness: if one were to overthrow the authority of another, then, without a doubt, there would be no ruler left, but rather there would be universal lawlessness. “Where there is no ruler, there is no order; on the contrary, there is only disorder”—and so on until the end of the chapter.

[201] “If the one world had been created by many,” continues the same great teacher in the following chapter (Contra Gentiles, ch. 39), “this would expose the powerlessness of the creators, since the accomplishment of a single work would require the participation of many; at the same time, it would demonstrate the insufficiency of knowledge in each of them for creation. For if one were sufficient for this, there would be no need for many to make up for one another’s shortcomings. But to say that God lacks anything is not only impious but exceeds all impiety: for even among human beings, one who accomplishes a work not alone but with the assistance of many would not be called a perfect artist; on the contrary, he would be called weak.” The same is found in Tertullian (Contra Marcion, Book I, Chapter 5), Ambrose (De Fide, Book I, Chapter 1), and Lactantius (Divine Institutions, Book I, Chapter 3).

[202] Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem*, Book I, Chapters 3 and 4; Prudentius, *Adversus Marcionem*, V, 20–24; Novatian, *Trinitas*, ch. IV; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechetical Orations*, preface. “If you wish to know that God is one,” says the first of the writers mentioned, “ask what God is—and you will know. To the extent that it is possible for a human being to define God, here is the definition: God, as recognized by the conscience of all, is the supreme greatness (summum magnum), dwelling in eternity, unborn, uncreated, without beginning or end.... and so on. What, then, must be the condition of the existence of this supreme greatness? That nothing be equal to it, and consequently that there be no other supreme greatness; for if there were, it would be equal to it; and if it were equal to it, it would no longer be the supreme greatness, contrary to the condition—or, I would say, the law—which asserts that nothing is equal to the supreme greatness. Therefore, it is necessary that the supreme greatness be one (unicum) and have no equal, so as not to cease to be the supreme greatness.” Tertullian begins and concludes this argument with the words: “Deus si non unus est, non est”—just as Athanasius the Great called polytheism “atheism” (έλέγομεν τήν πολυθεότητα άθεότητα έίναι) (Contra gent., chap. 38).

[203] In the text, we have quoted almost verbatim the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria (de S. Trinit.) and those of St. John of Damascus, who later repeated them in his *Theology* (*Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book I, Chapter 5, pp. 10–11). Lactantius reasoned in a similar manner. A more perfect nature of power can exist in that which is the whole than in that which is but a small part of the whole. But if God is perfect (since He is perfect as He ought to be), He cannot be anything other than one, so that all things may be in Him. It is therefore necessary that the virtues and powers of the gods be weaker: for each one will lack only as much as is found in the others. Thus, the more there are, the lesser they will be (Divine Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 3).

[204] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book II, Chapter 1, nos. 2 and 5; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, Book 1, Chapter 2; Athanasius, *Against the Pagans*, no. 6; Cyril of Alexandria, *On the Holy Trinity*, Chapter 4; John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 5, p. 1. “How can there be another fullness, or principle, or power, or another god above God, when God, as the fullness of all things in the infinite (omnium pleroma in immense), must necessarily encompass all things within Himself and be encompassed by nothing Himself? If anything exists outside of Him, He is no longer the fullness of all things and does not encompass everything, for the fullness—or God, who is above all things—would lack that which is posited to exist outside of Him... And He would have a beginning, a middle, and an end in relation to those (gods) who are outside of Him,” and so on (Words of Saint Irenaeus from the cited passage).

[205] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, II, 1, n. 4; III, 25, n. 3; Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem*, 1, 2, and 3; Titus Bostrensius, *Adversus Manicheum*, 1, 5–7; Athanasius of Alexandria, *Contra Gentiles*, chs. 6 and 7; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, VI, 13, p. 109 (Russian translation); Gregory the Theologian, Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 227; Basil the Great, Homily 2 on the Creation in Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 29; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book IV, ch. 20, p. 284.

[206] Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, Book II, p. 14; Athanasius of Alexandria, *Against the Pagans*, ch. 7; Gregory the Theologian, *Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. III, p. 320; Basil the Great, *On the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil*, *Chronicle Readings* 1824, XIII, and in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII; Augustine, *De Genesi, Contra Manicheus*, Book II, Chapter 29, Note 43; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book III, Chapter 20. “Believe,” writes St. Gregory the Theologian, “that evil has neither a distinct essence nor a realm of its own; that it is neither eternal nor self-existent, nor was it created by God, but is our own doing and the work of the evil one, and has arisen in us from our own negligence, not from the Creator” (loco citat.). “There is one kind of evil in relation to our perception, and another by its very nature. Evil by nature depends on us ourselves, such as: injustice, ignorance, sloth, envy, murder, poisoning, deceit, and other similar vices, which, by defiling the soul created in the image of its Creator, usually obscure its beauty. We also call evil that which is burdensome and unpleasant to our senses, such as illness and bodily sores, lack of necessities, disgrace, loss of property, and separation from loved ones—all of which the all-wise and good Lord sends upon us for our own good. He takes away wealth from those who misuse it and strips them of the means to commit vice. He sends sickness upon those for whom it is more beneficial to have their bodily limbs restrained than to pursue sin unhindered. Death comes when the limit of life is reached—a limit appointed from the beginning for each of us by God’s righteous judgment, for He foresees from afar what is beneficial for each of us. Famine, drought, and excessive rains are common scourges for cities and nations, punishing them for their excessive depravity. Just as a physician is a benefactor, even though he causes suffering and pain to the body, for he fights the disease, not the patient: so God is good when, through particular punishments, He brings about salvation as a whole” (loco citat.).

[207] See § 9 above and notes 154, 155.

[208] See the same § 9 and notes 156–169.

[209] God is an incorporeal spirit, a sleepless eye, and an unmoving mind. Athanasius of Alexandria, *Quaestiones aliae*, response to question 1, vol. III, p. 335, *Paris *, 1698. See also Augustine, *De cognitione verae vitae*, chap. 7.

[210] Athanasius of Alexandria, ibid.: “God is the creative essence of all invisible and visible creatures.” Conf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, III.

[212] God Himself is the supreme good. Basil, in Psalm XXXIII, 7.

[213] The most beautiful and most excellent good of all is this divine being. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, chap. 12.

[214] Ambrose: When the “essence of God” is mentioned, what else is meant but that God always exists? This is what the letters themselves express: since the divine power is “always existing”—that is, since it always is—it is called “essence,” with the order of a single letter changed for the sake of sound, brevity, and the elegance of speech (On the Incarnation, chap. 9). Or: “What is ‘oōsia’ and from where is it derived, if not from ‘ousia’ (ousa aei), which always remains? Since ‘to be’ is always to exist, God is; and that which always remains is called the divine ‘ousia’ (De fide, Book III, Chapter 7).

[215] We understand the name of God to be: *ō ōn*—the Existent One (see note 1bb above). However, St. Dionysius the Areopagite also considered the word *ō ágathos*—the Good One—to be such a name (see Damascene, in *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 9), and St. Gregory the Theologian—in part—also the word: *ō Theos*—God (Works of the Holy Fathers, Book 1, Chapter 9). Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9), and St. Gregory the Theologian—to some extent—also considered the word: “ο Θεός”—God (Works of the Holy Fathers, Russian trans., Vol. III, p. 96).

[216] For example, St. Gregory the Theologian states in this regard: “As far as we can comprehend, the names ‘the Existent’ and ‘God’ are, in a certain sense, names of the essence...;” and St. John of Damascus says: “Of all the names ascribed to God, it seems that the most proper one is — ό ων The Existent” (see note 166).

[217] “The One Who Is,” they said, expresses the very essence—the ούσία of God: for ούσία is nothing other than—and means nothing other than—ούσα άεί, that which always is, always exists—and God, indeed, always exists—the One Who Is—and exists of Himself and through Himself; and consequently, is, par excellence, *ousia*, whereas all other beings derive their existence from Him and through Him (see note 214; also Hilar. *de Trinitate*, Book I; Hieronym. in chap. 3, Epistle to the Ephesians; Augustin. Treatise 38 on John).

[218] Thus, St. John of Damascus, having named “the Living One” (o ōn) as the best name of God, nevertheless says of it further: “This name signifies only that God is (tō ein), and not what He is” (tō ti ein). Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9, pp. 32–33; cf. notes 165 and 166.

[219] Clem. Alex. Strom. V, 12; Eustathius, in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, ch. 7; Ambrose, On the Orthodox Faith Against the Arians, ch. 6, in vol. XVII of the Patrologia Cursus Completus, p. 560; Augustine, *On the Knowledge of the True Life*, ch. 7; Hilary, *On the Trinity*, Book I: “Certainly, this is God: when spoken of, He cannot be spoken of; when conceived, He cannot be conceived; when compared, He cannot be compared; when defined, He grows beyond His very definition.”

[220] See Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, vol. II, par. I, chap. 3, and Liberman, *Inst. Theolog.*, vol. III, book 1, chap. 2. A very detailed and thorough refutation of this latter view was provided by Theophan Prokopovich in his *Theology*—vol. II, par. 1, lib. 1, chap. 1, pp. 315–327, Leipzig, 1782.

[221] “For You are the indescribable God, the beginningless and ineffable One”... Liturgical Leaflet 12, Moscow, 1836. Cf. note 151.

[222] The words quoted from the General Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church serve precisely as an answer to the question: “What understanding of God’s essence and essential attributes can be derived from divine revelation?” (see the first section). In this context, one cannot help but recall the words of Blessed Augustine, who in one passage did say: “Moreover, the Supreme Spirit, just as He cannot properly be conceived by any intellect, so He cannot properly be defined by any definition”—but immediately continues: “Yet since the intellectual mind yearns to know Him in some way, let this enigmatic definition suffice for the time being: God the Spirit is an invisible essence, incomprehensible to every creature, possessing all life, all wisdom, and all eternity simultaneously and essentially, or existing as life itself, wisdom itself, truth itself, justice itself, and eternity itself (On the Knowledge of True Life, chap. 7, in Patrologia Cursus, vol. XXXVI, p. 1010).

[223] When we say that the term “Spirit” most clearly denotes for us the divine essence, we by no means mean to suggest that the divine essence thereby becomes comprehensible to us. St. John of Damascus explains this: “By knowing what is ascribed to God and ascending from this to the essence of God, we do not comprehend the essence itself, but only what pertains to the essence (τά περί τήν ούσίαν), — just as, knowing that the soul is incorporeal, immeasurable, and invisible, we do not yet comprehend its essence; nor do we comprehend the essence of the body if we know that it is white or black, but we know only what pertains to its essence. The true word, however, teaches that the Godhead is simple and possesses a single, simple, and good activity (ένεργείαν) that acts in every way and in all things” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 10, p. 34).

[224] It should be added that even in the New Testament Church, it is not God Himself in His essence who is depicted on holy icons, but only the various forms in which He deigned to appear to people in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, God the Father is depicted as an elderly man, as one of advanced years, in accordance with His appearance to the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22); the Son of God, who was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and then gradually grew until He reached the age of a perfect man (Eph. 4:13), is depicted at various stages of life: as an infant, a child, a youth, and a man; The Holy Spirit, who descended upon the Savior at His baptism in bodily form as a dove (Luke 3:22), is depicted as a dove.

[225] Other passages in which God is also attributed with a mind and intellectual faculties in general are: Exod. 3:7; 2 Chron. 6:30; Job 14:13; Ps. 7:10; Isa. 46:11; 64:9; Jer. 14:10; Hab. 4:2; 1 John 3:20; Rev. 18:5.

[226] See also: Ps. 39:7, 9; Job 23:13; Isa. 48:11; Dan. 5:21; Matt. 6:10; 7:21; 12:50; 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 4:34; 5:30; Rom. 9:18; 1 Cor. 12:6; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:5; 5:7; 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:15; Heb. 10:36; 13:21.

[227] The Syrian monk Avdeus or Avdius (4th century) is recognized as the father of the Anthropomorphites; his followers were named Avdians after him (Chrysostom, *in Genes.*, homil. XIII, n. 2; Epiphanius, *Haeres.* LXX; Theodoret, *H. E.* IV, 9). Later, this heresy was espoused by Egyptian monks—the Origenists (Socrat. n. VI, 7; Sozom. n. VIII, 12) and the Manichaeans (Augustin. contra epist. Manich. n. 2; adv. Faust. XX, 7; XXV, 1; Confess. V, 10); in the Middle Ages—the Albigensians (Luc. Tudensis 11:9); in modern times—Hobbes (Leviathan IV, 34, note p. 3), Priestley, and many Cartesians.

[228] For example: the face (Gen. 4:16), the eyes (Isa. 1:15), the ears (Ps. 16:6), the mouth (Ps. 32:6), the heart (Jer. 3:15), the hands, muscles, and fingers (Ps. 43:3, 4; 8:4; Isa. 25:11; 40:11), feet (Ps. 98:5), and another (Jer. 18:17).

[229] Epiphanius, *Haeresia* 90; Eusebius, *Commentary on Psalms* VIII, 5; Gregory of Nyssa, *Oration on “Let Us Make Man”*; Theodoret, *History of the Church* Book IV, Chapter 9; Augustine, *On the Trinity* Book XII, Chapter 7.

[230] Gregory of Nyssa, *On the Creation of Man*, ch. 4; Ambrose, *Commentary on the Hexameron*, Book VI, ch. 8; Cyril of Alexandria, Book IX on John; Jerome, *Epistle* 146.

[231] There is a truth about Jesus: to put off, according to your former way of life, the old self, which is corrupted by deceitful desires..., and to be clothed with the new self, created after the likeness of God in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Chrysostom, cited by Damascenus, in *Parallel*, p. 8; Severian, *De mundi creat.*, Orat. V, n. 4 (in *Opp. Chrysost.*, vol. IV, p. 484, ed. Montfauc.); Ambrose, *De bono mortis*, ch. 5.

[232] Chrysostom, in Genesis, Homily VIII, n. 3; Eusebius of Pamphylia, On the Incarnation and Invisibility of God, in Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. Galland, vol. IV, p. 498.

[233] St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 11. The same, though more briefly, is found in St. Gregory the Theologian, Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, pp. 122–123; St. John Chrysostom, Exposition on the Psalms, Book VII, n. 11; Blessed Theodoret, on Psalm CXIX, and others.

[234] Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 22; Severian, *Oratio V on the Creation of the World*, n. 3; St. John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 4.

[235] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, Book XI; St. John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 4.

[236] Gregory the Theologian, Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 22; Athanasius of Alexandria, Oration Against the Gentiles, p. 21.

[237] Ambrose, *On Faith*, Book 1, p. 16, n. 106; Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book V. In general, all the proofs presented here reveal quite thoroughly: Origen (*On the Principles*, 1, n. 1, 6; 11, 2; *Against Gelasius*, VI, 69, 70; VII, 27, 38) and Eusebius (On the Incorporeal and Invisible God, in Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. Galland, VI, pp. 497–503, and ibid., On the Incorporeal, Book I, pp. 503–506).

[238] “And there is a heresy to this day that speaks of the divine as anthropomorphic.” Severian, Oration on the Creation of the World, V, n. 3.

[239] ... he refuted the absurd anthropomorphic heresy with a lengthy argument ... Cassian. Collat. X, chap. 2 (vol. 49 of the Patrologia Cursus Completus, p. 821).

[240] Indeed, against the anthropomorphists... in a rage... you fixed your gaze... on the old man, seeking to cast suspicion on him as a proponent of the most foolish heresies. Jerome, Book Against John of Jerusalem, n. 11 (vol. 23 of the Patrologus Cursus, complete edition, p. 364).

[241] Epiphanius, *Haeresiae*, Book III, Heresy 70, n. 2 et seq.; Augustine, *Haeresiae*, 76 and 86; Philastru, *De Haeresis*, in *Bibliotheca Patrum* de la Bigne, vol. V, col. 50; Damascene, *De Haeresis*, n. 70.

[242] ... “which Epiphanius attributes to their rusticity (that of the Egyptian monks),” says Blessed Augustine, “showing them leniency so that they might not be called heretics.” Augustine, *Haeresiae*, 50.

[243] Isaac of Bezos, History of Manichaeism... Book III, Chapter 2.

[244] The idea of the perfect incorporeality and spirituality of God’s being is very often repeated in other liturgical services as well, for example: “who by nature is an incorporeal and invisible God”... (Octoechos, Part 1, folio 163 verso. Moscow, 1838); or: “We glorify You, O Trinity, as the one God: holy, holy, holy are You, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a simple being, eternally worshiped as one” (Lenten Triodion, fol. 136, verso, Moscow, 1835).

[245] Orthodox Confessions of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, vol. 1, answer to question 13.

[246] Ibid.—answers to questions 13 and 17: “The attributes of God are innumerable.”

[247] And they divided the attributes of God into: 1) negative attributes (άποφατικά, negativa), by which everything that is limited and imperfect is distinguished from God, and positive attributes (καταφατικά, affirmativa), by which perfections are ascribed to Him, for example: without beginning, all-wise (St. John of Damascus, Exact. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 12); 2) into quiescent (ánenergetika, quiescentia, immanentia)—that is, those that do not imply the concept of action—and operative (energetika, operative, transeuntia), which do imply such a concept: eternal, good...; 3) moral (moralia), which are connected to God’s will, and natural (physica, seu metaphysica), which are not: just, self-existent; 4) proper (propria) and figurative (metaphorica, seu impropria): almighty, wrathful; 5) into primary (primitiva) and derived (derivata), the former serving as the foundation for the latter: eternal, immortal; 6) into relative (relativa), expressing God’s relationship to the world, and absolute (absolute), belonging to God without any relation to other beings: all-good, infinite, and the like. A discussion of both these and many other classifications of God’s attributes can be found in the book: Pauli Jac. Andreae—Comment. de attribut. divin. variis divisionibus earumque commodis et incommodis, — praemio ornata. Lugd. Batav. 1824.

[248] “We believe in one true God, the Almighty and infinite—άόριστον....” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 1). “God... is in Himself perfect and glorified—καθ' έαυτόν ύπερτελής καί δεδοξασμένος” (Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, Part 1, answer to question 8). And how the boundlessness of God has been understood since ancient times is evident from the words of St. Maximus the Confessor: “He is called (God) ‘indefinite’ insofar as He is not subject to any concept....” (schol. in cap. 2. Dionysius the Areopagite, *De coelest. hierarch.*), and of St. Gregory the Theologian: “O God... like an ocean of being, infinite and indefinite, surpassing every conception of time and nature (Orat. XXXVIII, n. II; Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 238).

[249] As is evident from the writings of pagan sages, for example: Pythagoras—Enneads, Book V, Chapter 5, and Book VI, Chapter 9; Euryphamus of Pythagoras—Book on Life (at the end of the works of Diogenes Laërtius); Heraclitus of Plato—in Metaphysics.

[250] “Even those,” says Blessed Augustine, “who acknowledge and revere other gods, whether in heaven or on earth, when they conceive of the God of gods, always conceive of Him as something so good and exalted that nothing better or more sublime can be imagined... They prefer Him to all beings, both visible and corporeal, as well as rational and spiritual... And not a single person can be found who would regard as God (the Supreme) that which is more perfect than anything else. Thus, everyone acknowledges as God that which they prefer above all else” (De doctrin. Christ. lib. 1, p. 7). Tertullian also affirmed this: see note 202 above.

[251] Tertullian, *Apology*, ch. 17; Jerome, *Commentary on Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Galatians*: “from which it is clear that the knowledge of God is inherent in the nature of all things”; Lactantius, *Institutes of the Divine*, Book IV, chs. 4 and 28; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 1: “God Himself has implanted the knowledge of His existence in the nature of every person.” Among the pagans—Aristotle, *On the Heavens*, Book 1, p. 3; Cicero, *On the Nature of the Gods*, 1.16; Seneca, *Epistle* 117; Iavnblich, *On the Mysteries*, I, 3.

[252] St. Dimitri of Rostov. Works, vol. II, p. 186; Augustine, *De Trinitate*, Book XV, Chapter 4: “The very nature of things proclaims that it has a most excellent Creator, who has given us a mind… through which we may see that the living are to be preferred to the non-living…, the intelligent to the non-intelligent…, and the unchangeable to the changeable. And for this reason, since we unquestionably place the Creator above created things, we must acknowledge that He lives supremely, perceives and understands all things, and cannot die, decay, or change; nor is He a body, but the most powerful, most just, most beautiful, best, and most blessed Spirit of all.”

[253] Catechetical Sermon VI, § 8, p. 105 in the Russian translation.

[254] “One God, the Father of the Living Word, of Wisdom, and of Self-Existent Power” (The Creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker)... “We have one God, a God who is and always has been—Θεόν όντα καί άεί όντα....” (Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, answer to question 8). “The essential attributes of God are:... to be.... without beginning—τό έίναι.... ἀνάρχον....” (ibid., answer to question 13). “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty.... who is without beginning, unborn, and sinless” (Rite of Election and Ordination of Bishops, p. 9, reverse side). “Worshiping the one triune Being, let us, the faithful, glorify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...., the one uncreated God, crying out with the incorporeal ones: Holy, holy, holy are You, O King” (Triodion, Lenten, p. 140, reverse side, Moscow, 1837).

[256] Hieronymus, Epist. 136; Augustine, De civitate Dei, Book 1, Chapter 32; De genesis ad litteram, Book V, Chapter 16; Hilary, In verba Exodi, Chapter 3: “Ego sum qui sum.”

[257] Clement of Alexandria, *Paedagogus*, Book 1, Chapter 8; Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, Chapter 5; Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, Evangel, Book XI, Chapter 9; Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 134: “For He (God) is such that, in comparison with Him, the things that have been made are nothing.”

[258] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 77; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, Book X, Chapter 4.

[259] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 37.

[260] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 2, sect. 8; ch. 6, sect. 1.

[261] Athanasius, Oration Against the Gentiles; Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Hexameron.

[262] Athanasius, Oration Against the Gentiles.

[263] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Name*, ch. 5; Chrysostom, *On Providence*, book 1, ch. 7.

[264] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 12, n. 1.

[265] Ibid., chap. 2. “The Lord is good,” says Blessed Augustine, “but good not in the same way as the good things He has made; He is good by His own goodness, not by goodness derived from elsewhere” (in Psalm 134).

[266] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8, p. 16.

[267] This idea is expounded by Blessed Augustine (lib. de cognit. verae vitae, chap. 7) and St. John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 3, p. 6).

[268] Eusebius cites their testimonies—*Praeparat. Evangel*, Book XI, Chapters 9–11.

[269] “God is Spirit… all-sufficient” (Extensive Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, on the first article). “God’s omnipotence (παντοκρατορία) and almighty power are determined by His own will and discretion” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 14). “He is called the Almighty because everything is subject to His power” (ibid.).

[270] Chrysostom, in Psalm 44: “God needs neither blessing nor grace, for the divine is self-sufficient” (cf. in Psalm 114); Augustine, Book 83 of the Questions, Question 22: “where there is no need, no necessity; where there is no deficiency, no judgment. But there is no deficiency in God; therefore, there is no necessity.”

[271] St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures, Book IV, n. 5, p. 61. This idea of the Platonists—that God Himself is subject to fate (fatum) and depends on it—is refuted in detail by Nemesius, Bishop of Nemesia, in his *De Natura Hominis*, chapter 38.

[272] St. John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapters 14 and 8.

[273] Hippol. Advers. Noet., ch. VIII: “He does all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills.”

[274] “Believe firmly and without a doubt that God is... omnipresent—πανταχού παρών” (The Correct Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 17). “The essential attributes of God are: to be... omnipresent, all-pervading, and immeasurable”—“that which is present to all and fills all things, indescribable” (ibid., answer to question 13; cf. question 15). “O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, who art everywhere and fillest all things...” (Prayer to the Holy Spirit).

[275] Athanasius, Book Against the Sabellians: “God, without being co-present with all things, has filled all things, for this is a corporeal concept.” Augustine. Epist. 57; “In the very notion that God is diffused everywhere, one must resist the carnal way of thinking… lest we imagine God to be diffused throughout all things by a vast magnitude, as if He were earth, air, or light.”

[276] Among more recent thinkers—many Socinians and Remonstrants; as for the ancients, Anastasius of Sinai mentions them in the second of his five books, titled *De incircumscripta Dei essentia*.

[277] Anastasius of Sinai expounds these ideas in detail in the aforementioned work, as does Patriarch Photius in his first treatise, which was published by Heinrich Canisius (in Antiqu. Lect. lib. V, p. 189).

[278] St. John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 13: “It is necessary to know that God has no parts; He is wholly present everywhere—not dwelling in a particular part as a portion of Himself, divided like corporeal beings, but wholly present in all things, and wholly above all things;” Hilar. Book 1 to Constantius: “God is everywhere, and He is wholly present everywhere”; Theophilus to Autolycus 11:3; Clement of Alexandria, On Providence, fragment (in Galland 11): “in each thing, the whole”; Ambrose, On Faith, Book 1, pp. 4 and 8; Augustine, Epistle 57; Therefore He is wholly present, because He does not provide His present part to one part of things and another part to another part—equals to equals, the lesser to the lesser, and the greater to the greater—but He is wholly present in equal measure not only to the whole of creation but also to every part of it (Confessions, letters 112 and 222).

[279] St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Unlimited by place, yet the Creator of places, He is present in each of them, and is contained in none” (Catechetical Lectures VI, § 8, p. 105)—“He is in all things and outside all things” (Catechetical Lectures IV, § 5, p. 60); Hilar. de Trinit. 1, 6; Augustin. de Genes. ad litter. VIII, 26, n. 48; Athanas. epist. ad Serapionem: πανταχού έστι, καί έξω πάντων ών; Hieronymus in Isa. chap. 66; John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 13: “He Himself is the place for Himself; He fills all things and exists outside of all things.”

[280] “If God is the place for all things,” says St. Maximus the Confessor, “then not in a physical sense, but by His creative power (ού σωματικώς, άλλά δημιουργικώς): since He fills both heaven and earth and all things, yet He Himself is outside of all things—then, evidently, He is boundlessness or a power without limits” (Schol. in cap. 1. Dionys. Areopag. de divin. nomin.). Or, as Blessed Augustine writes: He is not in a place; rather, all things are in Him, rather than He Himself being anywhere—yet not in such a way that He Himself is the place. For a locus is that which, in space, is occupied by the length, breadth, and height of a body: and God is not such a thing (De divers, quaest. 83, qu. 20).

[281] “The Divine Nature permeates all things without being mixed with anything, and nothing permeates Him (John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 14; cf. Chapter 33)—“there is a power that permeates every essence, while remaining pure itself” (ibid., Chapter 8); Ambrosius, *De Fide*, Book 1, Chapters 4 and 8; Cyril, *Thesaurus*, Book VI: for (the essence of God) remains in itself pure, and is naturally unmingled in its communion with another. How God, who is truly God, remains pure, even though there is much that is sinful and impure in the world—this was explained by comparing God’s all-pervading power to the rays of the sun, which, although they pass through and illuminate many impure spaces, remain pure themselves (Gregory of Nyssa, Oration Against Ar. et Sabell. in Mai Collect. VIII, 11, p. 9; Augustin. de civit. Dei lib. VII, c. 3 et Epist. 57).

[282] Chrysostom, Homily XII on the Epistle to the Hebrews; Gregory the Theologian, Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 25

[283] Plotinus, Enneads VI, Book 5, p. 4.

[284] “Believe firmly and without doubt that God is... eternal—‘άιδιος’ (The Correct Confession, Part I, answer to question 17). “The essential attributes of God are: to be... eternal, without beginning, and infinite—τό έίναι άΐδιον, άναρχον, άτελεύτητον” (ibid., answer to question 13). “You alone are the pre-eternal One, as the Creator of the ages” (Minutes for September, sheet 11, verso, Moscow 1837).

[285] Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 238, and vol. IV, pp. 154–155.

[286] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 5; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, Book 1, ch. 8; (Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius*, Book 1, p. 98; Isidore of Pelusium, Book III, Letter 149; Augustine, Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 10: “To have been and to be in the future is not part of the divine life, but only to be, since it is eternal.”Nam , “To have been and to be in the future is not eternal” (Confessions, Book XI, Chapter 16); Gregory the Great, Moral Teachings, Book XVI, Chapter 20, and Book XX, Chapter 23.

[287] Plato—in *Timaeus*; Proclus, in *Commentary 11 on Timaeus*; Plotinus—*Enneads* III, Book 7, Chapters 1, 2, and 4; Numenius—cited in Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, Book XI, Chapter 10; Plutarch—ibid., Chapter 11.

[288] “Believe firmly and without a doubt that God exists... unchanging in His essence—άμετάβλητος έίς τήν φύσιν” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 17). “We have a God... who is always like Himself and is the same—όμοιον καί τούτόν πάντοτε μέν τόν έαοτόν” (ibid., answer to question 8). “Seated on the throne of glory, and looking down upon the abyss, without beginning, invisible, incomprehensible, unchanging” (Liturgical Book, p. 128, reverse side, Moscow, 1817). “God’s predestination… remains unchanging” (Extended Christian Catechism, on Article 1).

[289] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 11, n. 6; Theophilus, *To Autolycus*, 1, 4; Origen, *On the Principles*, 1, 1, n. 6; Chrysostom, *Homily III* on the *Epistle to the Romans*; Augustine, Proem., Book IV of *De Trinitate*: “The very essence of God, as it is, contains nothing changeable—neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will...” (*Confessions*, Book XIII, Chapter 16, section 20).

[290] Tertullian, *Adversus Praxitum*, XXVII: “It is necessary to believe in God as immutable and unchangeable, just as He is eternal; but transfiguration is a departure from the original state”; Origen, *Oratio* XXIV; Augustine, *Lib. quaest. 83*, qu. 19; Lactantius, *Inst. lib. 11*, c. 8; Antipater of Bostra, cited by Damascene, *Parallel*, ch. 1.

[291] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Psalms, Treatise II, Chapter 4, p. 298, ed. Morel; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 2; Augustine, Sermon XII, On Diverse Matters, Chapter 16: “For change is either for the worse or for the better…” (Confessions, Commentary on 1 John, Treatise VI, Chapter 3).

[292] Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Oration XII; Augustine, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 10; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8.

[293] Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Epistle to the Ephesians; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29; Tertullian, Confessions, Book on Exhortation to Chastity, Chapters 2 and 3.

[294] Plato—Book 2 of *On the Republic*, cited in Eusebius’s *Preparations for the Gospel*, Book XIII, Chapter 3; Sallust, at the beginning of his *Book on the Gods and the World*; Plotinus, *Enneads* IV, Book 8, Chapter 2.

[295] “Believe firmly and without doubt that God is… almighty—παντοδύναμος” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 17). “The essential attributes of God are: to be… almighty…” (ibid., answer to question 13). “He is called almighty or all-powerful—παντοδύναμος ή παντοκράτωρ—because everything is subject to His power, and because He created the world without any hindrance and without any effort, but by His sole will” (ibid., answer to question 14, Part III, in its entirety). “Treasure of goodness, ever-flowing spring, Holy Father, Wonder-worker, Almighty and All-powerful One”... (Liturgy, p. 224, reverse side).

[296] Augustine, Sermon CXXXIX, p. 2.

[297] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 8; Isidore of Pelusium, Book III, Letter 335; Chrysostom, Homily 38 on John and Homily 51 on the Acts of the Apostles; Ambrose, *On the Faith*, Book IV, ch. 3; Augustine, Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed: “God is omnipotent, and since He is omnipotent, He cannot die, He cannot be deceived, He cannot lie. How many things He cannot do! And He is omnipotent, and He is omnipotent precisely because He cannot do these things.Nam if He could die, He would not be omnipotent; if He could lie, be deceived, deceive, or act unjustly, He would not be omnipotent. He does what He wills; this is omnipotence. He does whatever He wills that is good; whatever is evil, He does not will”; St. Gregory the Theologian. Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, p. 88: “We acknowledge it impossible for God to be evil or not to exist (for this would indicate powerlessness rather than power in God), or for the nonexistent to exist, or for two plus two to be both four and ten.”

[298] Indeed, only He is truly called omnipotent who truly is, and from whom alone comes everything that exists in any way, whether spiritual or corporeal. Augustine, *Contra Faustus*, Book XXVI, p. 5.

[299] Huetius collected testimonies to this effect from pagan writers—Conc., Book II, Chapter 11.

[300] “Believe firmly and without doubt that God... is omniscient—τά πάντα έΐδώς” (Orthodox Confession, Part I, answer to question 17). “The essential attributes of God are: to be… the knower of all that is hidden and manifest” (ibid., answer to question 13). “O God, who is gracious and merciful, who searches the hearts and minds, and who alone knows the secret things of man, for there is nothing hidden from You, but all is naked and exposed before Your eyes”... (Liturgical Book, p. 11, Moscow, 1836).

[301] See also 1 Kings 23:10–14; Jer. 38:17–24; Ezek. 3:6.

[302] “He who sent Me is true” (John 8:26). “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). “The Lord God is truth” (Jer. 10:10).

[303] “I do not presume to say how God knows; I say only that He does not know as man knows, nor as the angels know; but I do not presume to say exactly how He knows: for I am unable to comprehend this.” Augustine, in Psalm XLIX.

[304] Polyc. ad Philipp. n. IV; Theoghil. ad Autolyc. 1, 4; Justin. Apolog. 1, n. 16; Athenagoras, Laws, XXXI; Minutian, Fel. Octav., XXXII; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 19, n. 2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VI, 17; Origen, On the Principles, III, 1, n. 13; IV, 37; Basil, Epistle VIII, n. 11.

[305] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* 11, 26, n. 3: “Nothing of what has been, is, or will be escapes God’s knowledge”; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* VI, 17: “He knows all things—not only what exists, but also what will come to be, and how each thing will be.”.; Justin, Apology 1, ch. 44; Tertullian, Against Marcion 11.5; Origen, On the Principles III, 1, n. 17; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel IV, 1.

[306] Ignatius, *Ad Philippus*, ch. IV; Gregory of Nyssa, *On Infants Who Are Taken Prematurely*, vol. III, ed. Morel; Augustine, *On the Gift of Perseverance*, ch. 9.

[307] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VI, 17; Augustine, To Simplicius, Book I, Question 2; On the Trinity, XV, 14.

[308] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, VII, n. 2; Pantænus, *Fragments*, in Rout. *Reliquia Sacra*, vol. 1, p. 340.

[309] Augustine, *De quaest.,* LXXXIII, qu. 46.

[310] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 19, n. 2; Minutianus Felicius, Octaves, XXXII.

[311] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, Book V, Chapter 9: “Thus, He who foreknew the causes of all things could certainly not have been unaware of our wills within those causes, which He foreknew to be the causes of our actions...” (cf. chap. 10), and *On the Free Will*, Book III, chap. 3: “Since He foreknew our will, of which He is the foreknower, it must exist. Therefore, the will must exist, because He is the foreknower of the will. Nor could the will exist if it were not within the power of God; therefore, He is also the foreknower of power...”

[312] Origen, Commentary on Genesis, in Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, Book VI, Chapter 11; Augustine, *On Free Will*, Book III, Chapter 4.

[313] Origen, *On the Principles*, Book III, 1; Ambrose, *On Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 7; Chrysostom, *Homily on the Obscure Passages of the Prophets*, Homily 1, n. 4; Theodoret, *Commentary on Homily VIII*, 30; Augustine, *Questions to Simplicius*, Book II.

[314] Origen, *Against Celsus*, 11, 20; *On the Principles*, III, 3, n. 4; Augustine, *The City of God*, V, 9, n. 4.

[315] Thales, cited by Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, V, 14; Plato, *Parmenides*; Pindar, Olympic Odes 1, 64; Aeschylus, Choephorae 201, 202; Sophocles, Electra 659; Xenophon, Symposium IV, n. 48; Plutarch, Isis and Osiris LX; Ser. num. vind. XXI.

[316] “One God, the Father of the Living Word, of Wisdom, and of self-existent power... One Lord..., God from God.... wisdom, containing the composition of all things”... (Creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker). “O great and most high God, worshiped by all creation, source of wisdom” (Liturgical Book, p. 48, Moscow, 1836). “O great and most high God... who created all creation with wisdom”... (ibid., p. 193, reverse side). “Lord and God of mercy... who ordain all things with wisdom” (ibid., p. 233, reverse side).

[317] We refer to the “Discourses on the Six Days” by Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and others; as well as certain individual passages or sermons, such as those by St. Cyril of Jerusalem—Homily Sermon IX, pp. 153–163, in Russian translation, and St. John Chrysostom’s Sermon XI to the People of Antioch.

[318] Basil the Great, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 80.

[319] John Chrysostom: On the Wisdom of God in the Structure of the Human Body, Chr. Readings 1838, II, pp. 159–171; Basil the Great: Sermons on the Structure of Man, Chr. Readings 1841, IV, pp. 3–34.

[320] Chrysostom, Homily VI on John; Athanasius, *On the Incarnation of the Word of God*, vol. II, par. 1698, p. 33; *Confessions*, p. 48; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, chap. 27; Augustine, *On Repentance and Grace*, chap. II, and *The City of God*, book XIV, chap. 27.

[321] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book V, Chapter 1; Athanasius, *Oration III Against the Arians*; Chrysostom, *Homily XVIII on John*; Gennadius, *On the Dogmas of the Church*, Chapter 2; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 4.

[322] Gregory of Nyssa, *Orat. de nat. Christ.*, vol. II, p. 773; Theodoret, *Serm. VI contra Graec.*; Augustine, *Epist. 49*; *De Genes. contra Manich.*, Book 1, Chapter 14.

[323] John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 1; Theophilact, on Chapter III, verse 10 of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

[324] St. Athanasius of Alexandria—On the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Chr. Readings 1838, II, pp. 132–158.

[325] Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechesis*, chs. XXXIII, XXXIV, vol. III, p. 80, ed. Morel.

[326] Diogenes Laërtius, Proem., chap. VII; Aristotle, Physics, Book II, ch. 8.

[327] “God’s omnipotence and almighty power are determined by His own will and action; therefore, He does not do everything He is capable of, but only what He wills and is able to do” (The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 14). “Wherever God wills, the order of nature is overcome, for He creates whatever He wills” (Triodion of Lent, p. 136, Moscow, 1835).

[328] Basil the Great, on the Six-Day Creation, Discourse 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, pp. 6–7; Athanasius, *In Hexaëm*, book I, p. 5; Theophilus, *Ad Autolycus*, 11, 13; Epiphanius, *Haereses* XXIII, n. 5; Zacharias of Mytilene, *Disputation on the World*, vol. XII of the *Bibliotheca Patrum Graeco-Latina*,Paris , 1644.

[329] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 5, n. 4; Tertullian, Against Heresies, Chapter 16; Hippolytus, Against Noetianus, Chapters VIII, X; Epiphanius, On Heresies, LXX, n. 7; Augustine, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 24.

[330] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 8; Ambrose, On the Hexameron, Book VI, Chapter 8; Jerome, Epistle 146; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Creation of Man, Chapter 4, Oration XVI; John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12; Book III, Chapter 14.

[331] It is not fitting to say that God, who is above all things, being free and in control of His own power, is subject to necessity, so that anything might exist by His concession apart from His will... (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 5, n. 4). For the divine nature is not subject to passions, so that it does not do what it wills, or does what it does not will; for it is capable of doing whatever it wills... (Epiphanius, Against Heresies, LXX, n. 7).

[332] “When He wills, He acts.... He therefore acted as He willed.... (Hippol. adv. Noët. X). For He acted as if from Himself, since He acted as He willed.... And as long as He wills, all things remain by His power.... (Anibros. in Hexaëm, Book I, Chapter 5).

[333] “If man is created in the image of the blessed and pre-existent Divinity, and the Divinity is free and possesses a will by nature (αύτεξούσιος δέ φύσει καί θελητική ή θεΐα φύσις); then man, as the image of the Divinity, is free by nature and possesses a will” (John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 14).

[334] “Every good that you can conceive in your mind, attribute to God, the Supreme Good, as its cause and source. Conversely, consider that every evil is foreign to Him and removed from Him, not in place but by nature” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 31). “God has no part in any evil”... (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 3). “It is absolutely true and beyond any doubt that God cannot be the cause of evil”… (ibid., Art. 4). “You are holy, truly, and most holy, and there is no measure to the splendor of Your holiness...; You alone are purity and essential holiness; You are holy, Father without beginning, You are holy, Son co-eternal, and You are holy, Holy Spirit, one and indivisible, our God...; Holy God, who has wrought all things through the Son, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit: Holy and Mighty One, through whom we have come to know the Father and the Holy Spirit has come into the world: Holy, immortal, and comforting Spirit, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Son: Holy Trinity, glory to You; God, one in nature, sinless; You alone are free from sin” (Liturgy Book, p. 130; Service Book, p. 157 on the reverse, and p. 194 on the reverse; Octoechos, Part 1, p. 165 on the back; Part II, p. 8; General Liturgy, Part 1, p. 6 on the back, and p. 22 on the back).

[335] Ps. 98:9; cf. Josh. 24:19; Isa. 6:3; 2 Macc. 14:36; John 17:11; Rev. 4:18.

[336] Deut. 32:4; cf. Ps. 10:7; 144:13; Rev. 15:4.

[337] Ps. 70:22; cf. Ps. 88:19; Isa. 1:4; 5:16; 10:20; 12:6; 29:19–23; 43:3; 54:5; Ezek. 39:7; Hab. 1:12; Baruch 4:37; Rev. 6:10.

[338] Ps. 32:21; 102:1; 104:3; 105:47; 110:9; 144:21; Ezek. 20:39; 39:7; Luke 1:49.

[339] Cyril of Jerusalem. Instructions on the Mysteries, Book V, § 19: “Truly, the only One who is holy is He who is holy by nature; and we are holy, not by nature, but through communion, asceticism, and prayer” (in the Russian translation, p. 467); Cyrill. Alex. in cap. XLIX Jesaiae v. 7.

[340] Basil the Great: “On the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil.” Chr. Th. 1824, XIII, pp. 255–258; Tit. Bostrens. adv. Manich. 11:9, 10, 15; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1:8; Augustin. de Genes. ad litt. XI, 6, n. 8. Cf. note 206.

[341] Basil the Great, in Chr. Ch. 1824, XIII, p. 263; Clem. Alex. Strom. 1,17; Gregor. Nyss. Hom. VII in Ecclesiast., and Catech. chap. 5; Athanas. Alex. contra gent. chap. 7.

[342] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, Book XXII, Chapter 1; Cyril of Alexandria, *Commentary on John*, Book V, on the words: “I do nothing of my own...”; Titus of Boston, *Against Manichaeism*, Book II, in *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Vol. IV, col. 903.

[343] Athenagoras, in *Apologeticus*, p. 6: “For it is not for God to act contrary to nature.”

[344] Tertullian, *Contra Marcion*, Book I, p. 26; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, Chapter 1; Basil the Great, Homily 11 on the Hexameron.

[345] Basil the Great in Chr. Cht. 1824, XIII, p. 254.

[347] John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 19, p. 282.

[348] Aeschylus, *Adamantia*, 637; *Eumenides*, 27, 40, 55; Sophocles, *Ant. *, 1044.

[349] “God is good and supremely good—άγαθός καί ύπεράγαθος” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 8). “The essential attributes of God are: to be… good” (ibid., answer to question 13). “The Creator is good by His very nature” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 4). “Blessed and philanthropic, gracious and most merciful Lord, abundant in mercy and rich in goodness, Father of generosity and God of all comfort”... (Liturgical Book, p. 51, back cover, Moscow, 1836). “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, inexhaustible source of generosity, unfathomable abyss of love for mankind, immortal depths of long-suffering and goodness”... (ibid., pp. 215 and 219). “Life and Life-Giver: Light and Giver of Light: the All-Good One and Source of Goodness”… (ibid., p. 187, reverse side).

[350] Homily 23, in The Works of the Holy Fathers II, p. 231.

[351] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Name*, ch. IV, n. 1; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 25, n. 3; Gregory of Nyssa, *On the Life of Moses*: “The first and principal good, whose very nature is goodness, is the divine; whatever is conceived of as good by nature, that is what it is, and that is what it is called” (vol. 1, p. 169, ed. Morel. Conf. vol. III, p. 147); Oecumen. in chap. Xt of the Acts: “God exists as good in essence, the beginning and source of all goods”; Augustin. enarrat. in Psalm XCIX, n. 15; CXXXIV, n. 4; Epistle CLIII, also known as LIV, chap. 5, n. 12; Maximus the Monk, *On Charity*, centuria IV, sect. 90: “God alone is good by nature.”

[352] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. IV, nos. 2, 3, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, ch. V, p. 484; Chrysostom, Homily III on the Epistle to Philemon: “Did He not, out of His love for us, create us, the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all things—did He not create these things for us out of goodness? Tell me.” Hilarion, Commentary on Psalm 11; Ambrosius, on Psalm 118; Augustine, *The City of God*, Book XI, Chapter 21; *Enchiridion to Laurentius*, Chapter 27; Zacharias of Mytilene, *On the Creation of the World*; Cyril of Alexandria, *Dialogue on the Trinity*, Dialogue 4.

[353] For there is no one—neither father, nor mother, nor friend, nor anyone else—who has loved us as much as God, who created us.... (Chrysostom, Homily XIX, or XX, on Matthew, n. 7). It is clear that God loves us more than we love ourselves (Homily XLVI, or XLVII, on Matthew, n. 1).

[354] Chrysostom. Opp., vol. II, pp. 87 and 250; vol. III, pp. 29, 35; vol. IV, pp. 136, 253; vol. V, pp. 136, 138, 699, ed. de Monfaucon. Venice, 1734.

[355] For just as He cares for His own glory, so He cares for the salvation of mankind... Chrysostom. Expositio in Psalm. CXIII, n. 3, p. 297.

[356] Chrysostom, Homily XXXI, or XXX on John, n. 2; Augustine, *De vera religio*, chap. XVI: “In no way did He show greater benevolence toward the human race than when, through the very wisdom of God—that is, the only Son, consubstantial with the Father and coetaneous with Him—He deigned to take on the whole human nature, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

[357] Aeschylus, *Agamemnon*, 952 and 1148; *Prometheus Bound*, 772; Plato, *Euthyphro*; Hierocles, *Aurea Carmina Pythagorae*; Plotinus, *Enneads*, Book V, Chapter 5, Section 13; Proclus, *Commentary on Book II of Plato’s *Republic**.

[358] “God can neither be evil, nor sin, nor lie, nor deny Himself”... (The Correct Confession, Part I, Answer to Question 14). “O Lord our God, faithful in Your promises and unchanging in Your gifts”... (Liturgical Book, p. 86, back cover, Moscow, 1836). “For You are a great and wondrous God, keeping Your covenant... (ibid., pp. 46 and 64); for You alone are the true God”... (Divine Service, p. 28, Moscow, 1837; Psalter, p. 109, reverse side, Moscow, 1818).

[359] For example, Saint Clement of Rome says: “We cling, through the hope of our spirit, to Him who is faithful in His promises and righteous in His judgments (Epist. l. ad Corinth., chap. 2): for He is faithful who has promised to reward each person according to his deeds” (Epist. II ad Corinth., chap. 27); Saint Cyprian: “First of all, God is true; His word to believers is eternal and steadfast” (Lib. de mort.); St. John Chrysostom: “His (God’s) words are pure and free from falsehood (άπηλλαγμένα ψεύδους); just as silver refined by fire contains nothing foreign or impure, so too must the words spoken by God be fulfilled without fail” (Exposit. in Psalm. XI. n. 2); St. Athanasius: “God is faithful, for, as David sings, the Lord is faithful in His words, and He is trustworthy, and it is impossible for Him to lie” (Contra Arian. orat. III); Blessed Augustine: “Those who wish to find something that the Almighty cannot do have certainly found it; I will say: He cannot lie” (De civit. Dei, Book XXII, Chapter 25); St. Cyril of Alexandria: “It is always natural and most pleasing to the divine nature to be truthful” (Book II on John, Chapter 3).

[360] “God is Spirit… all-righteous” (Simplified Catechism, Article 1). “There is no room for partiality in Him” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 3). “You are righteous, O Lord, and Your judgments are righteous” (Liturgical Book, p. 246, Moscow, 1836). “You are righteous, O Lord, and Your judgment is righteous concerning all”... (Ibid., p. 222, reverse side).

[361] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 25, n. 3; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.6; Epiphanius, Against Heresies, LXII, 2.

[362] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 25, n. 2; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, 11, 12; *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, XIV.

[363] Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, VI, 14; Chrysostom, *Exposition on Psalm* XXXIV, n. 4; Ilarion, *Treatise on Psalm* CXLIV, n. 14; Augustine, *On Genesis According to the Literal Sense*, 1, 11.

[364] Augustine, Commentary on Psalm CXLVII, n. 13: “And when he condemns, he is just; and when he shows mercy, he is just; for what could be more just than to show mercy to those who deserve it?” (Confessions, Commentary on Psalm XCVIII, n. 7, 8).

[365] Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II, chap. 13; Chrysostom, *Commentary on the Psalms*, IV, n. 7; VI, n. 1; CXVII, n. 1; Ambrose, *On the Flight from the World*, chap. III, n. 14; *Commentary on the Psalms*, XXXVII, n. 17 and 26; Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*, LV, n. 13.

[366] Tertullian, *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, XIV; Augustine, Letter 138 to Marcellus.

[367] Chrysostom, Homily XIII on Matthew, n. 6.

[368] Chrysostom, Works, vol. 1, pp. 744, 786, ed. de Monfaucon.

[369] Chrysostom, Works, vol. 1, pp. 749, 789; vol. II, pp. 257, 258; vol. X, p. 429; Augustine, Epistle CCX, or LXXXVII, n. 1.

[370] Chrysostom, Letter to Olympias XVII, Homily 1 on 1 Corinthians 11, n. 3; Augustine, Commentary on Psalm LVII, n. 20.

[371] As even the pagans acknowledged. Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 369, 813; Sophocles, Ajax, 133; Electra, 1383; Antigone, 1140.

[372] This view was held in the early centuries by Aetius, Eunomius, and their followers—the Eunomians or Anomoeans—and in the 14th century by Barlaam and Akinindos and their followers, against whom four councils were held in Constantinople (Basil, *Contra Eunomium*, Book I; Cantacuz. Histor. 11,38 et seq.; Nicephor. Gregor. Histor. Byzant. XI, 10; Leo Allat. de concens. eccl. Orient. et occid. 11,17; Graec. Orthod. Vol. I, p. 756; Le Quien. — Oriens. Christ. 11,55). The first—in the West in the 12th century, Gilbert Porretan, Bishop of Pictavium, and in the East in the 14th century, certain monks of Mount Athos (Alex. Natal. Synops. in saec. XI et XII, chap. 4, art. 9; Gregor. Palama—Orat. I et II in Dominic. Transform. apud Combefis. Auctor. noviss. Vol. II, Part 1, p. 106 ff.; Manuel Galecas, On Essence and Operations, ibid., apud Combefis, p. 1 ff.; John Cyparisiot, Palamite, Sermons on Transgressions V, ibid., p. 68 ff.). The expressions: τώ πράγματι, or έπινοία, νοήσει—were used by the Greek Church Fathers themselves when arguing against heretics regarding the distinction between the essence and attributes of God; Basil, *Contra Evnomianum*, Book I; Gregory of Nyssa, *Contra Evnomianum*, Book XII, and *Catechism*, Chapter 2; Damascenus, *De fide orthodoxa*, Book 1, Chapter 8).

[373] These passages were cited earlier, in the explanation of the concept that God is Spirit.

[374] Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9.

[376] Athanasius: .... for God would be found to be composite, consisting of essence and attribute; for every attribute is within the essence; and in this respect, the divine unity—which is indivisible—would appear to be composite, divided into essence and accident.... (Orat. V); Hilarius: “For God is not composed in the human sense, such that there is one thing in Him that is possessed by Him, and another that is He Himself who possesses it, but the whole of what He is is life” (De trinit. lib. VIII); Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, lib. XXXIV, p. 353.

[377] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book II, Chapter 12, n. 3; *Confessions*, 1, 12, n. 2; IV, II, n. 2.

[378] Catecism, Book VI, n. 7, p. 103 in the Russian translation.

[379] Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 1 on the Song of Songs, Vol. 1, p. 570: “But the Lord, according to His own nature—which is truth, wisdom, and power—is the very essence of these things.”

[380] In Euthymius of Zygabena, *Panoplia*, Title III, Paragraph 1.

[381] Therefore, the same thing is meant, whether one speaks of God as eternal, immortal, incorruptible, or unchangeable; likewise, when one speaks of Him as living and intelligent—which certainly means wise—the same thing is meant. For He does not possess wisdom by which He would be wise, but He Himself is wisdom. And this life, and this same virtue or power, and this same form, by which He is called powerful and beautiful... and so on (On the Trinity, Book XV, Chapter 5, n. 7; Confessions, Book XV, Chapter 3; Book VI, Chapter 7; On Faith and the Creed, Chapter 9, al. 20)

[382] No human being is truth, no human being is wisdom, no human being is justice; yet many share in truth, wisdom, and justice. God alone, however, has no need of any such participation. Whatever is rightly conceived of Him is not a quality but His very essence. For nothing is added to the unchanging, nor does anything perish from it, since that which is eternal is always proper to it (Epist. XCIII, chap. 5).

[383] St. Basil the Great explains the purpose of this teaching of Eunomius and his followers: “Eunomius denies that the unbegottenness of God can be distinguished according to our conception (κατ’ έπίνοιαν), — hoping thereby to more easily prove that the Unbegottenness is the very essence of God, and from this to draw the irrefutable conclusion that the Son, as the Begotten, is not of the same essence as the Father—άνόμοιος” (Contr. Eunom. lib. I, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, 20).

[384] “The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, pp. 24 and 31: πλείω δέ καί ποικίλα (όνόματα) κατ' ίδίαν έκαστον σημασίαν...

[386] Contra Eunom. Book XII, p. 402.

[387] And there are countless other meanings concerning the divine life, each of which is proclaimed through symbolic sounds according to a specific, distinctive meaning (Contra Eunom. Book XII, p. 410 et seq.).

[389] On the Trinity, Book VIII, Chapter 4.

[390] This is precisely how the Holy Fathers of the Church reasoned: Saint Gregory of Nyssa: “The Christian is characterized by faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; this is the form of one who has been transformed according to the mystery of truth” (De Spirit. Sanct., ed. Maj VIII, 11, p. 18); Saint Gregory the Theologian: “When I speak of God, I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without dividing the Godhead beyond this number of Persons, so as not to introduce a multitude of gods, nor limiting it to a finite number, lest we be accused of diminishing the Divinity, whether we fall into Judaism by defending the unity of the Godhead or into paganism by defending the plurality of the Godhead” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” in the Russian translation, vol. III, p. 240); St. John of Damascus: “The unity of nature completely destroys the false opinion of the pagans regarding the multiplicity of gods, and the confession of the Word and the Spirit overthrows the teaching of the Jews” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 7).

[391] See collections of these creeds, for example: *Biblioth. der Symbole und Glaubensreg. der Apostolisch-kathol. Kirche*, edited by Hahn. Breslau 1842.

[392] St. Gregory the Theologian, “Works of the Holy Fathers” I, 37; St. Basil the Great, ibid. VII, 269.

[393] Irenaeus, *Against the Heresies*, Book II, Chapter 28; Athanasius of Alexandria, *Letter to Serapion*, 1, nos. 17, 18, 20; Gregory the Theologian, “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” II, 288: “Teach to know only the One in the Trinity and the Trinity in the One who is worshiped, whose distinctness and unity are incomprehensible;” Hilar. de Trinit. II, n. 5: It is beyond the meaning of speech, beyond the intention of the senses, beyond the conception of the intellect; whatever is sought beyond these is not expressed, not attained, not grasped; the nature of the thing itself (the Trinity) consumes the meaning of the words; contemplation is obscured by an inscrutable light; and whatever is not contained within any finite limit exceeds the capacity of the intellect; Augustine, *De Trinitate*, Book XV, Chapter 6: “What kind of reasoning, what power and might of the intellect, what vivacity of mind and acuity of thought will show us… how the Trinity exists?” And elsewhere: “However, what She is remains ineffable; even the language of the angels cannot express it, much less that of humans” (On the Symbol, to the Catechumen, ch. IX); Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, Book XVIII, n. 1: I do not speak of the mystery of the Trinity, the proper confession of which is ignorance of knowledge.

[394] For, as Blessed Augustine says in his treatise on the Holy Trinity, nowhere is one more dangerously led astray, nowhere is anything more laboriously sought, and nowhere is anything more fruitfully discovered (De Trinit. lib. 1, c. 3, n. 5). And in another passage, discussing the same subject: “It is permissible for us to speak according to a certain rule, lest the freedom of words give rise to an impious opinion even about the things they signify” (De civit. Dei, Book X, Chapter 23). And Saint Gregory the Theologian, having set forth the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in one of his homilies (the 22nd), remarks about himself: “Thus, as briefly as possible, I set forth to you our wisdom—dogmatically, not polemically; in the manner of the Fishermen, not of Aristotle; spiritually, not sophistically; according to the canons of the Church, not of the marketplace” (“Works of the Holy Fathers” II, 225).

[396] Athanas. Alex. contra Eunom. lib. 1: “Is there one nature or three, and in this respect one essence, as the councils have written in the apostolic tradition?” Ambros. Epist. 63: “The Trinity is of one substance, one majesty, and one divinity.”

[397] Pierius the Martyr, see in Phot. *Bibliotheca*, cod. CIX; Cyril of Alexandria, *Against Nestorius*, Book III, Chapter 6; John Maxentius, *Dialogues*, II (Patrologia Graeca, vol. IV, p. 485).

[398] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, chap. 2; Athanasius of Alexandria, *Dialogue on the Trinity*, 1; Epiphanius, *Against Heresies*, LXXIII, n. 34; Basil, *Epistle* 43; John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith*, book III, ch. 5.

[399] The Fathers of the Council of Sardis: “We hold this catholic tradition: there is one hypostasis… of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (apud Theodoret, H. E. II, p. 8). Likewise, the Council of Rome, held under Pope Damasus: “The Holy Spirit is of the same hypostasis and essence as the Father and the Son...” (Ibid., Book II, Chapter 22, and cited in Sozomen, Book VI, Chapter 23). See Basil, Epistle 391, and Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration XXI, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. II, pp. 210–211; and Aphanasios of Alexandria, Epistle to the Africans.

[400] See St. Basil the Great, Letter 214 to Terentius Comitus, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. XI, pp. 95–99, and Gregory the Theologian in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. II, pp. 210–211. Savelianism specifically taught that there is one essence (ούσία) and one hypostasis (ύπόστασις) in God, although the one and same God assumed, at different times, three forms or persons (πρόσωπα), appearing sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Arius, on the other hand, posited three essences: the essence of the Father—divine; the essence of the Son—created; and the essence of the Holy Spirit—also created, but distinct from the essence of the Son.

[401] All of this is set forth in the conciliar epistle to the Antiochians, written by Saint Athanasius and signed by all the bishops present at the Council. See Opp. Athanasii, vol. I, part II, p. 770, Paris 1698.

[402] Epiphanius, Haereses 73; Basil, Epistle 325; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21 on St. Athanasius; Chrysostom, Homily II on the Epistle to the Hebrews; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book I, pp. 67, 125, ed. Gret.; Zsidor of Pelusium: “For either the identity of nature is divided among the hypostases, or the identity of the hypostases is united into a single essence.”

[403] Epistle of St. Basil the Great to his brother Gregory on the distinction between essence and hypostasis in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” X, p. 92 ff.

[404] “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” II, p. 110.

[405] ... in three perfect hypostases, that is, three perfect persons. See Theodoret, H. E., Book V, p. 9.

[406] In the fifth century, Blessed Jerome interpreted the word ύπόστασις to mean “ουσία” and was reluctant to accept it as meaning “persona” (Epist. 57 ad Damasum), while St. Cyril of Alexandria frequently used it in place of the word “φύσις” (See Anathema III de duodecim).

[407] “One in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the One, to whom we bow down…” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 25, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, 288). The word “Trinity” — *Triás*, Trinitas, appears for the first time in the ancient writings that have come down to us in Greek in the works of Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autolyc. II, n. 15), and in Latin in the works of Tertullian (adv. Prax. II, III, VIII). But it does not follow from this that the term was not in use before these writers; on the contrary, it is also found in the Liturgy of Saint James, the Lord’s Brother (pp. 4, 6, 33, 39) and in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Saint Andrew the Apostle (chap. 11)—two texts that some, not without reason, date to the first century (V. Liturg. graece edit. Paris 1560, p. 137; Renaudot, *Dissert. de liturg. Orig. et autor.*, chap. V, § 2, in Vol. 1, *Collect. liturg. Orient*; Galland, *Biblioth. Patr.*, Vol. I, proleg., chap. 4).

[408] See Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book I, Chapter 23.

[410] Hippolytus, *Contra Noët*; Epiphanius, *Haereses* LVII; Augustine, *Haereses* XXXVI.

[411] Epiphanius, *Haereses* LXII; Basil, *Epistle* 210; Theodoret, *History of the Church* III, 9.

[413] Basil, Epistles 69, 263, n. 4; 313, n. 5; Sozomen, H. E. IV, 16; Theodoret, H. E. II, 11.

[414] They taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeded from God only temporarily and would eventually return to Him. Euthymius of Zygaben, *Panoplia*, Book II, Title 23.

[415] See Riechin, Dissertation on the Waldensians, chap. III, n. 20.

[416] Such as: John Campan, Ludwig Gezer, and especially the Spanish physician Michael Servetus, who wrote a treatise on this subject titled *De Trinitatis erroribus libri VII* (ed. 1531), followed by two more works of a similar nature.

[417] Svedenb., *Summ. Exposit. nov. doctr.*, nos. 118, 119.

[418] They are called “nominalists” because they recognize the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the three names (nomina) of the one God; and “modalists” because they admit not three persons in God, but only three modes of existence and action (three modos exietendi et operandi).

[420] The latter set forth his thoughts in the work: *Tractat. de Deo uno et trino*. Mainz, 1789.

[421] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8, pp. 28–29. St. Gregory the Theologian also expresses this idea, albeit more briefly, on several occasions; see “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 115–117; 261–262, and elsewhere.

[422] Lenten Triodion, folio 408, verso, Moscow, 1835. Or, as in another passage: “Let us sing of the Trinity in unity, O faithful, in the one Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one being and one nature, indivisible, inseparable, and unpartitioned: for God is one in three Persons.” November Liturgy, fol. 283 verso, Moscow, 1837

[423] See Basil, Homily IX on Genesis; Chrysostom, Homily VIII on Genesis; Ambrose, on Genesis, Book VI, Chapter 7.

[424] “The dignity of counsel,” St. Basil the Great observes on this occasion, “is attributed (by the Jews) to ministers; they make slaves like us the rulers of our creation”... (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” V, p. 172).

[425] V. in Basil, Homily IX on Hexaem.; Theodoret, Question XIX on Genesis. Some of the ancient heretics held this same view (Eusebius, Against Marcellus, Book IV, Chapter 15), and the Socinians repeat it (Volkelius, On the True Religion, Book V, Chapter 9).

[426] “The Works of the Holy Fathers” V, p. 171. And a little earlier: “What blacksmith, or carpenter, or shoemaker, sitting alone with the tools of his trade, when no one shares his labor with him, would say to himself: ‘I will make a knife, or put together a plow, or sew a shoe’? On the contrary, will he not silently complete the work required of him?”

[427] This is also acknowledged by one of the most learned Jewish rabbis, Abben Ezra—in Genesis 25:26 (see Emmanuel Tremellium on this passage). Also worthy of note are the words of Blessed Theodoret: “They (the Jews) assert that God of all—‘Let us make man’—said to Himself, following the example of the powerful of the earth; for regional governors and military commanders usually speak in the plural, for example: ‘we command, we write, we order,’ and so on; but they, being foolish, do not realize that God of all things often speaks of Himself in the singular, for example: ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me’ (Gen. 6:13); ‘I will wipe out from the face of the earth the people whom I have created’ (v. 7); “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3); “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth” (Isa. 43:19); “I will open rivers on the mountains and fountains in the valleys” (Isa. 41:18). In general, throughout the Holy Scriptures, God speaks of Himself in the singular, and rarely in the plural; and when He does, He usually indicates thereby the number of Persons in the Holy Trinity” (Chronicle of Readings 1843, III; pp. 343–344).

[428] The first passage (Gen. 1:26) was unanimously accepted by the Church Fathers and teachers as a reference to the mystery of the Holy Trinity, with the sole difference being that some saw in it a council of all three Divine Persons (Theophilus, ad Autolycus, Book 1; Basil, *Contra Eunomium*, Book V; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, XXIII, n. 5; Theodoret, *In Genesis*, Quaest. 19; Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesaurus*, Book 1; Isidorus of Pelusium, Book III, Epistle 112), while others saw only a council between the Father and the Son, who is called by the Prophet (Isa. 9:6) the Angel of the Great Council (Tertullian, *De Carne Christi*, ch. 5; Synod of Antioch, *In Epist. ad Paulum Samosat.*; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism X; Basil, On the Holy Spirit, chap. 16; Chrysostom, Homily VIII on Genesis; Athanasius, Book Against the Pagans; Ambrose, On the Hexameron, Book VI, chap. 7; Augustine, On the Trinity, Book I, chap. 7). The second passage (Gen. 3:22) was interpreted as pointing to the Trinity in God by St. Basil the Great (Contra Eunomium, Book V), St. Cyril (Contra Julian, Book III), and Blessed Augustine (De Genesi ad Literam, Book XI, Chapter 39). Finally, the last passage (Gen. 11:6–7) was understood in the same sense by St. Basil the Great (Contra Eunomium, Book V), St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Testimonium contra Iudaeos de Trinitate), St. Cyril (Dialogues 3 on the Trinity), and Blessed Theodoret (Orat. 2 ad Graec.). All three of these passages are accepted as references to the Holy Trinity both in the Orthodox Confession (Part 1, answer to question 10) and in liturgical books, for example: “When in the beginning You created Adam, O Lord, You cried out to Your Hypostatic Word with joy: ‘Let us make him in our likeness’—and the Holy Spirit was present as a co-creator; therefore we cry out to You: Creator, our God, glory to You” (Octoechos, Part 1, fol. 97, Moscow, 1838). And again: “Revealing from on high the sole divine power of the Three Hypostases, O Father, You said to Your co-equal Son and Spirit: ‘Come down, and let us confuse their tongues’” (Ibid., fol. 18).

[429] “In the creation of the world, we see that God converses with the Son and the Spirit, just as Moses, in human terms, depicted Him as conversing and speaking: ‘Let us make man in our image [and] in our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26); for to whom does He say, ‘Let us make,’ if not to the Word and the only-begotten Son, through whom, according to the Evangelist’s words, all things… came into being (John 1:3), and to the Spirit, of whom it is written: ‘The Spirit of God created me’ (Job 33:4)? But even if He does not explicitly state whom He is speaking of or with whom He is conversing, it is nevertheless evident that He does not mean Himself alone when He says: “Behold, Adam has become like one of Us” (Gen. 3:22), and again: “Let us go down and confuse their language there” (Gen. 11:7), so that you may understand those whom God identifies with Himself. For no one would dare to acknowledge the angels as equal in honor to the Creator and Lord, and it is impossible to conceive of a single Person in God when it is said, “as one of us,” and, “Let us go down and confuse.” St. Basil the Great, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, p. 216.

[430] Augustine. Sermon LXVII on Time, n. 2, and Sermon LXX, n. 4. This passage was explained in exactly the same way even before Augustine—by Saint Athanasius the Great (On the Common Essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, n. 9 in Vol. II, p. 9, ed. Paris 1698) and St. Ambrose: “Behold the first mystery of the faith. God appeared to him (Abraham) and he saw three” (De Abraham, Book 1, Chapter 5, n. 33), and elsewhere: “He (Abraham) sees three, but worships one” (De Cain et Abel, Vol. 1, p. 197, ed. Bened.). “You saw,” it is also said in the liturgical books, “as it is possible for a man to see, the Trinity, and you welcomed it as a close friend, most blessed Abraham; for this you received the reward of a wondrous hospitality, namely, to be the father of countless nations through faith” (Minutes for December, fol. 83, verso. Also October, Part 1, fol. 18, 185, 233, verso; Lenten Triodion, fol. 52).

[431] It should be noted, however, that other Church Fathers interpreted this passage somewhat differently; specifically, they saw the Son of God among the three who appeared to Abraham, to whom the repeatedly used term “the Most High” refers (18:1, 13,17, 20, 26, 32, 33), and with Him two angels, as they are called at the very beginning of the following chapter (19:1). See Hilarion, *De Trinitate*, Book V; Eusebius, *Demonstratio Evangelii*, Book V, Chapter 23; Jerome, *Commentary on Chapter 11 of Zechariah*.

[432] See Athanasius, *De Communi Ess. Patr., Filii et Sp. S.*, n. 19, in Vol. II, p. ¥2, ed. Paris, 1698. Blessed Theodoret discusses several other similar passages from the Old Testament in his work *On the Beginning*, Chr. Readings 1846, II, pp. 214–218.

[433] Cyprian, *Adversus Judaeos*, Book 11, § 3; Gregory the Theologian, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, p. 19; Basil the Great, ibid., VII, pp. 181, 193, 288; Ambrose, *De Spiritus Sancto*, Book II, p. 5; Jerome, *Commentary on this Passage*; John of Damascus, *Parallelism*, Book 1, Chapter 1. See also the Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to Question 10.

[434] For the threefold repetition of the same word or even an entire thought in other passages of Scripture is sometimes used merely to emphasize the point, for example: “Do not trust in deceptive words: ‘Here is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’” (Jer. 7:4); “O land, O land, O land! Hear the word of the Lord” (Jer. 22:29); Give to the Lord, O families of the nations, give to the Lord glory and honor; give to the Lord the glory of His name (Ps. 95:7–8. Cf. Ps. 92:3–4; 102:20, 22; Isa. 24:18–19, etc.).

[435] Furthermore, Jonathan, son of Uzziel, in his Chaldean paraphrase, explains this passage by saying: Holy is the Father, Holy is the Son, Holy is the Holy Spirit. Later, Rabbi Simeon, one of the earliest authorities, interprets this same passage as follows: “Holy is the Father,” “Holy is the Son,” “Holy is the Holy Spirit” (see Galatin, *De arcanis cathol. veritatis*, Book II, Chapter 1). It should be noted that Peter Galatin, who lived in the 15th century, read—as he himself states (ibid., Book V, Chapter 3)—the Paraphrase of Jonah and other Jewish books from the most ancient manuscripts, before the Jews had a chance to alter the passages in them that were favorable to Christians.

[436] Athanas. de incarnat. et contra Arian. n. 10: “When the seraphim glorify God, crying out, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts,’ they glorify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (in Opp., vol. 1, p. 877, ed. 1698); Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Book III: “I believe that Isaiah wrote about the seraphim’s threefold exclamation, ‘Holy, holy, holy,’ partly because natural holiness is contemplated in the three Hypostases” (“Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 135); Chrysostom, Opp., vol. 1, p. 587, ed. Venice, 1741; Ambros. de fide, Book II, Chapter 4: “To demonstrate that the Trinity has a single divinity, after saying ‘Holy, holy, holy’ a third time, he added in the singular: ‘Lord God of Hosts.’ The same is found in the Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to Question 10, and in the liturgical books: “The One Lord—the Ruler—as Isaiah figuratively beheld God in three Persons, glorified by the most pure voices of the Seraphim, was sent to proclaim the most radiant Being and the triune unity” (Octoechos, vol. 1, fol. 165 and 234 on the reverse).

[437] We have already examined these and similar texts, which point to the divinity of the Son of God as the Messiah promised from of old, elsewhere. See Introduction to Orthodox Theology, § 84.

[438] Gregory the Theologian, “Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 129; Chrysostom, Opp., vol. 1, p. 562, Venice, 1741; Aichanas, Epistle 1 to Serapion, nos. 5 and 23; Epistle II to Serapion, no. 8.

[439] These are: Agg. 2:4–5; Zech. 3:1–3; 2 Kings 23:2.

[440] It was always proclaimed, whether in monarchy or in the Trinity. And it was believed by those most distinguished among them, that is, the prophets and the sanctified ones... Epiphanius, Opp., vol. 1, p. 18, Paris, 1622. “Do not say that the ancients were silent about the Son, but that He has been revealed to us, provided only that you confess the Son as the creative Word: for the Fathers knew the Word, worshiped the Word of God, and with the Word, the Spirit”... Basil the Great, “Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 219.

[442] Thus, the oldest of all the works of Kabbalah—the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation)—is permeated throughout by the following idea: “God is one; but He has revealed Himself in the Trinity, in the three Sefirot.” And right at the very beginning of the book, these three Sefirot are clearly distinguished within God (ch. 1, sect. 1); then it speaks of three substances as the principal principles of things (ch. 1, sect. 2; ch. III, sects. 2, 3, 4) and of three fathers (ch. VI, sects. 1, 3), and finally, that these three are one, existing of themselves (ch. VI, sect. 3) (V. Drach., *De l’harmonie entre l’église et la synagogue*, vol. 1, pp. 438–445, Paris, 1844). In the Zohar, the second-oldest part of the Talmud, in the explanation of Moses’ words: “Hear, O Israel: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4), it is noted: “There are two, to which another is joined, and they are three; and though they are three, they are nothing more than one. These two are designated in the verse by the two ‘Lords,’ and to them is added ‘our God.’ And since they are united together, they constitute a perfect unity” (Drach., ibid., p. 314, 414–420). And in the Talmud, verses 26 and 27 of the first chapter of Genesis are interpreted in favor of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (Drach., ibid., p. 429).

[443] Maimonides and others (Drach., ibid., pp. 433–435).

[444] We have already cited Jewish testimonies concerning the Son, or the promised Messiah (“Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” § 84). As for the Holy Spirit, here is what one of the most renowned rabbis, Elijah Levit, testifies on behalf of all his predecessors: “Our blessed teachers called the Holy Spirit the Shekhinah, because He rests upon the Prophets” (V. apud Herman. Witzium, dissert. de Trinit. p. 99, Lugd. Batavor. 1736)—which is, in fact, supported by many passages from the Talmud (see Dansium, de Schekina, chap. XVIII, fol. 709 et seq.) But the name Shekhinah (from shahan—“to rest”), as is known from the Talmud itself and as the Jews themselves acknowledge, was applied by their rabbis exclusively to God alone (see the Talmudic tractate Avot by Rabbi Nathan, ch. 34).

[445] “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. III, p. 126. The same is stated by Epiphanius (Haeres. LXXIV, § 10), Augustine (in Quaest. ex Nov. Test., ch. 86), and Novatian: “Human frailty had to be nourished gradually and incrementally, for great things are dangerous if they come suddenly. For even the sudden light of the sun after darkness, with its excessive brilliance, does not reveal the day to unaccustomed eyes, but rather causes blindness” (De Trinitate, ch. 26).

[446] Lib. de curat. Graecarum affect. The same idea is found in Gregory of Nyssa (in verba: faciamus hom, ad imag. Orat. II), Isidore of Pelusium (lib. II, epist. 143), and John Chrysostom, who says: “This was precisely the reason why the Jews, through the Prophets, did not come to know the Son of God clearly and obviously, but rather obscurely and sporadically. Having barely abandoned the error of polytheism, if they were to hear again about God and about God, they would return once more to their former affliction. That is why the Prophets say everywhere and unceasingly that God is one, and that there is no other besides Him—they say this not to reject the Son (God forbid!), but to heal their weakness and turn them away from the idea of many and imaginary gods” (On the Incomprehensible, Against Anomoeus, Word 5, in Chr. Readings 1842, I, p. 27).

[447] Chrysostom, Homily LXXIV on John, n. 1: “Wishing to show the consubstantiality, he said: ‘Whoever has known my essence (ούσίαν) has also known the essence of the Father...’; if he were of a different essence, he would not have said this...” Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration III, n. 5; Augustine, Tractate LXX on John; Cyril of Alexandria, On the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, ch. 16: “Thus, if He (Jesus Christ) speaks the same as the Father, and if the Father dwells in Him and He in the Father, and whoever has seen Him has seen the Father, and whoever knows Him knows the Father as well, then it is clear to all who possess reason that the nature of the Father and the Son is one and the same, and that whatever the Father has, the Son also has. Otherwise, He would not have revealed the Father in Himself if He did not possess everything that the Father possesses, except for the very nature of fatherhood; for this constitutes the distinctive attribute of the Father, just as sonship is the distinctive attribute of the Son” (Chr. Hom. 1847, III, pp. 35–36).

[448] Chrysostom, Homily LXXV on John, n. 1

[449] Gregory the Theologian, “Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 109; Ambrose, *De Spiritus Sancto*, chap. 1; Theodoret, *Brief Exposition* Divine Dogmatics, ch. 3: “By the words, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ he showed that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, and did not say, ‘will proceed’ or ‘will come into being,’ but ‘proceeds,’ in order to show that Their nature is one and the same, that Their essence is indivisible and inseparable, and that the Persons are united with one another. For that which proceeds cannot be separated from that from which it proceeds” (Chron. Readings 1844, VI, p. 190).

[450] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. II, § 1; Athanasius, *On “All Things Have Been Entrusted to Me”*... n. 3, 4; *Letter to Serapion*, 1, n. 20; Ambrose, *On the Faith*, bk. II, ch. 3; Epiphanius, *Against Heresies*, LXVII; Cyril of Alexandria, *On* John, Book XII, Chapter 2; Hilary, On the Trinity, Book VIII, Chapter 20: “It is therefore not permissible to allow heretical perversion to be left to the freedom of impious understanding—such that this saying of the Lord, that because all things that belong to the Father are His own, the Spirit of Truth will receive them from Him, should not be confessed to refer to the unity of nature.”

[451] Chrysostom, Homily LXXXIX, n. 2; Athanasius, *Exposition of the Faith*, n. 2.

[452] For in the Greek text: βαπτίζοντες αύτούς είς τό όνομα τοΰ πατρός καί τοΰ ύιοΰ καί τοΰ άγίου πνεύματος, each of Them is preceded by the article (τοΰ), indicating a specific subject, and all of Them, as distinct entities, are joined by the conjunction (και). Their very name, though referring to three distinct Persons, is expressed in the singular and also with the article (εις τό όνομα).

[453] Jusiin, Apolog. 1, p. 61; Tertullian, De veland. virg., chap. 1; Adv. Prax., chap. 26; De praescr. haeret., chap. 20; Irenaeus, Adv. haer., book 1, ch. 2; Cyprian, Epistle 73: “Christ commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity…”; Atlianas, Epistle 1 to Serapion, n. 30: “Whoever separates anything from the Trinity and is baptized in the single name of the Father, or in the single name of the Son, or in the Father and the Son, without the Spirit; receives nothing...; for perfection (τελείωσις) is found in the Trinity” (Conf. epist. ad Serap. II, n. 7; contra Arian. Orat. II, n. 41); Hilar. de Trinit. Book II, n. 1. 5; Book XII, n. 57; Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 10 (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, p. 267); Gregory the Theologian, Homily 40 (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, pp. 316–317); Epiphanius, *Haereses*, XX, n. 3; Chrysostom, *Homilies on 1 Corinthians*, XX, n. 3, 4; Ambrose, *On the Mysteries*, chap. V, n. 28; Augustine, *Against Maximinus the Arian*, II, 13, n. 2; Cyril of Alexandria, *On the Trinity*, chap. 20 (in Chr. Cht. 1857, III, pp. 39–40); Jerome, Epist. 61 ad Pamaeliam; Leo the Great, Epist. 13 ad Pulcheriam; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8.

[454] Ambrosius, *De Spiritus Sancto*, Book 1, Chapter 14. Blessed Augustine expresses the same idea: “This one God, because He is not in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: where you give one name, there is one God” (Commentary on John, Tractate 6).

[455] Homily 33 in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. III, pp. 181–182.

[456] Homily 22 in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. II, p. 225.

[457] See note 405 above. And following baptism..., and teaching us to believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that is, believing in the divinity, power, and single essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...

[458] “It is said: ‘Three bear witness in heaven, not one,’ because in these three there is not just one person,” remarks St. Athanasius the Great, or whoever else is the author of the books on the Holy Trinity attributed to Athanasius (Athanas. Opp. Vol. III, p. 606, ed. Paris, 1698).

[459] Not only many Protestant writers, but also some Roman Catholic ones. Our Russian theologians, on the other hand, have always made use of this text, and some have even defended its authenticity, albeit briefly. V. Theoph. Prokopow, *Theolog.*, vol. 1, *de S. Trinit.*, chap. 2, pp. 542–544, Leipzig 1782; Makarii, Dogmatic Theology, ch. 3, p. 35, Moscow 1786; Hyacint Karpinski, Compendium of Theology, ch. II, sect. 2, p. 27, Leipzig 1786; Irenaeus Falkowski, Compendium of Theology, book II, ch. 2, pp. 78, Moscow 1802; Sylvestr, *Compendium of Theology*, chap. XXI, p. 158, Moscow 1805; Juvenalia — Xp., *Theology*, vol. 1, treatise 2, chap. 2, p. 210, Moscow 1806.

[460] Let us cite, for example: a) the lists used by the publishers of the *Bibliae Complutensie*, c. 1515 (V. Pfeiffer, Triada testium in coelo, Erlangen, 1771); b) the ancient British manuscript (cod. Britanicus), out of respect for which Erasmus included this verse in his third (1522) edition of the New Testament, although he omitted it in the first two; c) sixty Greek manuscripts used by Robert Stephan in his 1550 edition of the New Testament, of which only seven did not contain this verse; d) the manuscripts used by Arius Montanus in his 1571 edition of the Polyglot Bible; e) the testimony of Calvin and Theodore Beza, who state that in their time (in the 16th century) the best Greek manuscripts contained this verse; f) the text of a 10th-century manuscript preserved in the Sorbonne Library, titled: *Correctorium Bibliae*, where the following is noted regarding this verse: *hie corrupti sunt quidam libri Graecorum, ut ait beatus Hieronymus, qui hoc capitulum non habent, in quo maxime fides catholica roboratur*—from which it follows that this verse was present in most 10th-century Greek manuscripts and was omitted only in a few damaged ones; g) finally, in the words of the prologue to the Epistles of the Apostles, commonly attributed to Blessed Jerome and written no later than the 7th century, where we read: “in which (the First Epistle of John) we have found, through the work of unfaithful translators, many errors regarding the truth of the faith; they have included only three words—namely, ‘water,’ blood, and spirit in their edition, and omitting the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, in which the Catholic faith is most strongly upheld, and the single divine substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed”—from which it also follows that even in the 7th century this verse was absent only in certain manuscripts, and moreover, those corrupted by inaccurate translators—that is, not in the Greek ones—and that the Orthodox protested vehemently against this omission at that time (See Witassii, Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity, Question III, Article 2).

[461] Both begin with the words: “Three bear witness,” and end—the first with: “And these three are one,” and the last with: “And these three are about one.”

[462] St. Ambrose frequently rebuked the Arians for this—in *De Fide*, Book II, Chapter 15, note 335; also in Book V, Chapter 16, note 193; and especially in *De Spiritu S.*, Book III, Chapter 10, where, after noting that they had omitted the following text from their codices: “The Spirit is God…,” he exclaims: “And would that you would remove it from your own codices and not also from those of the Church!” For at that time, when the impious and faithless Auxentius had occupied the Church of Milan with arms and an army, and when the Church of Sirmium was being raided by Valens and Ursatius, with their priests acquiescing, this falsehood and sacrilege of yours was included in the ecclesiastical codices. And perhaps you did this in the East as well.... Socrates testifies that the Arians likewise omitted verse 2 of chapter 4 of 1 John from the codices.

[463] It is also found in the Armenian translation, according to Millius, and is included in some editions of this text, although it is omitted in the most recent edition (ed. Veneta Zohrabi, 1805). It is also found in Bruciola’s Italian edition (1532), based on the Greek text.

[464] Tertullian had already made use of this translation, but it was undoubtedly produced long before Tertullian’s time. Wiscman, *Two Letters on Some Controversy Concerning 1 John 5:7*, Rome, 1835. Some date this translation to the Apostolic Age or, at least, to the first half of the second century (Millius, in Prolegom. ad suam edit. N. T., p. 41).

[465] It is worth noting that the entire Roman Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, accepts and uses this text as authentic in its Vulgate.

[466] Contra Prax. chaps. XXV and XXXI. Conf. de monogam. chap. XI, where, after quoting the Latin translation of 1 Cor. chap. 7, verse 39, the author remarks: “I know for certain that it is not so in the authentic Greek as it has come into common use.”

[467] The Lord says: “I and the Father are one.” And again it is written concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “And these three are one” (De unit. eccles., pp. 195–196, ed. Maur, Paris 1726; Conf. epist. ad Jubaian., LXXIII, p. 133).

[468] Athanasius, Opp., Vol. II, pp. 205, 229, 603, 606, 622, ed. Paris 1698.

[469] Eucher, *Formul. Spiritual. intellig.*, chap. II, n. 3.

[470] On the Vandal Persecution, Book III, p. 54, ed. Ruinart, Paris, 1694.

[471] Vihilii—*De Trinit.*, Books I and VII (in *Biblioth. Patr.*, ed. Lyon, vol. VIII, p. 771 ff.); Fulgent. Respons. ad objection. Arian. X, and also De Trinit. Book IV; Cassiodorus, Complexion, in Epistol. et Acta Apostol. et Apocal., ed. Florent. 1721, see the commentary on Chapter V of 1 John.

[472] Cassiodorus himself discusses all of this in his work *Lib. Institut. Divinar.*, chap. 3, and in the preface to this book.

[473] Augustine, *Contra Maximinum*, Book III, Chapter 22.

[474] Orat. XXXVII, n. 47, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 119.

[475] It is precisely on this text that the Orthodox Confession of Faith bases its doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons (see Part 1, answer to question 9).

[476] This is also clearly expressed in the church troparion for the eve of the Epiphany: “When You were baptized in the Jordan, O Lord, a triune worship was revealed: for Your Father’s voice bore witness to You, calling You His beloved Son, and the Spirit, in the form of a dove, proclaimed the confirmation of the Word; You appeared, Christ God, and enlightened the world; glory to You.”

[477] Athanas. ad Serapion Epist. 1, n. 30, 31, where he expounds on this idea quite thoroughly, and Epist. III, n. 6.

[478] There are many similar passages in the New Testament where all three Persons of the Godhead are mentioned as distinct Persons, for example: Acts 2:32–33; 5:30–32; 7:55; Rom. 1:3–4; 15:15–16, 30; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4–6; 2 Cor. 1:19–22; Gal. 4:2, 6; 2 Thess. 2:13–14; Titus 3:4–6.

[479] This is precisely how St. Basil the Great explains the three passages presented regarding Isaiah’s vision, and in conclusion he says: “The prophet introduces the person of the Father, in whom the Jews believed; the Evangelist, the person of the Son; Paul, the person of the Spirit; yet all, in agreement, call the One Who was seen the one Lord of Hosts. Their words concerning the Hypostasis differ, but their understanding of the one God remains undivided” (Book V Against Eunomius, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, p. 189).

[480] Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, pp. 185–187.

[481] In this sense, the Holy Fathers unanimously explain this passage—Basil the Great: “He added: ‘I and the Father are one,’ clearly taking the word ‘one’ to mean equal and identical in power” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 56); Gregory the Theologian: “When you read, ‘I and the Father are one,’ focus your mind on the unity of Their essence” (ibid., III, 192); John Chrysostom: “‘I and the Father are one’; here He speaks in terms of power, for the entire discourse concerned this very point. But if the power is the same, it is clear that the essence is also the same’ (in Joann. hom. 61, p. 812, ed. Savil.); Cyril of Alexandria (Thesaurus, Book XII) and Blessed Augustine (Treatise XLVIII on John), who, moreover, thoroughly refute the false notion of the Arians that this passage speaks only of the moral union of Jesus Christ with God the Father, a union that created beings can also have with Him.

[482] Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, pp. 187–188; Ambrose, *De Spiritu S.*, Book II, Chapter 13.

[483] Athanasius the Great: “That which is from God is not a created being, lest we call God Himself—from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds—a created being…,” and further: “Is it not the height of impiety to regard the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God and searches the depths of God, as a created being? Otherwise, one would have to say that the human spirit is outside the person (έξωθεν αύτοΰ) and that the Word, who dwells in the Father, is also a creature” (Epist. 1 ad Serapion, n. 22); Ambrose, *De Spiritu S.*, Book II, Chapter II, nos. 124–129; Clement of Alexandria, On the Holy Trinity, ch. 23: “From the words of the Apostle—1 Cor. 2:10–11—it is clear that the Holy Spirit is not a being of a different nature or substance, but possesses the divine nature..., and just as no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, so, according to the Apostle’s words, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God—and from these words we recognize the unity of nature; he said, ‘the Spirit from God,’ thereby teaching that the Spirit has his being from the Father and shares the same essence with Him” (Chron. Readings 1847, III, 43–45).

[484] See “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M., §§ 127, 132, 134–137.

[485] The general idea of the rationalists.

[486] Constit. Apostol. lib. VII, cap. 41. Although the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (in Canon 2) noted regarding these Decrees that “certain dissenters, to the detriment of the Church, have introduced into them something spurious and alien to piety,” the creed cited here, being entirely consistent with the other confessions of the Primatial Church and containing nothing heretical, is rightly recognized by scholars as one of the oldest and most venerable examples of Orthodoxy. And since its wording is more similar to the creeds of the Eastern Churches than to those of the Western Churches, it is concluded that it was used primarily in the East. Bingham, *Orig. Eccles.*, vol. IV, pp. 92–95, Hal., 1755; Krabbe, *On the Origin and Content of the Apostolic Constitutions*... p. 204, Hamburg, 1829; Hahn, *Library of Creeds and Articles of Faith of the Apostolic-Catholic Church*, pp. 40–41, Breslau, 1842.

[487] This creed has come down to us through the catechetical discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for which it serves as the foundation.

[488] This symbol was read at the Council of Nicaea by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, as a rule of faith handed down from our ancestors: “as we have received it,” said Eusebius, “from the bishops who preceded us and in our first catechesis...,” “and so now, believing in our faith, we set it forth.” And this is it: “We believe....” Socrat. H. E. lib. I, cap. 8; Theodoret. H. E. lib. 1, cap. 12; and Athanasius. Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, in Opp. I. 1, P. 1, p. 238, ed. Montfaucon.

[489] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book I, Chapter 10, § 1.

[490] Tertullian, Against Praxillus, ch. 2.

[492] Tertullian, Against Prax. ch. 27: “Finally, (Christ) commanded that we be baptized in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For we are baptized not once, but three times, in each name, in each person.” Conf. de coron. milit. chap. 3, where Tertullian clearly grounds this custom in Sacred Tradition; also—Basil, de Spir. S. chap. 27 (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, pp. 333, 336); Hieronymus, *Contra Lucifer*, chap. 4.

[493] For a detailed discussion of these forms of praise, see St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, chs. 25, 27, 29; and St. John of Damascus. Epist. de hymno trysagio, n. 6; Euthymius Zigabus, Panopl. P. II, Titl. XII, chap. 29; and Bingham, Origin. eccles., vol. V, lib. XIII, chap. 2.

[494] Apostolic Constitution VIII, Chapter 12: “To You be all glory, honor, and thanksgiving, praise and worship—to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit—now and forever and to the ages of ages.... worlds of worlds. Amen.

[495] Epist. eccl. Smyrn. de martyr. S. Polycarpi, n. 24: “To (Christ) be glory, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever” (Chr. Th. 1821, I, p. 141); Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, n. 7 (Chr. Readings 1822, VIII, p. 356).

[496] Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, pp. 323, 336, 337, 349.

[497] Ibid., pp. 345–346: “It was the good pleasure of our Fathers not to receive the grace of the evening light in silence, but to give thanks immediately upon its appearance. And we cannot say who was the originator of these words of thanksgiving for the lamp; at least the people chant the ancient hymn, and no one has ever considered those who say, ‘We praise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God,’ to be ungodly (The final words of the Vespers hymn “O Gentle Light” are read as follows: “We sing of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God”).

[498] Tertullian, for example, contrasting the Church’s teaching with the false teachings of heretics—and in particular those of Praxeas—says: hanc (i.e., ecclesiastical) rule has been in effect from the very beginning of the Gospel, even before the earliest heretics, let alone before the recent Praxeas—a fact that will be proven as much by the very posterity of all heretics as by the very novelty of the recent Praxeas... (Adv. Prax., chap. 2).

[499] Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, Book III, chs. 27, 28; Theodoret, *Ecclesiastical History*, Book I, ch. 3; Jerome, *Prolegomena to Matthew*.

[500] Clement of Rome. Epistle to the Corinthians 1, n. XLVI (in Chr. Th. 1824, XIV, p. 284), and in Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, n. 72 (in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 344).

[501] Herm. Pastor, Book III, Simil. IX, Chapters 12 and 13, in Vol. 1 of Gallandi’s *Bibliotheca Patrum Minor*.

[502] Epist. ad Magnes., chap. 13, in Chr. Readings 1830, XXXVIII, pp. 3 ff.

[503] Apolog. 1, nos. 61, 65, 67, in Chr. Cht. 1825, XVII, pp. 92, 98, and 100; cf. pp. 27–28.

[504] Ad Autol. II, n. 15: “The three days preceding the creation of the luminaries are types of the Trinity: of God, of His Word, and of His Wisdom.” Here, Theophilus refers to the Holy Spirit as “Wisdom,” just as St. Irenaeus often used this term.

[505] Legat. pro Christ, nos. 10 and 12; Conf. no. 24: for when we say that the Word is God and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we mean—insofar as is possible—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

[506] Paedagogus, Book III, chapters 6 and 12.

[507] We, however, are taught to acknowledge three hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Joann. Vol. II, n. 6.

[508] De princip. IV, n. 28. And further: “If you acknowledge one God and at the same time do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God alone, how can this faith not seem difficult, incomprehensible, and inexpressible to the unbeliever?” (in Exod. hom. V, n. 3) “This distinction of the three Persons in God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—is like the waters of three streams, separated from one another but flowing from a single source” (in Numer. hom. XII, n. 1). The Holy Trinity, who is the beginning of all creation (in Ps. XVII, 16). The pillars of Zion are the heavenly doctrines and the true faith of the worshiper and the Holy Trinity (in Ps. CXLVII, 13).

[509] Method, in *Ramos. Palm.* n. 5.

[510] Cyprian, Letter to Jubajan, LXXI1I. Cf. note 467.

[511] Hyppol. contra Noët. nos. 8 and 12.

[512] See St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 344.

[513] *De Trinit.*, Book I, Chapter 4, n. 7.

[514] Epistle of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 16, in *Chronicle Readings* 1821, Vol. I, pp. 135–136, and also 1848, Vol. IV, p. 215.

[515] Passio of Saints Epipodius and Alexander, in Ruinari, *Acta primorum martyrum sincera*, p. 76, Amsterdam ed., 1713.

[516] Ibid., Passio S. Vincentii Levitae, p. 369. The Orthodox Church commemorates the holy martyr Vincent on November 11.

[517] Ibid., pp. 407–408 and 456. The Orthodox Church commemorates the holy martyr Eupulus on August 11. See also the similar confessions of the martyr Julitta (ibid., p. 480) and the martyr Martial (p. 536).

[518] See Terullian, Against Prax, ch. 3.

[519] See in Coteler, *Patr. Apostol.*, vol. 1, Clementine, Homily III, chap. 72; Beveregius’s *Confessions*, on the triple immersion; Le-Quien, *On the Nazarenes of Christ*, Damascenus’s dissertation VII, nos. 12–16; and Maran, *On the Divinity of Christ*, book II, chap. 7.

[520] Cyprian, Epistle to Magnus LXIX, or LXXVI: “If anyone objects to this, saying that Novatian holds to the same law as the Catholic Church, baptizes according to the same creed as we do, and acknowledges the same God the Father, the same Son, Christ, and the same Holy Spirit... and so on...” Conf. Biblioth. vet. Patr. Galland. vol. III, prolegom. chap. 4: on Novatian, the Roman presbyter.

[521] Origen, Against Celsus, Book II.

[522] Ludani Opp., vol. IX, Philopatr., n. 12, p. 232, ed. Lehmann, Leipzig, 1831.

[523] “For the sake of expression,” notes Blessed Augustine in *De ineffabilibus*, “so that we might in some way speak of what we cannot possibly express, our Greek fathers said: ‘one essence, three hypostases’ (ύπόστασεις), while the Latins said: ‘one essence or substance, three persons’... And since what is said is understood, at least in part, as a riddle, it was deemed appropriate to speak in this way, so that something might be said when one asks what these three are, which true faith declares to be three... (De Trinit., Book VII, Chapter 4, n. 7). What, then, remains for us to do but to admit that these terms were divided out of the necessity of speech, since it was necessary to engage in a copious discussion against the snares or errors of heretics? For when human inadequacy attempts to express in speech what it holds in the innermost recesses of the mind regarding the Lord God... and so on (Ibid., n. 9).

[524] Also worthy of note, in relation to the present subject, is the instruction of Saint Gregory the Theologian: “If, in the Word of God,” he says, “or from the godly men, you hear mention of either the Son or the Holy Spirit as if They were second to God the Father (and such expressions are indeed found, for example, in St. Justin, Apolog. 1, n. 13), then I advise you to find in these words of profound wisdom the meaning that they do not divide the Godhead, but trace it back to a single, eternal root, so that you may see the unity of power and not a difference in dignity.” “The Works of the Holy Fathers” IV, p. 223.

[525] Augustine, *De catechizandis rudibus*, chap. 8.

[527] This is how the anti-Trinitarian heretics spoke in ancient times, and how the Socinians and all rationalists speak in modern times.

[528] This idea was preached: in the fifth century, by a presbyter named Claudian Mamertus (De statu animae, Book II, p. 7, in Biblioth. Patr., ed. Lugdun., vol. VI, p. 1062); in the Middle Ages, by certain scholastics: Peter Abelard, Richard Victorinus (De Trin. lib. I, p. 4; lib. III, p. 5; lib. IX, p. 1), Henry of Gandaven (Quodl. VIII, quaest. 18), and especially Raymond Lull (Lib. de demonstratione aequiparent.); in modern times, many followers of Schelling and Hegel have advocated this view (See N. Möller, *Speculat. Darstellung. des Christenthums*. Leipzig, 1834).

[529] See notes 151 and 393 above.

[530] Pfanner, Syst. theolog. gont., chap. 3; Vogel, Die relig. veter. Aegypt. et Graec..., Nuremberg, 1793; Mayer, Brahma, oder die Relig. der Indier, Leipzig, 1818, p. 37.

[531] See Stolberg, *History of the Religion of Jesus Christ*, Vol. 1, Supplement 5: *Traces of Early Traditions Concerning the Mysteries of Our Religion Among the Peoples*.

[532] For example, the Persian Zend-Avesta teaches, first, of a supreme deity—Zeruane-akeren—which is nothing other than beginningless and infinite time, always immersed in its own immeasurable abyss, invisible and unconscious; and secondly, two other principles: the principle of good and the principle of evil, Ormuzd and Ahriman, who are eternally hostile to one another, the former being the creator of the world of good, and the latter the creator of the world of evil (Zend-Avesta, Zoroaster’s Living Word, in which... Riga 1767). Similarly, although Indian religious doctrine speaks of a Divine Trinity—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—these are not three persons within a single God, but rather three attributes, actions, or manifestations of the one and same supreme Para-Brahma, who generates all things from within himself and animates all things through himself: “The Indian believes that the world is governed by Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; the first is the creative power, the second is the preserving wisdom, the third is the destructive wrath of justice; the first is the matter from which all is created, the second is the space in which all lives, the third is time, which destroys all; the first is the sun, which gives life; the second is water, which sustains it; the third is fire; the first is the past, the second is the present, the third is the future” (East India; published by Semen and Stoykovich, p. 40, Moscow, 1846). However, in other parts of the teachings, these deities—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—are personified and depicted as three separate gods, each possessing the strangest of attributes; each has several consorts and sires countless generations of gods through them. Shiva, for example, is described as follows: “He rushes about and thrashes about, surrounded by a legion of demons and spirits, intoxicated, with disheveled hair, covered in ashes from sacrificial fires, adorned with skulls and bones; at times he laughs loudly, at other times he roars terrifyingly” (Ibid., pp. 45, 69 ff.).

[533] Plato, Letter 2 to Dionysius (cited in Eusebius, *Praep. Evang.*, Book II, Chapter 20); Letter 6 to Hermias, Erastus, and Corisus.

[534] Plotinus, Enneads, Book V, Chapter 1, Sections 3, 8, and 13; Numenius, cited in Eusebius, Preparations for the Gospel, Book II, Chapter 20; Macrobius, On the Dream of Scipio, Book 1, Chapter 14.

[535] Proclus, in Commentaries on the Timaeus, Book II; Juslin. Cohort, to the Greeks: “For Plato sometimes says that there are three principles of all things—God, matter, and form—and sometimes four, for he adds the universal soul.”

[536] Cyril, Against Julian, Book 1. Conf. Baltus, Defense of the Holy Fathers Accused of Platonism, Book II, Chapter 3.

[537] Justin, *Apology*, 1, nos. 59, 60; Exhortation to the Gentiles, nos. 3–6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, p. 710; Eusebius, Preparations for the Gospel, Book II, Chapter 20; Theodoret, Sermon 2 Against the Greeks; Augustine, On the Doctrine of Christ, Book I, p. 28.

[538] See Stattler, Theolog. theoret. tractat. V, and Zimmer, Theolog. Christ. p. III, § 58. But far stranger are the rational proofs of the Trinity in God presented by the scholastic philosopher Raymond Lull, who boasted of their indisputable clarity and persuasiveness. One of them, for example, is as follows: In God there must be that which bestows goodness, that which is capable of receiving goodness, and that which imparts goodness. Now, the Father is that which bestows goodness, the Son is that which is capable of receiving goodness, and the Holy Spirit is that which imparts goodness. Therefore, it follows that three persons must be acknowledged in God... (Lib. de demonstr. acquiparent.).

[539] Tertullian, *Adversus Praxitum*, ch. VIII; Athanasius, *Oration IV Against the Arians*; Gregory of Nazianzus, *Oration V on Theology*; Gregory of Nyssa, *Book 1 Against Evnomus*; Augustine, *On Faith and the Creed*, ch. IX, n. 17; *On the Trinity*, Book IX, n. 18; X, n. 19; XIV, n. 8, 13; XV, n. 28; St. Dimitri of Rostov, *Rozysk*, p. 292: “The soul is the image of God, for it possesses a triune power yet a single nature. The powers of the human soul are: memory, reason, and will. In memory, it resembles God the Father; in intellect, God the Son; in will, God the Holy Spirit. And just as in the Holy Trinity, although there are three Persons, there are not three gods, but one God: so too in the human soul, although there are three powers of the soul, there are not three souls, but one soul...”

[540] Sermon 31, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, pp. 131–133; cf. IV, p. 223. Hilary reasoned similarly: “If, in discussing the nature of God, we were to offer examples of comparison, no one should consider them to contain the perfection of absolute reason in themselves; for there is no comparison between earthly things and God... Every comparison, therefore, should be regarded as useful to man rather than suitable for God: for it signifies understanding more than it fulfills it (De Trinit. Book 1, n. 19).

[541] Such were: Faustus, one of the leading Manichaeans (apud Augustin., lib. contra epist. Fundamenti, chap. 2); Donatus, founder of the Donatist sect (apud eundem, lib. de haeres., chap. 69); and Apollinaris (apud Gregor. Nazians., Epist. 1 ad Cledonium).

[542] According to St. Basil the Great, there were quite a few who held this view in his time (Epist. 70 ad Epist. Galliae et Italiae).

[543] Hilary (De Trinitate, Book 6) and Augustine (De Haeresis, Chapter 74) mention them anonymously.

[544] Loc. cit. A. Hilary in particular—in *Libri contra Auxentium*.

[545] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, ch. 26; III, ch. II, n. 1; V, ch. 1, n. 3; Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 9; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 27 and 38; Epiphanius, On Heresies 28.

[546] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, 1:25; Hippolytus, *Against Noetus*, chap. 3; Epiphanius, *Against Heresies*, 54 and 55; Eusebius, *Church History*, IV:7; V:28; Theodoret, *Church History*, II:4; Augustine, *Against Heresies*, 33.

[547] Ibid. and Tertullian, *De Praescriptione Haeresium*, chap. 54.

[548] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 65; Philastru, *Haereses*, 64; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, V, 28; VII, 27; Theodoret, *Ecclesiastical History*, 1, 4; II, 8.

[549] Eusebius, *Church History*, VII, 28 et seq.; Jerome, *On Illustrious Men*, chap. 71; Athanasius, *On Synods*.

[550] Epiphanius, *Haereses* 69, n. 12; Socrates, *Ecclesiastical History* 1, 5, 6; Sozomen, *Ecclesiastical History* 1, 15; Theodoret, *Ecclesiastical History* 1, 4; Hilary, *On the Trinity* IV, 11.

[551] See “in the Book of Canons…” the creed of the 318 Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. What the Arians disliked most about this creed was the word ομοούσιος—“of the same substance”—which so directly exposed their error. “This word,” they said, “is not found in Holy Scripture.” True, replied the defenders of orthodoxy, but the idea is found in Scripture; there is a clear teaching expressed by this word; and if we are to believe this, why should we not also speak of it in this way (Phaebad. Orthod. fid. cap. III. V; Athanas. Decret. Synod. Nicen. n. 28; Augustin. epist. 238). “This word was not used by the earlier teachers,” some others added. This is unfair: it was used, albeit rarely, for example, by Saint Gregory the Wonderworker (De fide, chap. II), by Theognostus (apud Athanas. epist. ad Episc. African.), by Saint Dionysius of Alexandria (Epist. ad Dionys. Roman.) and by others, as attested not only by Saint Athanasius the Great (Epist. ad Ep. African.), but also by Eusebius of Caesarea, who himself initially objected to the aforementioned word but later admitted that he had encountered it among the ancient renowned teachers (Epist. de fide, Nicaeae exposita, apud Theodoret. H. E. I, II, al. 12; Socrat. H. E. 1, 8), and even according to the admission of the Arian Philostorgius (H. E. 1, 7). Saint Hilary explains why the term ομοούσιος was rarely used before the Council of Nicaea: because, until the Church itself had defined the meaning of this word, it could easily have been misinterpreted—for example, in the way it was used by the Marcionites and Valentinianists, who held to emanationism regarding God, or by the Sabellians, who conflated the Divine Hypostases (Hilar. de Trinit. IV, 4).

[552] Epiphanius, *Haereses* 73 and 74; Rufinus, *History of the Church* I, 25; Socrates, *History of the Church* II, 30, 35, 40; Sozomen, *History of the Church* II, 33; III, 15; Theodoret, *History of the Church* II, 25.

[553] It would be superfluous to list these numerous works here: they can easily be found in the catalog of a particular Father’s works by their titles alone.

[554] Moneta adv. Cathar. et Walden., Book III, Chapter 3, Part I, § 1.

[555] Bock, *Histor. Antitriuit.*, vol. I, part I, p. 369; Faust, *Socin· Disput. de Cbristi nat.*, in *B. FF. Polon.*, vol. I, part 1, p. 781; *Cathech. Racov.*, questions 53, 71, 73.

[556] See Athanasius, Oration 2, and Origen’s Confessions on the Principles, Book II, Chapter 7.

[557] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 69, 76; Jerome, *Epistle to Pammachius*, 38.

[559] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History II, 45; Sozomen IV, 27; Epiphanius, On Heresies 74; Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 52.

[560] Basil, *On the Holy Spirit*; Gregory of Nazianzus, *Oration* XXXI; Athanasius, *Letter to Serapion*; Gregory of Nyssa, *On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit*; Amphilochius, *Synodal Epistle Against the Pneumatists* in Coteler, *Monumenta* II, 99 ff.; Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit*; Diodorus, in Photinus, *Bibliotheca*, cod. CII.

[561] Or, as in the liturgical books: “I sing of the three, cherubically, the holy Godhead: light and light, life and lives, God who begets, God who is begotten, God who proceeds from the Father, the living Spirit” (Lenten Triodion, folio 228, verso). “We do not glorify three gods, but one Godhead; rather, we truly honor three hypostases: the Father, who is unbegotten; the Son, who is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father—three in one God, though each is distinct, as God is, and is truly glorified” (Lenten Triodion, fol. 224 on the reverse. Moscow, 1835).

[562] “The Works of the Holy Fathers” in Russian translation. Vol. III, pp. 315 and 115; Vol. VI, p. 224.

[563] Αύτόθεος (Origen, in Joann., vol. II, n. 2, 3); κάθολος Θεός (Eusebius, Orat. panegyr. in H. E. X, 14); ό επί πάντων Θεός (Constit. Apostol., III, 17; Origen, contra Cels., VI, 47; Basil, Epistle 38, n. 4).

[564] God of all (Clem. Strom. II, 9; Euseb. H. E. X, 4; Athanasius, contra Arian. Orat. II, n. 75); Father of All (Justin, Apology 1, nos. 45, 61, 63; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 20, no. 1); Creator of All (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, nos. XXXV, LVI).

[565] Παντοκράτωρ (Polycarp, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, n. 14; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 10; III; 6, n. 2); παμβασιλεύς (Clement, Stromata, VII, 5; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, 1, 5).

[566] In the Evangelist’s expression: “The Word was God, Θεός ήν ό Λόγος”—the subject should be considered to be “ο Λόγος,” the Word, as it stands with the article, and the predicate to be “Θεός,” God, standing without the article, just as in the Savior’s words: “God is spirit,” πνεύμα ό Θεός (John 4:24), where the subject is “ο Θεός,” even though it appears in the second position, and the predicate is “πνεύμα.”

[567] In the Latin Vulgate, the word “God” is omitted in this text for some unknown reason; but in the original, that is, in the Greek codices, it appears consistently (Scholz, Nov. Test, graece ad fidem test, critic, vol. II, p. 33., Lips. 1636), and this is how the ancient Church Fathers read the present text: St. John Chrysostom (homil. in hunc locum), Basil the Great (Epist. 261, Opp. T. III, p. 401, ed. Benedict.), Didymus (Tractat. de Trinit.), and others.

[568] The first of the texts cited was used against the Arians by Saint John Chrysostom (Homily V against the Anomoeans), Saint Athanasius (De Decret. Nic. Synod.) and St. Cyril (Thesaur. lib. 9); the second and third were used by the same St. Cyril (Thesaur. lib. 32).

[569] This text is cited in this sense by St. Basil the Great (“Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 175) and St. Cyril (initio Dialog. IV).

[570] For in Greek, before the words “the great God and our Savior,” τοΰ μεγάλου Θεοΰ καί Σωτήρος ήμών, there is only one article; consequently, both of these titles refer to a single Person, Jesus Christ, Ίησοΰ Χρίστοΰ. But if the name “the great God” referred to one Person and the name “our Savior” to another, then, according to the nature of the Greek language, there would have to be two articles: one before the words “the great God” and the other before the words “our Savior.”

[571] St. Athanasius (lib. de communi essent. Patr. et Fil.), St. Basil the Great (“Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 176), and St. Cyril (Thesaur. lib. 32) understood the words of the Apostle we have examined (Titus 2:13) to refer to the Son.

[572] These words were applied to the Son by: Irenaeus (Contra Haereses III, 18), Tertullian (Contra Heresies 13 and 16), Athanasius the Great (Against the Arians, Orations 2 and 5), Gregory of Nyssa (Against Eunomius, Book X), Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit 1, chap. 3; On the Faith IV, 6), Augustine (On the Trinity II, 13), and others.

[573] “I affirm,” says St. Basil the Great, “that the expression ‘being in the form of God’ (Phil. 2:6) is equivalent to the expression ‘being in the essence of God.’ For just as the words ‘taking the form of a servant’ (v. 7) mean that our Lord was born in the essence of the human nature, so, of course, the words ‘being in the form of God’ indicate a property of the divine essence” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 45).

[574] St. Cyril of Alexandria uses all these passages to demonstrate the equality of the Father and the Son (On the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, Chapters 12 and 13, in *Chronicle of the Church*, 1847, Vol. III, pp. 23–26). The following words of his are also worthy of note: “Our Lord Christ Himself proclaims this clear equality to us in another passage, saying: ‘Just as the Father knows Me, so I know the Father’ (John 10:15); and again in another: ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ (6:44). From this we learn that the Son, just as the Father does, brings those who are to be saved to the Father. Where, then, is the servile service of which the heretics speak? Where is the service befitting a creature? Where is the inequality between the Father’s authority and the Son’s submission?” (ibid., p. 27)?

[575] See § 27 above and note 481.

[576] In the same § and note 447.

[577] “You see,” remarks St. Cyril of Alexandria, “how here too He reveals the consubstantiality: ‘If you knew Me,’ He says, ‘you would know My Father as well; for that which is of the same substance cannot be known from that which is of a different substance.’ Beings of different natures and alien to one another cannot explain themselves to one another; but those of the same nature are known from one another” (Chronicle of Readings 1847, III, p. 31). “If,” St. Basil the Great also reflects, “anyone has come to know the Son in essence, he has also come to know the Father (for it is said: ‘If you knew Me, you would know My Father’—John 14:7); that is, the Son is consubstantial with the Father, because nothing incorporeal can be known from an unlikened essence” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 146).

[578] See note 450 above. “If,” argues St. Basil the Great, “the Son alone is the creation of the Father, and all else is the creation of the Son, then He who said, ‘All that is Mine is Yours,’ could have said this; but, according to Eunomius’s view, He should not have added: ‘and what is Yours is Mine’ (John 17:10), for the Son Himself could not be His own. From this it becomes clear that He spoke of His likeness to the Father and of His essence, which is in every respect unconditionally similar to the Father’s essence, and not of created beings” (“The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 161).

[579] “It is impossible and incompatible with everything that the Son should create anything that the Father does not create. For everything that the Father has belongs to the Son; and conversely, what belongs to the Son belongs to the Father. Thus, there is nothing that is His own; for everything is shared. And their very being is shared and of equal honor, even though the Son’s being is from the Father” (St. Gregory, Homily 30, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 88). “The Son can do nothing on His own unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever the Father does, the Son also does” (John 5:19). And in another passage: “Whatever the Son creates, He creates from the Father and with the Father; for the will, action, and power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same—not merely similar, but identical” (St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 13, pp. 45–46, and Book IV, Chapter 18, p. 274).

[580] “Here, the word ‘greater’ is used in the sense of ‘cause.’ Since the Son has his origin in the Father, the Father is therefore greater as the cause and origin. That is why the Lord said: ‘My Father is greater than I,’ that is, because He is the Father. But what else does the word ‘Father’ mean other than that He is the cause and origin of the One born of Him?” (St. Basil the Great, Book I Against Eunomius, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, p. 56). The same is said by Saint Gregory the Theologian (in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. III, p. 85), the Fathers of the Council of Sardis (apud Theodoret, H. E. II, chap. 8), Saint John Chrysostom (homil. LXXV on John, ch. 14, v. 29), Saint Epiphanius (Haeres. 69), Saint Isidore of Pelusium (Book III, Epistle 334), and Saint John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1, 8, p. 23).

[581] “When He says, ‘My Father, who sent me, is greater than I’ (John 14:28), He calls the Father greater than Himself because He Himself became man; but, as the Word of the Father, He is equal to Him” (St. Athanasius the Great, Homily on the Incarnation God the Word, against the Arians, in the Christian Reader 1840, III, pp. 171–172). This passage is also explained by St. Ambrose (De Fide III, chap. 4), St. Cyril (In Io. lib. X), Blessed Augustine (De Trinit. 15, chaps. 7, 9, 11), Pope Leo (Epist. ad Flavian, chap. 4), and others.

[582] “He says: ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God’ (John 20:17). For God is His Father by nature, and ours by grace; and He became God according to the economy, since He became man; but He is our Lord and God by nature” (St. Athanasius, Homily Against the Arians, Chronological Readings 1840, III, p. 178). The same idea is found in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Homilies XI, II. 19, p. 200 in the Russian translation) and St. Gregory the Theologian (“Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 86),

[583] “It is clear to everyone that the Son knows, just as God does, yet He attributes ignorance to Himself, just as a human being does, insofar as the visible can be distinguished from the intelligible. The same idea is conveyed by the fact that the title ‘Son’ is used here in an abstract and unqualified manner—that is, without any qualification as to whose Son He is—so that we may understand this argument in a sense more consistent with piety and attribute it to His humanity rather than to His divinity.” (St. Gregory the Theologian, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. III, p. 94). The same is said by Saint Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 4), Eustathius of Antioch (Against the Arians, Book 6), Saint Cyril of Alexandria (Dialogue, Book 6), and others.

[584] “In short—not even the angels—Jesus Christ teaches His disciples not to try to know what even the angels themselves do not know. In short—not even the Son—forbids them not only to know but also to ask about it. That He spoke these words with this intention can be seen from the fact that after the Resurrection He more strongly rebuked their curiosity when He noticed that they were indulging in it excessively.” And further: “If you ask about the day and the hour, you will hear nothing from Me,” He says; “but if you ask about the time and the preliminary signs in general, then, without hiding anything, I will explain everything to you in detail. That I know what that day will be like—I have presented much evidence for this by speaking of the interval of time. I have foretold all future events; I have even specified how much time remains from the present moment until that day (this is explained to you by the parable of the fig tree), and in this way I have brought you to the very threshold. But if I have not opened the door for you, it is for your own good” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies 76 on the Gospel of Matthew, II. 1. 2., in the Russian translation, vol. III, pp. 321, 322–323). “He remained silent about the time of judgment simply because it was not beneficial for people to hear about it; for constant anticipation makes one more zealous in piety, whereas the knowledge that judgment is still a long way off would make one more negligent in piety, in the hope that one can be saved by repenting later. And is it even possible that He who knew everything that would happen until that hour (for He said all this) did not know that hour?” (St. Basil the Great, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 166).

[585] “As a man who became like other men, He prays that suffering might pass Him by; but as God, who by His divine nature is immune to suffering, He was ready to accept suffering and death” (St. Athanasius, Homily Against the Arians, in the Christian Reader 1840, III, p. 207).

[586] St. Gregory the Theologian, Homily 80, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, pp. 82–83; St. Athanasius: “When He says, ‘My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?’, He speaks on our behalf, because He, having taken the form of a servant, became like men and appeared as a man; humbled Himself, being obedient even unto death—even death on a cross—and so on (Phil. 2:7–8), and, as Isaiah says, He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our sicknesses (Isa. 53:4); and therefore He does not suffer for Himself, but for us, and it was not He Himself who was forsaken by God, but we, for whom He came into the world” (sermon by Protopresbyter Arian in Chr. Readings 1840, III, pp. 169–170). St. John of Damascus: “Christ was never forsaken by the Father... Consequently, He spoke thus after taking on our nature and because He placed Himself on a par with us; for we were guilty of sin and under a curse, as disobedient and transgressors, and for that reason forsaken by God” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 18, p. 278).

[587] Sermon 30, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. III, p. 83.

[588] Anyone interested, however, can find a very detailed discussion of all these passages in the works of St. Athanasius (in his treatise against the Arians), St. Basil the Great (in Book 4, against Eunomius, *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, pp. 144–178), St. Gregory the Theologian (in Discourses 29 and 30, “The Works of the Holy Fathers” III, pp. 72–95), and in the writings of other Fathers who wrote against the Arians. And St. John of Damascus also teaches detailed rules on how to understand passages of this kind (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 18: On the Expressions Used Concerning Christ).

[589] See § 28 above and notes 486–487.

[590] See this creed and the historical account of it by Saint Gregory of Nyssa at the end of the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. “Saint Gregory (the Wonderworker),” says the narrator, “compiled the God-given doctrine (symbol) as a kind of legacy for his successors in a manuscript. The people living in that land, being instructed daily in accordance with this teaching, have to this day not been infected by any heresy.” (pp. 232–233, Moscow, 1838).

[591] Biblioth. Vet. Patr. Vol. 1, pp. 273–278, Paris, 1624, and Chr. Cht. 1840, IV, pp. 10, 12, 14.

[592] Collect. Concilior. Labbei, Vol. 1, p. 844, Paris, 1671, and Chr. Ch., 1840, I, pp. 238–239, 241.

[593] See note 499 above; also—Irenaeus, *Contra Haereses*, III, chap. 19; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, V, chap. 28, p. 315, in the Russian translation, published in St. Petersburg 1848: “Is it not shameful for them (the heretics) to lie in this way about (Pope) Victor, knowing full well that he excommunicated the tanner Theodotus, who was the leader and Father of this blasphemous apostasy and was the first to assert that Christ was merely a man? If Victor, according to them, thought as this blasphemy teaches, then why would he excommunicate Theodotus, the originator of such heresy?”

[594] .... relying on the gifts of God and paying close attention to his words, you were deeply moved in your hearts, and his sufferings were before your very eyes. 1 Corinthians, chap. 2.

[595] Brethren, I urge you to think of Jesus Christ as you would of God.... 2 Corinthians 1:1.

[596] “I praise Christ Jesus—my God (τόν θεόν)—who has so greatly enlightened you; for I have come to know that you... are filled with faith in our Lord, who is truly of the line of David according to the flesh, the Son of God according to the Godhead (θεότητα)” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans II. 1). “Our God (ό Θεός) Jesus Christ reveals Himself more as one who exists in the Father” (To the Romans, ch. 3; Confessions to Trajan, n. 7; To Polycarp, n. 8). “There is one Physician, both of the body and of the spirit, God (ό Θεός), who was born and appeared in the flesh as the unbegotten (άγέννητος)... Jesus Christ our Lord” (ad Ephes. n. 7). “Our God (ό Θεός), Jesus Christ, was in the womb of Mary” (ibid., n. 18; Conf., nn. 19, 20). “There is one God, who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ—His Son, who is His eternal Word (Λόγος άΐδιος)” (ad Magnes., n. 8).

[597] “You, as imitators of God, having been made alive by the blood of God (έν αϊματι Θεοϋ), have fully accomplished the work that corresponds to this...” (ad Ephes. n. 1). “Be imitators of me, as I am of the passion of my God” (ad Roman, n. 14).

[598] The Apostolic Father to whom these words belong is known only as the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, from which we have taken them. See Epist. id. Diognetum, chaps. 7 and 11, in Opp. Patr. Apostol., pp. 312–314 and 320. Tübingen, 1847.

[599] Epist. Smyrn. Eccl. de morte S. Polycarp. n. 14.

[600] To whom all things in heaven and on earth are subject. To whom every breath gives worship. Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians, no. 11.

[601] He who is the firstborn Word of God and exists as God. Apology I, no. 63.

[602] I count God as another, but not in my mind. Dialogue with Tryphon, chap. 56.

[603] Tatian, Against the Greeks, nos. XXI and XIII.

[604] In Eusebius, *Church History*, Book V, Chapter 28.

[605] Apol. fragm. in *Chronic. Pasch.*, in Galland, vol. 1, p. 678.

[606] Christ is God and Lord of all (Against the Jews, ch. 7). God from God, as light kindled from light (Apology, ch. 21). I do not derive the Son from anywhere else, but from the substance of the Father (Against Prax., ch. 4). Co-substantial (the Son and the Holy Spirit) with the substance of the Father (ibid., ch. 3).

[607] Against Marcion II, 16; III, 12; On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 3, 4.

[608] It is also the belief of Christians that God died, and yet lives for all eternity (Against Marcion, II, 16). We do not belong to ourselves, but have been bought with a price—and with what price? With the blood of God (Against Uxor, II, 3). God crucified... (Against Marcion, II, 27).

[609] He is the Word, the only one who is both God and man.... Coh. I; Conf. Strom. II, 9; Quis div. salv. VI; Paedag. 1, 8.

[610] Believe, O man, in the one who is both man and God, in the suffering and worshiped living God. Coh. X.

[611] God Jesus (Contr. Cels. V, 66). God Jesus (ibid. V, 51). God, then, and—according to Scripture—the Savior (Select. in Genes. IX, 6).

[612] But so that you may recognize that the Father and the Son possess one and the same omnipotence—just as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father—listen to John speaking in this way in Revelation: “Thus says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” For who is the One who is to come, if not Christ? (De princip. 1, 2, n. 10). We therefore worship one God, as we have demonstrated, the Father and the Son (Contr. Cels. VIII, 12).

[613] Contra Noët. chap. 6. God, who is truly God. Adv. Jud. chap. 4. Conf. adv. Beron. et Helic. n. 2 and Sermon on St. Theophilus, n. 10.

[614] Epistle to Dionysius of Rome: “As I have also written to you in another letter, in which I refuted the false accusation leveled against me—namely, that I claim Christ to be of the same essence as God, which I do not say” (in Athanasius, Vol. 1, p. 255).

[615] Therefore, Christ—though God against your will—is God, I say, for this must often be stated so that the ears of the unbelievers may be silenced and their hearing disrupted... Against the Gentiles II, 60.

[616] “We believe that in the Son, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:5), who became man for our sake, the Father dwells with the Spirit, consubstantial with Him, through the indivisible Divinity” (Methodius, On Symeon and Anna, n. 6).

[617] He Himself is the eternal Son of God and the Word, but not a man taken up by God... Yet, though He was perfect God, He simultaneously became a perfect man (Epistle to Maxim, Bishop and Clergy of Alexandria).

[618] .... He was God by nature, and became man by nature (De adventu Domini, fragment in Routh, Reliqu. S. III, 346).

[619] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V, 28, pp. 314–315, from the Russian translation of 1848.

[620] Ruinart, *Acta prim. Martyr. sincere*, *Pass.* 8; *Symphor.* p. 24, 2nd ed.

[621] Ibid., Passio S. Felicit., p. 27.

[622] Ibid., *Acta proconsul. Martyr. Scillitan.*, p. 87.

[623] Ibid. *Acta martyr. Petri, Andreae etc.*, p. 159.

[624] ... They were in the habit of gathering daily before dawn and reciting hymns to Christ, as if to God, to one another... (Book X, Epistle 97).

[625] ... Some call him Serapis, others worship Christ... (See Lampridius, in the Life of Alexander Severus).

[626] On the Death of the Pilgrim, n. P: “They still revere that great man, the one who was crucified in Palestine.” See also, Ibid., n. 13: “They renounce the Greek gods, but they worship that stoned sage of theirs.”

[627] In Origen, *Contra Celsum*, IV, II, 5, 7, 8, 10; VII, II, 13; VIII, II, 12, 15, 41.

[628] See Tertullian, *Against the Jews*, chs. 7, 9, 11, and Arnobius, *Against the Gentiles*, 1, nos. 23, 24.

[629] ..... For it was not fitting for God to fear death.... (Against Celsus, Book 1, II. 66).

[630] In Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, IV, chap. 15, p. 217, according to the Russian translation of 1848.

[631] The belief of the Nazarenes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is attested to by the martyr Justin, and the blessed Jerome and Augustine (V. apud Le Quien, *Dissert. Damascen.* VII). As for the Docetists, see Irenaeus (*Adv. Haer.* III, 17, 18), Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. II, 8), Origen (in Joann. Vol. IV, p. 165, Paris 1759), Pamphilus (in Biblioth. Patr. Gallandi, vol. IV, p. 23), and others.

[632] Epist. ad Alexandr. Constantinop., apud Theodoret. H. E. lib. I, cap. 4.

[633] Athanasius, *De Synod. Nicen. decret*, n. 27, p. 233, ed. Bened.

[634] Socrat. H. E., Book V, Chapter 10; Sozom. H. E., Book VII, Chapter 12.

[635] Many ancient teachers cited this text as proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit: Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 287; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 74; Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit*, Book I, Chapter 4, and Book III, Chapter 10; Cyril of Alexandria, On the Trinity, II. 25, in Chr. Readings 1847, III, p. 47; Augustine, Against Maximus, III, ch. 21; Theodoret, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter on the Holy Spirit, in Chr. Readings 1844, IV, p. 193.

[636] Other similar passages in which the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” include 1 Thess. 3:11, 13; cf. St. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book V, and On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 21, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, pp. 191, 311, 312.

[637] And these texts have been used since ancient times to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit: Basil the Great, *Against Eunomius*, Book III, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, p. 139; Theodoret, *Against Heresies*, Book V, in *Chronological Readings* 1844, Vol. IV, p. 193; St. Cyril of Alexandria, *On the Holy Trinity*, II. 24, in *Chronological Readings* 1847, Vol. III, p. 46.

[638] Against Eunomius, Book V, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” Vol. VII, p. 188.

[639] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, from Book V Against Heresies, in Chr. Cht. 1844, IV, p. 190; Conf. Ambros. de Spirit. S. lib. 1, cap. 1, 7; Paschas. de Spirit. S. lib. I, cap. 12.

[640] “According to the formula taught in baptism, just as the Son relates to the Father, so the Spirit relates to the Son. And if the Spirit is placed on a par with the Son, and the Son is placed on a par with the Father, then it is evident that the Spirit is also placed on a par with the Father” (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 17, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, pp. 297–298). The same is said by Isidore of Pelusium (Lib. I, Epist. 109), Cyril of Alexandria (On the Holy Trinity, in Chr. Readings 1847, III, 40), and Theodoret (in Chr. Readings 1844, IV, p. 193).

[641] Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book III, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, p. 137; Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesaurus*, Book XIII, p. 3 and XIV, 1; Paschas, Book 1, Chapter II; Theodoret, Book V Against Heresies, in Chr. Cht. 1844, IV, p. 191.

[642] “Sometimes he (the Apostle Paul) lists all three Hypostases, and does so in different ways, without adhering to a single order, but naming the same Hypostasis sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes at the end—and for what purpose? To demonstrate the equality of the divine nature” (Gregory the Theologian, op. cit. 34, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, p. 193). “In the first epistle (1 Cor. 12:4–6), he (the Apostle Paul) placed the Holy Spirit first, and here (2 Cor. 13:13) last, thereby showing that the order of the names makes no distinction in dignity. Thus, he even placed the Son before the Father, without subverting the order established by the Lord (Matt. 28:19), but demonstrating the equality of honor within the Holy Trinity” (Theodoret, Book V Against Heresies, in Chr. Readings, 1844, IV, p. 192).

[643] “The most important proof that the Spirit is united with the Father and the Son is the statement that He has the same relationship to God as the spirit within each person has to that person. For it is said: ‘Who among men knows what is within a man, except the human spirit that dwells within him?’ Likewise, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). And this is sufficient.” (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 294; cf. p. 138).

[644] “He is also called the Spirit of Christ, as one united with Christ by nature” (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 18, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 301). “The Holy Spirit is called Christ and Lord, for the Apostle says: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. But if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness’ (Rom. 8:9, 10)—thus making it clear that the indwelling of the Spirit is the indwelling of Christ” (Against Eunomius, V, ibid., p. 191).

[645] Homily 31, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, p. 130. Cf. Basil the Great, *On the Holy Spirit*, ch. 23.

[646] Book V Against Eunomius in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. VII, pp. 183–184.

[647] Ibid., Book III, p. 139, and Book V, p. 195.

[648] Homily 31, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. III, p. 128.

[649] Book V Against Eunomius, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, pp. 223–224.

[650] Chrysostom, Homily XIV on the Epistle to the Romans; Augustine, Against Maximinus, Book 1, near the beginning: “Understand the expression, and you will avoid blasphemy.” For it is said: “He calls out to us with groans, so that we may understand”; He causes us to call out with groans. Finally, in one place the Apostle says that He (the Holy Spirit) cries out, “Abba, Father,” and in another place he says, “in whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’”—but what does it mean to cry out, if not to cause us to cry out?

[651] Other, entirely insignificant objections against the divinity of the Holy Spirit, based on various particles (for example: έν—“in,” σύν—“with”), which the Word of God uses in its teaching about Him, are examined in detail by St. Basil the Great in his treatise on the Holy Spirit (see especially chapters 25–28).

[652] “It is therefore holy and true, that which proceeds from Him (the Father)....” Galland, Biblioth. Patr., Vol. I, p. 44.

[654] Son.... having a second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third order—since we are honored with the Word—we will demonstrate this. Apology I, n. 13.

[655] For the Spirit, being a minister through matter, is inferior to the divine Spirit, which is likened to the soul and is not to be honored as much as God Himself. Orat. contra Graec. n. 4.

[656] Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 20, n. 1.

[657] Therefore, the Spirit of God is God, and the Word of God is God, because they proceed from God... Advers. Prax. chap. 26; conf. chap. 13: and the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each one is God.

[658] Hippolytus, *Against Noetus*, ch. 14; *Confessions*, ch. 8.

[659] We worship the Holy Spirit. Contra Noët, chap. 12.

[660] On the First Principles, Book I, Chapter 3.

[661] They then ascribed to the Holy Spirit the honor and dignity shared by the Father and the Son... (Praedic. Apost. et Eccles.).

[662] He is always with the Father and the Son, and always is, and was, and will be, just as the Father and the Son are (in Rom. I, VI, n. 7; cf. in Jerem. homil. VIII, n. 1).

[663] Dionysius, *Responsa ad Propositiones Pauli Samosatensis*, in Athanasius, *Opp.,* vol. I, chap. 1, p. 12, ed. Maur.

[664] See his symbol or Confession of Faith at the end of “The Orthodox Confession...”

[665] Methodius, *On Symeon and Anna*, n. 6, p. 401, Paris 1644.

[666] Ibid., in Ramos. Palmar, nos. 10 and 11, p. 439.

[667] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 12, n. 2; “Is the Spirit one?” Origen, On the Principles, 1, 3, n. 3, 4; in Genesis 1:1.

[668] Athenagoras, Legatus, VI; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 1, 6; Origen, in Athanasius, Epistle to Serapion, IV, n. 10.

[669] Barnabas, Catholic Epistle, n. 6; Tatian, Oration Against the Greeks, XIII; Origen, On the Principles, 1, 3, n. 1.

[670] Origen, Homilies on Numbers, XI, n. 8.

[671] Theophilus, *Ad Autolycus*, 1, n. 7; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, IV, chap. 20, n. 1.

[672] Hippolytus, *Adversus Noetianus*, ch. IX: “Through whom the world is set in motion, through whom creation stands firm, and through whom the universe is given life.”

[673] Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, n. 45; Justin, Apology 1, n. 31, 32, 63; Athenagoras, Laws X; Hippolytus, Against Noetus, chap. 9.

[674] Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 17, n. 3.

[675] Clement of Rome, 1 to the Corinthians, n. 46.

[676] Tatian, *Contra Graec.*, ch. 13, 15.

[677] Justin, Apology 1, ch. 32; Tatian, Against the Greeks, ch. 7; Tertullian, Against Prax, ch. 9; Athenagoras, Legatus, X; Cyprian, Epistle 73.

[678] Origen, Commentary on John, vol. XXXVIII, note 9; Homily VIII on Jeremiah, note 1.

[679] On the Holy Spirit, ch. II, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 271.

[680] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 37, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” III, p. 228.

[681] Homily 3, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” Vol. I, pp. 37–38.

[682] The Distinctive Attributes of the Hypostases. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Vol. II, p. 435, ed. Morel.

[683] Constitutions of the Apostles VIII, 41; Justin, Apology 1, n. 49; II, n. 6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book I, Vol. II, p. 342, ed. Morel; Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel*, I, 5; IV, 1; Germinius, in Hilarion, *Historical Works*, fragment XV, n. 3.

[684] Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 8; Gregory the Theologian, Hymns on the Sacraments, verse 2, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* IV, p. 218; Epiphanius, *Haereses* 73, Vol. I, p. 878, ed. Petavus.

[685] Gregory the Theologian, Hymns on the Mysteries, 1, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. IV, p. 216; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book 1, Chapter 13; Nycephorus of Constantinople, *Epistle to Leo III*.

[686] Athanasius, *On the Synod*, n. 50; *Against the Arians*, Oration IV, II. 1; Augustine, *Commentary on John*, I, 1; John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith*, I, 13.

[687] Basil, *Against Eunomius*, Book 1; Hilary, *On the Trinity*, Books 11 and 12; Augustine, *Book 83, Questions*, n. 16.

[688] Hilarion, *On the Trinity*, Book IX; Augustine, *Against Maximus*, III, Chapters 5 and 4.

[689] Athanas. contra Arian. orat. 2; Gregor. Nyss. contra Eunom. lib. 1; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapters 8 and 12.

[690] Hippolytus, Against Noetus, XVI; Gregory the Theologian, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, p. 54; IV, 15; Basil the Great, ibid., VII, 68, 82, 199, etc.

[691] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 28, n. 6; Tertullian, Apology, XXI; Against the Heretics, III, VII, IX, n. 14; Athenagoras, On the Laws, X; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, IV, 3; Hilary, On the Trinity, VIII, 46.

[692] Tatian, Against the Greeks, V; Theophilus, To Autolycus, 11, 14; Justin, Dialogue with Typhon, CXXVIII; Hippolytus, Against Noetus, XI.

[693] Hippolytus, *Contr. Noët.*, n. XI; Methodius, *De Christo et Antichr.*, n. III; Tertullian, *Contr. Marcion.*, III, 16; *De orat.*, IV; Athenagoras, *Leg.*, X; Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.*, II, 4; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, 11, 10; Origen, *In Ps.* 16:8.

[694] Clement of Rome, fragment (in Galland 1, 44); Athanasius, *Exposition of the Faith*, ch. 4; Gregory the Great, *Orations*, XX, XLII; John of Damascus, *Epistle on the Trisagion*, ch. 28.

[695] Cyril, Against Julian, Book I, and Commentary on John 15:27; Basil, On the Holy Spirit, Book XVIII, n. 46, and Epistle XXXVIII, n. 4.

[696] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 7; Theophilus, To Autolycus, 11, 15; Augustine, Against Faustus, XXXII, 12.

[697] Irenaeus, II, 28, n. 6; Didymus, On the Trinity, 1, 9; Gregory the Theologian, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” I, 173 and 288; III, 59–60, etc.

[698] Hippolytus, *Against Noetus*, XVI; Tertullian, *Against Praxias*, XIX; Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel*, IV, 15; Basil the Great, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, 68, 82, 87; Gregory the Theologian, ibid., II, 222; III, 55–56.

[699] Gregory the Theologian, ibid., II, 173; III, 109, 110; Basil the Great, ibid., VII, 301; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXIX, n. 18; Augustine, *Against Maximus*, III, chap. 14: “What is the difference between being born and proceeding... who can explain it?... This I know; but to distinguish between that generation and this procession, I do not know how, I am unable, nor am I sufficient;” John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8: “The Holy Spirit, though He proceeds from the Father, does so not by the mode of birth but by the mode of procession (έκπορευτώς). Here is another mode of being, just as incomprehensible and unknowable as the birth of the Son...” And further: “The Son is from the Father by birth; the Holy Spirit, however, though also from the Father, is not by birth but by procession. And although we have been taught that there is a distinction between birth and procession, we do not know in what this distinction consists, nor what the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father actually are” (pp. 21, 25).

[700] The Latins point specifically to the First Council of Toledo (A.D. 400) and to other councils held in Spain in the fifth century, which allegedly included the word *Filioque* in their local creeds, as well as to Blessed Augustine († 430), whom they consider the foremost champion of their doctrine (Curs. Theolog. compl. VIII, p. 652, Paris 1841). But as for whether we should believe these testimonies of Western writers—we shall see further on (§§ 44 and 46).

[701] “In citing the testimonies of the Roman Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria from his commentaries on John, they (the Latins) by no means acknowledge the Son as the cause of the Spirit (ούκ αίτιον τόν Ύιόν ποιούντας τοΰ Πνεύματος): for they know that there is one cause (μίαν γάρ ΐσασιν οΐτίαν) for both the Son and the Spirit—the Father, the former through birth, the latter through procession; but they merely show that the Spirit is sent through the Son (δι'αύτοΰ χροϊέναι), and in this way signify the kinship and indistinction of Their essence.” Epist. ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum, in Opp. S. Maximi T. II, p. 69, ed. Paris 1675.

[702] “Furthermore, we have interpreted the letter of the same St. Maximus, written to the presbyter Marinus, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, in which he suggests that the Greeks argue in vain against us when we do not call the Son the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they claim; but, not being unaware of the unity of substance between the Father and the Son, just as He proceeds from the Father, so we acknowledge that He proceeds from the Son, understanding mission to mean procession; piously interpreting both languages; instructing the learned in the spirit of peace, while teaching both us and the Greeks that in some respects the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and in others does not, thereby expressing the difficulty of conveying the peculiarities of one language into another.” Anastasius, Bibliotheca, Epistle to John the Deacon. T. V. Concil. Labbei, p. 1771.

[703] It is generally believed that this addition was originally incorporated into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as early as the Third Council of Toledo (in Spain), held in 589. But in the earliest editions of the acts of the Third Council of Toledo—such as the Cologne edition of 1530, the Paris edition of 1535, and the Madrid edition of 1593— this addition is absent, as Bellarmine acknowledged, and as some of the most recent Western writers also acknowledge (See apud Zoernicav, de process. Spirit. S. solо Patre, tract., III, pp. 288–269, ed. Region., 1774, and Curs. Theolog. Compl., vol. V, p. 406, Paris, 1841). Consequently, it was intentionally inserted into later editions of the acts.

[704] Dearest brothers, beware entirely of the intention to follow the Spanish heresy; follow in the footsteps of the holy Fathers in the faith, and join yourselves to the most holy unity of the universal Church. It is written: “Do not transgress the boundaries of your Fathers.” And do not introduce anything new into the symbol of the Catholic faith, nor cultivate traditions in ecclesiastical offices that were unheard of in ancient times (Epist. 69 in Opp. Alcuini, p. 1587, ed. Paris, 1617). Alcuin does not specify here the particular addition to which he refers; but it is known that no other addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was ever in question in the Western Church, except for the addition: “Filioque” [...].

[705] Far be it from us, and far be it from every faithful heart, to compose or teach a creed or faith that is different from, or in a manner other than, that which they established... For indeed, it is not part of the matter of faith to add to or subtract from what has been soundly and firmly proclaimed by the Holy Fathers: to think correctly according to their meaning, and to supplement their subtle genius with an explanation: but to add or subtract is to act insidiously against their sacrosanct meaning; to think differently from them through cunning evasion; and to compose a perverse dogma in a confused style—and thereby to presume to prattle boastfully with an impious mouth rather than to teach. See Zoernic, *De proc. Sp. S.*, pp. 369–370, and Theoph. Procopow, *Hist., Controv. de process. Sp. S.*, in *Theolog.*, vol. I, pp. 836–838, Leipzig, 1782.

[706] Contemporary writers attest to the authenticity of this council: Ado in *Chronic*, for the year 809; Aiton in Book IV of *De gestis Francorum*, Chapter 97; Eginhard in Volume II of *Hist. Francorum scriptor*, p. 255, ed. Paris 1636, and others.

[707] Apart from just the title: *Concilium Aquisgranense de addita ad Symbolum voce Filioque celebratum an DCCCIX tenpore Leonis Papae III*. Why, then, have they not survived? Was it purely by chance? Or were they deliberately destroyed later on, as a stern condemnation of the Roman heresy, as irrefutable evidence that the Western bishops themselves—at least many of them—who were present at the council strongly opposed this heresy? Did they see in it an innovation hitherto unheard of in the Church, and refuse under any circumstances to accept it? The subsequent events of the council make this assumption highly probable.

[708] The eyewitness mentioned, who was present during the ambassadors’ conversation with the pope, is Smaragd (Abbas Virdunensis), who recorded this entire momentous conversation for posterity. See Labb. Concilior., vol. VII, pp. 1195–1198, and Baron. Annal. Eccles., vol. IX, p. 552, ad an. 809.

[709] The authenticity of this event is attested to by ancient Western writers: Anastasius the Librarian in his biography of Pope Leo III (Vit. Roman. Pontif., ed. Romae 1752, § 84, p. 297), Peter Abelard (lib. II introduct. in Theolog. cap. 14, Paris 1616, p. 1089), Peter Lombard (Senteut. lib. 1, cap. II, Cologne 1576), Peter Damian (Opp. T. III, Paris 1743, p. 329)—and more recent scholars such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Bint, and others also have no doubt.

[710] Epist. Encyclica, among the Epistles of Photius, ed. London 1651, second edition. See the passage cited by Baron, in *Annal. Eccl.* for the year 903, vol. X, no. 33. Cf. Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, Part II, pp. 19, 27, 32. Moscow, 1834.

[711] Epistle of Nicholas I to Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, in Labb.; Concil., vol. VIII, p. 468. Hincmar, having received this letter (at the end of 867), read it before the King of France in the presence of many bishops; thereafter, by mutual agreement, two men renowned for their learning—Odo (Bishop of Beauvais) and Ratramnus (Monk of Corbie)—were commissioned to write a response to the Greeks’ objections. The latter’s reply has come down to us; but the former’s reply, revised by Ginkmar, has not survived. See Seiller, *Hist. general. des Auteurs sacr. et eccl.*, vol. XIX, pp. 150–155 and 282, Paris, 1754.

[712] In Labb. *Concil.*, vol. VIII, pp. 1084–1087 et seq.

[713] “We therefore reaffirm,” the pope wrote to Photius, “in light of your reverence, that regarding this article—from which scandals have arisen among the Churches of God—you should place your trust in us, for not only do we not say this, but also that we condemn those who, in their madness, dared to say this from the beginning as transgressors of the divine word, as subverters of the theology of Christ the Lord, of the Apostles, and of the other holy Fathers, who, having gathered in council, handed down the Holy Creed to us; and we place them in the same category as Judas. See Labb. Concil., vol. IX, p. 235, and Bevereg., Pandect., canon., vol. II, p. 306, Oxon., 1672. In defense of the authenticity of this epistle, see Zoernicav—de proces. Spir., pp. 415–420, and Th. Prokopowicz, in Theolog., pp. 852–853, in the cited edition.

[714] Regarding the authenticity of this council, contrary to the Latins, see the same work by Zoernicav, pp. 164–170, and by Theoph. Prokopovich, pp. 851–852.

[715] Curs. Theolog. Compl. VIII, p. 664, Paris 1841; Perrone, Praelect. Theol., vol. II, p. 448, Lozau, 1839.

[716] These are precisely Praepositivus, Gregory of Ariminum, and John of Ripis (cited in Thomas Aquinas, *Quaest. XXII*, art. 2, and *Quaest. XL*, art. 1).

[717] This was the general view among the Scholastics. See Theoph. Procopow, *Theolog.*, vol. 1, p. 1229, ed. cited.

[718] Richard Victorini, *De Trinitate*, Book VI, Chapter 18; Bonaventure, *In 1 Sententiae*, Dist. 13, Q. 2; Suares, *De Trinitate*, Book XI, Chapter 6, n. 11, and others.

[719] Here are a few more questions that the Scholastics also addressed in their treatise on the Holy Trinity: Did God the Father beget Himself? Did the divine essence beget the Son, or was the Son begotten by the Father, or was the Son born of the divine essence itself? Could the Father have begotten the Son, or did He will to do so? That the Son is not from nothing, but from something, though not from matter... and so on... (See Peter Lombard, *Sententiae*, Book 1, Distinctions 4, 5, 6, and 7).

[720] The same is found in the liturgical books: “I sing three times, in the Cherubic Hymn, Holy to You, O Godhead: Light of lights, and Life of lives, God who begets, God who is begotten, God proceeding from the Father, the Living Spirit” (Lenten Triodion, fol. 228, verso, Moscow, 1835). “Unbegotten Mind, Father, and the Word begotten of Him, and the Divine Spirit, incomprehensibly proceeding, God of one origin, three-sun-like, I sing to You” (Octoechos, Part 2, fol. 212, reverse side, Moscow, 1838). “Glory to You, Holy Father, God Unborn; glory to You, Son Ageless and Only-Begotten; glory to You, Divine Spirit and Co-Thronist, proceeding from the Father and dwelling in the Son” (Min. for Sept., p. 70, Moscow, 1837).

[721] Αΰτόθεος (Origen, in Joann., vol. II, n. 2, 3), πρώτος Θεός (Origen, cont. Cels., VI, 47, 61), Deus princeps (Arnob., passim).

[722] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, chap. I: “Is the Father of the Supreme Light the beginning and cause of the lights of the Son and the Spirit?” Gregory the Theologian, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. I, p. 39; vol. II, p. 168; Athanasius, *De Synod*, n. 26, 50; *Contra Arianus*, Orat. IV, n. 1; *Contra Gregal. Sabel.*, Opp. Vol. 1, p. 508, ed. Commel; Epiphanius, *Fid. Cath. Expos.*, n. 14; *Haeres.* LXV; Gregory Nyssa, Treatise on the Communion, Opp., vol. I, p. 917, Paris 1615, and others. “Just as the divine branches spring from a single root, so the Son and the Spirit have shone forth: for the Father is the sole source” (Minutes for July, fol. 140). “The Sun of Suns has shone forth in a special way, the Son and the Spirit from the Father, uncreated, co-eternal: the Father alone is believed to be the cause of both” (General Min., pp. 32 and 33, Moscow 1834).

[723] Sermon 42, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* IV, p. 38; cf. II, p. 168: “In my view, faith in one God is preserved when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the one Cause (but without combining or mixing them with Him)—attributing them both by virtue of the same (so to speak) movement and will of the Godhead, as well as by the identity of essence.”

[724] See note 698 above, as well as—Alexandr., Bishop of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander of Byzantium, in Theodoret, H. E. 1, c. 4; Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, Book VI; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8.

[725] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 29, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, p. 54: “When did this birth and proceeding take place?—Before ‘when’ itself. If, however, one must speak somewhat more boldly: at the same time as the Father. But when was the Father?—There has never been a time when the Father was not. Nor has there ever been a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Spirit was not:” Ambrose, *De Symbolo*, ch. 4: “What the Father is, He did not begin to be; and if He did not begin to be, neither did He begin to be the Son” (cf. ch. 5); Augustine, *Sermon 191 on Time*; John of Damascus, *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith; Book 1, Chapter 8: “The Father begets without end and unceasingly (άκαταπαύστως), because He is without beginning, is not subject to time, is endless, and is always the same. For what is without beginning is endless” (p. 20).

[726] See note 697 above, as well as—Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XI, II. 8. 11, pp. 191 and 193, in the Russian translation; Gregory the Theologian, Homily 20: “You hear about birth; do not seek to know the manner of birth. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds” (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, p. 173). “Do you want me to explain to you how He was born?—As the Father who begot Him and the Son who was born know” (ibid., III, p. 60).

[727] Alexandr. episc. Alex. Epist. ad Alex. Byzant. apud Theodoret. H. E. 1, chap. 4; Euseb. Demonstr. Evangel. lib. IV; Gregory the Theologian, Homily 29, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, p. 55.

[728] Hilar. de Trinit. lib. VI: “Here, then, the unbegotten One, before all time, begot the Son from Himself, not from any underlying matter, for through the Son all things exist; not from nothing, for from Himself He begot the Son... and so on”; Augustin. epist. 66: “He begot Him from His own substance, He did not create Him from nothing...”

[729] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8; Athanasius, On the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, n. 6.

[730] Hilarion on the Trinity, Book VI. Athanasius’s Confessions Against the Arians, Oration III, n. 27.

[731] Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book I, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, pp. 182–183.

[732] God, being indivisible, is indivisible and impassible, the Father of the Son (Athanas. de decret. Nic. Synod, p. 409). He did not divide the essence in the act of begetting (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book 1, 18).

[733] Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilies, XI, II. 18, p. 200; in the Russian translation, pp. 190 and 195.

[734] Light from light. Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, CXXVIII; Hippolytus, *Against Noetus*, XI; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, XI, n. 4; “born as life from life, light from light, truth from truth, wisdom from wisdom…” Cyril of Alexandria. Thesaurus, Book VI: “The Father has radiated the Son from Himself, indivisibly and inseparably, just as the sun radiates the light that proceeds from it.”

[735] See note 725 above, as well as Augustine, Epistle 174: “What, then, shall we say? If the Son of God was born of the Father, then the Father has ceased to beget; and if he has ceased, he has begun. But if he has begun to beget, he was once without the Son. But He was never without the Son... Therefore, the Father always begets, and the Son is always born.

[736] Augustine, Homily 43 on the Quinquaginta, chap. 3: What does “before Lucifer” mean? “Through Lucifer” signifies the ages. Therefore, before the ages, before everything that is said to be before, before everything that is not, or before everything that is... and so on... Conf. Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration III, n. 28.

[737] “The Son Himself speaks of the Father: ‘The Lord said to Me, “You are My Son; I have begotten You today’ (Ps. 2:7)—‘today’ does not mean something recent, but something eternal, timeless; ‘today,’ before all ages” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XI, II. 5, p. 18).

[738] Since the only-begotten Son is called both the Word of the Father and “born” in perfection, and is described as being eternally begotten; Sacred Scripture is accustomed to speak freely of God, saying that He has spoken and speaks. For in that the Father begot the perfect Word, He spoke; and in that He ever begets, He certainly speaks (Pope Gregory, Moral Preaches, Book XXIII).

[739] It is better to be born once and for all than to be born continually; for he who is continually being born has not yet been born, and will never be considered born if he is continually being born. For there is a difference between being born and having been born. And for this reason, the Son would never be the Son if He had never been born; But the Son, because He was born, is always the Son; therefore, He is always born (Augustine, *Quaestiones*, Book LXXXIII, Question 37). Let us say more accurately, “always born.” But we cannot say, “He is always being born,” lest He appear imperfect (Gregory of Nyssa, *Moral Teachings*, Book XXIX, Chapter 1).

[740] John of Damascus, Book 1, Chapter 8, pp. 20–21; cf. Chapter 13, p. 46.

[741] “You have given us an unashamed Intercessor, born of You, Christ; through her prayers, You have graciously bestowed upon us the Spirit, the giver of goodness, proceeding from the Father through You (διά σοϋ προερχόμενον)” (Octoechos, Part 1, fol. 171, Moscow, 1838). “Having received the light of the Comforter, by which we are enlightened, You have proclaimed the God-Word, proceeding from the Father, revealed to humanity through the Son, who is of one honor, co-enthroned, and of one essence with the Father without beginning, and You have proclaimed Him to all, O Beloved” (Min. for Sept., fol. 229, verso, Moscow, 1837; cf. Lenten Triodion, fol. 22 and 75, verso, Moscow, 1835).

[742] Homily on Psalm 32, p. 6: “Just as the creative Word established the heavens, so the Spirit, who is from God, who proceeds from the Father (that is, from His mouth, so that you may not regard Him as something external or created, but may glorify Him as having His own hypostasis from God), has brought forth from Himself all the powers that are in Him” (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, p. 271; and Discourse 24 Against the Sabellians); “Although everything is said to be from God, the Son is specifically from God, and the Spirit is from God, because the Son proceeded from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but the Son from the Father through birth, and the Spirit from God in an ineffable manner” (in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, p. 389).

[743] Discourse 29, on the Third Article of the Creed: “The One, having moved from the beginning into duality, came to rest in the Trinity. And this is what we have—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the parent and the bringer forth, begetting and bringing forth impassively, outside of time and incorporeally; the Son is the Begotten; the Spirit is the Proceeded, or—I do not know how one who turns away from all that is visible would call this... Without going beyond the limits given to us, we introduce the Unbegotten, the Begotten, and the One proceeding from the Father, as God the Word Himself says in one passage” (John 15:26) (in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, pp. 53–54; cf. Discourse 31, p. 109).

[744] “As it is said: ‘The Spirit of God (Θεοΰ)’ (Matt. 12:28), and then Scripture adds: ‘the Spirit from God’ (1 Cor. 2:12); so it is precisely stated: ‘the Spirit of the Father’ (Matt. 10:20), and lest you think this is said by way of appropriation (οίκείωσιν), the Savior affirms: ‘When the Comforter comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father’ (John 15:26). There, ‘from God’; here, ‘from the Father.’ Just as He attributed to Himself: “I have come from God” (John 16:27), so He attributes to the Holy Spirit: “Who proceeds from the Father.” Consequently, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit from God the Father, and proceeds from the Father. What, then, does “proceeds” mean? He did not say: “is begotten”... The Son is begotten by the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father. What, then, is the power of the word “proceeds”? So that the Spirit might not be mistaken for the Son, Scripture does not use the word “begotten,” but says that He proceeds from the Father—presenting Him as proceeding, like water from a spring… What proceeds? The Holy Spirit. How? Like water from a spring. Therefore, if John, testifying about the Holy Spirit, calls Him living water (John 7:38), and the Father says of Himself, “They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water” (Jer. 2:13), then the Father is the fountain of the Holy Spirit—because He proceeds from the Father...” (Homil. de Spiritu Sancto. Chrysost. Opp. vol. III, p. 797, ed. de Montfauc. Venice 1734). Photius had no doubt about the authenticity of this work by Chrysostom (Biblioth. p. 841); some modern scholars, however, do have doubts—though without sufficient grounds—and moreover admit: “either Chrysostom, or, as I suspect, some other scholar from that learned antiquity,” or: “this writer was not much younger than Chrysostom” (Ibid., pp. 795–796). And that is enough for us.

[745] Bellarminus, Book II on Christ, Chapter 27; Gerhardus, *Loc. Theolog.*, Vol. I, Loc. V, Part III, Chapter 4, § 88; Perrone, *Praelect. Theol., tract. de S. Trinitate, chap. V, prop. 1, p. 429, vol. II, ed. Lausanne, 1839: “Christus testifies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in the sense that this includes the Son...” The objections raised by the Latins against the dogma under consideration have been the same ones repeated since ancient times; therefore, to avoid having to consult various sources for them, we will draw these objections primarily from the last book cited here, both because its author, the Jesuit Perrone, is one of the most recent Roman theologians, and because he is recognized as one of the most learned among his peers and is the most fanatical defender of Roman false dogmas, breathing open hostility toward the Orthodox faith and the Church.

[746] Here is how the Holy Fathers reasoned on this matter; for example, Gregory of Nyssa: “For there is one and the same Person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds; therefore, since He is the one and only cause of these causes, we call Him one God” (Tract. advers. Graecos ex commun. notion. Vol. II, p. 85, ed. Morel. Paris, 1638); Gregory the Theologian: “Both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share in the unbegottenness of being and divinity; but it belongs to the Son and the Spirit to derive their being from the Father. And the distinctive attribute of the Father is being unbegotten, that of the Son—being begotten, and that of the Holy Spirit—being proceeded” (Homily 25, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers” II, p. 288); or: “if the Son and the Spirit are coeternal with the Father, why then are they not co-eternal? Because They are from the Father, though not after the Father... The Son and the Spirit are not co-eternal with respect to the Cause” (Homily 29, ibid., vol. III, p. 55). We will see many other sayings of the Fathers below.

[747] But “the Holy Spirit,” they say, “is third in the order of the Divine Persons and, consequently, second in the order of procession; and therefore it cannot be that the Holy Spirit begets the Son, who is prior to Him in both order and procession (qui ordine et processione anterior est ipso)” (Perrone, *Prael. Theol.*, vol. II, p. 432, ed. cit.). What a pitiful defense! The defender—a) evades the objection: the point is that if the Son, being of the same essence as the Father, proceeds together with Him as the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit, also of the same essence as the Father, begets the Son together with Him: yet the defender, setting aside the unity of essence among the Divine Persons, turns directly to the fact that They are distinct as Persons...; but—b) even here he admits a false notion: does the fact that the Son is considered second in the order of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and the Holy Spirit third, imply that the Son and the Spirit are not coeternal, that the Son is begotten by the Father first and the Spirit proceeds afterward, and that this is why the Spirit cannot participate with the Father in the begetting of the Son? No, the Son and the Spirit, like the Father, are coeternal; the Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father equally from all eternity, and moreover jointly, not in such a way that one comes first and the other later; and consequently, if the Son can participate, together with the Father, in the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, then in exactly the same way the Holy Spirit can participate in the begetting of the Son.

[748] See Acta concil. Florent. sess. XXIII, in Vol. XIII of Labbei’s concilia and Vol. IX of Harduini’s concilia.

[749] Finally, Perrone resorts to the Latins’ last refuge in disputes concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit: the authority of Blessed Augustine, who supposedly also understood that the words “who proceeds from the Father” must be understood to include the Son as well (op. cit., p. 429). But—a) who can guarantee to us that the passage cited from Augustine (Contra Maxim. arian. lib. II, cap. 14, n. 1) has not been corrupted, when it is well known that, as we shall see, many other passages of this kind in Augustine’s writings have been deliberately altered? It is enough—b)—to read this passage carefully to doubt its integrity. Here it is: “You ask me whether, if the Son is of the substance of the Father, the Holy Spirit is also of the substance of the Father; why there is one Son, and another is the Son” (note the essence and form of the question). Behold, I answer, whether you understand it or not. The Son is of the Father, the Holy Spirit is of the Father: but the one is begotten, the other proceeds; therefore the Son is the Son of the Father from whom he is begotten; but the Spirit proceeds from both, since He proceeds from both (see how this final thought follows from the established premise, and is it not clearly distorted?). But that is why, when speaking of that Son, He said: “He proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26); for the Father is the author of His procession, who begot such a Son and, in begetting Him, granted that the Holy Spirit might also proceed from Him (consider, then, how all this relates to the question Augustine undertook to answer). For if...., and so on (See Patrolog. Curs., comp. Vol. XLII, Augustinus VIII, p. 770, ed. Paris 1841). Finally, (c) even if the testimony of Blessed Augustine had not been corrupted, what significance does the authority of a single teacher hold compared to the authority of the entire Church? The words from Cyril and Athanasius of Alexandria cited by Perrone do not at all convey the meaning he intends, and moreover, they are quoted in Latin not entirely in accordance with the original.

[750] See Perrone, Op. cit., p. 422, as well as other Western theologians in their treatises on the Holy Spirit.

[751] The ancient teachers of the Church unanimously accepted that the passages in Isaiah cited above speak of the Son’s mission from the Holy Spirit: Origen, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Idatius, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, Eusebius of Emesa, Anastasius of Sinai, and others (for excerpts from all of them, see apud Zoernicaw de process. Sp. S. tract. VIII, resp. 7, ed. Regiom. 1774). The usual objection to this is that in the aforementioned texts, even if the Son is presented as being sent by the Holy Spirit, He is sent not in His divinity but in His humanity, as the Redeemer of the world. But—a) the Son was also sent into the world by the Father not in His divinity, but only as one born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), as the Redeemer of humanity; for in His divinity, together with the Father, He fills all things, has always been in the world, and cannot be sent or move from one place to another. This is precisely how the Son’s mission to the world has been explained from time immemorial: Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Augustine, Nilus the Ascetic, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo, and many others (see excerpts from them in Zernikav’s aforementioned treatise, VIII, response 7, pp. 505–513); b) and the Holy Spirit is sent into the world and is sent forth from the Father and the Son, likewise not in His divinity: for, in His divinity, He is, together with Them, everywhere and always. “When you hear,” notes Chrysostom, “Christ saying, ‘I will send you the Holy Spirit,’ do not understand this in terms of divinity, for God is not sent” (see ibid. in Zernikav, pp. 514–517, as well as other similar patristic sayings). And by the term “sending” of the Holy Spirit into the world from the Father and the Son, we must understand, following the ancient teachers of the Church, only, first, those sensory images in which He visibly descended upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and second—the outpouring of His gifts into the souls of believers and, in general, the manifestation in one place or another of His special grace-filled activity, although, as God, He was present in those places at all times (see the excerpts from the Fathers themselves, ibid., pp. 517–524).

[752] Ambrose: “And the Father sends the Son, and the Spirit; likewise, both the Father and the Son send the Spirit—therefore, if the Son and the Spirit mutually send one another, just as the Father sends, this is not due to subordination, but by common authority” (De Sp. S., Book III, Chapter 1); and elsewhere: “The Son said: ‘He proceeds from the Father,’ referring to the origin of being (propter originem); He said: ‘I will send Him,’ referring to the communion and unity of nature” (Book on the Symbol, Chapter 10; see note 51 below); Jerome: “The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son through the communion of nature...” (Comment. XVI ad Jes. chap. 57); Cyril of Alexandria: “And the Son bestows Him (the Holy Spirit) as His own, by reason of the unity of His essence with the essence of the Father” (in Joann., chap. 10).

[753] Wherever a certain action is attributed to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it refers not only to the Holy Spirit but also to the Father and the Son; nor does it refer only to the Father but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ambrose, *De Spir. S.*, Book 1, Chapter 3. For similar statements by many other Fathers, see Zernikava, Treatise VIII, Q. 5, pp. 486–489.

[754] Nor should we think that the Son was sent by the Father in such a way that He was not sent by the Holy Spirit... nor was He sent by the Father and the Holy Spirit in such a way that He did not send Himself... (Augustine, *Contra Maximinus Arianus*, Book II, Chapter 20, n. 4, in *Patrologia* Curs. Compl. Vol. XLII, p. 790). Nor is the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son simply because, while they give, He is given; for He is given as a gift of God in such a way that He also gives Himself, just as God does. For it cannot be said that He lacks His own power, of whom it is said: “The Spirit blows where He wills” (John 3:8) (Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book XV, Chapter 19, n. 36, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, cited volume, p. 1086). For other similar sayings, see Zernikav, pp. 489–494.

[755] Perrone, *Prael. Theolog.*, vol. II, p. 421, ed. Lausanne; Conf. Feier, *Instit. Theolog.* 1, p. 294, Vienna, 1819.

[756] This is how the entire passage is understood not only by the ancient and renowned teachers of the Church—John Chrysostom (Homily LXXVIII, or LXXVII on John, n. 2, pp. 460–461, in Vol. VIII, ed. Venice, 1741), Eusebius of Caesarea (De Eccles. Theolog. lib. III, chap. 5), Cyril of Alexandria (de Trinit. dialog. VI post. principium), but also by some of the more recent interpreters of Holy Scripture belonging to the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, who, consequently, had no incentive to explain the controversial passage in our favor, such as: Maldonate, Lampe (Comment. Evang. Joann. Vol. III, Amstel. 1726), Nessel (Opusc. fasc. II, p. 53, Hal. 1787), Rosenmüller (Schol. in Evang. Johan. ad cap. XVI, vers. 13–15), Lükke (Lükke, Commentar über die Schr. Johan., Bona 1820), Kuinol (Kuinol, Comment. in Joan., Lips. 1825), and others.

[757] “Here the phrase ‘will receive’ must be understood in a manner befitting the divine nature. Consequently, just as the Son, in imparting, does not lose what He communicates, so too the Spirit does not receive what He did not previously possess” (Didymus of Alexandria, Book II of *De Spiritu*, S., in *Opp. Hieronymi*, vol. VI). “Let no one be misled by the phrase ‘will receive,’ but rather let him ponder it carefully in order to understand it correctly; for in our human language, such expressions are often used when speaking of God, but they should not be understood in that way... We say that the Spirit proceeds in this way from both the Father and the Son, as part of them, not as though He had never possessed the knowledge and power inherent in them. — “For the Spirit is always wise and powerful” (Cyril of Alexandria, Book XI on John, Chapter 2, on the words: “from Me he will receive”). From this it is clear how well-founded is the reasoning of the Papists that, even if the words “he will receive from me” mean “he will receive teaching or knowledge from Me”—and in that case it necessarily follows from them that the Spirit receives from the Son His very essence; for in God, knowledge and essence are inseparable (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 431).

[758] “He said: ‘He will receive what is mine,’ that is, whatever I have spoken, He will also speak. And when He speaks, He will speak nothing of His own, nothing contrary, nothing of His own making, but only what is Mine. Just as, when testifying about Himself, (Christ) noted that He would not speak on His own—that is, I speak nothing except what belongs to the Father, nothing of My own, nothing foreign to Him—so too must we understand this regarding the Spirit. The expression “from what is mine” means “from what I know, from my knowledge”; for there is one knowledge—mine and the Spirit’s… He will receive from what is mine, that is, He will speak in harmony with mine (συνωδά τοΐς έμοΐς). “Everything that the Father has is Mine; and since it is Mine, and the Spirit will speak from those things that are the Father’s, He will therefore speak from what is Mine”... (St. John Chrysostom, loc. cit. in note 756).

[759] Ambrosius, *De Spir. S.*, Book II, Chapter 12: “If you wish to understand why the Son of God, who knows all things and possesses foreknowledge of all future events, has things that you consider unknown to the Son—the Holy Spirit has received these from the Son; and He has received them through substantial unity, just as the Son received them from the Father.” John Chrysostom, Homily on John 78, n. 3: “Whether from my grace—that is, from the grace bestowed upon my flesh—or from the knowledge that I myself possess, He will receive it not as one in need or as one being taught by another, but because We share the very same knowledge... My teaching and His are one, and whatever I have to say to you, He will also say... For the will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one” (pp. 462–463, Vol. VIII, Ven. ed. 1741). Cyril of Alexandria, On the Holy Trinity, Dialogue VI: “When He adds, ‘He will take from what is Mine,’ He clearly indicates the essential and natural union by which the Holy Spirit is one with Him” (Orr., Vol. V, Part 1).

[760] Athanas. contra Macedon. dialog. 1, n. 16. Some, however, attribute both this and another discourse of St. Athanasius against Macedonius to his follower, the blessed Theodoret (Garnerius, in opp. Theodoreti, Vol. V, Haeret. fab. lib. V, c. 3).

[761] Augustine, *Against the Sermons of the Arians*, ch. 23. Augustine also frequently repeats this in other places, for example: “All that the Father has,” he says, “is mine; that is why I said, ‘He will receive from me.’” “What more do you want? Therefore, the Holy Spirit receives from the Father, from whom the Son proceeds: for in this Trinity, the Son was born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but whoever is not born of anyone does not proceed from anyone—the Father alone is” (Tractat. in Joann. C), Or: he explained why he said, “He will receive from me”—for he says, “All that the Father has is mine; that is why I said, ‘He will receive from me’”; it follows, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is also understood to have from the Father, just as the Son does (On the Trinity, Book II, Chapter 3; Conf. contra epistol. Parmeniani, Book II, Chapter 15, and in Joann. tractat. CVII).

[762] He will receive from me and proclaim it to you—that is, from my Father: the Holy Spirit received from the Father, because He proceeds from the Father, from whom the Son was also born (Albinus, Commentary on John, on the words: “He will receive from me”).

[763] Suril. Alex., Book VI, Dialogue on the Trinity, Part 1, in Vol. V of his Works; Nonnus of Panopolis, Paraphrase on John, in the appendix to the Greek Library of Pair.; Vihilius, Dispute with Sabellius, Photinus, and Arius; Apollinaris, in the Greek Patristic Chain on John, Chapter XVI; Zacharias Chrysopolite, Commentary on the Gospel, on the words: “He will receive from Me,” Vol. XII, Part 1, Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. Cologne; Haymo, Summer Homilies for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, p. 127, Cologne 1539.

[764] Dissenting theologians usually point out here that eternity in Sacred Scripture is expressed without distinction by the present, past, and future tenses (Perrone, op. cit., vol. II, p. 431). But this assumption has long been refuted by one of the dissenting writers themselves (Lampe, Comment, in Joann., vol. III, p. 321, Amstel., 1726). Second, it is said that Christ spoke in the future tense because he had in mind primarily (potissimum) the external procession of the Holy Spirit, based on the internal one—that is, the Holy Spirit’s mission into the world, which was yet to take place (Perrone, ibid.). What a pleasant admission! So, is the internal or eternal procession of the Holy Spirit not spoken of directly here, but must one infer it merely because it is presupposed by the external procession, upon which it is based? But we have already seen that the external procession—or the Holy Spirit’s mission into the world from the Son—does not at all presuppose the eternal procession, and that there is a complete distinction between these two processions. Consequently...

[765] “When He said, ‘Everything the Father has is Mine,’ and further, ‘Everything that is Mine is Yours, and everything that is Yours is Mine,’ He revealed their unity” (Ambros. de sacram. incarn. Domin., chap. 8). “Since everything that the Father has belongs, in fact, to Him (the Son), He is rightly honored as consubstantial with the Father. Understanding this, the Fathers confessed at the Council of Nicaea that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and is of His very being” (Athanas. Epist. ad Serapion. II, n. 5. conf. n. 2). “That which He says, ‘All that the Father has is mine,’ He said concerning those things that pertain to the very divinity of the Father, in which He is equal to Him, possessing all that the Father possesses” (Augustine, in John, Tractate CVII). The same is said by Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Divine Names, chap. 2), Tertullian (Against Praxillus, chap. 17), Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, chap. 8), Epiphanius (On Heresies, 67), Chrysostom (Homilies on the Trinity), Jerome (Exposition of the Faith to Cyril), Cyril of Alexandria (Book XII, on John, Chapter 2), and others.

[766] “Everything that the Father has, the Son also has, except for guilt” (Gregory the Theologian, Homily 34, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, p. 190). “We believe that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and shares everything with the Father except for one thing: begetting” (Cyril, Dialogues II to Hermia). “The Son possesses everything that the Father possesses, as one in essence with Him, but differs from the Father’s hypostasis in the manner of His birth and in relation” (John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 7). See also Chrysostom (Homil. de fide), Gregory of Nyssa (De fide ad Simplicium, Vol. II, p. 472, Paris 1615), and others.

[767] What belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, and what belongs to the Son belongs to the Holy Spirit (Chrysostom, Homily on John, LXVIII, or LVII, n. 2, in Vol. VIII, p. 407. Paris, 1741). Whatever the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has; and this communion has never been lacking in the Trinity (Leo the Great, Sermon 1 on Pentecost). Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, and everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Holy Spirit (Jerome, Exposition of the Faith to Cyril). Everything that the Father possesses belongs not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit (Augustine, On the Trinity, Book X, Chapter 4).

[768] “When the Holy Spirit is called sometimes the Spirit of the Son and sometimes the Spirit of the Father—this is not taught in a sense of confusion (ούκ έν συγχύσει), but signifies the indivisibility of the divine essence” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Pentecost, Vol. XII, p. 814, ed. Montfauc. Paris). Indifferently, the same Spirit, by virtue of the communion of nature, is now said to be of the Father, now of the Son (Jerome, in Epist. ad Galat., Book II, Chapter 4). The same is said by Didymus (On the Holy Spirit, Book II, in Opp. Hieronymi, Vol. VI), Cyril of Alexandria (On the Trinity, Book VII), and others.

[769] It is enough for a Christian to believe that the Father, the Son begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father are one and the same Holy Spirit of both the Father and the Son (Augustine, *Enchiridion ad Laurentium*, chap. 9). The testimonies of Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus are even stronger, as we shall see below.

[770] “That the Spirit is from God, the Apostle clearly proclaimed, saying: ‘We have received… the Spirit from God (1 Cor. 2:12), and that the Spirit was revealed through the Son, the Apostle made clear by calling Him the Spirit of the Son” (Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book 5, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, pp. 197–198). “We honor the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God the Father—that is, as proceeding from Him—who is also the Spirit of the Son, because through Him He was revealed and communicated to created beings, and not because He derives His hypostasis or being from the Son” (Damascene, Oration on the Sabbath).

[771] The Spirit of Christ, who is also the Spirit of God the Father, is given to us. For in those in whom there is the unity of a single nature, they are one with one another (Ambrose, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 3). “He is also called the Spirit of Christ, as one united with Him by nature” (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 18, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, p. 301). “He said that when the Spirit of God dwells in us, then Christ Himself dwells in us (Rom. 8:9–10). For the Spirit is not separated from the Son by virtue of the identity of their nature, although He truly possesses His own hypostasis” (Cyril of Alexandria, Book IV on John, ch. 3).

[772] Note that some of the dissenting commentators themselves interpret this passage in agreement with us: Koppe, *N. Test. perpet. annot. illustratum*, vol. 1, p. 104. Göttingen, 1778; Rosenmüller, *Schol. in N. Test.*, vol. IV, p. 441. Nuremberg, 1806.

[773] Chrysostom, Homilies LXXXVI and LXXXV, past the middle; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism XIV and XVII; Athanasius, On the Parables of the Gospel, question 29; Jerome, Epistle to Hebid, question 9; Theophylact, Commentary on John, chapters 3 and 20.

[774] And the Holy Spirit, who has His existence from God and is sent through the Son—that is, to human beings.

[775] And to the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshiped together with the Father and the Son. Epiphanius, *In Anchorato*, no. CXX, Vol. II, p. 122.

[776] That it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Comforter, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, and received from the Son (al. receiving). Epiphanius. Ibid., p. 123.

[777] “Therefore,” Western scholars reply, “the Fathers expressed this in a symbol: ‘proceeding from the Father,’ and did not add ‘and from the Son,’ in order to directly refute the heresy of Macedonius, which claimed that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and also because no one at that time doubted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” (Perrone, op. cit., p. 434). But both reasons are completely unfounded. And, first of all, are the expressions “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” and “the Holy Spirit is created by the Son” identical to one another, rather than mutually exclusive? And would the Fathers, by saying, “No, the Spirit is not a creation of the Son, but eternally proceeds from the Son, just as from the Father,” not have refuted the heretic’s ungodly thought? Did they not already refute this notion when they included in the creed: “We believe… in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life,” and then: “who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son”? Why, then, was there any need to remain silent about the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son as well? And secondly, how is it that no one doubted at that time the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son, when heretics called Him a creation of the Son? Could one possibly say that we do not reject the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father if we were to assert that the Spirit is a creation of the Father? Therefore, in order to refute the heretic who taught that the Spirit was created by the Son—and who thereby obviously undermined the doctrine of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son— — for this purpose, not only should this procession not have been omitted from the creed, but on the contrary, it should have been explicitly stated with the utmost clarity, if such a belief had truly existed in the Church at that time. Western writers themselves are fully aware of the truth of all this and readily admit it, though on a different occasion—namely, when they explain why the addition “Filioque” was introduced into the creed in Spain. Here are the words of one of them: “It is well known that from the sixth century onward, following the conversion of the Goths to the Catholic faith—who had brought with them from the East the heresies of the Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, who regarded the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Father and the Son, created by the Son, and consequently (propterea) rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son— the Spanish churches decreed that the Creed be solemnly recited during the Liturgy with the addition of the Filioque, and in this way the true faith was openly attested” (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 447). How can this be? The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council deliberately did not include the words “Filioque” in the Creed in order to more directly exclude the heretical notion that the Holy Spirit is created by the Son; whereas the Spanish churches, on the contrary, included the “Filioque” in the Creed precisely for that very same purpose! In one instance, to say that no one doubted the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Son, whereas heretics everywhere preached that the Spirit was created by the Son; and in the other, to assert that the heretics, by acknowledging the Spirit as a creation of the Son, thereby obviously rejected His proceeding from the Son: could one fall into more glaring contradictions?

[778] One of the Western writers, Mark Antoshi de Dominis, also acknowledged this: “The Greek copies of the Athanasian Creed that I have seen do not contain the phrase ‘and the Son’; they read only ‘from the Father’ (De Repub. Eccles., Book VII, Chapter 10, Note 124).” However, this symbol appears with the addition in two of the six Greek manuscripts published by Gundling (in a note to the book he published: Eustratius Zialowsky, *Brev. delineat. eccl. Graecæ*, Nuremberg, 1681), and in two of the four published by Monfocone (in Opp. Athanasii, Vol. II, p. 728).

[779] Namely, Jacob of Vitriago, Bishop of Aconium in Syria, who lived as early as the 12th century (Hist. Hierosolym. chap. 74, in Hist. Oriental. Vol. 1, p. 1090, ed. Hannon, 1611), who was already mentioned in the previous note by Gundlingius (Op. cit., p. 83), Vossius (Diss. de tribus symbol., p. 51), and others.

[780] See the relevant passages in Gundlingius and Vossius.

[781] Bingham, *Orig. eccles.*, Book X, Chapter 4, § 18, and *Theolog. Curs. Compl.*, Vol. VI, pp. 423–425, Paris, 1841.

[782] This is what Cardinal Julian and the other Latins with him did at the Council of Florence (Concil. Florent. sess. V, Vol. IX concil. Harduini, p. 66).

[783] *Curs. Theolog. Compl.*, Vol. VIII, pp. 651–652, Paris, 1841. See also Theoph. Procopowicz, *Theol.*, Vol. 1, pp. 1072–1073.

[784] See Gelas. Gizyceni—Commentary on the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, Book II, Chapter 20, in Vol. II of Labbei’s *Concilia*, p. 207.

[786] For example, Sofronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, states, among other things: “Following the five blessed and holy Councils, I acknowledge only one definition of the faith, one doctrine, one creed, which the most holy and blessed Council of 318 holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea under God proclaimed through the Holy Spirit, which the Council of 150 Fathers, inspired by God, in Constantinople elucidated, and the Council of 200 divine Fathers in Ephesus confirmed (έβεβαίωσε)” (Concil. VI act. 12, apud Harduin. Concil. T. III, p. 1285). Emperor Justinian expresses himself in a similar manner in his confession against the Three Chapters (Labb. Concil. Vol. V, p. 702), as does Patriarch John of Constantinople in his appeal to the people, read at the Council of Constantinople in 518 (Binii, Concil., Vol. II, par. I, p. 732). We shall now see that the Ecumenical Councils themselves, beginning with the Council of Ephesus, accepted both the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan creeds as one, and in confirmation of the inviolability of both these creeds as a single entity, they repeated precisely—almost word for word—the words of the Ephesian decree. If, however, despite all this, Western writers insist that the Council of Ephesus affirmed only the Nicene Creed, and not the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 446), then we will point out to them that, without a doubt, the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Ecumenical Councils regarding the inviolability of the public standard of faith carry equal weight—and these decrees indisputably apply to both creeds together, the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan, as one, and that Pope Leo III, in obedience precisely to these decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, under no circumstances agreed to make the addition—the Filioque—to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, despite all the insistence of the Aachen envoys (Smaragdus in Vol. VII of the Councils Labbei, p. 1199). Consequently, if you consider the rule of the Council of Ephesus—which literally refers only to the Nicene Creed—to be non-binding, why then do you not submit to the decrees of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, which literally prohibit any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, just as the venerable Pope himself submitted to them?

[787] That Cyril of Alexandria himself, the president of the Council of Ephesus, and other ancient teachers indeed understood this rule in this way—see, as proof, their clear testimonies in “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” § 143, pp. 565–570, St. Petersburg, 1847.

[788] Binii, *Concil.*, Vol. III, p. 337 ff., ed. Paris, 1636; Labbei, *Concil.*, Vol. IV, p. 567 ff.

[789] In Binium, ibid., pp. 465–472.

[790] Labbei, *Concil.*, vol. V, pp. 455, 544, et al.

[791] Binii, Vol. V, p. 260, and Labbei, Vol. VI, pp. 1024 and 1028.

[792] Book of the Rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers, p. 62, St. Petersburg, 1843.

[793] Labbei, *Concil.*, Vol. VI, p. 856.

[794] Ibid., p. 633. We preserve the faith, as defined by our holy and apostolic predecessors and the five venerable councils, with simplicity of heart and without ambiguity, as handed down by the Fathers, always desiring and striving for the one and foremost good, that nothing of what has been duly defined be diminished, nothing be changed or added, but that they be preserved intact in both word and meaning.

[797] In Theodoret, H. E., Book V, Chapter II. “But Pope Damasus, they say, expressed here that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not at all to exclude His proceeding from the Son, but to profess His divinity with the Father (sed ad profitendam ejusdem cum Patre divinitatem) against the heresy of the Macedonians” (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 434). As if Damasus would not have confessed the divinity of the Holy Spirit together with the Father if he had stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son! And most importantly, as we have already noted, the error of the Macedonians—who asserted that the Spirit is a creation of the Son and consequently rejected His eternal proceeding from the Son—would, on the contrary, have necessarily required the Orthodox to deliberately include the Filioque in the creed, if that were indeed what they believed (see note 777).

[798] In Victor of Utica, Bishop, *Persecution of the Vandals at Utica*, Book II, in Vol. V of the *Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis*, Part III, p. 638, and in *Antidote Against Various Heresies*, ed. Basel, 1528, pp. 221–225.

[799] Labbei, *Concil.*, vol. VI, pp. 241 and 248.

[800] .... nor do we consider him a son, nor did he receive his existence through a son. Labbei, *Concil.*, vol. III, p. 677.

[801] Ephesus. Rule 7 of the Council. In general, it is entirely false when some of the Papists (Thomas Aquinas and others) claim that Nestorius was the first to deny the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Nestorius’s heresy concerned, in fact, the person of the God-Man and, by extension, the person of the Mother of God, and can be summarized as follows: “Jesus Christ, born of the Most Holy Virgin, is a mere man with whom God the Word was united only morally; He is merely the God-bearer, who performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit—not as His own power, but as a power foreign to Him—and consequently, the Most Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ.” This is well known both from the letters of Nestorius himself, appended to the edition of the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, as well as from the fact that at the Council, in refutation of Nestorius’s heresy, a whole series of excerpts from the Word of God and the Holy Fathers of the Church were cited, all of which relate exclusively to the mystery of the Incarnation and the hypostatic union of the two natures in the God-Man (Binii, Concil. Ephes., Vol. I, par. n. Act. 1, p. 193 ff., Col., 1618). As for the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, Nestorius did not address it at all in his false teaching; therefore, neither the Council of Ephesus nor any of the individual teachers who ever wrote against the errors of this heretic charged him with falsely teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

[802] Labbei, *Concil.*, vol. III, p. 677.

[803] καί ίδιον έχων τό εξ αότοϋ καί ούσιωδώς έμπεφοκός αότώ πνεύμα άγιον. Ibid., p. 823.

[805] “Jesus was merely clothed with the glory of the only-begotten Son of God, and performed miracles by the power of God the Spirit, not by His own power, but by a power foreign to Himself” (Epist. Nestorii ad Cyrill., apud Binium, Concil. Ephes., par. I, Colon. 1618). Or, better yet, here are the words of that very anathema of Nestorius, against which the ninth anathema of St. Cyril is directed: “If anyone asserts that the image of the servant (i.e., Jesus Christ) is consubstantial with the Holy Spirit, rather than that He had communion with God the Word only through the mediation of the Holy Spirit—as a result of which He sometimes performed miraculous healings among people and had power over spirits—let him be anathema” (Apud. Labb. Conc. Vol. III, p. 424).

[806] Apud Labb. Concil. Vol. III, p. 824.

[807] .... but if He has existence as from the Son or through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious. Apud Labb. Concil. Vol. III, p. 928.

[808] .... but it is not foreign to the Son.... Ibid., p. 864 and Vol. XIII, in the Acts of the Council of Florence, sess. XXIII.

[809] .... and it is not of a different nature from the Son according to the essence. Opp. Cyrilli. V, part II, p. 108, Paris 1638, and cited in Harduin, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Vol. I, p. 1706, as well as in Labb. Council, Vol. XIII, p. 103.

[810] .... and the Holy Spirit, whose existence is not from the Son or through the Son, but who proceeds from the Father, we call the Son’s own. See in the Acts Council of Florence, in Labb., vol. XIII, p. 366, and Harduin, vol. IX, p. 298. As for the authenticity of this epistle by Theodoret, see Garnerius in the Supplement to the Works of Theodoret, p. 93.

[811] Recognizing the strength of all that has been set forth here, Western writers have long sought to obscure this matter—so unfavorable to them—with a multitude of objections, all of which, however, have been refuted by the defenders of the Orthodox dogma (See Zoernicaw, *De process. Sp. S., tract. 1, pp. 74–81, 89–96, and Th. Procopovics, *Theolog.*, pp. 826–831). Nowadays, they add that Blessed Theodoret by no means rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but attacked St. Cyril only on the grounds of suspecting him of adhering to the heresies of Macedonius and Apollinaris, who taught that the Spirit was supposedly created by the Son or through the Son (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 435). But—a) the words of Theodoret cited in support of this claim state otherwise: Theodoret describes the idea he rejects—that the Holy Spirit has its being from the Son or through the Son—as merely close to the false teaching of Macedonius and merely a perversion of the false teaching of Apollinaris, but by no means identical to them: “iste Apollinaris seminum fructus est, propinquat vero et Macedonii malignae culturae” (apnd Labb. Concil. T. V, p. 506)—which is entirely correct; b) had the blessed Theodoret believed in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, he would not have demanded an explanation of St. Cyril’s ninth anathema: “If (Cyril) calls the Spirit ‘proper to the Son’ in the sense that He is consubstantial with the Son and proceeds from the Father: then we agree with him...; but if—in the sense that the Spirit has His being from the Son or through the Son—then we reject it”..., but he would certainly have said: “If Cyril calls the Spirit ‘proper to the Son’ in the sense that He is consubstantial with the Son and proceeds from the Son, just as from the Father, then....; but if—in the sense that the Spirit is created by the Son or through the Son—then...”; c) Finally, why did St. Cyril, in explaining himself in response to Theodoret’s remarks, never say: “No, I by no means think that the Holy Spirit is created from the Son or through the Son, as Theodoret suspects of me, but I call the Spirit ‘proper to the Son’ precisely because He proceeds from the Son”? This last point in St. Cyril’s explanation would have been extremely important had he adopted it—yet he did not make use of it, saying only: “I call the Spirit proper to the Son because, although He proceeds from the Father, He is not foreign to the Son in terms of essence.”

[812] .... proceeds from Him, just as it proceeds from God the Father. Labbei, *Concil.*, Vol. III, p. 406.

[813] He (the Holy Spirit) poured out abundantly upon us through Jesus Christ.... Consequently, in the aforementioned conciliar epistle to Nestorius, the verb used to denote the outpouring of the Holy Spirit from the Son (προ-χέω) is almost identical to that used by the Apostle (έκ-χέω), or derives entirely from the same root.

[814] Thus, the creed of the Council of Toledo in 638 states, among other things: “We believe in the Father, begotten, uncreated, the source and origin of all Divinity” (Harduini, *Concil.*, vol. III, p. 602, and Labbei, vol. V, p. 1741); and in the creed of the Council of Toledo in 675, it is stated even more strongly: “We confess the Father as non genitum, non creatum, but ingenitum: He Himself derives His origin from no one, from whom the Son received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession.” He is therefore the very source and origin of the entire Divinity (Ibid., Hardvini, p. 1018, and Labb., Vol. VI, p. 541).

[815] See Zoemicaw., *De process. Spir. S.*, tract. III, pp. 288–289.

[818] Aimonius, *De gest. Francorum*, Book IV, Chapter 97: “The Emperor of Ardennes, having returned to Aachen in the month of November, convened a council on the procession of the Holy Spirit, a question first raised by a certain monk named John in Jerusalem” (p. 232, Paris 1602); Ado, in his Chronicle for the year 809: “At this synod, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was discussed—namely, whether He proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. This question had been raised by a monk named John of Jerusalem.” This is also repeated almost verbatim by the compiler of the Frankish chronicles from 741 to 814 (p. 46, Vol. II of *Hist. Francor. Script.*, Paris 1636), the biographer of Charlemagne (ibid., p. 64), another such biographer (ibid., p. 84), Ehingard (ibid., p. 225), the Fulda chronicles (ibid., p. 541), the author of the Frankish chronicles from 741 to 882 (ibid., Vol. III, p. 169), and others.

[819] This can be inferred: a) from the words of the aforementioned Aimonius, who states that, although much was discussed at the council, “nec aliquid tamen definitum est, propter rerum, ut videbatur, magnitudinem” (Aimonius, loc. cit.), and—b) in part from the words of the Augien monk Germanus in his chronicle under the year 809: “the question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, discussed at the council, is addressed” (in Vol. XI of the Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensium, p. 295).

[820] Labbei, *Concil.*, vol. VII, p. 1199.

[821] This can easily be verified by reading the speech itself and comparing the evidence cited therein with the sources. See Labb. Concil. VII, p. 1199 et seq.; cf. Zoernicaw. de process. Spir. S. pp. 304–308 and 373 et seq., ed. cit.

[823] At the conclusion of his conversation with the ambassadors, Leo III is said to have remarked: “sic fiat..., ut quod jam nunc a quibusque prius nescientibus recte creditur, credatur.” Labbei, Vol. VII, pp. 194–198.

[824] This is what I believe and hold, in accordance with these authors and the authorities of Sacred Scripture. Ibid.

[825] Whoever is able to grasp this in a more subtle sense, and to know it—or, knowing it, refuses to believe it—cannot be saved. For there are many—of which this is but one—higher mysteries of the sacred faith, which many are capable of investigating, while many others… are not. And therefore, as we have said, whoever has come to understand this and refuses to believe it cannot be saved. And further: it is certainly a good thing, indeed a very great good—as a great sacrament of the faith that one must not fail to believe—for whoever is capable of grasping it. Ibid.

[826] ...they were enlightened not so much by human as by divine wisdom...; I dare not say that this meant they understood it any less than we do. Ibid. For objections regarding the entire case presented here and their refutations, see Zernikav, pp. 393–398.

[827] It is known, for example, that Adam Zoernicaw, in his famous work, cited nearly a thousand such testimonies from 57 Eastern writers of the first ten centuries and 45 Western writers of the first eight centuries, although even he did not exhaust the subject, since he did not make use of certain ancient writings, especially those published after his death. V. Zoernicaw, *De process. Spir. S.*, Tract. I, IV, V, VIII–XIII.

[829] Sermon 39—on the holy days of the Lord’s manifestations, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 262.

[830] Homil. in Psalm. CXV, Vol. I, p. 977, Paris, 1588.

[831] Sermo de confess, et sui ipsius reprehens. Vol. III, p. 104. Rome, 1589.

[832] Haeres. LXXIV, Opp. Eriphan. Vol. 1, pp. 900–901, ed. 1822. “The Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same divinity... The Son, however, is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.”

[833] On the Holy Trinity, ch. 19, in Chr. Cht. 1847, III, p. 39.

[834] On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 3, n. 44, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XVI, p. 715, Paris, 1845.

[835] De Trinit., Book VIII, n. 19, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. X, p. 250, ed. cit.

[836] *Contra Sermon. Arian.*, chaps. 21 and 29, in *Patrolog. curs. compl.*, vol. XLI, pp. 698 and 703.

[837] On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 10, in *Bibl. Patrum*, Vol. IX, p. 188, ed. de la Bigne, Paris, 1644.

[838] Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt—Summer Homilies for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, p. 125, ed. Cologne, 1535.

[839] Rabanus Maurus—Homily 105, in *Opp.*, vol. V, p. 653, ed. Cologne, 1626. And elsewhere: “The Father is the source of Divinity, for just as the Son is begotten of the Father, so too does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father” (in Ecclesiasticus, Book VI, Chapter 2, Vol. III, p. 456).

[841] ... that which proceeds from the Father and is of the same essence as the Son is given by Him... (Ad Serapion, Epistle 1, n. 2, p. 649, Opp. Vol. 1, ed. Paris, 1698). And in what sense the Holy Spirit is called consubstantial with the Son is explained by St. Athanasius further on in the same epistle (n. 25, p. 673), saying: “If the Son, as one who proceeds from God (the Father), is consubstantial with His essence (ίδιος τής ούσίας αύτοΰ έστι); then it is necessary that the Holy Spirit, who is also from God, is consubstantial with the Son (ίδιον κατ' ούσιαν τού Υιού).”

[842] ... and he made it clear that it proceeds from the Son, calling it the Spirit of the Son... (Contra Eunom. lib. V, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 305, Paris, 1721; in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, pp. 197–198).

[843] ... but the Spirit of Christ is also said to be conformed to His own nature (De Spir. S. chap. 18, in Opp. Vol. III, pp. 38–39, ed. cit.; in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, p. 301).

[844] ... but while it shines through this, it derives the cause of its existence from the original light (Contra Eimom. Book 1, in Opp. Vol. II, p. 396, ed. Morel, Paris, 1638).

[845] ... but it proceeds from the God of all, and it too has its cause in being; hence it is the only-begotten light, shining forth from the true light... (Contra Eunom. Book 1, p. 364, Vol. II, ed. cit.).

[846] ... the life-giving Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is bestowed upon creation through the Son (Contra Julian, Book IV, toward the end, in Opp. Cyrill., Vol. VI, p. 147, Paris, 1638).

[847] ... the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, has the Father as its source, but comes to creation through the Son for the benefit of those who receive it (Orat. V, in Photios—Biblioth. cod. 230, p. 866, ed. Aurel. Allobrog. 1611).

[848] ... and the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, is disseminated through the Son and made manifest (Theoria rerum sacr., in Vol. II, Patr. Graecor., ed. Paris, 1624, p. 155). Regarding the authenticity of this work, see Zernikava on the Holy Spirit, as edited by Evgeny Bulgar, in Greek, Vol. I, p. 141, note 22.

[849] For the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, but is sent by the Father through the Son (De Trinit. lib. VIII, n. 20, in Patrolog. curs. compl. X, p. 251, Paris, 1845).

[850] Ergo et a Patre procedit Spiritus S., et testificatur de Filio (De Spir. S. lib. I, cap. 1, n. 25, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XVI, p. 710).

[851] This is how the passage reads in the Roman edition of St. Ambrose’s works (Vol. IV, p. 94); whereas in the more recent Paris edition, it reads somewhat differently, namely: “The Son says: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26); “tamen propter societatem unitatemque naturae a Filio mittitur” (De Trinitate, or in Symbol. Apostol. chap. X, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XVII, p. 520, ed. cit.). Roman publishers recognized this work as an authentic composition by St. Ambrose; more recent scholars disagree with them, but date it to the sixth century (ibid., p. 507). Cf. note 752.

[852] … who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son because of the unity of nature… (Commentary on Isaiah, Book XVI, Chapter 57, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XXIV, p. 558).

[853] ... and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the same Father, yet one and the same Spirit of both the Father and the Son (Enchirid. ad Laurent., chap. 9, in the cited Patrolog., vol. VI, p. 236).

[854] ... who, proceeding from the Father from all eternity, is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son (Epistle to King Gildebert, in Harduin, *Concilia*, vol. III, p. 332, and in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. L–XIX, p. 409; cf. Garner’s dissertation V in *Auctarium Theodoreti*, p. 539).

[855] ... proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son... (Dialogues II, last chapter, according to the Greek version; see Theoph. Procopowicz, Theolog., vol. I, p. 1010).

[856] "The sole source of the transcendent divinity... is that the Father is the source of divinity..." (De divin. nomin., chap. 2, nos. 5 and 7, in Opp., vol. I, pp. 495 and 498, Antwerp, 1634). However one may view the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, one must nevertheless agree that they belong to the early centuries of Christianity.

[857] ... the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be understood as proceeding from the one source of the Father’s Divinity (Book IV of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on Chapter 5, toward the middle. See the edition of Origen’s Works, Rome, 1759).

[858] ... from that same source from which the Son was born or the Holy Spirit proceeded (De princip., Book I, Chapter 2, toward the end). It would be superfluous to explain why Origen’s words from the aforementioned works are quoted in Latin rather than in Greek.

[859] ... one of the Trinity or the Godhead, known through the Father alone (Ad Serapion, Epistle III, n. 6, p. 695, in Opp., Vol. I, Paris 1698). St. Athanasius repeats the same idea in other places as well, for example: “The Father, as the beginning and source...” (ibid., Ad Serapion, Epistle 1, n. 28, p. 677), and even more emphatically: “a single beginning of the Godhead, not two beginnings (ού δύω άρχαί)—which is precisely why there is a single-headed rule (μοναρχία). From this very beginning, by nature, the Son is the Word, and not another beginning existing in and of itself..., so that there might be no duality or multiplicity of beginnings... There is one principle—therefore (κατά τοΰτο) there is one God” (ibid., Orat. IV contra Arian., n. 1, p. 617; cf. p. 619).

[860] “The Father, indeed, is perfect in His being and self-sufficient, the root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Homily against Sabellius, Arium et Anom. n. 4, p. 193, Opp. Vol. II, Paris 1722; in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, pp. 383–384).

[861] ... but above all, the Son is from God and the Spirit is from God... (ibid., no. 7, p. 196; in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, p. 389). St. Basil says something similar in the following passage: “We do not call the Holy Spirit either ‘unbegotten’—for we know of only one Unbegotten and one source of all that exists, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—nor ‘begotten’—for from the tradition of the faith we know of only one Only-Begotten; but concerning the Spirit of truth, having been taught that He proceeds from the Father, we confess that He is uncreated by God” (Catalog of Confessions of Faith..., in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” X, p. 274).

[862] ... and concerning the union with Him from Himself (Third Discourse on Theology, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, p. 53). And further: “If the Son and the Spirit are coeternal with the Father, why then are They not co-eternal? Because They are from the Father, though not after the Father... The Son and the Spirit are not co-eternal with respect to the Originator” (p. 55).

[863] ...and it refers to Him as the source from which all things proceed... (Fifth Homily on Theology, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, pp. 115–116). The following passage is similar: “The Father would be the beginning of something low and unworthy, or, to put it more accurately, a beginning in a low and unworthy sense, if He were not the beginning of the Godhead and of the goodness contemplated in the Son and the Holy Spirit—in the former as in the Son and the Word, and in the latter as in the proceeding and indivisible Spirit” (Homily 3, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, I, 39); and further: “Teach us not to make the Father subordinate (lest we introduce something that is more primordial than the primordial, and thereby distort the being of the primordial), nor to make the Son or the Holy Spirit without a beginning (lest we deprive the Father of what is proper to Him). For They are not without beginning, and yet, in a certain respect (which is the difficulty), They are without beginning. They are not without beginning in relation to the Cause; for just as light comes from the sun, so do They come from God, though not after Him. But They are without beginning in relation to time” (Homily 25 in Praise of Heron, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” II, p. 286).

[864] ... “The Father is the Union, from whom and to whom the following are traced” (Address to the Bishops Assembled at the Second Ecumenical Council, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, p. 38). Cf. II, p. 168: “One must not diminish the dignity of the Father—to be the source of what belongs to Him as Father and Begetter. For He would be the source of something lowly and unworthy if He were not the cause of the Divinity contemplated in the Son and the Spirit. — None of this is necessary when it is required both to preserve faith in one God and to confess the three Hypostases, or three Persons, each with His own distinct attributes. In my view, faith in the one God is preserved when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the one Cause, but do not combine or confuse Them with Him” (Sermon on the Ordination of Bishops and on the Dogma of the Holy Trinity).

[865] ... from which it follows that what is equal to equals is equal, and that which is... (Sermon on Holy Baptism, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, p. 317). Cf. II, pp. 220–221: “I ask you, lover of the unborn and the beginningless: Who blasphemes God more—the one who honors Him as the Father of such a Son and such a Spirit as you acknowledge Them to be, or the one who confesses Him as the Father not of such a Son and not of such a Spirit, but of those who are like Him in nature and equal to Him in glory, as our doctrine confesses Them to be?... Is there truly anything for God greater than the honor of being the Father of the Son—which serves to increase, not diminish, His glory—just as He is the Source of the Spirit? Do you not know that, by recognizing the Source (I mean the Source of the Son and the Spirit) as the source of created beings, you fail to honor the Source itself and dishonor those who proceed from the Source? You fail to honor the Source because you regard It as the source of something that is small and unworthy of the Godhead. You also dishonor those who proceed from the Beginning, because you make Them small—not merely creatures, but even something less honorable than creatures themselves... But I, by positing the Beginning of the Godhead as timeless, ever-present, and boundless, honor both the Beginning and those who proceed from the Beginning, — the former, because It is the Beginning of such Proceeds, and the latter, because They proceed from the Beginning as such and in this way; They are not separate from It—neither in time, nor in nature, nor in the worship due to Them—but are one with It” (A Sermon on the World, delivered at a gathering of the like-minded).

[866] For it is the duty of the One to bear the bond that unites the Trinity, and from the Father... (Ancorat. no. IV, p. 9, in Opp. Vol. II, ed. Petavii, Paris, 1622; cf. Haeres. 74, in Vol. I, p. 901).

[867] ... the Father is the begetter of the Son, but the natural source of the Spirit (Dialog. 1 post initum, in Vol. I of Patr. Graec., pp. 549–550).

[868] ... “He pointed to the Father as the source of the Spirit” (Epitom. divin. decret., chap. 3, in Hrist. Cht., 1844, IV, p. 190).

[869] ... they are said to proceed from the Father... (De fide orthod., Book I, in Vol. VI of the Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis, p. 693). Fabricus, however, attributes this work not to Anastasius of Sinai, but to another Anastasius, the Bishop of Antioch, who died in 599 (Bibl. Graec. lib. V, chap. 35, vol. IX, pp. 312 and 332).

[870] ... that He alone is the beginning (De fide orthod., Book I, ibid., p. 694).

[871] De Trinit. dialog. III, p. 437, in Opp. T. I, ed. Paris, 1675. See also note 701 above.

[872] .... and just as the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, so everything that the Son has, the Spirit also has from the Father, and this is what it is... (De fide orthod. lib. 1, cap. 8, pp. 136–140, in Opp. Vol. I, ed. Paris, 1712; in the Russian translation, pp. 22–23, 25–26, 29, and 30, ed. Moscow, 1844).

[873] .... The Son and the Holy Spirit, however, proceed from the Father in a proper sense (Haeresis 51, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. XII, p. 1168).

[874] The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom the Son also proceeds... (Tract. C on John, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XXXV, p. 1893).

[875] .... The Father is the principle of the entire Divinity, or, to put it more accurately, of the deity (On the Trinity, Book IV, Chapter 20, n. 29).

[876] Against Maximinus, Book II, Chapter XIV, n. 1:... but from that from whom He proceeds.

[877] ... abiding in one Head and flowing from the one source of the Father, yet the Son by being born, the Spirit by proceeding... (Epist. III ad Amandum, in Opp. Paulini, Vol. I, p. 113, ed. Paris, 1685, and in Max. Biblioth. Patr., Vol. VI, ed. Lyon).

[878] ... Just as the Son proceeded from the Father, so too the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father... (Exposit. symb., in Vol. V, Part 1 of the Bibl. Patr. Coloniens., p. 40).

[879] That which pertains to Him—that is, what He Himself is—is nothing other than the Son and the Holy Spirit (Epistle XV to Turribius, Chapter V, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. LIV, p. 682).

[880] ... and the Holy Spirit is equal to Him from whom He proceeds (Lib. sentent. ex Augustine, sent. 370, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. LI, p. 488).

[881] ... but we acknowledge the Son and the Holy Spirit as the author from whom He has... and the Holy Spirit as the origin of the eternal procession (Contra Fabian, Book VIII, in Biblioth. Pair. Coloniens., Vol. VI, Part 1, p. 191).

[882] We acknowledge the Father as the one and only beginning of all things, and indeed of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as their begetter and as the eternal source (Hecatontade IV, nos. 92 and 99, in Bibl. Patr. Graec. Vol. II, pp. 1199 and 1200).

[883] .... the Son’s existence is established... while the Father’s existence is derived from the cause of the Father, from which He also proceeds (Epist. 38 to Brother Gregory, n. 4, p. 117, in Opp., Vol. III, p. 117, Paris. 1730; in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” X, p. 96).

[884] ... but I understand the relationship to the Father because it proceeds from the Father, and the relationship to the Son because I hear... (Homily against Sabellius..., Ar. et Anom. n. 6, in Opp. Vol. II, p. 194, ed. cit., in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, pp. 385–386).

[885] For it is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that they are uncreated, while divinity belongs to the Son and the Holy Spirit—that which is from the Father being their own... (Orat. in landem Heronis n. 32 in Opp. Vol. I, p. 422, Paris, 1630, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” II, 288).

[886] "Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except for the cause..." (ibid., Orat. in Aegypt. adventum, n. 15, p. 429, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 190). Thus, according to St. Gregory, the Son cannot in any sense be recognized as the cause or source of the Holy Spirit: this belongs exclusively to the Father alone.

[888] ... the uncreated relationship with the Son and the fact that He has the cause of His existence from God, the Creator of all things... (Contra Eunom. lib. I, pp. 342–343, in Opp. Vol. II, Paris, 1638).

[889] ... because He alone is begotten of the One, and the Holy Spirit alone (Ancorat. no. II, p. 7, in Opp. Vol. II, ed. Petavii).

[890] ... and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from Him (against Chapter VIII of Aetius, ibid. Vol. I, p. 944; cf. against Chapter XIV, n. 2, p. 954, against Chapter XXII, p. 967, against Chapter XXII, p. 974).

[891] ... “he is one with the Son, even though he proceeds from God the Father.” This is how these words of St. Cyril are rendered—in the Catena Graecorum Patrum, published in Latin by Corderio, Antwerp, 1628, p. 324.

[892] See notes 807 and 810 above. Western writers unanimously agree that Blessed Theodoret recognized the Holy Spirit as proceeding solely from the Father, often even calling him the first proponent of this doctrine (See Garner, in Auctario Theodoreti, p. 194, ed. Paris, 1684; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. V, vol. VII, chap. 2, p. 441).

[893] ... and to that, from which, and to those from it... for since it is from the same source—whether in the same way or not—we should not marvel at this, when he refers to the proceeding of each from the Father (De fide orthod. lib. I, in T.VI Bibl. Patr. Coloniens. p. 693; cf. note 869).

[894] ... and the sole source of eternal life, that is, the Holy Spirit (Capit. Theolog. centur. 1, chap. 4, in Opp. Maximi, vol. I, ed. Paris, 1675).

[895] ... and we do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (De fide orthod., Book 1, Chapter 8, p. 141, in Opp., Vol. I, Paris, 1721; Russian translation, 1844, p. 31).

[896] ... and the Spirit is the Son’s, not as proceeding from Him, but through Him from the Father... (ibid., chap. 12, p. 148; in the Russian translation, pp. 41–42). This passage, however, is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of St. John of Damascus’s *Theology*, but appears only in some later ones (See ibid., p. 146).

[897] ... from the Father, yes, and from the Son, but not from the Son (Epist. de hymno trisagio, n. 28, p. 497 in Vol. I, ed. cit.).

[898] ... which is also said of the Son, as that which is revealed through him and communicated to creation, yet does not derive its existence from him (Homily on the Holy Sabbath, n. 4, p. 817, in Vol. II, ed. cit.).

[899] ... Similarly, the Holy Spirit, whole from the whole, does not precede the One from whom He proceeds, but is as great as He is from Him; nor does He diminish Him by proceeding, nor does He increase Him by remaining (Epist. 170, al. 66, n. 5, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XXXIII, p. 750).

[900] ... since both proceed from the Father—the One is begotten, the other proceeds—it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between these two in the sublimity of His nature (Contra Serm. Arian., chap. 23, n. 19, in Patrolog. curs. comp., vol. XLII, Augustinus VIII, p. 700). Cf. note 761.

[901] ... it remains to be understood that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father, just as the Son does... Since the Son is from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why are they not both called “sons,” why are they not both “begotten”... (De Trinit., Book II, Chapter 3, in the same Patrolog. vol., p. 848).

[902] ... not from nothing, nor from anything else, but the Son begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Father... (Disput. cum Arrio, Book 1, n. 5, in Opp. Athanasii, Vol. II, p. 644, ed. Paris, 1698).

[903] ... proceeding entirely from the Father, existing entirely in both (Respons. ad object. Arian., in Opp. Fulgentii, ed. Venice 1742, p. 32).

[904] ... Some of the ancients, however, added this to the attributes, stating that just as the Spirit, together with the Father, did not eternally beget the Son, so too the Spirit did not proceed from the Son as He proceeds from the Father (Contra Acephal., disput. in Patrolog. curs. compl., vol. LXVII, p. 1237). “But I,” Rusticus continues immediately afterward, “confess that the Spirit did not eternally beget the Son (for I do not admit two Fathers); and whether He proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father, I do not yet consider sufficiently settled (nondum perfecte habeo satisfactum).”.. If even one of the most learned cardinal deacons of the Roman Church in the sixth century did not recognize the procession of the Holy Spirit as an indisputable truth, is it not evident that even in the West at that time this teaching was not considered a dogma of the faith? How, then, can it be claimed that the Church has believed this from time immemorial?... That Rusticus doubted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and acknowledged the procession from the Father alone—this is acknowledged even by Western writers (See Petavius, *De Trinitate*, Book VII, Chapter 8; cf. Zoernicaw, *De Processione Spiritus Sancti*, Treatise IV, pp. 355–357).

[905] ... and when we speak of the Holy Spirit, we show that He proceeds from the eternal Person of the Father (Apud Labbeum, Concil., vol. VI, p. 604). If, however, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Person or Hypostasis of the eternal Father, and the Hypostasis of the Father is entirely distinct and separate from the Hypostasis of the Son, even though They are one in essence; then this means that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son: otherwise, the Hypostases of the Father and the Son would merge.

[906] He proceeds, as is evident from the very wording, in the sense of a temporal proceeding to creatures or a sending into the world, and does not proceed in the sense of an eternal proceeding from the Father, who alone is the cause or source of the Holy Spirit (see the original words of Anastasius Bibliothecarius above in note 702).

[907] Perrone—Praelect. Theolog. vol. II, p. 473, ed. cit. The same is true of other Western theologians.

[908] Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, loc. cit.

[910] This speech of the envoys is found in Lyabbeus—Concil., vol. VII, p. 1199 et seq. Later, the same words are cited under the name of Jerome by Hugo Eterian (lib. III, cap. 17, in vol. XII of the Bibl. Part. Coloniens. Part. II, p. 412) and Caleca (lib. II, p. 288, Vol. XIV of the cited Bibliotheca) under the name of Jerome.

[911] Peter Damian—*Tract. de process. Spirit. S.*, chap. 5, in *Opp.*, vol. III, p. 288.

[912] Collat. XIII Synodi Florent., in Labb. Concil., vol. XIII, p. 1108.

[913] This confession is found in Theodoret—N. E., Book V, Chapter II, and in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XIII, pp. 358–364.

[915] These passages are cited by Theophan Prokopovich—in *Theolog.*, vol. 1, pp. 1081–1083. And indeed, other learned men have proven that Thomas Aquinas did take the liberty of citing the testimonies of the Fathers in a completely false manner, especially in the aforementioned work against the Greeks (See Casim. Oudini—Dissert. de scriptis Thorn. Aquin., chap. 21).

[916] Thomas Aquinas, *Opusc. contra Graecos*, chap. 32; Bellarmine, *De Christo*, book II, chap. 28; Vázquez, *Disput. 146 in primam partem Thomae*, chap. 5.

[917] For example: Franciscus Junius, in the preface to the Index Expurgatorum Belgicum, Heidelberg, 1584; Daniel Francus—in Disquisitio Academica de papistarum indicibus librorum prohibit, et expurg... Leipzig, 1684 (a particularly remarkable work); Caspar Loescherus in *Dissert. de latrociniis, quac in scriptores public., patres praecipue, solent committere* (Vittemburg, 1674); Guil. Caveus in the prolegomena to the *hist. litt. Scriptor. eccles.*, Vol. I, p. 21 et seq.

[918] Adam Zernikau—*De Process. Spir. S.*, Tracts II and III, *De corruptelis in scriptis Patrum*, pp. 198–309, and Theophan Prokopovich in *Theolog.*, pp. 1071–1147: *Loca Patrum corrupta*.

[919] Such alterations could easily have occurred even before the publication of the Patristic works, from the very moment that heated disputes over the procession of the Holy Spirit began, and especially during the publication process, which was generally overseen by Western scholars. See the testimony of Daniel Frank in his aforementioned treatise—*De papistarum indicibus*, chap. 10, p. 145.

[920] Specifically—in the Basel edition of 1564, p. 233; the Paris edition of 1581, p. 155; and another Paris edition of 1608, p. 118.

[921] Bellarmin, *De Christo*, Book II, Chapter 25: “Do you see here, most clearly, three things: the sun, the splendor, and the light proceeding from both? Nor do I think there can be any doubt that Athanasius understood the Father to be the sun, the Son to be the splendor, and the Holy Spirit to be the light. What, I ask, can be said in response to this?”

[922] ... and from the sun, from the radiance, light... See ed. Opp. Athanasii, Heidelberg, 1601, p. 262; Paris, 1627, p. 467; and Paris, 1698, vol. 1, p. 564.

[923] *Qpuscul. contra Graecos*, chap. 32, in *Opp. Aquinatis*, vol. XIX, p. 21, ed. Venice, 1754.

[924] Just as the son, whenever he performed deeds, would say that his father was at work, so too, whenever Paul worked by the power of the Spirit, he would say that the works were Christ’s. Epist. ad Serapion. 1, n. 19, in Opp. Athan. Vol. 1, p. 668. Paris, 1698.

[925] Petrus Lombardus—Senient., Book III, Distinction 4; Hugo Etherianus, Book III, Chapter 17, in Bibl. Patr. Coloniens., Vol. XII, Part II, p. 412; Calecas, Book II, p. 288, in the same Bibl., Vol. XIV.

[926] ... just as the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, of whom the Son says: “He will glorify me...” (Ambrose, *De Spir. S.*, Book II, Chapter 5, Note 42, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. XVI, p. 751).

[927] Beccus, in *Congerie Sentent. de proces. Spir. S.*, ed. Rome, 1630, p. 141; Calecas, Book II, in Vol. XIV of the *Bibl. Patr. Coloniens.*, p. 275.

[928] Petavius, *De Trinitate*, Book VII, Chapter 3, n. 14.

[929] See, for example, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XXX, *Hieronymi XI*, p. 179. The editors, however, acknowledge that this work by Blessed Jerome is a forgery.

[930] Petrus Damiani—Tract. de Spir. S., chap. 2, in Opp., vol. III, p. 287. Paris, 1642; Petrus Abailardus—Introduct. in Theolog., Book II, chap. 14.

[931] Why did Jerome say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father proper, but added the Son? (Sententiae, Book 1, Distinction 12).

[932] Lombard, *Sententiae*, Book 1, Distinction 18.

[933] De Trinit. Book V, Chapter II, n. 12, in *Patrolog. curs. compl.* Vol. XLII, *Augustini* VIII, p. 919. In general, Adam Zernyakav and Theophan Prokopovich identify up to ten corrupted passages in the works of Blessed Augustine (See the corruptions noted by both authors in the writings PP. Occident. XIII–XXII).

[934] Opp. Damasceni, ed. Cologne 1546, p. 319, and Basel 1559, p. 607. Conf. Possevini—Apparatus Sacri, vol. II.

[936] Bellarmin, *Lib. de Scriptor. eccles.*; Leo Allatius, *De consensu Eccles. Orient. et Occid.*, chap. 2, n. 8.

[937] See Canisius—Antiqu. lection., Vol. V, Part 1, p. 184, Ingolstadt, 1604. The alteration, as Canisius attests, was already present in the manuscript he used for his edition. Subsequently, the aforementioned letter of Photius was published without the Filioque (e.g., in Montacuti’s edition of Epistolarum Photii, London, 1651).

[938] Perrone, repeating this after Lökken, points to the epistle of St. Maximus the Confessor to Marinus, a presbyter of Cyprus, which is already known to us (Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, vol. 1, pp. 418 and 422, ed. cit.); but St. Maximus does not at all call the Greeks Monophysites here, but says that, in general, the inhabitants of the royal city (οί τής Βασιλίδος) reproached the Latins for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son (see note 701 above. Conf. Labbei, Concil., Vol. V, p. 1772, and Vol. XIII, p. 376). Why, then, add of one’s own accord that these were Monophysite heretics, merely to reproach us—the Orthodox—as if we believed in accordance with heretics? A futile effort! If the Monothelites indeed believed this and it was a heretical belief, whereas the entire Church of Christ in the East and West believed in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, why, we ask, were the Monophysites not condemned for this by either the Ecumenical Council (the Sixth), which examined and condemned all their false teachings, or by other councils and individual teachers who dealt with the same issue?... And why did the Monophysites of Constantinople take it upon themselves to reproach specifically Western Christians for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, rather than their own Eastern counterparts?... Were they all Monophysites here as well?!

[939] Perrone repeats these words after Loken (loco citat.) and cites the testimony of the chronicler Ado as evidence: “A synod was now convened, and the question was debated between the Greeks and the Romans concerning the Trinity, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father, and concerning the images of the saints.” But where exactly are the Greeks called iconoclasts here? Does it follow from this that it was specifically the Greeks at the Gallic council who rejected the veneration of icons, whereas Loken, to whom Perrone refers, himself admits that the Gauls themselves were not inclined toward icon veneration at that time (Dissert. Damascen. 1, n. 12)? Why, then, we ask, are the Greeks—who rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son—called iconoclast heretics in this instance without any reason? And if, indeed, this rejection constitutes heresy, why did the Ecumenical Council (the Seventh) and others who condemned the iconoclasts not hold this against them as well?

[940] See notes 814–826 above and the text to which they refer.

[941] Op. cit., p. 423. Perrone quotes the words from Hormizd’s letter based on the text printed in Collect. Concil. Labbei, Vol. IV, p. 1553.

[942] Mansi—in *Collect. Conciliorum amplissima*, vol. VIII, p. 521, under the text: “The original manuscript rendered this text as follows: ‘It is also known that it is proper to the Holy Spirit.’ “But it is proper to the Son of God, as according to that, etc.” An ancient and nearly identical manuscript corrects this reading as follows: “It is also known that it is the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son!”...

[943] Zoernicaw—On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 288, corruption XXIX in the writings of the Western Fathers.

[944] Perrone, Op. cit., p. 426. This passage is also printed in this manner in the latest edition of Didimov’s work, in *Patrolog. curs. compl.*, vol. XXIII, p. 133.

[945] Ratramnus—*Opusculum contra Graecos*, Book II, Chapter 5, in Dacherii *Specilegium veterorum Scriptorum*, Vol. 1, p. 78, ed. Paris, 1723. Here, the passage in question reads as follows: “The Savior says: ‘For He does not speak on His own, that is, without Me and without My Father’s will, since He is inseparable from My will and the Father’s will: for I, the Truth, speak of Him who subsists and speaks, since He is the Spirit of Truth.’”

[946] See Zoernicaw, *De Process. Spir. S.*, p. 213, and Theophan Procopowicz, *Theolog.*, vol. 1, pp. 1085–1086.

[948] All of this is presented in great detail and with thoroughness by Zoernicaw. See Tract. II, corruptel. XII in Script. PP. Orient., especially in the Greek edition by Eugene Bulgar, pp. 233–261.

[949] Specifically in the following editions: Venice, 1535, p. 87; Basel, 1551, p. 676; 1565, Vol. I, p. 139; 1566, p. 339; Paris, 1618, Vol. II, p. 78; 1566, p. 280; and finally in the Benedictine editions of Paris, 1730 and 1839.

[950] Here are their exact words: “eaque (the disputed words) hodie etiani in editis et in septem MSS. desnnt... Consentit cum libro Latinorum (regarding the particle — ίσως) onus tantum regius; consentiunt vero cum libro Graecorum tum editi, tum reliqui sex MSS., in quibus omnibus haec vox ίσως invenitur.”

[951] According to Matthew’s catalog, under No. XXIII.

[952] Both of these points are attested by Nil Kavasila (See Allatius’s *De Nilis*: *peri tou agiou pneumaos logos Latinon*, and cf. Fabricius’s *Biblioth. Graec.*, old ed., at the end of Vol. V, p. 65).

[953] See the testimony of this by Vissarion of Nicaea—apud Allatius, *De concens. Eccles. orient., et occid.*, p. 654, and Etherianus’s work itself in *Max. Biblioth. Patrum*, vol. XXII.

[954] ... the source of the Holy Spirit. See Heinrich Klée—*Kathol. Dogmatik*, Vol. II, p. 185, Mainz, 1835, and Penone—op. cit., p. 425.

[955] Athanasius—*De Incarnatione* and *Contra Arianus*, n. 9, in *Opp.*, Vol. 1, p. 877, Paris, 1698, as well as *De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto*, n. 19, ibid., pp. 978–979.

[956] Perrone — Op. cit., p. 425.

[957] De Spirit. S., chap. 17, n. 43; in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VII, pp. 297–298.

[958] These passages are cited by Clot (Op. cit., pp. 185–186), Perrone (Op. cit., pp. 424–426), and others.

[959] Synodi Florent. sess. XVIII.

[960] The Holy Spirit, truly of the same divinity as the Father and the Son, proceeding from the Father and eternally received from the Son (Haeres. LXII, Sabellianorum, chap. 7; cf. Haeres. LXXIV, Pneumatomach., chap. 10).

[961] ... the Spirit proceeds from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: “He proceeds from the Father, and this one is received from me” (in Ancorato n. 67).

[962] “It is not necessary to speak of that which must be acknowledged as proceeding from the Father and the Son” (De Trinit., Book II, n. 29). This is how the most recent editors have printed it based on ancient manuscripts (Patrolog. curs. corp. Vol. X, p. 69); whereas in earlier editions, some read: *quia de Patre et Filio*, and others: *qui a Patre et Filio*. The most recent editors imply the preposition *cum* here. But even with this preposition—as without it—the meaning remains unclear.

[963] ... that the Arians assist God in the creation of the Son... Is it any wonder, then, that they hold different views regarding the Holy Spirit, who, in bestowing Him, creates... are the authors so reckless? And thus they undermine the truth of this perfect sacrament: by denying the Father, while they deprive the Son of what it means to be the Son; by denying the Holy Spirit, while they ignore both its use and its author (De Trinit., Book II, n. 4, in Patrolog., vol. cited, p. 53).

[964] And I ask: Is receiving from the Son the very same as proceeding from the Father? For if it is believed that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, it will certainly be considered that receiving from the Son is the very same and one and the same as receiving from the Father. For the Lord Himself says:... John 16:14, 15. This which the Son will receive (whether it be power, virtue, or teaching), He said is to be received from Himself; and again, this very thing signifies that it is to be received from the Father... And He further repeats: the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father; but the Son is sent by the Father (De Trinit. Book VIII, n. 20, in Patrolog. ibid., p. 251). And this very passage is still cited today (Perrone, Op. cit., p. 424) as proof that Hilary regarded the expressions “the Spirit proceeds from the Father” and “receives from the Son” as identical, whereas Hilary says exactly the opposite! The fact is that in earlier editions, the word “nihil” was deliberately added before “differre,” even though the entire subsequent passage clearly contradicts this unauthorized addition; the most recent editors, however, have omitted this insertion, in accordance with the ancient manuscripts.

[965] "The Spirit is of God the Father and the Son, essentially proceeding from both—that is, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (De adorat. in spiritu et verit., Book 1, p. 9, in Opp. Vol. 1, ed. Auberti, Paris 1638).

[966] Perrone, Op. cit., p. 436; Klée, Op. cit., p. 184.

[968] See notes 701, 894–898 above.

[970] This is precisely how Mark of Ephesus explains this expression in his “Confession of the Orthodox Faith, Set Forth in Writing in Florence” (see Voskreseniye Chteniya, vol. V, pp. 412–416, where it is printed in translation from an ancient Greek manuscript preserved in the Moscow Synod Library under No. 13). And the preposition διά, among its other meanings, certainly has the ones indicated (see, for example, Dictionn. Grec-Français... by Alexandre. Paris. 1846).

[972] See note 845 above. Tertullian’s words, which are often cited by papists, can be understood in the same sense: *Filium non aliunde deduco, sed do substantia Patris... Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia Spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per (nonne post)?* The Son. See, then, lest you rather destroy the monarchy... (Contra Prax., chap. IV, in Patrolog. curs. compl., vol. II, p. 159).

[973] ... proceeding from the living Father through the Son... for He proceeds from Him (the Father) by nature, and through the Son is bestowed upon creation (Contra Julian, Book 1, pp. 34–35, in Opp. Vol. I, ed. Auberti, Paris 1638). The holy father repeats this again later (Contra Julian, Book IV, p. 147, ed. cit.).

[975] See notes 774, 842, 847, 848, and others above.

[976] Kle points to these sayings (Dogmatik, Vol. II, pp. 183–184; Dogmengeschichte, Vol. I, pp. 217–218, Mainz, 1837).

[977] This is also how St. Basil the Great understands it, saying: “The image of God is Christ, who is, as it is written, the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15); and the image of the Son is the Spirit, and those who partake of the Spirit become sons in His likeness, as it is written: ‘For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers’ (Rom. 8:29).” And further: “A created being does not sanctify another created being, but everything is sanctified by the one Holy One, who says of Himself, ‘I sanctify’ (John 17:19). He sanctifies through the Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit is not a created being, but the image of God’s holiness and the source of holiness for all. We are called into the sanctuary of the Spirit, as the Apostle teaches (2 Thess. 2:13). He renews us and recreates us in the image of God” (Against Eunomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, pp. 190 and 192).

[978] We have examined the more important of such expressions or testimonies; a detailed examination of all the others, which are also cited from the Eastern teachers of the Church and misinterpreted by dissenters, can be found in Zernikav’s *De process. Spir. I. Tract. XV*, pp. 693–856.

[979] Testimonies from Tertullian, Hilary, and Ambrose are commonly cited. But we have already seen the significance of the testimonies of the first two teachers (see notes 962–964, 972). We will see the significance of Ambrose’s testimony later (see note 987).

[980] *De fide et symbolo*, chap. IX, n. 19, in *Patrolog. curs. compl.*, vol. XXXVI, p. 191. It may be added that these words of Blessed Augustine apply not only to Western teachers but also to Eastern ones.

[981] Petavius—*De Trinit.*, Book VII, Chapter 8; *Curs. Theolog. compl.*, Vol. VIII, pp. 635–637; Klée—*Dogmatik*, Vol. 11, pp. 184–186; Perrone, op. cit., p. 424.

[982] De Trinit., Book IV, Chapter 20, n. 29; Book XV, Chapter 17, n. 29; Chapter 26, n. 47. Some other passages of this kind in the works of Blessed Augustine are corrupted (see note 933 above).

[983] Leo, Epistle XV to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, chap. 1; Gennadius—Book on Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chap. 1.

[984] Paschasius—*De Spirit. S.*, Book 1, Chapter 12; Fulgentius—*De fide ad Petrum diac.*, Chapter II, n. 52; Ferrandus—*Epist. adv. Arian.*, Chapter 2, in *Mai Collect.*, Vol. III; Fortunatus—*Expos. fidei cathol.*

[985] Augustine. Epistle 170 to Maximus the Physician, n. 3, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XXXIII, p. 749, in the text: “The phrase *Filioque* is absent from the manuscripts of Corb., Germ., Regio, and Vict., as well as from certain other codices, such as the editions of Baden, Amsterdam, and Erfurt; who omit this verse entirely: ‘but he was begotten by the Father and the Son, so that he was not made by the Son nor by the Father.’” Similarly—Enchiridion ad Laurent., chap. 9, in Patrolog. curs. compl., vol. XXXVI, p. 236, sub textu, n. 1; Hilar., De Trinit., book VIII, chap. 20, in cit. Patrolog. Vol. X, p. 251, note b. d. under the text; Prosper, Book of Sentences, from the works of Augustine, Sent. 370, in the cited Patrolog. Vol. LI, note s under the text; Nicetas—On the Power of the Holy Spirit, ch. 5, in the cited Patrolog. Vol. LII, p. 856, note i under the text.

[986] See notes 837, 875, 876, 899–901, and 903 above, as well as the text to which they refer.

[987] Here are the words of Saint Ambrose: “The Spirit is not, therefore, sent forth as if from a place, nor does He proceed as if from a place, when He proceeds from the Son, just as the Son Himself says: ‘I have come forth from the Father and have come into the world’ (John 16:18).” And further: “nor does the Son, when He proceeds from the Father, depart from a place… Nor is the Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, separated from the Father, nor is He separated from the Son” (these very words are cited by Western scholars from Ambrose in support of their false dogma). Here, however, is a comment by the editors on both of the cited passages: “Ambrose here uses the term ‘proceed’ to denote the temporal mission of the Spirit; therefore, it is surprising that Estius, in Book 1 of his *Sententiae*, Dist. 14: it should be noted that it is not easy to find among the Fathers an instance where the mission of the Holy Spirit is signified by the term “procession,” except in Bede, etc. (Ambros. de Spirit. S. lib. 1, chap. 10, nos. 119, 120, and notes under the text, in the cited Patrolog. Vol. XVI, pp. 732–733). We should add that in the second of the cited passages from St. Ambrose, the word “twice”—and “Filio”—is not without reason considered an interpolation (Zoernicaw., *De Process. Spir. S.*, Tract. III, corruptel. 7, p. 270).

[988] See notes 701 and 702 above.

[989] Let us recall the words of Rusticus, cardinal deacon of the Roman Church. See note 904.

[990] They understood the procession (processio) of the Holy Spirit from the Son solely in the sense of a temporary procession (notes 701 and 702).

[991] See notes 819, 838, and 839 above.

[992] See notes 818–826 above and the text to which they refer.

[993] For example, Patriarch Photius in his well-known circular letter to the Eastern Patriarchs, and Mark of Ephesus in his special treatise *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit: Logical Chapters Addressed to the Latins*, ed. Eugene Bulgar in the Greek translation of Adam Zernikav’s treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit, Vol. II, pp. 709–741,

[994] See above, notes 856, 862, 872, 972.

[995] Many other arguments of this kind, advanced by the Orthodox against the Latins, can be found in the work by Mark of Ephesus mentioned above (note 993), as well as in Zernikav’s *De process. Spir. S.*, Tract. VI, pp. 431–460.

[996] Curs. Theolog. compl. Vol. VIII, p. 641; Perrone, Op. cit., p. 441.

[997] See notes 743, 746, 844, 865, 872, 883, 885–888 above.

[998] This is how Klö sets forth this argument—Dogmatik, Vol. 11, p. 187.

[999] Klöe—ibid., pp. 187–188.

[1001] See notes 746, 886–896 above.

[1002] For the Father is in both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and likewise the Son and the Spirit are in the Father and in one another. Cyril of Alexandria, *Dialogues on the Trinity*, VII. The same is found in Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, chap. II, n. 4; Athanasius, *Against the Arians*, oration III, n. 25; John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith*, book 1, ch. 8, 14, in the Russian translation, pp. 29, 48, and elsewhere.

[1003] “It is necessary to know,” notes St. John of Damascus, following certain other teachers of the faith, “that the designations ‘Fatherhood’ and ‘Sonship’ are not transferred from us to the blessed Divinity, but rather are transferred from the Divinity to us, as the Divine Apostle says: ‘For this reason I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named’ (Eph. 3:14–15).” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8, p. 23).

[1004] See “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” §§ 12–13: The Foundation and Conditions of Religion.

[1005] See ibid., §§ 46–49: the essence, foundation, and conditions of the Christian religion, and compare § 5 of this work.

[1006] Pantokrator, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, explaining this word of the Creed, is “the Ruler of all things, the One who has authority over all things,” that is, “the Almighty is the One who sustains all things and has authority over all things” (Cathech. VIII, n. 1; from the Russian translation, n. 3, p. 145).

[1007] In Scripture, this collection of beings created by God and comprising the world is usually referred to as heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1; 2:1), or heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them (Ps. 145:6; 113:11; 134:6; Nehem. 9:6; Acts 4:24), as well as the visible and the invisible (Col. 1:16). The word “world,” on the other hand, sometimes refers to the earth alone (Mark 16:15), sometimes only to the human race (John 3:16), and sometimes even to the ungodly alone (1 John 5:5).

[1008] Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Aristotle.

[1009] Indian philosophy, the Neoplatonists.

[1010] Democritus and Epicurus with their followers.

[1011] Anaxagoras, Zeno, Plato, Seneca, and others.

[1012] Thus—a) the creed set forth in the Apostolic Constitutions reads: “I believe and am baptized into the one, unborn, one true God, the Almighty, the Father of Christ, the creator and maker of all things.”...; b) in the creed of the Church of Jerusalem: “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, Creator of all things visible and invisible.”...; c) in the creed of the Church of Caesarea: “We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible.”... The same is true of others. See Bingham—Orig. Eccles. lib. X, 4, p. 4. §§ VП–ХV.

[1013] For the creeds of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, see ibid., §§ I–VI.

[1014] Herm. Past. lib. II, mand. 1: “First of all, believe that there is one God, who created all things, formed them, and brought them into being out of nothing”: all things? Iren. contra haeres. 1, 22, n. 1; Tertullian, *De Praescriptione Haeresium*, ch. XIII; Origen, *De Principiis*, Prolegomena, n. 4.

[1015] Tertullian, *Adversus Hermoges*, ch. II; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, V, ch. 27.

[1016] Tertull. *De praescr. haer.*, ch. 46; Iren. *Adv. haer.* 1, ch. 24; Epiphan. *Haer.* 22 and 24; Euseb. *H. E.* IV, ch. 7.

[1017] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11; Epiphanius, Heresies, 28; Augustine, On Heresies, 8.

[1018] Irenaeus, ibid., 1, 30; Tertullian, *De Praescriptione*, 47; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 37; Augustine, *De Natura Boni*, chap. 42; Leo, *Epistle XV to Turibius*.

[1019] Origen, *De Principiis*, Book II, pp. 1–3, and Book III, ch. 5. However, some have sought to exonerate Origen from this charge (Huetius—in *Origenian*, Book II, questions 2 and 12).

[1020] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book II, Chapter 30; Tertullian, *Against Hermogenes*; Methodius, *On the Parents* (in Photinus, *Bibliotheca*, codex 235); Augustine, *The City of God*, Book VII, 30; Book XI, 4–6; Book XII, 15–17.

[1021] Phot. Against the Manichaeans, II, 5; Euthym. Zygab., Panoplia, chap. 27.

[1022] Voltaire, Rousseau, and others.

[1023] Spinoza, Jacob Böhme, and others.

[1024] Schelling, Hegel, and their followers.

[1025] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 3, pp. 5–6. “This same proof, though in a more concise form, is repeatedly set forth by Blessed Augustine, for example: ‘Behold, there are the heavens and the earth: they proclaim that they were created; for they change and vary.’ But whatever has been made is not, and yet it is; there is nothing in it that was not there before, that is subject to change and variation” (Confessions, Book XI, Chapter 4; The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 4, Note 2).

[1026] Tertullian, *Against Hermogenes*, chs. 4–7; *Against Marcion*, 1, 16; Dionysius of Alexandria, Fragment III, from the work *Against Sabellius*, cited in Gotland, III, p. 494; Lactantius, Instit. Divin. Book II, ch. 9; Basil, in Hexaëm. homil. II, n. 2 (in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” V, p. 23); Methodius, apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 236.

[1027] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapters 2 and 4; Ambrose, on the Hexameron, III, 7.

[1028] Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram*, IX, 15, n. 28: “No angel can create nature any more than he can create himself” (*Confessions*, *De Civitate Dei*, XII, c. 24).

[1029] Damascenus, *De fide orth.*, Book II, Chapter 3: “Being created beings (angels), they are not creators...”

[1030] Athanas. Orat. de incarnat. Dei n. 2, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 48, ed. Paris, 1698; Chrysostom, Homily IV on Genesis, n. 4; Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 28, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. III, pp. 32–33; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 3.

[1031] David Kimchi—Radic. Hebraic., art. אּרּבּ

[1032] One of the Jewish rabbis says: “The Most High (blessed be He!) created all creatures out of utter nothingness. To express this creation of beings out of nothing, we have no other word in the sacred language except אּרּבּ” (Moses Nachmanides Ramban, Commentary on Genesis, fol. 8 vers., ed. Wilmendorf).

[1033] Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, homily II, n. 4; Augustine, The City of God, book XI, chapter 6.

[1034] “that God created these (all things) out of nothing.” The Alexandrian Codex reads: “not out of existing things.”

[1036] Just as the Word, having been begotten in the beginning, brought forth the creation through us, having created the matter for Himself. Tatian, Against the Greeks, chap. 5.

[1037] Legatus pro Christo, ch. 4, 15, 19.

[1038] For while human beings cannot create anything out of nothing, but only from pre-existing matter, God—who is superior to this first man in that He Himself invented the matter for His creation, which did not exist before—Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 10, Note 4. Confessions, Book IV, Chapter 20, n. 8.

[1039] ... That there is a God, and no other besides the Creator of the world, who brought all things into being out of nothing. Tertullian, *De Praescriptione Haeresium*, chap. 13.

[1041] For to say that beings came into being from pre-existing matter, and not to acknowledge that the Creator of all things brought them into being from nothing, would be a sign of the utmost folly. Chrysostom, Homily II on Genesis, n. 2.

[1042] Sermon 29, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. 11, pp. 60–61.

[1043] In psalm. Tract. II, chap. 8.

[1044] To Orosius Against Priscillian, ch. 2.

[1045] To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 14; Confessions, Chapter 10.

[1046] Lactantius, *Institutions on the Divine*, Book II, Chapter 9.

[1047] God is subject to matter when He is said to have created everything from matter. For if He made use of it to create the world, then a superior matter is found to have existed, which provided Him with the means to act, and God appears to be subject to the matter from which His substance originated (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chap. 89).

[1048] For He Himself is not the cause of matter, but since He creates beings entirely from pre-existing matter, He is found to be weak (Athanas. On the Incarnation of the Word, n. 2; cf. n. 3).

[1049] Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch. 12; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book II, ch. 9.

[1050] Tertullian, ibid., chap. 9.

[1051] Basil the Great, On the Six Days, Discourse 2, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, p. 26.

[1052] Refutation of Eunomius, Book V, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, pp. 199–200.

[1053] On Free Will, Book 1, Chapter 2 (or 5).

[1054] In Genesis Against Manichaeism, Book 1, Chapter 2.

[1055] St. John Chrysostom shows how unjust it is to reject this truth merely because the creation of things out of nothing is incomprehensible to us (in Genes. homil. II, n. 4).

[1056] The words of Blessed Augustine on this subject are remarkable: “Beyond all doubt, the world was not made in time, but with time. For whatever is made in time comes after something else and before some other time; after that which is past, before that which is to come; yet there could be no past, since there was no creature whose mutable movements would bring it about. But the world was made with time.” (De civit. Dei, Book XI, Chapter 6).

[1057] “The One who so wisely explains to us the existence of the world, in discussing the world, very aptly added: ‘In the beginning He created,’ that is, at the beginning of time—toΰt έστιν, έν άρχή ταύτη τή κατά χρόνον (See Basil the Great, in *Six-Day Discourses*, 1, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, p. 9). St. Ambrose also notes: “In the beginning, therefore, God created the heavens and the earth within time. For time began with this world, not before the world; and a day is a part of time, not its beginning” (in *Hexaëm.*, Book 1, Chapter 6).

[1058] Athenagoras, *Legatus pro Christianis*, ch. 16.

[1059] Cyril of Alexandria, Book 1 on the Gospel of John, Chapter 6; Gregory the Great, Book XVI of Moral Exposition on Job, Chapter 21, and Book XXVII, Chapter 3.

[1060] Augustine, *The City of God*, Book XI, Chapter 4, n. 2; Book XII, Chapter 15, n. 2.

[1061] Augustine, *Confessions*, Book XI, Chapters 10 and 11; *The City of God*, Book XI, Chapter 4, n. 2.

[1062] Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 28, n. 3.

[1063] Confessions, Book XI, Chapters 12, 13; for there was no time where time did not exist.

[1064] Hymns on the Sacraments, Homily 4, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. IV, pp. 228–229.

[1065] Tertullian, *Against Hermogenes*, ch. 3. Augustine, *Confessions*, *The City of God*, Book XII, ch. 15.

[1066] Methodius, On the Beginners, in Phot. Biblioth., cod. CCXXXV, p. 935, Geneva, 1612.

[1067] Also in liturgical books, for example: 1) “Almighty and eternal God, Father of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, Creator of the whole world and blessing of all creation, look upon us with Your merciful eye, Your humble and unworthy servants.” — 2) “Christ our God, who by Your wisdom created all things and brought them into being from nothing, bless the crown of summer.”.. 3) “By the Holy Spirit, all things that are to be, for God is before all, the Lord of all, the unapproachable light, the life of all.” (Book of Prayers for the Dead, fol. 124v, Moscow, 1814; Octoechos, Part II, fol. 150v, Moscow, 1838; Service for the Dead, fol. 3v, Moscow, 1837).

[1068] “But just as with God,” St. Basil the Great remarks on this text, “the Word is not one uttered by the lips, but is living, self-existent, and all-powerful; so with God, the Spirit is not a breath that spreads out, nor air that dissipates, but a sanctifying power, self-existent, self-subsistent, and independent” (Against Eunomius, Book V, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 181).

[1069] “The Word: the term ‘hovered’ is used in translation in place of the phrase ‘warmed and enlivened the watery substance,’ likened to a bird brooding over eggs and imparting some life-giving power to what is being warmed. A thought similar to this, they say, is expressed by this word in the present passage as well. The Spirit hovered, that is, He prepared the watery element for the birth of living creatures. Thus, this sufficiently explains the question raised by others: “Did the Holy Spirit remain inactive in the work of creation?” (Basil the Great on the Six Days of Creation, Discourse 2, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, pp. 33–34).

[1070] Justin, Apology II, 4; Athenagoras, Legatus pro Christo XVI; Irenaeus, Against Heresies II, chap. 2, n. 5, and others.

[1071] Clem. Rot. 1 ad Corinth., n. 19; Iren. adv. haer. II, 2, n. 6; IV, 20, n. 1; V, 17, n. 1; Athan. Expos. fidei, n. 1.

[1072] Justin, *Cohort* against the Greeks, n. 15; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, IV, 20, n. 1; V, 18, n. 2; Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch. 22; Gregory Thaumaturgus, Panegyric Oration on Origen, 11.4; Athapas, Exposition of the Faith, n. 2; Chrysostom, Homily on Hebrews, II, n. 3; Epiganius, Ancoratus, 28; Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 33.

[1073] Theophilus, ad Autolycus 1, n. 7; Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, p. 181; Cyril of Alexandria, On the Holy Trinity, ch. 22, in *Christian Readings* 1847, III, p. 42.

[1074] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 20, n. 1; Augustine, On True Religion, chap. 7, n. 13.

[1075] Athanasius, Sermon III, n. 5: “For the Father, through the Word, creates all things in the Holy Spirit” (Conf. De communi Patr., Fil. et Spir. S. essentia n. 48); Ephraem, Commentary on Genesis 1:1; Cyril of Alexandria, Sermon II on the Faith to the King, n. 51: Is everything done by God the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit? contra Julian, lib. ΠΙ: Do we therefore say that God the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is the Creator of all things? Epiphanius, Exposition of the Catholic Faith, n. 14.

[1076] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, 18, n. 2. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 8, n. 19, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, Vol. VII, p. 261.

[1077] “In the words: ‘All things are from Him, through Him, and to Him,’ the distinctive attributes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are summed up in a single name. For there is one God, from whom all things come; one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist; and one Holy Spirit, in whom all things are” (Basil the Great, On Eunomius, Book V, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, p. 208).

[1078] Word 38, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, p. 240; cf. IV, p. 157: *kai to ennoema ergon hen, Logou sympleroumenon kai Pneumati teleoumenon*.

[1079] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, p. 288. Also elsewhere: “The Divine Spirit always brings to completion everything that proceeds from God through the Son” (on Evnomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, p. 193); and further: “Whoever rejects the Son rejects the beginning of the creation of all things; for the beginning of the self-existence of all things is the Word of God, through whom all things came to be. Whoever rejects the Spirit cuts off the final consummation of the created order; for it is through the sending and communication of the Spirit that that which receives the beginning of existence is brought into being” (ibid., p. 200).

[1080] De fide orth. lib. 1, chap. 12; Conf. lib. II, chap. 2: κτίζει δέ (ο Θεός) έννοών καί τό έννόημα έργον ύφίσταται Λόγω συμπληροόμενον καί Πνεύματι τελειούμενον.

[1081] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 2; Origen, On the Principles, Book I, Chapter 2; Eusebius, Preparations for the Gospel, Book XI, Chapter 10; Athanasius, Against the Gentiles, Chapter 1; Jerome, Commentaries, Book 1, on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 1; Cyril of Alexandria, Book VII on the Gospel of John, Chapter 16; Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book V, Chapter 18: “These things certainly did not exist before they came into being; how, then, were they known to God when they did not exist? For He did not create anything in ignorance.” He therefore made them known, not created them; therefore, before they came into being, they both were and were not. They were in God’s knowledge, but they were not in their own nature.

[1082] We say that examples of this are the essential and unified pre-existing reasons within God concerning beings—which theology calls “purposes”—and divine and good wills, which are both definitional and creative with regard to beings, through which the Transcendent One both predestined and produced all things. Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, chap. 5, n. 8; *Conversations*, chap. 7, n. 2.

[1083] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9, p. 33, based on the Russian translation.

[1084] De imaginibus, Oration PI, n. 19, in Russian at the end of *The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East*, p. 265. Moscow, 1838.

[1085] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 1, n. 1: “nor was He moved by anyone, but He did all things of His own accord and freely, since He alone is God”; Augustine, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 24: “He did it of His most free will”...; Theodoret, *In Genesis*, Quest. III; Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith*, P., chap. 2.

[1086] Theothil. ad Autolyc. 11, 13: “as He wills”; Hippolytus, Against Noetus, nos. 10, 11: “He made it as He willed”; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 8, n. 3: “just as He willed”...

[1087] Ambrose, in Hexaemeron, Book 1, p. 5, n. 19: “from Him Himself comes the beginning and origin of the substance of all things, that is, from His will and power...”; chap. 6: I consider all things to be rooted in his will, for his will is the foundation of all things; book II, chap. 2, n. 4: his will is the measure of all things.

[1088] Clement of Alexandria: “For God never fails. For His will is His work, and this is what is called the world” (Paedag., Book 1, Chapter 6).

[1089] On the Six Days, Discourse 1, p. 4, in Vol. V of *The Works of the Holy Fathers* (Russian translation), and Discourse 11, p. 35, ibid.

[1090] The Creator of nature spoke the light, and created it. The Word of God is the will, and the work of God is nature (Ambrose, *On the Six Days*, Book 1, Chapter 9).

[1091] “By ‘lips’ and ‘speech’ we must understand the manifestation of God’s will; for we, too, manifest the thoughts of our hearts through our lips and speech” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter II, p. 36).

[1092] Sermon 45, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. IV, pp. 156–157.

[1093] De incarnat. Verbi n. 3, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 49, Paris, 1698.

[1094] In *Genes. quaest. 4*, in *Chr. Th. 1843*, vol. III, pp. 324–325. Cf. Chrysostom, *Opp.*, vol. 1, pp. 157–158, ed. Montfauc.

[1095] An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 2. The same idea is found in St. Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divin. Nomin., Chapter 4) and Blessed Augustine: “In the statement, ‘God saw that it was good,’ it is sufficiently indicated that God created what was created—that is, because it was good—not out of any necessity, nor out of any need for His own benefit, but solely out of goodness” (De Civitate Dei, Book XI, Chapter 24).

[1096] ...as a sign of His divine power. Justin, Against the Aristotelian Doctrines, p. 111.

[1097] ...so that through His works His greatness might be known and understood. Theophilus, Ad Autolycus 1, ch. 4.

[1098] He brought forth the world from nothing as an ornament of His majesty. Tertullian, *Apology*, chap. 17.

[1099] Athenagoras, *On the Resurrection of the Dead*, chap. 12: “It is evident that, according to the first and most common account, God created man for His own sake and for the goodness and wisdom perceived in all creation...?” Athanas. contra Arian. orat. II, n. 81; Lactant. Divin. instit. lib. VII, c. 6; Augustin, de lib. arbitr. III, 11, n. 32; Hieronytn. in Ephes. 1, 14.

[1100] Tertullian, Against Marcion 1, ch. 13: “God created the world not for Himself, but for man”; Gregory of Nyssa, Oration, Catechism, ch. 5; Hilary, Treatise on Ps. II, n. 14: “God, therefore, from whom all things come, has no need of any of those to whom He has bestowed the very existence they possess; rather, He created all things for the benefit of those who would be brought into being” (in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. IX, p. 269); Leo—Sermon II on the Nativity of the Lord.

[1101] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 4, nos. 18–35; Theophilus, *To Autolycus*, 11, 27; Tatian, *To the Greeks*, XI; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, IV, 29, no. 1; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, 1, 16, 25, 26; 11, 6, 14; Origen, *Against Celsus*, IV, 54, 55; Athanasius, *Against the Pagans*, chap. 7; Athanasius, *On the Hexameron*, 1, chap. 8; Gregory the Theologian, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, p. 320; Basil the Great, ibid., VIII, pp. 142–163; Augustine, *Contra Manichaeos* 11, 29, n. 43; *De Civitate Dei* XII, 5, 6; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* III, ch. 20.

[1102] See commentaries on the Six Days or on the Book of Genesis by Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem the Syrian, and others.

[1103] Hobbes, *Leviathan*, ch. 34; Semler, *Dissertatio de daemoniacis*, Halle 1760; Schott, *Epitom. theol. Christ., dogmat.*, p. 83, and others.

[1104] Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, ch. 57; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, IV, 3; Tatian, *Against the Greeks*, XII.

[1105] Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II, 8, 9; Origen, *Commentary on Matthew*, Book X, note 13; *Commentary on John*, Book I, note 24.

[1106] The views of Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Saturninus, and others. See in Augustine, *Contra Faustus*, XV, 5, and *De Genesi ad litteram*, VII, 2, n. 3.

[1107] Gennadius, *De dogmat. eccles.*, chap. X, in *Patrolog. Curs. compl.*, vol. LVI1I, p. 983.

[1108] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXV, 4, 5; Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XI, 7, 9.

[1109] This view was held by some in ancient times, as is evident from the words of Blessed Augustine (De civit. Dei XI, p. 2), and in more recent times, for example, by Schubert (Schubert, Inst. theol. Dogmat. 1, p. 4, § 51).

[1110] Namely: the Ebionites, the Gnostics, and Dualists in general. See Clement of Alexandria, Homilies XIX, nos. 12, 13.

[1111] Origen, *Contra Celsus*, V, 4: “These, then, are called angels because of their work.” Hilarion, *De Trinitate*, V, 22; Augustine, Sermon 1 on Psalm 103, n. 15; Severus Gabrielli, Homilies III, p. 103 (ed. Aucher): “The name ‘angel’ does not derive from their nature, but is a name denoting their ministry.”

[1113] The creed of the Church of Jerusalem reads: πιστεύω έις ένα Θεόν..., όρατών τε πάντων καί άοράτων ποιητήν; in the creed of the Church of Antioch, according to Cassian’s text: credo in... creatorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium creaturarum; in the creed of the Church of Caesarea: “I believe in... the Creator of all things, both visible and invisible” (See Byngham, *Origin. eccles.*, Book X, Chapter 4).

[1114] Justin, Apology 1, n. 6; Athenagoras, Legatus, n. 10; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel III, chap. 5; Basil the Great, “Works of the Holy Fathers” V, 271; Gregory the Theologian, ibid. III, 240; Augustine, Sermon 1, on Psalm 103: “Although we do not see the apparitions of angels, we know from faith that angels exist, and we read that they have appeared to many.”

[1115] The ancients also bore witness to this (Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, p. 22; Cyprian, *De idol. vanit.*, p. 226, ed. Maur.; Athenagoras, *Legatus pro Christo*, n. 23), as do more recent authors (Ramsay, *Voyages de Cyrus*...; Carli Rubi, *Lettre américaine*...).

[1116] Chrysostom, Homily II on Genesis, n. 2; on Psalm VIII, 4; Sermon 1 on Genesis, n. 2.

[1117] Athanas. ad Antioch. quaest. IV; Chrysost. in Genes. hom. II, n. 2; Theodoret. in Genes. quaest. II: “Those who lived under the Law lacked any firmness or constancy in virtue: for soon after many and unspeakable miracles, they proclaimed the golden calf to be a god. If, then, they so readily deified images of animals, what would they not have done upon gaining knowledge of the nature of the invisible?” (Chr. Readings 1843, III, p. 320).

[1118] Iren. adv. haeres. II, p. 3.

[1119] Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. IV, p. 1.

[1120] Ambros. in Nechaym 1, pp. 3, 4.

[1121] Theodoret, *Divin. decret. epitom.*, chap. V on angels, in *Chr. Readings* 1844, IV, pp. 209–210; *in Genes. quaest.* II, in *Chr. Readings* 1843, III, 321.

[1122] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, II, p. 9; *De Genesi ad Literam*, VII, 2, n. 3.

[1123] Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 18; Explanation of the Christian Catechism on the first article.

[1124] “The earth was described as invisible,” says Blessed Augustine, “and formless, like the darkness over the abyss, because it was shapeless, and could not be perceived or handled in any form...; “water was called,” he says, “because it was malleable and pliable, yielding to the Creator’s hand so that all things might be formed from it; but beneath all these names lay an invisible and formless matter, from which God created the world” (De Genesi contra Manicheos 1, chap. 5; cf. Confessions XII, ch. 4, 8, 12).

[1125] “By the name of heaven, which is said to have been created in the beginning and before all else, are meant all spiritual beings upon whom God will sit, as it were, on a throne and a seat” (Origen, Homily 1 on Genesis). Blessed Augustine repeats the same idea, albeit with less conviction (De Civitate Dei XI, p. 9).

[1126] As is sung in the church hymns: “You established at the beginning of creation an incorporeal being, Creator of the angels, who surrounds Your most pure throne, calling out to You: Holy, holy, holy are You, O Almighty God” (Canon of the Archangels, Hymn 1).

[1127] The following figures referred to this passage from Job: Origen: “When the stars were created, all His angels praised God, as the most ancient beings—not only older than man, who was created later, but also older than all creation made for him” (in Matth. hom. 10); St. Epiphanius: “If the angels had not been created together with heaven and earth, God would not have said to Job: ‘Did you create this…’ (Haeres. LXV); Severian (De mundi opif., orat. 4); Caesarius (Dialog. 1, quaest. 61); Blessed Augustine (De civit. Dei XI, c. 9) and others.

[1128] Discourses on the Six Days 1, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, pp. 7–8.

[1129] Homily 38, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, pp. 240, 241.

[1130] ... And after the creation of these, He also creates man... and this entire world. Ad Stagir. Book I, in Opp. Vol. I, pp. 157–158, ed. Montfauc.

[1131] Ambros. in Hexaëm. I, ch. 5, n. 19; Conf. Praefat. ad Psalmos, n. 2.

[1132] Jerome, in the first epistle to Titus.

[1133] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, ch. 5; Origen, *Homily 10 on Matthew*; Caesar, *Dialogues*, 1, questions 61 and 123; Hilary, *On the Trinity*, XII, and *Book Against Auxentius*; Gregory the Great, *Moral.*, XXVIII, 14; Anastasius of Sinai, *Odeigou*, chap. 4; John of Damascus, II, chap. 3; Photius, *Biblioth.*, fol. 473; Dimitri of Rostov, *Chronicle*, section 1, p. 10. These same ideas were also shared by—Cassian, *Collat.* 8, p. 7; Isidorus of Seville, *De summo bono*, 1, c. 10; Bede, Vol. VIII, quaest. 9, fol. 398; Junilius, *De partibus Divini legis*, Book II, c. 2.

[1137] Sermon I on Psalm 103, n. 15.

[1138] “When angels, says St. John of Damascus, appear to the worthy by God’s will, they do not appear as they are in themselves, but in a certain form (έν μετασχηματίσμω), so that those who see them may perceive them” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3).

[1139] The Divine Liturgy of November 8 (New Style) to the Incorporeal Powers, with liturgical verses, Tone 2.

[1140] On the Common Essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, n. 51.

[1141] Orat. IV in orat. Domin. Cf. Contra Eunom. Book XII.

[1142] ... and the other incorporeal essences. Ad Stagir. Book 1, in Opp. Vol. VI, p. 86, ed. Savil.

[1143] In Genes. quaest. XX, in Christian Readings 1843, III, 347; Cf. in Genes. quaest. XLVI; in Exod. quaest. XXIX.

[1144] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, pp. 53–54.

[1145] St. Basil the Great, Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 153; Gregory the Theologian, *Mystical Hymns*, Hymn 6, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 335; Lactantius, *Divine Institutions*, VII, 21; Eusebius, *Defense of the Gospel*, III, 5; IV, 1: “pure and entirely immaculate emanations”; Didymus, *On the Holy Spirit*, Book 1; Leo, Epistle to Turibius, chap. 6; Fulgentinus, On the Faith, chap. 3; Gregory the Great, Moral Discourse, II, 4; XXVIII, 2; Dialogues, IV, 29; Martin Victor, Book IV Against Arius.

[1146] Augustine, *De Haeresis*, ch. 86. Moreover, this is evident from Tertullian’s own writings. In one passage he says: “Who will deny that God has a body, even though He is Spirit? For the Spirit is a body of a kind of its own, in its own image.” “But even those invisible things, whatever they may be, possess both their own body and their own form in God” (Contra Prax. ch. 7). In another passage: “since the very substance is the body of every thing...” (Contra Hermogen. ch. 35). In a third passage: “Everything that exists is a body of its own kind...” (De carne Christi, ch. II).

[1147] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3. The following also reasoned in this way: a) Saint Ambrose: “In my opinion, there is nothing entirely devoid of complexity except for the single Being of the Most Holy Trinity, which is truly the purest and simplest” (de Abrah., Book II, p. 8); b) St. Gregory the Great: “An angel, compared to our bodies, is indeed a spirit, but compared to the highest and infinite Spirit—it is a body” (Moral. Book II, p. 3),—and others.

[1148] Augustine, *De Spir. et anima*, chap. 18. The same idea is found in Hilary (Can. 5, in Matth.) and Cassian (Coll. VII, p. 13).

[1149] Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph. LVII; Origen. Orat. 31; Methodius, in Biblioth. Photii, cod. CCXXXIV; Theogn. ibid., cod. CVI.

[1150] Tertullian and Origen. See note 1105 above. Origen, however, believed that angels are inferior in dignity only to the true disciples of Christ and the saints, and not to human beings in general.

[1151] Athenagoras, *De Resurrectione Mortuorum*, XVI; Clement, *Stromata*, III, 3; John Chrysostom, Homily II on the Incomprehensible, against Anomoeus, in *Chronological Readings*, 1841, IV, 49; Gregory the Theologian, Homily 6: “Let us consider the beings who are first from God and around God, that is, the angelic and heavenly powers, who are the first to partake of the first Light” (in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” I, 229)—and elsewhere: “The lights secondary to the Trinity, which possesses royal glory, are the radiant, invisible angels” (ibid., IV, 235); John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3.

[1152] Isidore of Pelusium, Epistle 195; Origen, Homily on Genesis VIII, n. 8; John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Against the Anomoeans, Books III and IV, in *Chronological Readings* 1841, IV, pp. 105–206; Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on the Song of Songs; Theodoret, Commentary on Psalm 32, 7; Caesar, Dialogues 1, Question 44; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 3.

[1153] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Divine Names*, p. 4; Justin, Apology 1, n. 6; Cyril of Alexandria, Against the Anthropomorphists, ch. 4; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3: “God is the Creator and Maker of the angels, who brought them into being from non-existence and created them in His own image.”

[1154] Tit. Bostr. on Luke 12:32; Greg. Nyss. Against Eunomius, Oration XII, in *Opp.,* vol. II, p. 711, ed. Morel.; Hilar. on Matthew, Commentary, ch. 28, n. 6.

[1155] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, chap. 14.

[1156] John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Word, Book II against Anomoeans, in Chr. Readings 1841, IV, 49. The same idea is found in Athenagoras (Legat. pro Christ, p. 10), — Origen (De Principiis, in the prologue), — St. Athanasius (Contra Arianus, Oration II, n. 27), — Blessed Theodoret (Chronological Readings 1844, IV, 208), and others.

[1157] Catechetical Lectures XV, § 24, p. 332 in the Russian translation.

[1158] Concil. oec. V, Contra Origen. can. II and can. XIV. This error of Origen’s had already been condemned (in 400) by St. Theophilus of Alexandria at his local council, and he also sought to refute it in his writings. He explains the essence of the error as follows: “Origen believes that the principalities, powers, forces, thrones, and dominions were not created as such from the beginning, but were, after their creation, granted a certain honor and named as such at the very time when others like them fell through negligence; thus, it was not God who created them as principalities and powers, but the sins of others served to bring them glory.” To refute this error, he points to the words of the Apostle in Colossians 1:16 and remarks: “If (Origen) had understood the full power of the words: through it all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible—whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers—were created, he would know that they were created this way from the beginning, and that it was not the negligence or fall of others that gave God cause to name them ‘principalities,’ ‘powers,’ and ‘powers’” (Paschal., Book II).

[1159] I, for my part, since I am able to perceive and comprehend the heavenly realms and the angelic orders, as well as the transformations of the angels and their hosts, the various powers and dominions, as well as the variations of thrones and powers, the majesty of the ages, and the sublime nature of the cherubim and seraphim (Ignatius, Epistle II, to Trallianus).

[1160] Irenaeus, Against Heresies II, 30; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 7. 16; VII, 2; Origen, On the Principles 1, 5; Against Celsus VI, 30; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI, n. 6; XI, n. 11, 12; XVI, 23; Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, Book III, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 133; Chrysostom, Homily on the Incomprehensibility, IV, n. 4; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 118, Letter 3, n. 10.

[1161] With the exception of proper names, such as: Michael—"Who is like God" (Dan. 12:1), Raphael—“God’s healing” (Tobit 3:25), Gabriel—“God’s strength” (Dan. 8:16), Uriel—“light, God’s fire” (4 Esdras 4:1), and others (3 Esdras 4:36; 5:16).

[1162] De coelest. hierarch. ch. VI, n. 2.

[1163] Const. Apost. VIII, 12, and note 1156 above.

[1164] “There are angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, splendors (λαμπρότητας), ascents (άναβάσεις), intelligent powers, or minds” (Word 28, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 50). By “radiant beings,” the Holy Father likely refers to the seraphim, who blaze with fire, and by “ascents,” to the cherubim, who are filled with knowledge.

[1165] “If we turn to the invisible powers and direct our attention to the hosts of angels, the archangels, the heavenly powers, the thrones, the dominions, the principalities, the powers, the cherubim, and the seraphim, what word will suffice to express His (the Creator’s) inexpressible greatness?” (in Genes. homil. IV).

[1166] Gregor. Magn. in Evang. lib. II, homil. XXXIV, n. 7; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3; Isidor. Hispal. de ordin. creatur., p. 2; Bede, homil. in dom. III Pentec.

[1167] Thus, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in one passage of his Epistle to Serapion, lists only eight angelic orders, omitting the Thrones; but later in the same epistle he also mentions the Thrones (Opp. vol. I, p. 340; cf. 354, 366, ed. Commel.).

[1168] De coelest. hierarch. ch. VI, n. 1.

[1169] Ad Orosium, chap. XI; cf. Enchirid., chap. LVII, n. 15.

[1170] Origen, *De Principiis*, 1, ch. 5; Chrysostom, *Homilies on the Incomprehensible*, IV; in *Christians’ Readings*, 1841, IV, 195–196, and Homily V, in *Christians’ Readings*, 1842, I, 32; Theodoret, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians 1, 21; Theophilact, Commentary on the same passage.

[1171] Justin, *Apology*, 1, p. 28; Tatian, *Against the Greeks*, p. 7; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III. 20, n. 1; Athenagoras, Legatus pro Christo, ch. 24; Origen, Against Celsus, IV, 32; Ambrose, Epistle LXXXIV; Augustine, The City of God, VIII, ch. 22; Lactantius, Divine Institutions, II, ch. 9; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, III, ch. 5.

[1173] Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. XXIV; Clem. Alex. Strom. VII, 7; Origen. de princ. prol. n. 6; Tertull. adv Marc. II, 10; Lactant. Divin. inst. II, 9; Athanas. de Synod. n. 48; Anton. Orat. ad Monach. n. VII; Epiphanius, Haeres. LXIV, n. 22; Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. IV, 9; Didymus, Contr. Manich. n. XIII; Cassian, Coll. VIII, 8; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 4.

[1174] Against Heresies IV, 41; Cf. V, 25, n. 4.

[1176] Catechetical Lectures II, § 4, p. 27 in the Russian translation.

[1177] Against Eunomius, Book II, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VII, 112. Elsewhere, the Holy Father discusses this in greater detail: “Why is man deceitful? By his own free will. Why is the devil evil? For the same reason; because he, too, had a free life, and he was given the power either to remain with God or to turn away from the Good. Gabriel is an angel and always stands before God. Satan is an angel, and he has completely fallen from his own rank. The former was preserved by his free will in the heavens, and the latter was cast down by his free will. The former could have become an apostate, and the latter could have remained faithful. But the former was saved by an insatiable love for God, while the latter was cast out by his separation from God. And this separation from God is evil. A slight turn of the eye determines whether we are on the side of the Sun or on the side of our body’s shadow. And there, enlightenment awaits the one who looks straight ahead; but darkness is inevitable for the one who turns his gaze toward the shadow. Thus the devil is cunning, deriving his cunning from his own will, and his nature is not opposed to the good” (Ibid., VIII, 157).

[1178] Contr. Julian, chap. 9; Cf. Contr. Donat. IV, 9, n. 13; De Genes. ad litter. XI, 21, n. 28.

[1179] Contr. Graec. serm. III; Cf. Divin. decret. epitom. c. VIII, in Chr. Th. 1844, IV, 211–215.

[1180] Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram* XI, pp. 20, 23; *De Civitate Dei* XI, ch. 15.

[1181] Hugo Victorin, *Summ. Sent. Tract.* II, ch. 3.

[1183] Origen, Commentary on Ezekiel, XII; Cyril of Jerusalem, Summary of Teachings, II, § 4, pp. 27–28 in the Russian translation; Theodoret. A Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas, ch. 8, in Christian Readings 1844, IV, 213–214: “The prophet Ezekiel, under the name of the prince of Tyre, describes the fallen prince, the devil, who aided him.”

[1184] Gregory the Theologian, *Hymnal and Mystical Lexicon*, VI, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 238: Cyril of Jerusalem, *Public Sermons*, II, § 4, p. 28 in the Russian translation.

[1185] Gregory the Theologian, *Hymns and Mystical Discourses*, Book IV, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 228: “The first of the heavenly lights, having lost his light and glory because of his pride, pursues the human race with unceasing hatred.” Cf. *Discourses*, Book VI, ibid., p. 237.

[1186] Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, p. 10; Gregory the Great, Moral Discourse, IV, p. 13: “That apostate angel, who had been created to excel the legions of the other angels, fell through his pride, so that he is now subject to the authority of the standing angels.”

[1187] Anastasius, *On the Guide*, chap. 4.

[1188] Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, ch. 6; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, ch. 4: “The prince of the angelic powers of the heavenly order, to whom God entrusted the guardianship of the earth, was not created evil by nature.”

[1189] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 38, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 241: “the Morning Star by reason of his brightness, but having become and being called darkness because of his pride, with the godless powers subject to him...;” Anastasius, in *Odigos*, chap. 4; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 4: “It was cast out; countless angels subject to him followed him and fell with him.”

[1190] Athenagoras, Legatus pro Christo, XXVI; Tertullian, De Virgine Velata, VII; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, II, 15; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 132, 2, and others.

[1191] This view was refuted by John Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis XXII, n. 2–3); Theodoret (Questions on Genesis 46, in Chr. Cht. 1843, III, 377–380; Divin. decret. epit. c. VII, in Chr. Cht. 1844, IV, 206–208); Augustine (De civitate Dei XV, 22, 23, n. 2, 3); Photius (Epist. 172), and others.

[1192] Justin, *Dialogues with Trypho*, ch. XXIV; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 33, n. 8; IV, 40; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II, 10.

[1193] Lib. Pastoral. part. III, c. 11: The same idea is found in Blessed Augustine—De Genes. ad litt. XI, c. 14.

[1194] This is how St. Basil the Great (Commentary on Isaiah, ch. 2, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VI, 117); Blessed Jerome (in ch. 16 of Ezekiel); and Blessed Theodoret: “They (the evil spirits) were created along with other incorporeal spirits, but did not wish to offer voluntary obedience to the Lord God along with them; on the contrary, being overcome by pride and arrogance, they turned toward evil and fell from their state. This was revealed by the divine Apostle when he laid down the rule concerning ordination to the episcopate: ‘He,’ he says, ‘must not be a recent convert, lest he become conceited and fall under the same condemnation as the devil’ (1 Tim. 3:6). With these words, he implies that pride was the cause of the devil’s fall” (Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas in the Christian Reader, 1844, IV, 212–213).

[1195] St. Augustine, in proving that the devil fell not through envy but through pride, points specifically to this text: “Scripture has defined the beginning of all sin as pride, saying: ‘The beginning of all sin is pride’” (De Genesi ad lit., XI, c. 14; cf. De Civitate Dei, XIV, c. 13).

[1196] Hymns of the Sacraments, Book VI, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 237. Cf. notes 1186 and 1189.

[1197] Orat. de Virginit. in Opp. Vol. I, p. 824, ed. Commel.

[1200] Origen, Homily IX on Ezekiel, 2; Basil the Great, on Chapter 2 of Isaiah in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VI, pp. 116–118, — and on Chapter 10 of Isaiah, ibid., p. 341; Chrysostom, Homily XXII on Genesis (Opp., vol. II, p. 216); Cyril of Alexandria, Against the Anthropomorphists, ch. 17; Theodoret and Jerome (see note 1194 above); Augustine (— note 1195); John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 4; Cassian, Coll., VIII, pp. 20, 21; Demetrius of Rostov, Writings, Part I, p. 56.

[1201] Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book V, p. 507, ed. Lutetia, 1638.

[1202] Isidore, *On the Supreme Good*, 1, ch. 12.

[1203] Lactantius, *Divine Institutions*, II, ch. 8.

[1204] Gregory the Great, *Moral.*, II, ch. 17.

[1205] Justin, *Apology*, 1:28; 2:8; Tatian, *Ad Graecus*, XIV, XV; Irenaeus, 1:10; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II:10; Origen, *Letter to Fabian*, n. 6 (ed. De la Rue, vol. 1, p. 5); Hilarion, Commentary on Psalm 148, n. 7; Augustine, *The City of God*, XXI, 17; Jerome, *Against Rufinus*, I, in T. II, part II, p. 379, ed. Mart.

[1206] Nemes, *De homin. opific.*, ch. 1; Cassian, *Coll.* IV, 14; Gregory of Nyssa, *in Job.* IX, 50, n. 76; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, II, ch. 3.

[1207] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XIV, 27; in *Epistola ad Galatas*, n. 24; see notes 1104–1105.

[1208] The Kelein Chronicle, p. 12.

[1209] Nemesius mentions them (De Hom. Opific., c. 1).

[1210] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 4, p. 59.

[1212] Commentary on Chapter 14 of Isaiah, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VI, 397–398.

[1213] Tatian, Against the Greeks, XII; Origen, Against Celsus, IV, 32; VIII, 35.

[1214] Discourse IX on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, 161.

[1215] Haeres. XXVI, n. 3: πνεύμα άκάθαρτον καί άσώματον.

[1216] Homil. LXXXVIII, in Opp. vol. V, p. 604: incorporeal powers.

[1217] Demonstr. Evang. VIII: ... of the invisible and intelligible enemies...

[1220] Divin. decret. epit. ch. VII, in *Christian Readings*, 1844, vol. IV, p. 207. Cf. note 1194.

[1221] In dormit. Mariae Virg. homil. II, n. 15, in Opp. Vol. II, p. 877, ed. Le Quien.

[1222] See notes 1185–1189 above.

[1223] See St. Demetrius of Rostov, Chronicle 1, 12.

[1224] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 4.

[1225] Cassian, Coll., VIII, chap. 8.

[1226] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 16; Origen, On the Principles III, 5; Augustine, On Genesis According to the Letter IV, 22; On Genesis Against Manichaeism II, 3; Procopius, Commentary on the Octateuch, on Genesis, ch. 1. Conf. Natal. Alex. Ecclesiastical History, Old Testament, vol. 1, diss. 1, art. 8, prop. 1.

[1227] See Ecktrman, *Handbuch der Christlichen Glaubenslehre*, II, 11.

[1228] Rosenmüller, Scholia on the Old Testament, vol. 1, chap. 1, Genesis, Leipzig, 1821.

[1229] Theophilus, Epistle to Autolycus, II, 12–18; Hippolytus, Commentary on Genesis, I, 6; Basil the Great, Discourses on the Six Days; Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis, III, n. 3; Sermon 1, n. 3; Athanasius, Oration III against the Arians; Ambrose, Commentary on the Hexaemeron; Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Hexaemeron; Epiphanius, Heresies LXV, nos. 4, 5; Theodoret, Questions on Genesis XXI, in Chr. Ch., 1843, III, 353. Cf. note 1226.

[1230] Athanas. contra Arian. orat. III.

[1231] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Hexameron, Vol. 1, p. 7, ed. Morel.

[1232] Justin, *Apologeticus*, 1, chap. 10.

[1233] Hippolytus, Commentary on Genesis 1, 6.

[1234] Tatian, Oration to the Greeks, ch. 7.

[1235] Augustine, *On Genesis Against Manichaeans*, 1, pp. 5, 7.

[1236] Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, homily III, nos. 1, 2; Hilary, On the Trinity, XII, ch. 40; Epiphanius, On Heresies, LXV, nos. 4, 5.

[1237] Therefore, God first created, then later perfected it, so that we might believe that the same One who created also adorned it, and that the same One who adorned it also created it; lest we think that one adorned it and another created it; but that the same One performed both acts, first creating and then perfecting it (Ambrose, on Nehemiah 1:7).

[1238] Severian, *Orat. 1 de mundi creat.*, chap. 3; Methodius (in Phot. *Biblioth.*, cod. CCXXIV); Gregory the Great, *Moral.* XXXII, 12, n. 16: “The substance of things was created all at once, but their form was not formed all at once; and what exists simultaneously through the substance of matter did not appear simultaneously through the form.”

[1239] “Given that the accounts of the second and fourth days describe the Creator’s action in the entire creation, and that the earth constitutes the smallest part of this whole, it is difficult to ascertain that the third day of creative action was devoted solely to it. One may suppose that on this day, the other bodies in the heavens that are of the same nature as the earth—that is, the dark bodies—received a more definite form proper to them; but since we do not know the details of their present state, it would be inappropriate to speak of their origin as well” (Notes on the Book of Genesis, pp. 20–21, St. Petersburg, 1816).

[1240] One cannot help but recall here the words of St. Basil the Great specifically regarding the first day: “Moses, as it were, said this: the measure of twenty-four hours is the duration of a single day, or the return of the heavens from one sign to the same sign again takes place in a single day. Why is it that every time evening and morning come upon the world as a result of the sun’s revolution, this cycle is completed not in a longer period but within the span of a single day?” (Discourses on the Hexameron II, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, 37–38).

[1241] And of these, more than eighty appeared to contradict Moses’s cosmogony. See Fraysinous—*Défense du Chrétien, ou conférences sur la religion*, vol. II, lecture VI; Cuvier—*Rapport de l’Institut national*, ed. at the end of the work: *Théorie de la surface actuelle de la terre* by M. André, Paris 1806; Annales de philosophie chrétienne, 1831, No. 9, p. 195: analysis of the various geological systems.

[1242] Five of these methods or systems of reconciliation are examined in detail and evaluated in the third volume—Sacrae Script. Curs. Complet., ed. Paris, 1842, in the article “Geological Annotations to Genesis,” p. 1583 ff. Another method is thoroughly expounded in the book: *Les livres saints vengés* by Glaire, Vol. 1, pp. 2–98, Paris, 1845.

[1243] Such works include, for example, De Luc, *Lettres sur l’hist. phys. de la terre*, Paris 1798; André, *Théorie de la surf. act. de la terre*, Paris 1806; Buckeland, *De la Géologie et de la minéralogie dans leurs rapports avec la Théologie naturelle*, Paris 1838.

[1244] Ami Boué, *Guide for the Traveling Geologist*, vol. II, p. 224, Paris 1836.

[1245] Apostolic Constitutions 7:34; Methodius, cited in Epiphanius, Heresies 64, 18; Augustine, Against Orosius, Against Priscillian, and Against Origen, n. II: “There is no kind of creature that cannot be recognized in man.”

[1246] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 38, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* III, 242; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12: “God created man blameless, righteous, loving what is good, free from sorrow and cares, radiant with every perfection, abounding in every good, as it were a second world—the small within the great.”

[1247] as interpreted by rationalist theologians in the West.

[1248] Ad Autol. II, chaps. 18 and 28.

[1249] Homily “On the Constitution of Man,” in Chr. Cht. 1841, IV, 5.

[1250] Sermon 45, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 157.

[1251] Lib. De parad., chap. 10. Irenaeus also understood Moses’ account of the creation of man in this way (Adv. Haeres., IV, 37). Tertullian (Contra Marcion, chap. 4) and Augustine: “And God formed man from the dust of the ground: the earth itself and all earthly matter are entirely from nothing, and He gave the body a soul made from nothing when man was created” (De Civitate Dei, XIV, ch. 2);

[1252] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book XII, Chapter 12, p. 90.

[1253] Homily XIII on Genesis, Works, Vol. IV, p. 101, Venice, 1740.

[1254] Divin. decret. epit. chap. 9, in Chr. Cht. 1844, 216, 221. See similar words by Blessed Augustine in the note

[1255] In Genesis, Question 19; Confessions, Question 23, in *Christian Readings*, 1843, Vol. III, pp. 346, 354.

[1256] Some freethinkers held the first view as early as the earliest days of Christianity; for example, Julian the Apostate [Opp. ejus, p. 181, ed. A. Spanhemio]; but Isaac Peirerius expounded it in full detail in the 17th century in his work *Preadamitae*, published in 1655. The latter view was attempted to be proven by some natural philosophers in the past and, to some extent, in the present century.

[1257] as we shall see in due course.

[1258] Fourmont—Reflections on the Origin, History, and Succession of Ancient Peoples, vol. 1, book 1, section 2, chap. 1 et seq. Paris 1747.

[1259] Klaproth—*Tableaux historiques de l’Asie*, Paris 1814; *Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne*, vol. VIII, no. 43, Paris 1834: *Voyage et traditions, croyances, superstitions et restes des traditions primitives, observées par M. Dumont d’Orville dans son voyage autour du monde*...

[1260] A Discourse on the Constitution of Man, Christian Readings 1841, IV, 7, cf. 22–23.

[1261] “Whom did Cain take as his wife?” asks Blessed Theodoret, and answers: “Obviously his sister. At that time, this was not a crime, because there was not yet a law prohibiting such a union. Otherwise, the proliferation of the human race would have been impossible in the beginning” (In Genes. Quast. 42, in Chr. Cht. 1843, III, 374). St. Chrysostom (Homil. XX in Genes.), St. Epiphanius (Haeres. XIX, n. 6), and Blessed Augustine (De Civ. Dei XV, 16) held the same view.

[1262] Herodotus, Book II, pp. 55, 64, ed. Stephani, 1566; Diodorus Siculus, *Bibliotheca*, Book II, p. 118, Hanover, 1604; Bailly, *Traité de l'astronomie indienne et orientale*, pp. 110, 129 ff., Paris, 1787.

[1263] Cicero, *De Divinatione*, 1.1, §19; Diogenes Laertius, Book IX, section 35.

[1264] Will. Jones, *On the Chronology of the Hindus* (*Recherches sur l’Asie*, vol. 2). Abel Romusat, *Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques*, vol. 1, p. 61, Paris 1829; O. Ioakimfa-Statis, Description of the Chinese Empire, Part 1, pp. 159, 161, St. Petersburg, 1842. According to the latter, the Chinese legends about the millions of years of their past existence, being groundless and, moreover, full of absurdities, have been unequivocally rejected by Chinese historians themselves.

[1265] La Place, Exposition de système du monde, Book V, Chapter 1, pp. 291, 294; Klaproth, Mémoire relatifs à l’Asie, p. 397, Paris, 1824.

[1266] For a more detailed account, see Gler: *Les livres saints vengés*, vol. I, pp. 127–239; Here the author first discusses the chroniclers of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese, as well as the state of astronomy among these peoples; he then examines, in order, the chronicles themselves, the astronomical data, and the monuments of each of these peoples; finally, he addresses the objections raised against the truth he defends, which are drawn from natural history.

[1267] Blumenbach, *Manuel d'hist. naturelle*, trans. from the German, vol. 1, pp. 77–80, Metz 1803; Prichard, *Histoire naturelle de l'homme et des différentes races humaines*, vol. 1, pp. 139, 176, Paris 1843; Wiseman, *Discours sur les rapports entre la science et la religion révélée*, pp. 96–141, Paris 1843.

[1268] Wiseman, op. cit., pp. 1–96.

[1269] See Plato’s dialogues: Timaeus and Critias; Diodorus Siculus, Book III, ch. 55; Book V, chs. 19–20; Book *De facie in orbe lunae*; Josephus, *De bello iudaeorum*, Book II, ch. 16; Virgil, *Aeneid*, Book VI, 796; Pliny the Elder, Book II, ch. 67; Seneca, *Medea*; Horace, *Odes*, Book 1, lines 21 ff.; Tibullus, Book IV, Poem 1, lines 147 ff.; *Opera SS. Patrum, qui tempor. apostol. Floruerunt*, ed. Coteler, 1700, vol. 1, p. 158.

[1270] See Deuber’s *Geschichte der Schiffahrt im Atlantischem Ocean*, Bamberg 1814; *Antiquités Mexicaines*, Paris, 1834, especially Part II: *Recherches sur les peuples primitifs de l’Amérique*; Humboldt, *Vues des Cordillères*... vol. 1, pp. 235–240; Krashennikov, History of Kamchatka, Part I, Chapter 21, and Part II, Chapter 10; Malte Brune, Précis de la géographie universelle, vol. V, pp. 107, 572, ed. 1821; Antiquitates Americanae, Hauniæ 1837.

[1271] These include: Lasépède (General View of the Progress of Several Branches of the Natural Sciences Since the Death of Buffon, Paris, 1822; p. 84), Prischard (see note 1267 above), and Alexander von Humboldt (see his *Cosmos*, translated into Russian by N. Florov, St. Petersburg, 1848).

[1272] This view held that human souls were all created at once in the beginning, and then, when they sinned, were sent into human bodies as a punishment and for purification from sin. In addition to Origen, this view was held by Methodius (Compefis. Auct. PP. noviss, p. 97); Macarius Victorinus (in Ephes. (I, 4,7)); Synesius (Hymn. I, 89 ff.; III, 558); as well as the Manichaeans (apud Hieron. epist. XXXVIII); the Priscillianists (apud Augustin. haeres. epist. LXX); and others.

[1273] The Church, following these divine teachings, asserts that the soul was co-created with the body, neither the one preceding the other, contrary to Origen’s delusion (apud Mansi IX, p. 396 ff.)

[1274] A Summary of the Divine Dogmas, ch. IX, in Christian Readings 1844, IV, 221.

[1275] That (Priscillian’s error) is contrary to and repugnant to the Catholic faith, which confesses that every human being is formed and animated from the very beginning in the substance of body and soul by the Creator of the universe within the mother’s womb—though the contagion of sin and mortality, which passes from the first parent to the offspring, certainly remains (Epistle XV to Turribus on Priscillian’s Errors, chap. 9, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. LIV, p. 684).

[1276] ...And indeed (as is ecclesiastical according to the words of the Savior...) God creates souls daily; for He who wills to create never ceases to be the Creator (Contra Joan. Hierosolym. ad Pammach., chap. 22, in Patrolog. curs. compl., vol. XXIII, pp. 372–373).

[1277] A body can be born from bodies… but a soul cannot be born from souls, for nothing can proceed from what is hidden and incomprehensible. Therefore, the origin of souls is subject to God alone (Div. Instit. III, 18; cf. 11, 12 and De Opif. Dei, chap. 19)

[1278] Ambrose, *On Noah*: man cannot generate a soul; Hilary, *On the Trinity*, X, 20: every soul is the work of God; the generation of the flesh always comes from the flesh; Ephrem, *On the Inspiration*; Cyril of Alexandria, *Adversus Nestorium*, Book I, in *Opp.,* vol. VI, p. 18, Lut. 1638; Gennadius, *De Eccles. Dogmat.,* chs. XIV, XVIII.

[1279] Cyril of Alexandria, *Against Nestorius*, Book 1: “It is indeed born of the flesh, or is acknowledged to be flesh; but the Creator of all things, in the manner and by the word that He knows, brings the soul into being.” Gennadius, *On the Church*, Dogmat., chap. XIV: We say that only the Creator of all knows the creation of the soul; Hilar. on Ps. 111:3: Every day, the origins of souls proceed, hidden and unknown to us, through the working of divine power.

[1280] This view was held by the Luciferian heretics (Augustine, *Haeres. LXXXI; Gennadius, *De dogm. eccles.*, ch. XVI): “If the soul,” as is stated in the orthodox interpretation of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, “were derived from the same seed from which the body is derived, then they would die together,” part 1, answer to question 28.

[1281] According to the testimony of Blessed Jerome, this view was held by Tertullian, Apollinaris the heretic, and many Western Christians (Epist. 78 ad Marcell. et Anapsych., ed. Mart.). Origen (in Math. T. XV, n. 35); Jerome (in Eccles. XII, 7); Lactantius (Div. instit. III, 18); Gennadius (de dogm. eccles. c. XIV), and others.

[1282] See the approach to reconciliation proposed by Stefan Yavorsky in the article: “Exposition of Theological Questions,” Chr. Cht. 1844, 400–413, and cf. Theof. Procopov, Ortod. Theolog., Vol. II, pp. 37–45.

[1283] Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 to the Monks of Egypt; Theodoret, *In Exod. Quaest. XLVIII*; Augustine, *En Exod. Qu. 80*: “The Law did not wish to apply to murder because a living soul cannot yet be said to be in a body that lacks the senses, if such a body is not yet formed in the flesh and is therefore not yet endowed with the senses”; Jon. Philopon. *De mundi creat.* VI, 25; Gennad. *De dogm. eccles.* chap. XIV: we say… that the soul is created and infused into the already formed body, so that a human being, consisting of soul and body, may live in the womb and emerge alive from the womb, full of human substance. Cf. chap. XVIII.

[1284] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. IX, in the Christian Reader, 1844, VI, 221–222.

[1285] The third, which the Apostle (1 Thess. 1:23) mentions as being introduced with soul and body, is to be understood as the grace of the Holy Spirit, for which the Apostle prays that it may remain intact within us, so that it may neither be diminished by our fault nor flee from us (Gennadius, *On the Dogmas of the Church*, ch. XX).

[1286] Catechetical Sermons, IV, 18, p. 69 in the Russian translation.

[1287] Commentary on Isaiah, 1:3, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VI, 20.

[1288] Hymn on the Sacraments, Part II, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 270.

[1289] On the Obscure Passages of the Prophets, II, n. 5; Homily on Genesis, XXI, n. 6.

[1290] *De civit. Dei* XIII, 24, n. 2; cf. XXI, 3, n. 2.

[1291] An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2, Chapter 12, pp. 90–91, based on the Russian translation.

[1292] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 8, n. 2; our substance, that is, the union of soul and body; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, VII, 12; “death is the separation of the soul from the body”; Origen, *Commentary on Romans*, Book VI, n. 6; Titus Bostricius, *Against the Manichaeans*, II, 12.

[1293] Lib. de resurr. in Grab. Specilef. II, 188.

[1294] Apology 1, n. 8, 20; Dialogue with Trypho, chap. IV, 5.

[1295] Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 15: “For I see no other part in man besides the spirit and the soul to which the term ‘body’ applies, other than the flesh.”

[1296] Since (man) consists of two substantial elements, the body and the soul... (Against Marcion, IV, 37; cf. On the Resurrection of the Flesh, XXXIV; Against the Gnostics, Scorp. 9; On Penance, chap. III) Some maintain that there is another natural substance within him (man), namely, the spirit; as if living were one thing, which comes from the soul, and breathing another, which is done by the spirit... But to live is to breathe, and to breathe is to live. Therefore, all of this—both breathing and living...—belongs to the soul.... If there are two, the soul and the spirit, they can be divided... But this will by no means happen... Thus, when speaking of the soul and the spirit, the soul itself is the spirit (Book on the Soul, Chapter X.)

[1298] Strom. IV, 3, 25, 26; V, 12; VII, 12.

[1300] A perfect human being is a mixture and union of the soul, having received the Spirit of the Father, and the flesh mingled with it... (Adv. Haer. V, 6, n. 1; cf. n. 1; 12, n. 1).

[1301] Against Heresies II, 33, n. 5; V, 12, n. 2.

[1303] Against the Scrutators, Sermon XVIII.

[1304] *De inspirat.* p. 323, Vol. II, Greek ed.

[1305] Augustine, *De duab. anim. contra Manich.*; Nemesius, *De natur. homin.*, chap. 1.

[1306] A Conversation Between Eranist and Prav on the Unnatural Union of Natures in Christ, Chr. Readings 1846, Part 1, p. 337.

[1307] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. XI, Christian Readings 1844, vol. IV, pp. 314–315.

[1308] On Ecclesiastical Dogma, Chapters XV, XIX, XX.

[1309] According to Origen. Prooem. in Princip. n. 5.

[1310] Justin, *On the Soul*; Tertullian, *On the Soul*; Gregory of Nyssa, *On the Soul*; Augustine, *On the Soul and Its Origin*; Nemesius, *On the Nature of Man*; Maximus, *On the Soul*, etc.

[1311] De incorporali, Book 1, in Galland, IV, p. 503 ff.

[1312] Theodoret, A Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas, ch. IV, in Christian Readings 1844, IV, 219. Nemes, On the Nature of Man, ch. II.

[1313] “That it is incorporeal and immaterial, acting and moving in accordance with its own nature…” *De anim. et ressurr.* p. 189, vol. III, ed. Morel.

[1314] See note 1289 above; likewise, homil. in illud: Ego Dominus feci lumen, n. 1.

[1315] “What is our being? It is the soul by which we live, a subtle and spiritual being that has no need for anything burdensome; it is the body, which the Creator gave to the soul as a chariot for life” (Sermon 21 on Not Clinging to Worldly Things..., in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* VIII, 330).

[1316] Do not merely suppose that the soul is not corporeal, but know it for certain; I dare to declare this (De Gen. ad Litt. XII, 33, n. 62; cf. VII, 15, n. 21).

[1317] “Our soul is a simple being, endowed with reason and immortal.” (A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. IX, in the Christian Reader 1844, IV, 218).

[1318] “The soul is a living, simple, incorporeal being”... (Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II, 12, p. 92).

[1319] Eusebius, in Luke 12:24; Preparations for the Gospel 11:27; Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, ch. 2; Titus of Boston, On Manichaeism 1:26; Anastasius, in Matthew 7:1, p. 179; Maximus, On the Soul.

[1320] See notes 1146 and 1147 above.

[1321] God created the human race to be rational and capable of discerning the truth and acting rightly (Apolog. 1, chap. 28; cf. Dialog. cum Thryph. CII).

[1322] For God made man free and self-governing (Ad Autol. II, 27).

[1323] Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 37, n. 2, et seq.; 39, n. 17 et seq.; Tertullian, Against Marcion II, 5, 6; On the Soul XXI, XXII; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata II, 4; III, 9; IV, 23; V, 13; VI, 12; Origen, *De Principiis* II, 9, n. 6; *In Matthaeum* X, n. 2.

[1324] Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilies, IV, 18: “Know that you have a free soul...”; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II, 12: “The soul is a free being, endowed with the ability to will and to act.”

[1325] Tatian, Against the Greeks 7; Titus of Boston, Against Manichaeism II, 3; Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, XIX, n. 20, n. 3; XXII, n. 1; Augustine, On Free Will, II, 3; Ephrem, On Freedom, Vol. III, p. 434, Greek ed.; Cyril of Alexandria, Against Anthropomorphism, ch. II; Epistle LV; Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, ch. XXIX.

[1326] Tit. Bostr. *Adv. Manich.* II, 5, 6.

[1327] Origen, *De Principiis*, III, n. 5; Gregory of Nyssa, *Oratio Catholica*, XXXI; John of Damascus, *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, III, 18.

[1328] Augustine, in Ps. CI, Sermon 1, n. 2.

[1329] Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XXII, n. 6; Augustine, On the True Religion, chap. XIV, n. 27.

[1330] Origen, Against Celsus, IV, 3; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Origin of Man, ch. XVI; Catechetical Oration, XXXI; Chrysostom, Sermon on Anna, 1, n. 2.

[1331] Justin, *Apology*, 1, n. 43; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, IV, 37, n. 2, 6, 7; Isidore, Book II, Letter 129.

[1332] Irenaeus, IV, 37, n. 3; Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, 5.

[1334] Justin, Apology 1, nos. 17, 18, 63; Tatian, Against the Greeks XVI; Irenaeus, Against Heresies II, 34, n. 2; V, 13, n. 3; Athenagoras, Legatus XXVII; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V, 15; Origen, Against Celsus III, 22; Tertullian, *De Resurrectione Carnis* XXXIV; Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel* 3, 3; Athanasius, *Against the Gentiles* XXXIII; Gregory of Nyssa, *On What It Means to Be in the Image of God*, 25, Vol. II, ed. Morel; Epiphanius, *Against Heresies* 64, n. 36, and others.

[1335] Tertullian, *De Anima* XI, XIV, XV; Origen, *De Principiis* II, 2, n. 4; III, 1, n. 13.

[1336] Justin, *Dialogues with Trypho*, n. VI; Tatian, *Against the Greeks*, XIII; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, II, 34, n. 4; Arnobius, *Against the Gentiles*, II, 14, 18, 32, 35; Theophilus, *To Autolycus*, II, 34, 36; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV, 69: “Know that you have a free soul, a beautiful creation of God, made in the image of the Creator, immortal by the grace of God, who makes it immortal, a living, rational, and imperishable creation, by the goodness of the One who bestowed this.”

[1337] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 6; Tertullian, Exhortation on Chastity, 1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, V, 4; VII, 3; Origen, Against Celsus, VI, 63; Athanasius, Oration Against the Arians, 1, n. 49; Ambros. *De Fide* II, 4; Isidor. *Lib.* III, epist. 95; Augustin. *De Trinitate* XIV, n. 6, and others.

[1338] Aristotle, *De Anima* 1, 2; Cicero, *De Legibus* 1, 7, 8; Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 1, 76 ff.; Seneca, *Prov. * chap. 1. Cf. Lactantius, *Instit. Divin.* II, 10.

[1339] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXX, n. 2, 3 ff.; *Ancoratus*, n. 55.

[1340] Clem. Alex. Strom. II, 19; “For what is meant by ‘in the image and likeness’ is not the physical form—since it is not proper for a mortal to be likened to the immortal—but rather the mind and reason?” Origen, Against Celsus VI, 63; VIII, 49; *De Principiis* IV, 37.

[1341] Epiphanius, *Haereses* XC; Eusebius, *In Psalms* 8:5; Greg. Nyss. Orat. in illud: “Let us make man,” in Chr. Cht. 1840, III, 303–305: “The image of God in us does not consist in a bodily form...; how can that which is transitory be the image of the Unchanging, and that which has form—the image of that which has no form?”

[1342] Ambrose, in Hexaëm. VI, chap. 8: “Therefore, the body cannot be the image of God, but our soul, which is free... etc.”; Augustine, *De Trinitate*, XII, chap. 7: “As not only the most truthful reasoning but also the authority of the Apostle himself declares, man was made in the image of God not according to the form of the body, but according to the rational mind.”

[1343] Theodoret, *Hist. Eccl.* 4, ch. 9; Dimitri of Rostov, *Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 62.

[1344] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 14; Augustine, Commentary on John, Treatise III: “You differ from the beasts only in intellect... In what, then, are you superior? In the image of God. Where is the image of God? In the mind, in the intellect.”

[1345] Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II, ch. 5, 6; Jerome, *Epistles*, 146; Macarius, *Homilies*, 15; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith III, 14, p. 175: “If man is created in the image of the blessed and pre-eternal Godhead, and God’s nature is free and possesses a will by nature, then man, as the image of God, is naturally free and possesses a will.”

[1346] Tertullian, *De Baptism* V; Augustine, *De Trinitate* XIV, n. 4, 6; Maximus, *Centurios* III, chap. 25.

[1347] Lib. de dignit. condit. human., chap. 2.

[1348] Works, vol. 1, p. 62; Rozyk, pp. 292–294. The following also reasoned in this way: Augustine, *De Trinitate*, book IX, ch. 4, 11, and book XII, almost entirely; Theodoret, *In Genesis*, question XX, in *Chron. Quart.* 1843b III, 351–352. “One can also find the most precise resemblance to God in the human soul. Thus, it possesses reason and life; the (human) mind gives birth to the word, and together with the word comes the breath, which is not born like the word but always accompanies it, and when the word is born, it proceeds together with it. But even in this respect, man is like God only as an image; for neither his word nor his breath has an independent existence.” “And in the Holy Trinity, we confess three hypostases, which are united without being merged, so that each has an independent existence.”

[1349] Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, XVIII, n. 3; XXI, n. 2; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Creator, chs. III, IV; Eusebius, On the Incarnation and Invisibility of God, in Galland, IV, 498; Epiphanius, Homily on Genesis 1, 26; Theodoret, Questions on Genesis, XX.

[1350] Justin, *De Resurrectione*, in Grab. *Specileg.*, vol. 2, p. 187; Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, V, 6; Gregory of Nyssa, *De Homini Opif.*, ch. 8; Augustine, *De Genesi contra Manicheus*, ch. 17; *De Quaest.,* LXXXIII, qu. LI.

[1351] Clem. Alex. *Storm.* 2, 22: “Is it true that man was created in the image of God at the very beginning, but that he is to attain likeness to Him later, upon reaching perfection?” Origen, *De Principiis* III, 6, n. 1; Ambrosius, *De dignitate conditio humana*, ch. II, III; Gregory of Nyssa, *Oratio in verba: faciamus hom.*, in *Chron. Ch. 1840*, III, 320 ff.; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II, 12, p. 90: “The Word—in terms of image—signifies the power of the mind and the power of freedom (αύτεξούσιον), while the word—in terms of likeness—signifies likeness (to God) in virtue, as far as this is possible.”

[1352] Tertull. adv. Prax. 5; Clement. Alex. Strom. V, 14; VI, 14; Ambros. in Hexaëm. VI, 8; Augustin. de Trinit. XII, 7, 8, 12.

[1353] Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, 5, 6; Titus Bostricius, Against Manichaeism, II, 5; Jerome, Epistle CXLVI.

[1354] Novatian, *De Trinitate*, ch. 1; Gregory of Nyssa, *Oratio Catechetica*, VI.

[1355] Clem. Alex. *Strom. II, 22*; Origen, *Adv. Cels.* VI, 63; Ambrose, *De bona mort.*, ch. V; Cyril, *Contra Anthropom.*, chs. II, III; Peter Chrysologus, *Serm.* CXX.

[1356] Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, XXXIV; Dialogues, VI.

[1357] Orat. in verba: “faciemus hominem,” in Chr. Cht. 1840, III, 320–322.

[1359] In Chr. Cht. 1840, III, 324.

[1360] Instit. Divin. IV, 28. Cf. De falsa sapient. III, c. 10; de vita beat. VII, c. 5.

[1361] Orat. II de homin. structura, in Opp. Vol. I, p. 338, ed. Garnier, in Chr. Ch. 1841, IV, 6. This same sermon is also attributed to St. Gregory of Nyssa by the editor of his works, Morel (Opp. Vol. I, pp. 153–166).

[1362] Homily on the Holy Feasts of the Lord’s Theophany, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 262–263.

[1363] A Discourse on St. Matthew 2:4, p. 33, Moscow 1843.

[1364] Epist. 43 Horontiano, n. 10, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XVI, p. 1132.

[1365] A Sermon on the Soul’s Turning to God and Union with Him, in *Chronicle of Readings* 1837, II, 119.

[1366] Sermon on the Holy Feasts of the Lord’s Theophany, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 257.

[1367] *De falsa sapientia*, III, chap. 10.

[1368] Chronicle of Readings 1841, IV, 29, note 1361.

[1369] Apud Damascenus, *Sacramentales Parallelae*, in *Opera*, vol. 2, p. 747, ed. Le Quien.

[1370] Cf. Damascenus, op. cit., p. 313.

[1371] Homily for Holy Easter, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 182.

[1373] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29, p. 128, from the Russian translation.

[1374] Epistle XLIII, nos. 13, 19, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XVI, pp. 1133, 1135.

[1375] A Word for the New Week, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. IV, p. 144.

[1376] On the Book of Genesis, Question 20, in Chr. Th. 1843, III, 348. St. Gregory of Nyssa also expresses the same idea (De homin. opific., chap. 2, vol. 1, pp. 50–51, ed. Morel.).

[1377] Homil. in Genes. XIV, n. 5; Serm. in Genes. VI, n. 1, in Opp. Vol. IV, pp. 113, 672, ed. Montfauc.

[1378] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* IV, 39, n. 1; Theophilus, *Ad Autolycus* 11, 15; Clement of Alexandria, *Cohort* 11; *Stromata* IV, 25; Dionysius of Alexandria, cited in Nicetas, *Catalogus in Job* (in Routh, *Religia Sacra* 11, p. 396); Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram* VI, 20; n. 31.

[1379] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 2, p. 86, according to the Russian translation.

[1380] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 23, n. 5; Tertullian, *On Patience*, chap. 5; Clement, *Cohort*, XI; Basil the Great, Discourses on the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 155; Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, homily XV, n. 4; Ambrose, On Isaac and the Soul, ch. 5; Augustine, The City of God, XIV, 26; Jerome, Against Juvenal, Book 1, Vol. IV, p. 171, Part II, (Mort.); - Gregory the Great, *In Job* VIII, 19, n. 35; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, Chapter 12.

[1381] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* 4, ch. XXXVIII, n. 3, p. 285, ed. Massuet.

[1382] In Genes. homil. XVII, n. 7, 9, p. 144, 147, Vol. IV, ed. Montfauc.

[1383] Basil the Great, A Concise Exposition of the Rules, Answer to Question 55, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” X, 202.

[1384] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter II, p. 85.

[1385] “I know,” writes Blessed Augustine, “that many have said many things about paradise; but there are three main views on this: the first is held by those who wish to understand paradise only in a sensory sense; the second by those who understand it only in a spiritual sense; and the third by those who understand paradise in both senses, both sensually and spiritually” (De Genes. ad litt. chap. 1).

[1386] Theophilus, ad Autolycus II, 20, 24; Hippolytus, in Nechaym, fragment, cited in Damascene, in Sacr. Parall., vol. II, p. 787; Epiphanius, Ancorata, LVII.

[1387] Ephrem, *De Paradiso ad hominem*, sermon; Gregory the Theologian, *Hymn on the Mystical Words*, 7, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 244–245.

[1388] Ambrose, *On Paradise*; Augustine, *Against the Manichaeans on Genesis*, II, 2; *On Genesis According to the Literal Sense*, VIII, 1 ff. Anastasius of Antioch cites many other ancient teachers who held this view (in *Hexaëm*, Book VII. Cf. Le Quien, *Opp. Joh. Damasc.*, vol. I, p. 174, note I).

[1389] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter II, pp. 87, 88.

[1390] Chrysostom, Homily XV on Genesis, n. 4. Vol. IV, p. 120.

[1391] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, 23, n. 5; Chrysostom, To Stagirus, Book 1, n. 2; Homily XVI on Genesis, n. 5; Augustine, Against Julian, Book IV, final chapter, n. 82; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter II, p. 87.

[1392] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 30, p. 132. Tertullian also states that, as soon as man fell, he was deprived of “the grace of paradise and the familiarity with God, through which he would have known all things of God, had he obeyed” (Adv. Marcion. II, Chapter 2).

[1394] *De corrept. et grat.*, ch. XI, n. 32.

[1395] Conversations 1, §§ 10, 11.

[1396] Hymns of the Sacraments, Vol. IX, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 255.

[1397] Against Eunomius, Book V, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, 208.

[1398] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 289.

[1399] On Sin and Grace, Chapter XI, n. 32.

[1400] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 290.

[1401] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12, pp. 91–92.

[1402] Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, CXXIV; Tatian, *Against the Greeks*, VII; Ctesiphon, *Stromata*, VI; Cyprian, *On Patience*; Hilarion, Commentary on Psalm 1, n. 13; Basil the Great, Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Author of Evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 155; Augustine, *The City of God*, XIII, 15.

[1403] Theophilus to Autolycus II, 27; Clement, Stromata II, 19; Lactantius, Institutes of the Divine II, 13; Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis II, Vol. 1, p. 28, Syr. ed.; Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, ch. 1.

[1404] Tatian, *Contr. Graec.* VII; Irenaeus, *Adv. Haer.* III, 20, n. 1; V, 3, n. 1; Athanasius, *De Incarn. Verb. Dei*, n. 4–6; Augustine, *De Gen.* ad litt. VI, 25, n. 36; *De Civ. Dei*, XIII, 23.

[1405] A Sermon for the New Week, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 144.

[1406] *De Genesi ad litteram* VI, 25, n. 36.

[1407] Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, ch. 6; Didymus, Against Manichaeism, in Vol. IV of the Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 871.

[1408] Homily on the Epiphany, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 243.

[1409] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 30, pp. 133–134.

[1410] In the Homilies on Genesis, XVI, n. 6, Vol. IV, p. 131, ed. Montfauc.

[1412] *Adv. Judaeos*, ch. 2, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. II, p. 599.

[1413] In Ps. LXXI. Blessed Augustine also repeats this elsewhere: “from whose tree man was forbidden, so that obedience might be commended—which is the greatest virtue and, so to speak, the origin and mother of all virtues—in that nature to which free will has been given, yet which must nevertheless live under the authority of a higher power” (Contr. Adversar. legis et prophet. 1, chap. 14).

[1414] Gregory the Theologian, Homily on the Epiphany, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 243; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, Chapter II, pp. 87, 89.

[1415] See notes 1386 and 1388 above. “For this reason,” notes John Chrysostom, “the blessed Moses recorded the very name of the place (where Paradise was located), so that those prone to idle talk could not deceive the simple-minded and claim that Paradise is not on earth but in heaven, and spread such fables” (in Genes. homil. XIII, n. 3).

[1416] In Genes. Quaest. 26 in Christian Readings 1843, III, 356.

[1418] Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis XVI, nos. 5, 6; Basil of Seleucia, Oration II on Adam; Severian, Oration VI, On the Creation of the World; Theodoret, Questions on Genesis 26 in *Christian Readings* 1843, III, 357. St. John Chrysostom, in the passage cited, strongly opposes the idea that this tree, by its very nature, had the ability to impart knowledge of good and evil to our first parents, and proves that Adam, even before eating from the tree, already understood with his mind what was good and what was evil.

[1419] As some modern scholars believe. Schwars, *Handbuch der Christl. Relig.*, Vol. II, § 148; Dobmayer, *Systema Theolog. cathol.*, Vol. VI, § 10, and others.

[1420] Sermon on the Epiphany, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 243. See the same idea in John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, Chapter II, p. 87.

[1421] Tractatus in Psalm 70. Cf. *De Civitate Dei* XIII, 20; XIV, 12; Theophilus to Autolycus II, 25, 34.

[1422] “What was the greatest good for the soul,” says St. Basil the Great, “if not dwelling with God and union with Him through love? Having fallen away from Him, it began to suffer from various and manifold afflictions” (Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 154).

[1423] Contr. haeres. V, c. 24; cf. c. 23.

[1424] In Genes. homil. XVI, n. 2.

[1425] Sermon on Holy Easter, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 160.

[1426] De Genes. ad litt. XI, p. 29.

[1427] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 30, p. 134. Elsewhere in the same work, St. John of Damascus offers a conjecture as to why the devil chose the serpent specifically as his instrument: “Before the Fall,” he says, “everything was subject to man; for God had made him ruler over all that is on the earth and in the waters. Even the serpent was close to man, and drew nearer to him than any other animal, and with its graceful movements seemed to converse with him. That is why the devil, the prince of evil, used it to instill the most pernicious counsel into our first parents” (Book II, Chapter 10, p. 83).

[1428] Justin, *Dialogues with Trypho*, pp. 103, 124; Tertullian, *On Patience*, ch. 5; Origen, *Commentary on John*, vol. XX, note 21; Lactantius, *Institutes of the Divine*, 11, 13; Euseb. Praep. Evang. VII, 10; Ambros. de paradise, ch. 11, n. 9; Greg. Nyss. in Ps. Tract. II, ch. 16; Theodoret. Quaest. in Genes. XXXI, in Chr. Readings 1843, III, 361.

[1429] In Genes. homil. XVI, n. 2, 3. We have presented here an abridged version of St. John Chrysostom’s thoughts.

[1430] St. John Chrysostom depicts God speaking to Adam as follows: “What mercy do you deserve, you who have forgotten My commandment and dared to prefer the gift of a wife to My words? For even though it was the wife who gave it to you, My commandment and the fear of punishment were sufficient to keep you from tasting it. Did you not know, or did you not understand? That is why, out of concern for you, I foretold that you would not be subjected to this—so that, even though your wife led you to break the commandment, you are not without blame. You were obligated to have even greater faith in My commandment and to take care not only that you yourself would not eat, but also to show your wife the gravity of the offense, for you are the head of your wife, and she was created for you. But you perverted the order, and not only did you fail to correct her, but you yourself fell along with her.” And He further remarks on His part: “Consider also the husband’s words: ‘The wife whom You gave me—she gave me of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen. 3:12). Here there is no necessity, no compulsion, but choice and freedom: she merely gave it to me; she did not coerce me or force me” (in Genes. homil. XVII, n. 4, 5).

[1431] See notes 1407–1410 above.

[1432] Blessed Augustine says: “Who would dare to say or believe that God lacked the power to prevent the fall of an angel or a human being? But God chose rather to leave this to their own freedom” (De Civitate Dei XIV, 26). And elsewhere, addressing the same question of why God permitted the fall of man, he replies: “I cannot fathom the depths of His intentions, and I confess that these matters are beyond my capacity” (De Genesi ad litteram, Book II).

[1433] A discussion on the fact that God is not the cause of evil can be found in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 156.

[1434] Apud Phot. Biblioth. cod. CCXXIX, p. 1548. The same idea is found in St. Ambrose (de parad. cap. VIII, n. 41).

[1435] We have already noted that there is no basis for departing from the literal meaning of Moses’ account of the original state and the fall of our first parents. Therefore, the view of the Encratites (apud Clem. Strom. III, 12, 13), the Manichaeans (apud Augustin. de morib. Manich. c. XIX), and other heretics of later times—that God’s commandment to Adam and Eve consisted specifically in forbidding them to marry, and that their sin lay in acting against this commandment—when, on the contrary, it is known that God, as soon as He created the first human beings, a man and a woman. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28), and at that very moment He taught them the law of marriage: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). All this took place even before the temptation by the serpent.

[1436] “People ask: Why was there a tree in Paradise through which the devil was able to carry out his evil design against us? For if he had not had that deceptive bait, how could he have led us to death through disobedience? It was there because a commandment was needed to test our obedience” (Basil the Great, “Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Author of Evil,” in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 158–159).

[1438] In *Genes. homil. XIV, n. 3*. The same idea is found in Blessed Augustine (*De civit. Dei* XIV, 12) and Blessed Theodoret (*in Genes. quaest. XXXVII*, in *Chron. Quart. 1843*, III, 370). The latter says: “Does sin not seem trivial to you? The Lord gave Adam full dominion over all the trees, forbidding him to eat from only one; yet he, leaving all the others, plucked the fruit from only that one forbidden tree. It was for this very reason that the Lord God rebuked him, saying: ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree from which I forbade you to eat?’ (Gen. 3:11)? The same is evident from the devil’s words to Eve: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1). Thus, the transgression is not trivial. They were forbidden to eat from only one tree; yet it was from that very tree that they first ate.”

[1439] St. John Chrysostom (in Genes. homil. XVII, n. 4) and Blessed Augustine (De Civitate Dei, XVI, 15) depict these motivations with particular force.

[1440] “God is repelled by nothing more than pride. That is why He arranged everything from the very beginning to eradicate this passion within us. For this reason, we have become mortal, living in sorrow and lamentation; for this reason, our life passes in toil and exhaustion, burdened by ceaseless labor. For the first man fell into sin because of pride, desiring to be equal to God” (John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel of Matthew LXV, n. 6, Part III, p. 129, Moscow, 1843).

[1443] Op. imperf. contra Julian. VI, p. 23, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XLV, p. 1567.

[1444] “What kind of death resulted from Adam’s sin? Two kinds: bodily death, when the body is deprived of the soul that gave it life, and spiritual death, when the soul is deprived of God’s grace, which gave it life through a higher spiritual existence” (Extended Christian Catechism on Article III, p. 43, Moscow, 1840).

[1445] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 23, n. 2; Athanasius, *Against the Arians*, Oration 1, n. 59; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm* XXXVII, n. 12; Theodoret, *Commentary on Romans*, V, 14; Peter Chrysologus, *Sermon* LXX; Cyril, *Against Julian*, Oration VIII.

[1447] A discourse on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, 155. Cf. the passage on asceticism, ibid., IX, 68.

[1448] Adv. Eunom. orat. II, p. 482, Vol. II, ed. Morel.

[1450] Homily on Genesis XVII, n. 2.

[1451] *Against Heresies*, III, 37.

[1452] A discussion of the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. VIII, p. 155.

[1453] Contr. Apollin. Book II, n. 6.

[1454] A Sermon on Asceticism, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IX, 68.

[1456] In 2 Chronicles, question 1.

[1457] Tatian, Against the Greeks, VII; Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, 9; V, 25; Chrysostom, Homily XVII on Genesis, n. 7, 9.

[1458] Theophilus, *Ad Autolycus*, 11, 25.

[1459] *Against Heresies*, III, 35; cf. V, 23.

[1460] Theophilus, Against Autolycus 11, 25; Methodius, Decree on Virgins, Or. III, n. 6; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 23; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1, 2; Theodoret, Commentary on Psalms XV, 5; Lactantius, Divine Institutes 11, 13.

[1461] *De Paradiso*, chap. 7; cf. *Hexaëm*, V, 7; *in Ps. 36*.

[1462] In Genesis, Homily XVII, n. 9; cf. Homily XVI, n. 6.

[1464] Tatian, *Ad Graec.*, ch. 34; Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem* 11, 2; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm 68*; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures* II, 4, p. 28; Basil the Great, *Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil*, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 155.

[1465] Exposit. in Psalm. III, Opp. Vol. V, pp. 3–4, ed. Montfauc.

[1466] In Genes. Serm. III, n. 2. Similar ideas are found among other teachers of the Church: Theodorus, in Ps. XV, 5; Augustine, De Civitate Dei XXII, 22, n. 3; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 10, p. 83.

[1467] In Genes. homil. XVII, n. 9.

[1468] Some of the early Church Fathers held their own particular views on this subject. For example, Tatian considered the toxicity of certain plants to be one of the consequences of Adam’s Fall (ad Graec., ch. XII); Theophilus of Antioch—the ferocity of wild animals (ad Autol., 11, 17); Augustine—the existence of deformities (contr. Julian, op. imperf. V, 8), Isidore of Spain—the dimming of the light of the sun and moon (ord. creat. p. V), and so on.

[1469] Epist. CXC ad Optat., chaps. 1, 2, 3, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. XXXIII, pp. 857–861.

[1470] See Th. Procopovicz, *Christ. Orthod. Theolog.*, vol. II, p. 483; cf. p. 458, Leipzig, 1782.

[1471] In Augustine, *Gesta Pelag.*, ch. XI; *Contr. Julian*, *op. imperf.* II, 64; *De natur. et grat.*, ch. XIX, n. 21.

[1472] Catechism of Racow, question 423; Clericus, Ecclesiastical History, c. 180, §§ 30, 34.

[1473] Augustine, *Confessions*, ch. XVIII; Solidus, *Declaration* 1 on Free Will, nos. 1, 2, 3; Calvin, *Institutes*, 11, 1, nos. 8, 9; 2, no. 1; Luther, *On the Servitude of the Will* (in response to Erasmus), fol. 178, Vol. III, ed. Jena; Melanchthon, Loc. commim. on the acts of sin and the distinction of sins.

[1474] Augustine, *On the Merit and Remission of Sins*, 1, ch. 9.

[1475] Augustine, *Against Julian*, VI, ch. 12.

[1476] Augustine, Sermon CLIII on the Words of the Apostle, Romans 7:5–13, ch. XI, Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 832.

[1477] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 11, 22, and 39, n. 4; Origen, Book V, Chapter VI of the Epistle to the Romans, n. 9; Homily VIII on Leviticus, n. 3; Cyprian, Epistle LIX to Fidus on Apostasy, p. 98, ed. Maur.; Ambrosius, *De Abraham* II, n. 81; Augustine, *Sermon* CXV, n. 10; *Contra Donatistas* IV, 23, n. 30.

[1479] On Sin, Merit, and Remission, III, n. 9, 5, n. 10.

[1480] Blessed Augustine also pointed this out against the Pelagians. *Contr. Julian.* II, p. 2.

[1481] As attested by Blessed Jerome. *Dialog.* III, n. 17, *Opp.* Vol. II, p. 788, ed. Vallars.

[1482] The acts of all these councils are published in *Collect. Concil.* Vol. I, ed. Harduin.

[1483] Dialog. cum Tryphon, n. 88.

[1484] *Contr. haeres.* V, 16. Other passages: “The law says that a person is healed from the ancient wound inflicted by the serpent only if he believes in the One who… draws all things to Himself and gives life to the dead” (*Contr. haeres.* IV, 5), “Just as through the tree we became debtors to God, so through the tree we receive the remission of our debt” (V, 17).

[1485] De testim. animae, ch. III. Elsewhere: “Every soul is counted as belonging to Adam until it is counted as belonging to Christ; it remains unclean as long as it is counted as such, and is sinful because it is unclean” (De anim., ch. 40). The evil of the soul, apart from that which is superimposed by the influence of the evil spirit, is in a sense preceded by a natural defect from the very beginning (ibid., ch. 16).

[1486] Epistle LIX to Fidus, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. III, p. 1013.

[1487] In Matthew, chapter XVIII, note 16; in Psalm LIX, note 4. Elsewhere: “because all flesh is from sin—that is, derived from Adam, the father of sin—Christ was sent in the likeness of the sin of the flesh, existing in it not in sin itself, but in the likeness of the sin of the flesh” (Oper. incerti fragm. VIII).

[1488] A Discourse During a Famine and Drought, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 137–138.

[1489] Hymns on the Sacraments, Book VII, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 245; Discourses Against the Arians, ibid., III, 173–174.

[1490] Apology of David, II, ch. 12, n. 71; cf. Apology of David, T, ch. II, n. 56; Epistle LXXIII, n. 8; On the Mysteries, ch. VI, n. 32; Epistle on the Faith to Hier (in Maj. VII, 1, p. 159). In the latter passage, the idea is expressed particularly clearly: “Such was the condition of all mortals from the very beginning, as determined by their first parents, that no one could escape the punishment of damnation for original sin, which passes from generation to generation, unless the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

[1491] Homily X on the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 5. Cf. Homily on Isaiah, VII, n. 7.

[1492] Clem. Alex. Strom. III, 16; Origen, Homily VIII on Jer., n. 1; Homily VIII on the Song of Songs, n. 6; Homily VIII on Lev., n. 3; Athanasius, Oration 1 Against the Arians, nn. 51, 61; Gregory of Nyssa, *On What It Means to Be in the Image and Likeness of God*, Vol. II, p. 29, ed. Morel.; *Commentary on the Psalms*, Treatise II, ch. 13; Macarius, *On the Freedom of the Mind*, n. II; *On the Nature and Discernment*, ch. IX; Homilies V, 1, 2, 3; Didymus of Alexandria, Commentary on 1 John 5:19; Cyril, On the Incarnation, ch. 12, in Maj. VIII, II, p. 72; Theodoret, Commentary on Psalm 50:7.

[1493] *De nupt et concup.* II, ch. 12. The Pelagians, in defense of their false doctrine, cited certain passages from the writings of the ancient Fathers, such as Cyprian, Hilary, Chrysostom, and especially Ambrose; but the fallacy of all these citations was already demonstrated by Blessed Augustine (Against the Two Epistles of Pelagius IV, 8; On Nature and Grace Against Pelagius LXIII; Against Julian 1, 6; On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin Against Pelagius XLIII, n. 47; On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, c. 35, n. 40).

[1494] Plato, *De Legibus* IX; Cicero, *Quaestiones Tusculanae* III, n. 1; Seneca, *De Elementis* 1, c. 6; *De Ira* III, c. 26; Horace, *Satires* 1, 13, 16.

[1495] Tatian, Against the Greeks XIII, XIV, XXX; Macarius, Homilies XXV, n. 2; On the Freedom of the Mind, n. 21; Augustine, The City of God XXII, 22, n. 1; Gregory, Commentary on Job V, 34, n. 61.

[1496] Justin, *Apology* 1, 24; Athenagoras, *Laws* XXIV; Clement, *Stromata* II, 4; III, 9; IV, 20; Origen, *On the Principles*, Prologue, n. 5; Tertullian, *Against Marcion* II, 5; Cyprian, *Epistle* LV; *Exhortation on Chastity*, ch. II.

[1497] Cyril of Jerusalem, Public Sermons, IV, 21; Basil the Great, “On the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil,” in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 154; Ambrose, *In Hexaemeron*, 1, p. 8. The former specifically states: “The soul is self-governing; therefore, the devil can incite, but has no power to compel against one’s will. He instills in you the thought of fornication; if you wish, you will accept it; but if you do not wish, you will not accept it. For if you were to commit fornication out of necessity, why would God have prepared Gehenna? If you were to do good by nature rather than by free will, why would God have prepared inexpressible crowns? A sheep is meek, but it is never crowned for its meekness, because its meekness does not come from free will but from nature” (pp. 71–72, Russian translation). See also notes 1326–1333 above and the text to which they refer.

[1498] Blessed Augustine, for example, persuaded his listeners as follows: “Know for certain that you act of your own free will. Since you live, you also act. He (God) is not your helper if you do nothing yourselves; nor is He your supporter if you make no effort... God does not build His temple out of you as He does out of stones that have no movement of their own, which the sculptor takes and places. Living stones are not like that; and you, as living stones, build yourselves into the temple of God. “You are led, but you yourselves must also move forward; you are led, but you yourselves must follow” (Serm. CLVI, alias XIII, n. 13).

[1499] Epiphanius, *Haereses* LXX, n. 3; Gregory of Nyssa, commentary 1 on the words: “Let us make man in the image…” in *Christian Readings* 1840, III, 322: “In the image, I am endowed with reason; and in the likeness, I become what I am by becoming a Christian;” Cyril, *Adversus* Anthrop., p. 5, 10; Augustine, *De Spiritu et Littera*, p. 28; *Retractations*, II, 24; Demetrius of Rostov, *Rozysk*, pp. 293–294.

[1500] Epiphanius, Epistle Against John of Jerusalem; Jerome, Epistle XXXVIII to Pammachius on the Errors of John of Jerusalem.

[1501] Orat. ad Graec. ch. XI; cf. ch. VII.

[1503] A discourse on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VIII, 155.

[1504] Song on the Mystical Words 10, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 260.

[1505] Sermon XLVII; cf. *On the Calling of the Gentiles*, 1, ch. 3; *On Luke*, VII, ch. 15.

[1506] Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, n. 88; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 12, n. 3; Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, II, 9; V, 25; Lactantius, *Institutions on the Divine*, II, 13; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm 62*, n. 6; Gregory of Nyssa, *On Virginity*, c. 13; Augustine, *The City of God*, XIII, 15.

[1507] “Light was created,” argues St. Gregory of Nyssa, “by a single command: God said, ‘Let there be light.’ The heavens were created; but the heavens, too, were created without deliberation. The heavenly bodies were created; but there was no prior deliberation concerning the heavenly bodies either. Countless oceans and seas were created; yet they, too, were brought into being by a single command. Fish of every kind were created; yet they were created by a command. Beasts, livestock, and fish were created; yet He said, ‘Let there be,’ and there was. Here, however, the opposite is true: man does not yet exist, and a council is being held concerning man. It is not said, as it was for the other creatures: “Let there be man.” Recognize, then, your superiority; your creation was not left to chance; but a counsel is being held in God regarding how to bring this superior creature into being” (Sermon I on the words: “He created man…,” in the Christmas Readings 1840, III, 300–301).

[1508] “O beloved,” writes Saint Demetrius of Rostov, “your father, who begot you in the flesh, is not your true father: for he begot only mortal flesh, which soon dies. But Almighty God, your Father, is truly your Father: for He created your immortal soul, instilling it into your flesh, which was conceived by His command; for your visible father is one thing, and your invisible Father is another. The visible father is mortal, temporary...; but the invisible Father is immortal, eternal, almighty, and all-sustaining. He spoke, and you were formed in your mother’s womb; He commanded, and you came forth from your mother’s womb; and if children are to honor their earthly parents, how much more so should they honor Him who created us in His image and likeness, who gave us reason and understanding, who set us to rule over the works of His hands, and who, though we are His servants, has made us His sons and brothers through His grace.” (Dogmatic Teachings, Selected from the Works of St. Dimitri of Rostov, in Chr. Ch., 1842, 4, 370–371.)

[1509] Here are some examples of how Providence is described: a) Basil the Great: “Every created being, whether visible or intelligible, requires God’s care (έπιμελείας) for its sustenance” (On the Holy Spirit, ch. 8, II. 19, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, p. 259); b) Nemesius: *pronoia estin ek Theou eis ta onta ginomeni epimeleia* (de nat. hom. cap. 43, apud Gotland. Vol. VII, p. 419), and — b) John of Damascus, who echoed Nemesius’s words: “Providence is God’s care for creatures” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29, p. 124). However, it should be noted that, in calling God’s providence His care for creatures, we speak of God in anthropomorphic terms, for lack of more precise words: God’s providence is entirely free from the kind of solicitude, anxiety, and toil that we usually associate with caring for anything.

[1510] According to Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI, 17).

[1511] See Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem*, II, 24; Titus Bostren, *Adversus Manicheum*; Augustine, *De Haeresis*, 70; Monet, *Adversus Catharum*, V, 11, § 6.

[1512] In Jerome, Epist. LXIII (also known as XXXIII), n. 7, to Ctesiphon against Pelagius.

[1513] Zwingli, *De Provid.*, chs. 5, 6; Calvin, *Inst.* 1, 18, n. 1.

[1514] In Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesaurus*, Book XV, p. 150 et seq.

[1515] Other relevant texts: Ps. 103:5–28; 134:6, 7; 146:4; Isa. 10:13; 40:26; Eccl. 5:22; 23:23, 24; 31:36, 37; Sir. 42:21–24, 26; Acts 17:25, 28; Rom. 11:36; 1 Tim. 6:13.

[1516] What were the followers of the schools: Aristotelian (Origen, in Ps. XXXV, 6), Epicurean (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura V, 196; VI, 389; Pliny the Elder, Natural History II, 7), and Stoic (cf. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VII, 7).

[1517] Gnostics, Manichaeans, and others. See note 1511 above.

[1519] Theodoret, *Contra Haereses*, Book V, p. 10, in *Christian Readings*, 1844, Vol. IV, p. 224.

[1520] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29, p. 125. The same idea had been expressed even earlier by other teachers, for example: a) Theophilus of Antioch: “If I say ‘providence,’ I mean His goodness” (Ad Autol. I, p. 71) and b) Nemesius: “Moreover, God is good; being good, He is beneficent; and if He is beneficent, He is also provident” (de nat. homin. c. 42).

[1521] Nemes. de natur. homin. c. 44.

[1522] Augustine, *In John*, Tract. II, n. 10, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XXXV, p. 1393. Cf. the words of Gregory the Great, cited below in note 1552.

[1523] In John, Homily V, on the words: “In him was life.”

[1524] John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, Chapter 29, pp. 124–125.

[1525] Clement of Alexandria observes: “It is evident that anyone who does not acknowledge Providence is more deserving of punishment than of refutation, and is, in truth, an atheist” (Strom. VI, p. 486). Lactantius speaks even more strongly against Epicurus: “If there is a God, He is certainly provident, as befits a God; nor can divinity be attributed to Him in any other way, unless He holds the past, knows the present, and foresees the future. Since, therefore, he rejected providence, he also denied the existence of God.” But when he professed that God exists, he simultaneously conceded providence. For one cannot exist or be understood at all without the other (De ira Dei, chap. 9; cf. chap. 4, in Patrolog. Curs. compl., vol. VII, pp. 98 and 86).

[1526] *De falsa sapientia*, Book III, ch. 28, in the cited *Patrologia*, vol. VI, p. 437.

[1527] Orat. contra gent. n. 41, in Opp. Vol. I, p. 40, ed. Paris, 1698.

[1529] On Genesis, Letter IV, Chapter 12, Note 22.

[1530] “A Discourse on Love for the Poor,” in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, 39.

[1531] De Genes. ad litt. IV, ch. 12, n. 23.

[1532] De provid. Orat. II, in Vol. IV, pp. 332–333.

[1533] *De Resurrect. Mort.*, p. 55, ed. 1559.

[1534] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 8, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 259.

[1536] Epistle XLIII, note 6 to Ctesiphon against Pelagius.

[1537] “Sayings: God has imprisoned all in disobedience (Rom. 11:32); and further: ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear’ (Rom. 11:8)—these words must be understood not as though God Himself were the cause of all this, but rather that He merely permitted it; for man has been given freedom, and a good deed must be done of one’s own free will” (John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book IV, Chapter 19, p. 282).

[1538] In *Acta Apostolica*, homily XXIII, n. 4.

[1539] In the Second Epistle to Timothy, Chapter IV, Homily VIII, n. 4.

[1540] Doctrin. XIV, in Biblioth. Patr. Graeco-Lat. Vol. XII, p. 836, Paris 1644.

[1542] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29, pp. 125–127.

[1543] Sermon 1 on Julian, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, I, 112.

[1544] In *Epist. ad Colloss.*, Book II, Homily V.

[1545] Sermon VIII, II. 4, p. 146 in the Russian translation.

[1546] Self-reproach and Confession, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XII, 216.

[1547] De providentia, Oration 1, in Vol. VI, p. 325.

[1548] Against Heresies, II, p. 26, ch. 3.

[1549] On the Resurrection of the Dead, p. 56, ed. 1559.

[1550] Strom. 1, ch. II; cf. IV, ch. 6, 12.

[1552] Lib. Thesavr. XXII, p. 306. Also noteworthy are the words of: a) Blessed Augustine: “Who (God) does not abandon the heavens and the earth, nor angels and humans, nor even the viscera of the smallest and most contemptible living beings, nor a bird’s feather, nor a flower of the grass, nor a leaf of a tree, without the proper arrangement of their parts and a certain kind of peace...” (De civit. Dei V, c. 11); b) Gregory the Great: “He who governs the highest things does not neglect even the lowest, for though He is so absorbed in the greatest, this same care of governance is not hindered from attending to the smallest; for He who is present everywhere and is the same everywhere is not unlike Himself even in things unlike Himself; and therefore He regards all things and arranges all things, being present in all places, neither confined to any particular location nor altered by the diversity of what He cares for (Book XXVII, ch. 18, n. 35 on Job 37).

[1553] The very intellectual considerations regarding the nature of both forms of Providence, as set forth by us, can be found in Blessed Theodoret (De Provid. Orat. II, p. 38, ed. Morel.) and in Nemesius (De natur. hom., ch. 44).

[1554] Plato, *De Legibus* X; Ammon. in Aristotle’s *De Interpretatione*, p. 12, ed. Alci; Plotinus, *Enneads* IV, Book 8, Chapter 2.

[1555] Likewise, in liturgical books, it attributes the work of Providence: a) to God the Father: “O Lord Almighty, God of powers and of all flesh, who dwells on high and looks upon the humble, searching hearts and minds...; accept our prayers” (Canon, fol. 5 verso, Moscow 1843); b) and to God the Son: “Carrying Christ in Your arms, You who bear all things by Your will, intercede for Him as Your Son” (General Liturgy, fol. 88, Moscow, 1834); c) and to God the Holy Spirit: “All thanks be to the Holy Spirit, who is co-equal with the Father and the Son, in whom all live and move” (Octoechos, Part 1, fol. 167, Moscow, 1838).

[1556] Epist. I, ad Serapion, n. 28. And further, n. 30: “For the Spirit divides to each one, and these things are bestowed by the Father through the Word.”

[1557] Against Eunomius, Book V, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 193.

[1558] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, ibid., p. 386.

[1559] Sermon to Those Who Have Come from Egypt, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 189.

[1560] De fide ad Reg. Serm. II, n. 51.

[1561] De vera relig., Sect. VII, n. 13, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. XXXIV, p. 129.

[1562] An Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 2, p. 52.

[1563] Tertullian, Against Marcion, II, p. 14; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1, 17; Athanasius, Against the Pagans, ch. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism, ch. 5; Augustine, On Genesis Against Manichaeans, II, ch. 29, n. 43; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapters 29 and 30.

[1564] Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 17; Augustine, *The City of God*, XXII, 2: “Many things do indeed come about through evil against God’s will, but such is the wisdom and power of God that all things which appear to be contrary to His will tend toward those outcomes or ends which He Himself has ordained as good and just” (cf. *Against Faustus*, XXII, 78).

[1565] “And God divided,” writes Blessed Augustine, “between light and darkness, so that even these privations might not lack their own order.” With God governing and administering all things: just as in singing, the interludes of silence, at certain and moderate intervals, though they are privations of sound, are nevertheless well ordered by those who know how to sing, and contribute something to the harmony of the entire melody; and in paintings, the shadows that distinguish the more prominent features please not by their appearance but by their order (On Genesis, on the Imperfect Tense, ch. 5). And in another place: just as opposites set against one another restore the beauty of speech, so the beauty of the world is commended through a certain eloquence—not of words, but of things—by the opposition of opposites (The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 18).

[1566] “What seems uneven to us,” says Saint Gregory the Theologian, “is undoubtedly made even by God. Just as the body has parts that protrude and parts that recede, parts that are large and parts that are small, so too on earth there are high places and low places; but all of this, in its mutual relationship, forms and presents to our eyes a beautiful whole. Likewise, with an artist, material that is at first disordered and uneven later appears to be very skillfully crafted when it is fashioned into a work of art; after which, seeing this work in all its beauty, we understand and acknowledge the artist’s skill. So let us not regard God as such an imperfect artist as we are; let us not find disorder in the governance of the world simply because the nature of that governance is unknown to us” (Sermon on Love for the Poor, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, 37).

[1567] Discourse on the Fact That God Is Not the Cause of Evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 150; cf. 146.

[1568] Lamentation on the Suffering of One’s Soul, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 313.

[1569] Sermon on Theology, Part 2, ibid., III, 50–51; cf. IV, 235: “Just as a ray of sunlight from a cloudless sky, upon encountering clouds that are still visible and reflect it—from which rain falls— spreads a multicolored rainbow, and the entire surrounding ether glows with continuous and gradually fading circles, so too is the nature of the lights sustained in existence by the fact that the highest Light ceaselessly illuminates the lower minds with its rays;” III, 20: “I do not know whether this is possible for the higher and spiritual natures, which, being closer to God and illuminated by the all-encompassing light, perhaps see—if not completely, then more perfectly and distinctly than we do—and, moreover, to varying degrees according to their rank, some more and some less than others.”

[1570] De communi ess. Patr., Fil. et Spir. S. n. 52: άμέσως παρά Θεοΰ μανθάνουσιν...

[1571] *Advers. Scrutat.* Serm. V.

[1572] De civit. Dei XI, 9, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XLI, p. 325.

[1573] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, pp. 54, 55.

[1574] Commentary on Psalm 32, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, 271–272.

[1575] Against Eunomius, Book III, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VII, 134.

[1576] On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 16, ibid., pp. 289, 290–291.

[1577] Homily on Holy Baptism, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 276; cf. p. 50: “There are intelligent powers and minds, pure in nature, unadulterated, unyielding or not easily swayed toward evil, rejoicing ceaselessly in the presence of the First Cause.”

[1578] Homily on the Nativity of the Savior, ibid., p. 241.

[1579] Homily on Holy Pentecost, ibid., IV, 16. St. Athanasius says the same about the angels: oú tí ge díá tēn idían phýsin (gennetá), allá díá monou tou Christou en ágió pneúmatō (Contr. Arian. Orat. 1, II. 56).

[1580] Catechetical Sermons, XVI, n. 23, p. 362.

[1581] Catechetical Lectures, XVII, n. 2, p. 373. Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Worship of the Spirit and the Truth, Book IX: “For angels and archangels, and those beyond them, and even the cherubim—all these are holy, but in a different way, since they are holy through Christ alone in the Holy Spirit.”

[1582] De Spirit. S. 1, 7, n. 83, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XVI, p. 724.

[1583] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, p. 56. The same idea is found in Blessed Augustine: “God was simultaneously in them, both shaping their nature and bestowing grace; therefore, it must be believed that the holy angels never existed without good will—that is, without the love of God” (De civit. Dei XI, c. 9).

[1584] Commentary on Psalm 28, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” V, 244.

[1585] Commentary on Chapter 6 of the Prophet Isaiah, ibid., VI, 255.

[1586] Hymns on the Sacraments, Hymn V on Providence, ibid., IV, 237.

[1587] Theological Homily 3, ibid., III, 51.

[1588] On the Common Essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no. 52.

[1589] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogma, Ch. 7, in *Christian Readings*, 1844, Vol. IV, p. 208.

[1590] Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, p. 56.

[1591] Hymns on the Mysteries, No. 6, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 236.

[1592] Sermon on Theology, No. 2, ibid., III, 51.

[1594] Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, p. 55.

[1595] See above § 104 and notes 1570, 1571, 1573.

[1596] On the Celestial Hierarchy, p. 39, Moscow, 1839.

[1599] Ibid., pp. 17 and 59. In general, the most detailed information on the heavenly hierarchy and on the specific purpose and ministry of each order can be found in the aforementioned work by St. Dionysius the Areopagite and in the Cheti-Minei under November 8 (New Style).

[1602] Origen, Homily X on Jeremiah, n. 6; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, IV, 10; Gregory the Theologian, Homily 2 on the Theology of God, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 51; Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, IV, 3; Augustine, *De Genesi ad Litt.* XII, 36; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book II, Chapter 3; Demetrius of Rostov, *Chetii-Minei* for November 8 (ibid.).

[1603] Origen, Commentary on John, Vol. XIII, n. 49.

[1604] Herm. Past. vis. II, p. II; Athenag. apud Phot. Biblioth. cod. CCXXXII; Origen, Homilies on Numbers, XIV, n. 2.

[1605] Origen, Homilies on Numbers, XIV, n. 2.

[1606] Augustine, *De diversis quaest.,* LXXXIII, question 79.

[1607] “As for what,” notes Blessed Jerome, “is said: ‘And I entered to speak to you,’ this has the following meaning: After you began to invoke God’s mercy through good works, tears, and fasting, I too seized the opportunity to enter into God’s presence to pray for you (Commentary on Daniel, chap. X, verse 12, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. XXVI, p. 556).

[1608] “But how, they ask, are we to understand this opposition on the part of the angels who rule over the nations, when angels are good and submissive to God’s will? How could the prince of the Persian kingdom have opposed the prince of the Jews?” To this, following St. John Chrysostom and other teachers of the Church, we may respond as follows: at the time when the angel Gabriel and the angel of the Jewish people, together with the prophet Daniel, were praying to God for the return of the sons of Israel from captivity to Jerusalem, considering this a blessing for them, — the prince or angel of the Persians prayed to God for the captivity to continue, pointing out the benefits of this—both for the pagans entrusted to him, who had borrowed many truths of faith and piety from the Jews during the captivity and could easily sink back into their former wickedness if deprived of such teachers, and for the Jews themselves, who, in their homeland amid prosperity, had all too readily fallen into idolatry, but in captivity had zealously sought the God of their fathers. Although both angels prayed in this way with good intentions, since God’s will was still unknown to them, they were, as it were, in opposition to one another (St. John Chrysostom, in Phot. Biblioth., cod. CCLXXVII, pp. 1543–1546, ed. Genev. 1612; ibid., Commentary on the Principal Passages of the Book of Daniel, following the guidance of the Holy Fathers, in Chr. Cht. 1845, I, 195).

[1609] And together, based on Deut. 32:8, according to the Septuagint translation.

[1610] On the Celestial Hierarchy, p. 40, according to the Russian translation.

[1611] Against Eunomius, Book III, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VII, 128–130. Cf. V, 341–342.

[1612] Dictionary of Liturgical Hymns, vol. 6, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” vol. IV, p. 236.

[1613] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. 7, in Christian Readings 1844, IV, 209.

[1614] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, p. 55.

[1615] Clem. Strom. VI, VI; Origen, Homilies on Genesis, XVI, 2; Homilies on Exodus, VIII, n. 2; Eusebius, Apology for the Gospel, IV, 10; Eiriphanes, On Heresies, LI, n. 34; Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XLIX, Works, Vol. VII, p. 599, ed. Montf.

[1616] On the Celestial Hierarchy, p. 41, from the Russian translation.

[1617] “Discourse on Theology” 2, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 51.

[1618] On the Celestial Hierarchy, p. 41, from the Russian translation.

[1619] In the Homilies on Numbers, homily XI, n. 5; XX, n. 3; cf. in the Homilies on Luke, homilies XII, XIII.

[1620] Farewell Sermon before 150 Bishops in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” IV, 33.

[1621] Haeres. XXV, II. 3, Orr. Vol. 1, p. 77, Colon.

[1622] Exposit. Evang. Luc. Book II, n. 50.

[1623] Letter 230, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” XI, 178.

[1624] Eusebius, in Ps. 90:12; Hilary, in Ps. 124: “We believe there are several spiritual powers, known as angels, who preside over the Church.”

[1626] Other similar texts in the Old Testament—Gen. 24:7, 14; 2 Kings 1:3–16; Tob. 5:17, 22; Judith 13:20; Zech. 2:3; 4:4; 5:5.

[1627] See further notes 1629–1631 and the text itself to which they refer. However, it should be noted that “although this saying, in its highest sense, as a parable, referred to infants in the faith, it was not spoken in disregard of natural infants, one of whom was the visible and immediate subject of the Lord’s words, and especially not in disregard of Christian children, who are usually also infants of the faith by baptism” (Sermon for April 17, 1835, by Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow Filaret, Vol. III, p. 143, Moscow, 1845). Even if we understand the Savior’s use of the term “little ones” to refer solely to natural infants, we will naturally come to the conclusion that every believer is given a guardian angel. For—“if for little children, whose spiritual powers and abilities have not yet been sufficiently developed for independent action, and who are therefore less susceptible to temptation than adults, this arrangement is deemed necessary so that they may have their own angels, then all the more so must we conclude that adults are not excluded from this arrangement, who are more prone to temptation, and consequently have a greater need for spiritual assistance, and, with a higher development of their spiritual powers, are more capable of spiritual communion” (Sermon by the same Archippus, for the Feast of the Archangel Michael, Vol. II, p. 228).

[1628] After quoting the words, “He has an angel,” Origen remarks: “ergo it is understood that there is also another angel of Paul, just as there is one of Peter, and another of each of the other apostles, and of each individual in order” (in Num. homil. XI); and St. John Chrysostom draws the following conclusion: “From this it is true that each of us has an angel” (in the Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, XXVI, II. 3).

[1629] In the Homily on Numbers, XX, n. 3.

[1630] Homily on Psalm 48:15, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, 370.

[1631] Against Eunomius, Book III, ibid., VII, 130–132.

[1632] In the Epistle to the Colossians, Chapter 1, Homily III, n. 3.

[1633] Exposition on Psalm 118, Vol. 1, p. 276, Paris, 1680.

[1634] In Hexaëm., Book V, in Bibl. PP., Vol. IX, p. 880, Lyon.

[1635] Hieronymus, Epistle to Eustochius, LXXXVI; Theodoret, Commentary on Psalm XL, II; Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, Book IV, Works, Vol. VI, p. 122, ed. 1638; Hilary, Commentary on Matthew, Chapter XVIII, n. 5; Treatise on Psalm CXVIII, letter 1; Theophylact, Commentary on Matthew 18:10, p. 105, Lutetia, 1731.

[1636] Greg. Nyss. *De vita Mos.* Vol. 1, p. 194, ed. 1638; Augustin. *De civit. Dei* XX, 14; Theodoret. *in Genes.* quaest. 3, in *Chr. Cht.* 1843, III, 323: “The Lord said that every person is entrusted to the care of a special angel.”

[1637] Hieronymus, Comment. in Matth., ch. XVIII: “Great is the dignity of human souls; for each of them, from the very moment of birth, has an angel appointed to watch over it” (Orr., Vol. IV, p. 83, ed. 1706).

[1638] Discourses on Psalm 33, verse 8, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, 295–296.

[1639] Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 5, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VI, 192.

[1640] Tractate on Psalm 18, Letter 1, Note 8, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. IX, p. 507.

[1641] Apud Damasc. Sacr. Parall. Tit. VII, in Opp. Vol. II, p. 309, Paris, 1712. The following also say the same: Origen (in Ezech. homil. 1, Vol. III, p. 358; in Matth. XIII, Vol. III, p. 607, ed. Bened.); Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V, p. 253, ed. Sylb.); Augustine (De Civitate Dei, Book XIX, in Opp., Vol. VII, p. 545, Venice, 1731); Anastasius of Sinai (Epist., Book II, to Anthimus, p. 432).

[1642] These are the words of St. John Chrysostom (in Epist. ad Hebr. chap. 1, hom. III, in Opp. vol. XII, p. 28, ed. Montf.). St. Gregory of Nyssa expresses a similar view (contr. Eunom. book 1, Opp. vol. II, p. 350, ed. Morel.).

[1644] On the Distinction and Division of the Unspoken. Ladder of Divine Ascent, 27, p. 120, according to the Slavonic translation, 1812 ed. A similar idea is found in Basil the Great (Homilies on Ps. 48, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” V, 370) and Gregory the Theologian (Homily on the Epiphany, ibid., III, 310).

[1645] Homily on Psalm 33, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, V, 296.

[1646] Sermon against Auxentius, in Epistolae Classicae 1, in Vol. 1, p. 866, Paris, 1690.

[1647] Treatise on Psalm 134, verse 7, note 17.

[1648] Letter to Euphrosynus, the Prepositus, Book II, Vol. V, p. 468, ed. Sirmondi.

[1649] Commentary on Matthew, Chapter XVIII, verse 5, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. IX, p. 1020.

[1650] The Philoptolemaic, Part IV, Chapter 81, folio 250, ed. 1840.

[1651] The Ladder, 28, according to the Slavonic translation, p. 125. See also—Gyrill. Alex. contr. Julian, Book IV, in Opp., Vol. VI, p. 123, ed. 1638; Augustine, Letter to Honoratus on the Grace of the New Testament, Epistle CXI, ch. 29; Isaac Cupin, in his sermon on withdrawal from the world, Christian Readings 1825, XVIII, 267.

[1652] Epistle CXXXIV to Euphrosynus, in Vol. V, p. 467, ed. Sirmondi.

[1653] Sermon on the Departure of the Soul, Or. Vol. V, Part II, pp. 405–406, ed. Lutet., in Chr. 1841, 1, 203.

[1654] Treatise on Psalm LVII, n. 6.

[1655] Athenagoras, Legatus, XXV, XXVI; Theophilus, ad Autolycus, II, 28; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, IV, 9.

[1656] Augustine, Commentary on Psalm XCIV, v. 6; cf. Justin, Apology 1, ch. 9, 12; Tatian, Against the Greeks XII, XVIII; Athenagoras, Legatus XXVI.

[1657] Minut. Fel. Octav. XXVII; Clem. Alex. Coh. II; Origen, Against Celsus III, 29; VIII, 47; Tertullian, On Spectacles X, XII; Basil the Great, Commentary on Chapter 10 of Isaiah, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VI, 335: “In trees, stones, or even in gold, silver, and ivory—and in all other forms made of precious and common materials—which the pagans worship, demons are present, invisibly flocking to them and delighting in the pleasantness of impure vapors...; seizing the opportunity to feast on the blood and fat of sacrifices, they love to be near the altars and the idols set up upon them.”

[1659] Tertull. de praescr. haeret. XL; Apolog. XXII.

[1660] Tertull. de orat. XIII; Origen. contr. Cels. IV, 92; Sozom. Hist. eccl. V, 18. The teachers of the Church considered these oracles to be one of the devil’s most cunning means of deceiving and drawing people to himself—people who are generally very eager to know the future (Chrysost. in Joann. homil. LXXVIII). As for the significance of these oracles, they reasoned as follows: “If anyone were to say that many things were foretold by the idols, one must understand that they always mingled falsehood with truth; and they phrased their prophecies in such a way that, whether something good or bad had happened, it could be interpreted either way. As in the case of King Pyrrhus of Epirus: ‘You will be able to defeat the Romans,’ and of Croesus: ‘Croesus, having crossed the Halym, will lose his great kingdom’” (Hieronymus, in Isaiah, chap. 51). “Neither God’s angels nor demons know the future, yet they make predictions: angels—when God reveals it to them and commands them to predict; therefore, what they say comes true. Demons also make predictions, sometimes perceiving distant events, and sometimes merely by conjecture; therefore, they often lie;” (John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, pp. 58–59).

[1661] Lactantius, *On the Death of Persecutors*, ch. X.

[1662] Greg. Pap. Moral. IV, p. 14.

[1663] Macarius the Great, Homily on the Freedom of the Mind, in Chr. Readings 1821, III, 4.

[1664] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 3, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, 1, 30.

[1665] Leo the Great, Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord VII, ch. 3, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. LIV, p. 218. Cf. Gregory the Theologian, Homily 37, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” III, 224: “Keep yourself unassailable in word, deed, life, thoughts, and the movements of your heart, for the evil one tempts from every side and watches for every opportunity to bring you down or wound you, if he finds anything unprotected and open to attack. The more purity he sees in you, the more he strives to defile you, for stains are more visible on clean clothing.”

[1666] Basil the Great, The Correct Doctrine, A Brief Exposition, Answer to Question 75, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IX, 251.

[1667] Macarius the Great, “On Freedom of the Mind,” in *Chronicle of the Fathers*, 1821, III, 8. Cf. Anthony the Great, Letter VI to the Monks, in *Chronicle of the Fathers*, 1826, XXIII, 180; “They (the evil spirits) try in various ways to lead us into sin. They conceal both their hatred for us and their hostile actions against us; they instill blasphemous thoughts in us; they prompt us to doubt the truths of the faith in order to lead us into unbelief; they cloud our minds; they give rise to wicked desires in our hearts; plunge us into despondency and despair, stir up anger within us, give rise to and reinforce in us a tendency to condemn others while always justifying ourselves, teach us to slander our neighbors, to speak kindly and amicably to those toward whom, at their instigation, we harbor intense hatred, they show us the outward faults of our neighbor but hide from us our own inner corruption; they cause strife and discord among us when, at their instigation, we consider ourselves better than others. Moreover, they urge us to undertake tasks that are beyond our strength and divert us from doing what is both beneficial and necessary for us. When we ought to weep, they urge us to laugh; when we ought to rejoice, they bring sorrow into our hearts.”

[1668] See, in particular, the ascetic writings of Anthony the Great, Ephrem the Syrian, Macarius the Great, and Isidore of Pelusium, as well as *The Love of Goodness*, *The Prologues*, *The Paterikon*, and *The Cheti-Minei*.

[1669] Herm. Past. II, mandat. VI, n. 2: “Two angels are with man: one good and one evil;” Origen, *De Principiis* III, 2, n. 10; Gregory of Nyssa, *De Vita Mos.* Vol. I, pp. 194–195, Paris, 1638; Cyril of Turov, Memorials of 12th-Century Russian Literature, p. 92.

[1670] “They have neither authority nor power over anyone, unless it is permitted by God’s will, as happened with Job, and as is written in the Gospel concerning the swine of Gadara” (John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 4, p. 58). The same is stated by Tertullian (De fuga in persecut. II), Theophylact (in Marc. V), and others.

[1673] Tertullian, *Apology*, ch. XXIII.

[1674] Minut. Fel. in Octav. XXVII.

[1675] Origen, Against Celsus, VII, 4, 1, 5. See the same idea in Clement, Recognitio, VI, 20, 32; Lactantius, Institutes of the Divine, II, 15; IV, 27; V, 22; Cyprian, To Demetrius; Cyril, Catechism, XVI, 15.

[1676] “Evil spirits know that when God allows them to tempt a person devoted to Him, He is thereby preparing a greater punishment for them. They are already certain that their torment is inevitable, that their falling away from God and their enmity against Him have inevitably made them heirs to hell” (St. Anthony the Great, Letter VI to the Monks, in Chr. Cht. 1826, XXIII, 179).

[1677] Basil the Great, a homily on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 161–162.

[1678] Dialogue with Trypho and Apology II, 6.

[1679] Sermon 3, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, 1, 67–68.

[1680] Discourse on Fasting 2, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, VIII, 19.

[1681] The Rule of the Ascetics, ch. 17, ibid., IX, 425.

[1682] On Chapter 1 of Genesis, Homily VII, n. 3.

[1683] On the Gospel of Matthew, Discourse LIV, part 17, p. 427, according to the Russian translation. Moscow, 1843. St. Cyril of Jerusalem argues similarly (Catechetical Lectures XIII, 36, p. 272, according to the Russian translation).

[1684] On Lazarus, Conc. II, n. 2, in Opp. Vol. 1, pp. 728–729, ed. Montf.

[1685] Sermon II on the First Sunday after the Trinity. Cf. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 4, p. 59: “Although they are permitted to tempt man, they cannot, however, compel anyone; for it is up to us whether to accept or reject their suggestions.”

[1686] A discourse on how the soul, when beset by the enemy, should pray to God with tears, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” XII, 343.

[1687] Commentary on Chapter XIII of the Book of Isaiah, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” VI, 371.

[1688] A discourse on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, ibid., VIII, 160.

[1689] Address to the Ascetic Stagirius, No. 1, II. 7, vol. III, p. 252, from the Russian translation of The Works of St. John Chrysostom, St. Petersburg, 1850.

[1690] “Exact Explanation of the Articles of Faith,” Book II, Chapter 29, p. 126.

[1691] Consoling Letters, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, X, 239; cf. IX, 352.

[1692] Commentary on Stagira, Book 1, II. 8. 9, Vol. III, pp. 253–257, based on the Russian translation.

[1693] Defensive Letters, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, XI, 80.

[1694] Letters to the Presbyters of Nicopolis, ibid., 178. St. Ambrose says something similar: “The crown is set before us; the contests must be fought. No one can be crowned unless he has won; no one can win unless he has first competed. The fruit of the crown itself is greater where the labor is greater.” (Exposit. Evang. sec. Luc. lib. IV, n. 37; cf. n. 41, in Patrolog. curs. compl. T. XV, p. 1623).

[1695] “Knowing that the angels help us and intercede for us, we call upon them in all our prayers, so that they may pray to God for us; and above all, we call upon the angel who is our guardian” (Rules of Confession, Part 1, answer to question 20).

[1696] Dogma of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

[1697] The Apostle specifically says: “Let no one deceive you with a self-imposed humility and the worship of angels, intruding into matters he has not seen, foolishly puffing himself up with his fleshly mind and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, being joined and held together by its joints and ligaments, grows with the growth that comes from God” (Col. 2:18–19). That is, it protects Christians from such false teachers who, under the guise of humility, out of utter ignorance, taught that worship (θρησκεία) or divine reverence should be rendered to angels, and thereby inevitably betrayed the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus, the one true God, and severed themselves from His body, the Holy Church (St. John Chrysostom in Epist. ad Coloss. chap. II, homil. VII, n. 1; Theodoret. in Epist. ad Coloss., Opp. Vol. III, p. 355, ed. 1684).

[1698] Rule 35: “It is not fitting for Christians to leave the Church of God, to depart, to invoke angels, or to hold assemblies. This is rejected. Therefore, if anyone is found practicing such secret idolatry, let him be anathema: for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has turned to idolatry” (See in the Book of Canons… p. 156, St. Petersburg, 1843).

[1699] “The sick,” says Saint Ambrose, “cannot seek help from a physician unless he is summoned to them through the efforts of others. Our flesh is weak; our soul is sick, bound by the chains of sin, and cannot explain to the (heavenly) Physician everything that is needed. That is why we must turn in prayer to those angels who have been given to us as helpers” (De viduis, chap. IX, n. 55).

[1700] In Joan. homil. XVIII, n. 2, Opp. Vol. VIII, p. 219, Montf.

[1702] Contr. gentes n. 44, Opp. Vol. I, pp. 42–43, Paris, 1698.

[1703] Hexaëm. VI, chap. 4, n. 21 et seq. Cf. Serm. de providentia, in Append. Opp. S. Basil Magni, Vol. III, pp. 581, 585, Paris 1730, where God’s providence regarding irrational animals is also described in great detail.

[1704] 1 Corinthians 20, in *Christian Readings* 1824, XIV, 259–260.

[1705] Contr. gentes, no. 42; cf. no. 43, where the same idea is explained in even greater detail.

[1706] On the Sacramental Hymns, 5, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, IV, 231.

[1707] On Providence, Oration I, Vol. IV, pp. 323–324.

[1708] Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 24, II. 1, 2, 3.

[1709] Apologet., ch. 26, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. I, pp. 431–432.

[1710] “A Discourse on Oneself,” in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, III, 210–211.

[1711] On 1 Epistle to Timothy, Chapter II, Homily IV, Works, Vol. XI, p. 579, Venice, 1741.

[1712] Discourse V on the Topic of the Toppling of Statues, II. 1, p. 329, in Vol. 1 of the Discourses of St. John Chrysostom to the People of Antioch, translated into Russian by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1848.

[1713] De civit. Dei IV, p. 33, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XLI, p. 139.

[1714] De civit. Dei V, c. 1, ibid., p. 141.

[1715] De civit. Dei XVIII, ch. 2, ibid., p. 560.

[1716] Letter to Nektarios’s wife, in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” X, 22.

[1717] Letter to Nectarius, ibid., p. 20.

[1718] Consoling Letters, ibid., p. 239.

[1719] Letter to Eustathius the Philosopher, ibid., p. 5.

[1720] Homily on Love for the Poor in “The Works of the Holy Fathers,” II, 39–40.

[1721] To Stagirius, Sermon 1, n. II, pp. 265–266 in Vol. III of the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, translated into Russian by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1850.

[1722] “It is not uncommon for the righteous to be delivered into the hands of the wicked—not for the glory of the wicked, but to test the righteous. And although, according to Scripture, if He suddenly strikes them with a scourge, He mocks the torment of the innocent (Job 9:23), both God’s mercy and the great treasures prepared for both groups in the future remain hidden until the time when word, deed, and thought will be weighed on God’s righteous scales.” (Gregory the Theologian, Eulogy for Athanasius the Great, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, 190).

[1723] To Stagira, homily 1, II, 16, p. 278 in vol. III of the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Russian translation.

[1724] Ibid., pp. 279–280; cf. Gregory the Theologian, “Homily on Love for the Poor,” in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, II, 36. In general, many Church Fathers have addressed the question of why the righteous often suffer poverty here, while sinners prosper. See, for example: Ambrose, *Officium* 1, p. 12; Titus of Boston, *Contra Manicheus*, Book II; Theodoret, *Commentary on the Last Five Books on Divine Providence*; Augustine, *Commentary on Psalms* 36 and 136; Salvian, *On Divine Providence*; Julian African, Book II on the Parts of the Divine Law; Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, Book III; Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, Chapter 44.