Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Treatises & Other

Course in Christian Ethics

Modern English Translation

Saint Nektarios of Aegina

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The modern English translation and the cover design are © 2026 Royal Archives. All rights reserved.

The underlying source text is in the public domain.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Translated by Royal Archives

Source: Μάθημα Χριστιανικῆς Ἠθικῆς

Cover: The Good Samaritan (1852) by Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798–1863), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:christian_ethics:en:1

Introduction

The Author

The man who wrote this textbook of the moral life had, by the time he composed it, already been schooled by injustice. He was born Anastasios Kephalas on the first of October 1846 at Selymbria in Thrace, then within the Ottoman Empire, into a poor and devout family. As a boy of fourteen he made his way to Constantinople to work and to continue his education, and in 1866 he crossed to the island of Chios as a schoolteacher. There, in his late twenties, the schoolmaster became a monk, receiving the name Nektarios; ordination to the diaconate followed. Recognizing both his piety and his gifts, the Patriarch of Alexandria supported his theological studies at the University of Athens, from which he graduated in 1885. He then returned to Egypt, was ordained priest, and served the Church of Saint Nicholas in Cairo with such distinction that in 1889 the Patriarch of Alexandria, Sophronios, consecrated him Metropolitan of Pentapolis—an ancient see in Cyrenaica, in what is now Libya.

The elevation lasted barely a year. His preaching and popularity stirred the envy of other clergy, and on the strength of slander he was removed from office, formally censured, and sent out of Egypt without a hearing and without any charge he was permitted to answer. He bore the humiliation without protest, and the historical record has since vindicated him: more than a century later, in 1998, the Patriarchate of Alexandria formally lifted the old censure. But at the time he returned to Greece under a cloud, and spent the years from 1891 to 1894 as an itinerant preacher before an appointment restored him to fruitful work.

That appointment was the directorship of the Rizarios Ecclesiastical School in Athens, the seminary that trained candidates for the Greek priesthood. He held the post for some fourteen years, from 1894 until his resignation in December 1908, and it was here—teaching, administering, and writing for his students—that the bulk of his prose theology took shape. The stories preserved from these years turn less on his learning than on his humility: finding a sick janitor unable to work, the metropolitan-director is said to have risen before dawn to do the man’s cleaning himself rather than see him lose his place. In 1904, at the request of a group of pious women, he began to build a convent of the Holy Trinity on the island of Aegina, and when in 1908 he judged that his presence there was needed he withdrew to it, living out his last twelve years as its spiritual father—writing, hearing confessions, tending the garden, and helping raise the buildings with his own hands and means. He died on the evening of the eighth of November 1920, following surgery for prostate cancer.

He was received as a saint by many during his own lifetime, and the wider Church confirmed that reception in due course: the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople glorified him as a saint on the twentieth of April 1961, and he is commemorated on the ninth of November, the day after his repose. He is among the most widely venerated of modern Greek saints, and his tomb on Aegina remains a place of pilgrimage. In the received tradition he is named plainly and without qualification: Saint Nektarios of Aegina, the Wonderworker—the attribution this edition keeps.

The Work: Occasion and Purpose

The Course in Christian Ethics (in Greek Máthēma Christianikḗs Ēthikḗs) first appeared in Athens in 1897, in the thick of the Rizarios years. It was written for a practical need. Saint Nektarios was responsible for the course in Christian ethics at the seminary, and the Greek-speaking Orthodox world of his day did not yet possess a complete, classroom-ready textbook of moral theology written from within its own tradition. So he made one—a systematic account of the Christian moral life laid out for students who would soon be pastors, and who would in turn have to teach and guide others.

The book therefore carries a double character that runs through everything in it. On one side it is a schoolroom instrument: much of it is cast in the old catechetical form of question and answer, proceeding by definition, division, and classification, so that a student could learn the matter and be examined on it. On the other side it is a work of conviction, animated by a single governing insight that Saint Nektarios pressed on his students again and again—that a person’s faith and love toward God are bound indissolubly to his conduct toward God and toward his neighbor, and that both together decide the destiny of the soul. Ethics, on this understanding, is not an appendix to doctrine but its lived completion.

There was also a polemical edge to the project, though the book wears it lightly. The academic theology imported into nineteenth-century Greece leaned heavily on foreign, largely rationalist textbooks, and Saint Nektarios meant to set against them a moral theology grounded in the Fathers and the councils rather than in the philosophy of the schools alone. He adopted the outward form of the great systematic handbooks then standard in the European faculties—their sweep, their orderly divisions, their apparatus of citation—and poured into that frame the substance of the patristic tradition. After he left the directorship he returned to the book, revising and enlarging it so that it might serve not only future clergy but the ordinary literate believer. The work thus belongs to the most productive stretch of his authorship, the years in which he also composed studies in Christology, pastoral theology, and the interpretation of Scripture; among these the Christian Ethics is his fullest treatment of the moral life as a whole.

Argument and Structure

Saint Nektarios opens, characteristically, at the level of the word itself. He derives the Greek ēthikḗ from ēthos, settled character, which in turn he traces to ethos, habit or custom, and he calls Aristotle and Plutarch as witnesses to the same derivation: moral virtue, in Aristotle’s account, grows in a person out of habituation, and takes its very name from it. The point is not antiquarian. It fixes at the outset the book’s conviction that no one is born good or bad but is formed toward one or the other by upbringing, education, and the repeated exercise of the will—and that ethics as a science exists precisely to teach the virtues in which a person must train until they harden, through habit, into a settled and unshakable disposition. From this etymological doorway the argument passes quickly into the territory that reason alone cannot map, and unfolds across three principal parts.

An extended introduction lays the foundations: the concept and task of ethics, the reasons the discipline arose, a compact history of Christian ethics from the Didache and the apostolic Fathers through Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Latin moralists, the relation of ethics to dogmatics and to philosophical ethics, and the necessity of revelation to complete what unaided reason begins. Here Saint Nektarios stakes his central methodological claim—that philosophical ethics, however noble, cannot by itself bear moral fruit, because morality is religious at its root and must be grounded in the religion of revelation if it is to transform and not merely to describe.

Part One, “General Ethics,” builds the doctrinal frame. It begins from the moral concept of God and the proofs of his goodness, moves to the human person made in the divine image and the question of human destiny and freedom, and then to the highest good, which Saint Nektarios identifies with the Kingdom of God—treated both as an eternal reality and as something to be realized, however relatively, on earth. From there he turns to law in its several senses (natural, rational, moral, and the law of revelation), to the authority and content of the moral law, to duty and the conflict of duties, to right and justice and virtue, and finally to a remarkably detailed anatomy of conscience: the broad conscience, the doubtful, the scrupulous, the sensitive, and the hardened or deluded, each distinguished and diagnosed.

Part Two, “Special Ethics,” descends from principle to particulars. After treating moral accountability and the imputation of actions—which deeds count as sins, which lie outside the reach of the moral law, how sins of ignorance or error are to be weighed—it divides into two great sections. The first is on virtue: whether virtue is innate, its moral and religious value, its relation to happiness and to blessedness, and then a systematic treatment of the virtues themselves. The three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love are handled first and at length; then the moral virtues, arranged according to the powers of the soul—the virtues of the intellect (prudence, wisdom, knowledge, truth, counsel), the virtues of the spirited part (courage, endurance, magnanimity), and the virtues of the desiring part (chastity, purity, virginity), each paired with the vices that oppose it. The second section treats moral evil, or sin: its essence, the degrees of guilt, what moves a person to sin, the genealogy of the passions, and the terminal condition of hardness of heart.

Part Three, “Moral Deontology,” is the longest, and turns wholly to duties. A section on general duties opens from the fall of man and the necessity of moral regeneration, then takes up the duties that flow from the liturgical and the moral law—including a pointed treatment of oaths and perjury—and the duties of a person toward himself, distinguished into duties toward his bodily nature, the harmonious development of his powers, and his rational, spiritual, and moral life. Duties toward the neighbor follow, grounded throughout in love: its foundation, its marks, and its exercise toward both the bodily and the spiritual good of others. A concluding section on particular duties descends into the concrete relations of civic and family life—duties toward the state, the mutual duties of parents and children, of masters and servants, of the several stations of social existence.

The reach of the citation is as wide as the plan. At every point where the natural moral law and the gospel agree, Saint Nektarios interleaves the pagan witnesses—Plato above all, then Aristotle, Plutarch, and the Stoics such as Seneca and Epictetus—with the Fathers, and the Fathers he draws from both halves of the Christian world: from the Greek East, Chrysostom, Basil, the two Gregories, Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian; from the Latin West, Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, with occasional recourse to Boethius and even to the scholastic distinctions of Aquinas. The classical philosophers are not ornament. Their presence enacts the book’s pedagogy: the student is shown exactly how far reason unaided can travel toward the good, and exactly where the gospel carries him beyond reason’s reach.

Theological and Spiritual Significance

The lasting interest of the Christian Ethics lies in what Saint Nektarios does with a borrowed form. The nineteenth-century systematic handbook—comprehensive, divided and subdivided, thick with references—was in its origins a Western academic genre, and a lesser writer might have produced with it a merely Orthodox-flavored copy of a Protestant or Latin manual. What Saint Nektarios produced instead is a synthesis. He keeps the architecture, because good architecture serves the student, but he founds the whole on convictions the manuals of pure ethical philosophy could not supply: that the moral life is participation in the goodness of God; that the human person is an image to be restored, not merely a will to be regulated; that virtue is the healing of a nature wounded by the fall; and that the end of ethics is not correct behavior but the perfecting of the soul unto eternal blessedness. Morality, for him, is theonomous through and through—it takes its authority, its content, and its power from God—and this is the axis on which his whole polemic against a self-standing rationalist ethics turns.

The treatment of conscience and of the virtues repays particular attention. In distinguishing the scrupulous conscience from the hardened, the doubtful from the deluded, Saint Nektarios is doing the work of a pastor as much as a professor: he is equipping future confessors to read the moral condition of real souls, with their evasions and their over-severities alike. And in ordering the virtues to the powers of the soul—intellect, the spirited part, the desiring part—he stands consciously within the ascetic and philosophical psychology the Fathers inherited and baptized, the same tripartite scheme that governs the analysis of the passions in the desert tradition. The book is, in this sense, a bridge: it carries the hard-won moral wisdom of the Fathers and the ascetics into the ordered, teachable form a modern seminary required, without letting the form flatten the wisdom.

Its significance is not confined to one communion. Because Saint Nektarios cites East and West together as a single inheritance—Augustine beside Chrysostom, Ambrose beside Basil—and because the questions he presses are the perennial ones of the Christian moral tradition (the natural law and the gospel, freedom and grace, virtue and the passions, duty toward God and neighbor and self), the work reads as an account of the Christian moral life that Christians of many traditions can recognize as their own. It is a document of the moral theology of the whole Church as one nineteenth-century teacher received and transmitted it, offered from within a life that had itself been tested in the school of injustice and patience.

Reception and Influence

Within the Orthodox world the Christian Ethics has never gone out of use. It circulates as a standard volume of Saint Nektarios’s collected works, and his own late revision—undertaken to open the book beyond the seminary to the ordinary reader—set the pattern for its long afterlife as a work of formation rather than merely examination. That afterlife is inseparable from the extraordinary growth of devotion to its author. Widely held to be a saint even before his death, glorified in 1961, and today one of the most beloved of modern Greek saints, Saint Nektarios lends the book an authority that no ordinary textbook carries: readers come to it not only for its order and completeness but because it is the moral teaching of a man the Church venerates as holy. The recovery of his story for a broad modern audience—including in film—has widened that readership further, and this English edition belongs to the ongoing effort to make his moral theology available beyond the Greek-speaking world.

The Text and This Edition

This edition presents a fresh, standalone English translation of Saint Nektarios’s Course in Christian Ethics, rendered from the original Greek. The base text is the first edition of the Máthēma Christianikḗs Ēthikḗs, published in Athens in 1897, which stands in the public domain; the working copy was a digital facsimile preserved on the Internet Archive. Because the archive’s automatically generated transcription of that scan confused Greek and Latin letterforms throughout, the Greek was re-established from the page images with an optical-character-recognition model trained on polytonic Greek, then cleaned and segmented into its numbered sections and paragraphs—roughly a hundred and seventy-six short sections in all—before translation. The English is made directly from that restored Greek text, not from any earlier English version.

In keeping with the conventions of this series, the translation modernizes the idiom for a present-day reader while preserving the substance and order of the original. Saint Nektarios cited his sources in the manner of nineteenth-century Greek scholarship, by traditional Greek abbreviations and Greek-letter numerals; here those references are converted to their familiar English equivalents and to Arabic numerals, so that a reader without Greek can still follow and check them. Scripture quotations are set in quotation marks, with the chapter-and-verse reference following in parentheses where Saint Nektarios supplies one. The 1897 printing is damaged in a small number of places, and where the underlying Greek could not be confidently recovered the fact is flagged rather than silently smoothed over, so that the reader always knows where the text is secure and where it is not.

Two conventions of attribution should be noted. The author is named as the Church receives him—Saint Nektarios of Aegina—without the qualifications that a purely critical treatment might attach; the veneration and canonization recorded above are stated as the plain historical facts they are. And those who carried the work into English are credited as translators, never as authors: the book remains, from first section to last, the work of Saint Nektarios.

Suggestions for Reading

A reader coming to this book for the first time need not read it straight through as a novel. It was built as a course, and it rewards being used as one. Those who want the heart of Saint Nektarios’s argument should begin with the introductory sections on the necessity of revelation and the grounding of ethics in religion, where his central claim is laid out, and then read the opening of Part One on the image of God and human destiny, which supplies the vision the rest of the book serves. From there the treatment of the virtues in Part Two—especially the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love—and the anatomy of conscience in Part One can be read on their own with great profit. The long catalogue of duties in Part Three is best approached as a reference to return to, section by section, as questions arise. Throughout, it helps to remember what kind of book this is: not a treatise arguing a thesis against opponents, but a teacher’s ordered handing-on of the whole moral inheritance of the Church, meant to be learned slowly and lived out over a lifetime.

Saint Nektarios of Aegina at the Rizareios School

Photograph from the period in which this textbook was composed.

Foreword

The Concept and Task of Ethics

Ethics, as a word, is derived from ēthos (character), which in turn comes from ethos (custom). It characterizes the good quality of the actions of a person’s moral life.

This designation was received from Aristotle, who called ‘ethical’ the disposition that takes its position from the nature of custom. Between ēthos (character) and ethos (custom) there exists, according to Aristotle, the closest relation. “Moral virtue,” says Aristotle, “comes about (in a person) from custom, whence it has received its name, slightly modified from the word ethos (custom).” (Nicomachean Ethics 9.1) and again, “for character (ēthos) takes its name from habit (ethos).” “for they are called ‘ethics’ because of habituation.” (Magna Moralia 1.6).

Plutarch also speaks about the derivation of the word “ethics” from “ethos”: “If one were to call the moral virtues ‘ethical,’ one would not be mistaken.” (Plutarch, On the Education of Children). For no one is born good or bad by nature, but has the capacity or disposition toward both; one becomes this or that according to upbringing and education and the other circumstances of life in which one is developed and formed.

According to this, ethics is synonymous with habit, and denotes the disposition acquired through repetition and the unchanging inclination toward the performance of good actions.

Ethics as a science has the task of teaching those virtues in which people ought to train themselves, so that they may acquire stability through habit and become unshakable workers of moral virtues. Since ethics proposes to apply the moral principles of the holy Gospel in the moral life of the human being, so as to lead him to perfection, through which alone the human being becomes a partaker of divine goodness and blessedness, ethics is shown to be a most important discipline and ought to be regarded as the rule by which every Christian must measure all his moral actions.

Ethics, as a moral canon, shows Christians what is in harmony and what is in discord with the evangelical moral principles, what perfects and gives life, and what destroys and corrupts the beauty of the divine image, in whose likeness the human being was made. The moral perfection of the Christian is the means by which alone the Christian is able to enjoy eternal blessedness, eternal life, and to attain the highest good, which is the supreme desire of the human being.

Reasons for the development of the subject of ethics

Question. What were the reasons that dictated the development of the discipline of ethics?

Answer. The following two: first, the scientific investigation concerning the concept of good and evil, and second, the obligation of man toward the moral law.

That is, first, whether all people at all times agree in their estimation of goods and their disapproval of evils, or whether they disagree. Whether the same moral practices are regarded by all people and at all times as good or bad, or conversely whether what is considered good by some is reckoned bad by others and vice versa.

And second, whether a human being ought to be good in character, and what authority obliges him, and what is the legitimacy, and what is the value and benefit of this goodness, and to what extent a human being can be good in morals, and how he can be.

From such questions, ethics as a science was born and gradually developed, engaging in the resolution of problems and difficulties relating to morals, and seeking the first principles of morality—on the one hand, to establish and ground it on secure foundations, and on the other hand, to regulate and order the moral life of human beings according to clear and recognized moral axioms.

History of Christian Ethics

What was the development of ethics as a distinct discipline during the early centuries?

The development of ethics as a distinct discipline proceeded in accordance with the needs and circumstances. During the first centuries the fathers of the Church turned all their attention to the dogma of Christianity, which had been attacked by many heretics, whose defense they undertook by writing serious and profound dogmatic works. Ethics, however, they treated in homilies for the edification of the faithful, or in special treatises, or they interspersed various ethical questions in their treatment of dogma.

Where do we find the first development of Christian ethics?

We find the first beginning of Christian ethics in the Didache of the Twelve Apostles (published by Bryennios in 1884) in the exposition of the two ways of life and death. In the writings of the apostolic fathers we encounter various reflections on the new Christian law and the life of faith, love, and hope

The “Shepherd of Hermas” (150), by the brother of Pope Pius, is more ethical in content. Among the apologists, Justin the Philosopher and Martyr above all treats various ethical questions, which exalt the grandeur of Christian ethics through the Lord’s moral demands that aim at death.[1] The wise catechist of the School in Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria (217), is primarily a moral theologian, because his three-part work (Protrepticus, Paedagogus, and Stromata) revolves around the fundamental moral idea of gradual formation and development toward perfection. Particularly in the Paedagogus he provides an outline of Christian ethics in homilies addressed to catechumens. Exceptional is his moral treatise “Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?”, where the relation of the Christian to earthly goods is defined in an orthodox manner.

From Origen (185–258), apart from various moral homilies and opinions on moral questions, we have two specific moral treatises: first, a work on prayer, and second, an exhortation to martyrdom.

A moral character also marks the work of Methodius, bishop of Olympus (or Patara), the Symposium of Virgins, or On Purity.

In the Western Church, Tertullian (160–240) was richest in moral monographs, and secondarily, Ambrose (340) and Lactantius (325).

He was named Eubulus because of his wisdom and virtue, and afterward he was martyred in the province of Tyre in 311.[2]

During the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Centuries

During the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, valuable moral homilies and important monographs on various ethical questions were written. In this period the following are distinguished: Athanasius the Great (296–373) (Life of the Great Antony), Ephraim the Syrian (379), Basil the Great (329–379) in his homilies, his ascetical works, and his moral rules both in their longer and shorter forms, Gregory of Nyssa (341–394) in his work on the life of the blessed Macrina, his own sister, in which he regards as the highest ideal “the philosophical and immaterial conduct of life, the angelic and heavenly life,” and in his five homilies on prayer, where he interprets the Our Father. Gregory of Nazianzus (329–389), bishop of Sasima, in his sermons and letters (on peace, love of the poor, etc.). Macarius the Great in his fifty homilies on ascesis and Christian perfection; Nilus (451), a devoted disciple and admirer of the holy Chrysostom, who wrote many letters and numerous works of moral and ascetic content; the divine Chrysostom (344–407), who in his golden and immortal homilies treated all the topics of ethics with depth and clarity; Isidore of Pelusium (440) in his letters (approximately 3,000 according to some, 4,000 according to others); Theodoret of Cyrus (on divine love). John of the Ladder (580–649), author of the Paradise; and Maximus the Confessor (662) in his chapters on love. Here the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite should also be mentioned. In the Western Church the most distinguished are the holy Ambrose (340–397), who wrote various moral treatises, among which the De Officiis ministrorum stands first, a counterpart to Cicero’s De officiis. This work was directed primarily at the clergy, but also at all the faithful. God was here presented as the summum bonum, and pietas est fundamentum omnium virtutum. The holy Augustine (354–430), an outstanding Father and ethicist, in his writings de moribus ecclesiae catholicae, de natura boni, de fide et operibus, enchiridion ad Laurentium, de fide, spe, caritate, de mendacio, de civitate dei, confessione. The great one among the others, epistola 52 ad Nepotianum de vita clericorum et monachorum, and Gregory the Great (590–604) in his beatum Job moralium (libri 35).

During the Middle Ages the Christian spirit was occupied with the collection of canons and outlines of the moral life from the moral writings of the Fathers of the preceding period.

Thus we have the moral precepts of John of Damascus (616–760), Isidore of Seville (sentiarum sive de summo bono libri 3), Bede the Venerable (Scinthille patrum), Alcuin de virtutibus et viciis, 36 chapters, a collection of Christian moral maxims, John Scholasticus (564), Patriarch of Constantinople, a collection of canons, John the Faster (882–598), the Confessional, and Theodore of Canterbury, the poenitentiale.[3] Among all the scholastics who dealt with various moral questions, the most distinguished is Thomas Aquinas (1274), the greatest ethicist of the Middle Ages, who after Aristotle exercised the greatest influence in various moral monographs, especially on the basis of Aristotelian philosophy and the theology of the holy Augustine. Parallel to scholastic theology, which eventually degenerated into a lifeless casuistry (Casuistica), mysticism developed, turning its attention to the interior contemplation of God and the depths of the religious life. Thomas à Kempis, who wrote the most edifying work On the Imitation of Christ, was filled with such a spirit. Luther also had the mystics of Germany as guides in his journey, having been first impelled to his work by them. After the revival of letters and the religious reformation of the sixteenth century in the West, a more scientific treatment of this subject began. Philip Melanchthon was the first to set forth the general principles of Christian ethics in the spirit of the Lutheran Protestants in his Loci Communes and also, following Aristotle’s principles, occupied himself more with the Philosophiae Moralis Epitome, while in the Calvinist church ethics was first separated from dogmatics in the work Ethica Christiana.[4] His example was followed in the Lutheran church by George Calixtus, who wrote a moral theology. In the Roman Church during this period, Christian ethics advanced in the casuistic method; casuistry fell into Jesuitism, whose three destructive moral principles are well known:

(1) He was first called ecumenical by the Emperor under Maurice.

three destructive moral principles: first, moral probabilism (Probabilismus); second, the sanctification of any means whatsoever by the end (methodus dirigentae intentionis) (finis licitus est etian media licita sunt, honestanfur media ex causa fininalia); and third, mental reservation (Conventio sive resservatio mentalis). The most notable Jesuit ethicists are Busenbaum and Gury, whose ethics was introduced into most of the priestly schools of Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, England, and North America. The principles of the Jesuits were opposed (668) by the Jansenists, Nicholas (Nicole) Arnold, and Pascal in his famous Provincial Letters.

In more recent times, Kant provided the impetus for a deeper study and more scientific treatment of the subject, freeing ethics from eudaimonism by proclaiming the absolute authority of the commandment of duty (the categorical imperative), but at the same time separating ethics from religion. Against the principles of Kant arose Flatt and Baum, who grounded ethics on the principles of Christian faith. No less significant for the deep and scientific treatment of both Christian and philosophical ethics are the ethical writings of Schleiermacher, who treated Christian ethics scientifically and on the basis of Sacred Scripture and the Church. Since then many ethicists have appeared who have set forth the subject with great scientific rigor, but not entirely uninfluenced by philosophical principles. The most distinguished of these are Rothe, Harless, Wuttke (two volumes outstanding for the history of catholic ethics), Schmid, Palmer, Cuilmar, Alex, von Oettingen (the founder of moral statistics), the Dane Martensen, (in two volumes or very voluminous), Hofman, Frank (professor at Erlangen, of whom Luthard said that he is in my view the systematic theologian, the architect of dogmatics and ethics), Dorner, Luthard (as an apologist), and Beck.

And among the Catholics there began, through a discourse that was both satirical and gracious, to combat the destructive moral principles of the Jesuits.

A more systematic treatment of the subject. Such Catholic moral theologians mentioned are Sailer Hircher, Martin, Worner, Simaz, Pruner, and others. In our Church, because of various reasons and circumstances, serious scholarly works were not written, but various moral handbooks were written with a sound scholarly spirit. Such are the Evangelical Law of Gennadios Scholarios, the Christian Morality of Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, and the Handbook of the Orthodox Christian by Alexander Sturdza.

In more recent times, the scholarly approach of the West began to exert influence among us as well. Of such a character are the Safe Guide to Christian Ethics by Detinos, the Moral Confession of Moschopoulos, the Ethics of Gogos from the Russian, the Ethics of Robotos, of Michael Apostolides, of Diomedes Kyriakos, of Palamas, the Elements of Ethics of Neophytos Vamvas and his Natural Theology and Christian Ethics, recently published by us.

Among our Russian brothers, works on ethics were written by Theophylact of Borsk, Platon of Moscow, Innocent of Penza, and others.

Sources of Christian Ethics

The first and most certain source of Christian ethics is divine revelation, the word of God, both written and unwritten, interpreted according to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, which is the vigilant guardian and faithful interpreter of the divine word. For in various circumstances the Orthodox Church in local and Ecumenical Holy Synods has issued various canons pertaining to the regulation and formation of Christian morals.

Besides the aforementioned sources, Christian ethics also has other consultative sources. Such are the consultative sources that the moral writings of the holy Fathers of the Church possess. As auxiliary sources, they have dogmatics, the ecclesiastical history of Christian morals, canon law, philosophical ethics, the history of philosophy, psychology, the philosophy of religions, the statistics of morals, history, and other disciplines having some relation to the moral condition of all humanity.

[1] Translator’s note: ‘that aim at death’: τὸ θόνημα (likely θάνατον) rendered as martyrdom context; alt. ‘directed toward death.’

[2] Translator’s note: This sentence continues the notice on Methodius of Olympus in the preceding paragraph: Methodius bore the honorific name “Eubulus” (well-counselled) in later tradition, and was martyred c. 311, traditionally at Chalcis in Euboea or in Lycia near Tyre. The 1897 source appears to have attached this note to Lactantius by a page-break error; it belongs with §3.7’s account of Methodius.

[3] Translator’s note: Two of the dates Saint Nektarios cites here are incorrect in the 1897 source. John of Damascus is given as (616–760); the conventional dates are c. 675/676–749. John the Faster is given as (882–598), which is impossible; the correct dates for John IV the Faster of Constantinople are c. 580–595. The dates are reproduced verbatim from the source.

[4] Translator’s note: The Greek source leaves the subject of “first separated” implicit (likely Lambert Daneau or another sixteenth-century Calvinist ethicist); the construction has been recast in the passive voice to preserve the sense without introducing an unverifiable name.

The Church of Saint George at the Rizareios School

Where Saint Nektarios celebrated the Liturgy daily during his years as director.

Introduction (2)

Definition

What is Christian ethics and what is its task?

Christian ethics is a scientific teaching whose task is the development of the moral principles of the Gospel, which the Christian ought to have as the canon of his moral life.

For such a task, what is it fitting that it be called?

Because of this work of ethics, it is fitting that it be called the science of Christian character, since through the development of the moral principles of the Gospel it seeks the harmony of character with those principles.

How else can it be called?

It can also be called the science of the highest good, because in the harmony of character with the moral principles of the Gospel is found the highest good, this innate longing of the human being.

What does Christian ethics do as the moral canon of the Christian life?

a) It shows all Christians what is in agreement and what is in disagreement with the evangelical principles; b) what perfects and gives life to the spiritual human being, and what corrupts and kills the human being made in the image of God; c) it provides stability in the good through habit and makes those who keep the moral canon unshakable workers of the moral virtues; and d) it perfects them and shows them worthy of eternal blessedness, of eternal life, and fulfills the longing for the highest good.

The Necessity and Relation of Ethics to Dogmatics

What is the necessity of ethics, and what is its relation to dogmatics?

The formation of moral teaching as a distinct discipline is as necessary as the discipline of dogmatics, the discipline of Catechesis, and of Sacred Scripture. Since dogmatics examines the dogmatic principles of the Gospel in their relation to God and investigates God as the first cause of all things, as Creator, sustainer, and provider of creation, and investigates and develops the dogmatic principles of the Gospel so that the faithful may know what they ought to believe, so also Christian ethics, examining the moral principles of the Gospel and the human being as a rational and self-determining being capable of being perfected, teaches what the human being ought to do in order to become perfect and a partaker of divine blessedness and goodness. Dogmatics has the relation of God toward the human being, while ethics has the relation of the human being toward God. “We love him because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19).

Ethics is faith developed in the Christian into a living power. Dogmatics presents what God has done, does, and will do for the fulfillment of his good will. Ethics, on the other hand, presents what the human being does and ought to do freely on account of these things for the realization of the kingdom of God and the attainment of the highest good.

The Task of Ethics

Having such a task, Christian ethics sets out to teach the Gospel principles, developing them according to
the spirit of the Holy Scriptures and sacred tradition, to discover the connection of the moral law to the spiritual law, that is, to the law of the human intellect, according to what the apostle Paul said: “But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my intellect and making me captive to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Romans 7:23), which he also calls the written law written in our hearts (Romans 2:14), and to demonstrate the affinity and harmony between the moral law and the spiritual law, and that the spiritual powers of man are receptive to moral teaching, and the power of man’s moral freedom, through which he is able to choose the good, to exercise himself in the practice of the good, and through moral perfection to become holy and a likeness of the God who created him.

The Relation of Christian Ethics to Philosophical Ethics

Christian ethics agrees with philosophical ethics regarding the origin of moral laws, insofar as Christian ethics teaches that the moral law is written in the hearts of men, and likewise true philosophical ethics agrees with Christian ethics in viewing the natural legislation innate in the human spirit as divine legislation, because philosophical ethics, accepting the human spirit as a creation of the absolute spirit, consequently regards the absolute spirit, God, as the cause of the moral law in man. Both philosophical ethics and Christian ethics seek the same goal: the moral formation of the human being.

But philosophical ethics is a science of the moral life of the human being as it is defined by the natural relation of the human being to God in creation, whereas Christian ethics is a science teaching about the moral life of the human being as it is defined by the relation established in redemption. So the first, philosophical ethics, as it forms the natural human being, can serve as a preliminary discipline and preparatory introduction to the second. Philosophical ethics, springing from right reason alone and knowing nothing of sin and grace, gives various moral canons and demands a moral life without at the same time pointing out the means by which it can be achieved. But Christian ethics, grounded in the revealed word of God and knowing the sinfulness of the human being, teaches at the same time how the moral life is achieved. The first presents the moral as a product of the natural human being’s power, while the second, acknowledging the natural power of the human being, presents the moral as properly an energy of divine grace. “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from you, the Father of lights” (James 1:17). “For it is God who is at work in us both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). The human being achieves ethics through himself and is strong in all things through Jesus Christ himself. The first ascends from the particular to the general, and gathering together various kinds of morality and virtue, it strives to ascend to the ideal and absolute, which has never existed for it and consequently which it only imagines and fabricates.

The latter, having before it the ideal and absolute model in the historical person of Jesus Christ, seeks to apply this model to each individual case. Thus the first works empirically and analytically, while the second works systematically and synthetically. For these reasons, Christian ethics, as it surpasses philosophical ethics in its sources, content, means, and method, is the only true, secure, and life-giving ethics.

The Superiority and Demonstration of the Power of Christian Ethics from Its Transformative Power

Christian ethics far surpasses philosophical ethics, because while philosophical ethics seeks to establish its moral principles on the reasonings of human intellect, which does not provide complete certainty nor inspire absolute confidence in itself, Christian ethics provides both certainty through reason and certainty through works, and draws to itself the absolute confidence of the faithful, because it both persuades their intellect, speaking eloquently about what it discusses, and fully assures their heart, and refashions, renews, perfects the whole human being, and reveals him as the image of God.

When was the power and superiority of Christian ethics demonstrated?

The power and superiority of the ethics of the Gospel was demonstrated from the very beginning, because as soon as Christianity received the nations that were held captive by many and various passions and taught them Christian ethics, immediately the moral life of these nations was transformed, and those who were formerly passionate and morally corrupted, and those who had nothing sound, and even those who were completely depraved, were morally reborn, refashioned, and through the ethics of the Gospel were perfected and revealed as the image and likeness.[1]

What entire ages were unable to accomplish, Christian ethics achieved in a short time with the utmost perfection.

All that has been accomplished from the manifestation of Christ until today—all that the entire Christian world and humanity take pride in: the great moral achievements, equality, freedom, brotherhood, the lofty concepts concerning the human being, moral constitutions, philanthropic institutions, the moral bond that unites all humanity through love—these are beautiful fruits and noble products of the principles of Christian ethics.

Evidence of Superiority from the Satisfaction of the Intellect and the Heart

Christian ethics provides not only correct and sufficient principles for a right moral life, but also speaks with conviction and certainty concerning the three most important questions that occupy the human intellect: concerning God, concerning the human being, concerning salvation. And this is the great merit of Christian ethics: because it is concerning these things that the human being chiefly desires to be informed, so that he may build the edifice on a firm foundation of his moral life. For no one can build his own moral life firmly on uncertain and shaky foundations, nor is anyone convinced by contemplation alone, but he also seeks confirmation from practice, from what has actually happened, so that he may be persuaded and assured, as it were through direct perception, of the validity of the principles being advocated. For practice is truly the witness to the validity of theories.

The Necessity of Revelation

This demand of the human spirit explains to us the reason for the barrenness of philosophical ethics. The inability and incapacity of human reason to moralize humanity and to satisfy the longings of the human heart and the demands of the human spirit, attested by experience, explains the reason for the necessity of divine revelation. For humanity desired to be assured, desired to hear the voice of revelation, so that it might be persuaded, so that it might be confirmed and lay an unshakable foundation for the moral edifice.

Humanity desired to receive divine help for the regulation and direction of its moral powers toward the good. Humanity was aware that it needed some supernatural strengthening through divine grace in order to regulate its moral life and be guided toward the moral good. Humanity was aware that it had sinned against God, that sin, acting upon the natural and moral powers of man, drove him toward evil—from which comes his inclination toward evil, which Scripture also testifies, saying: “The mind of man is inclined toward evil from his youth,” and that man was unable by himself to return to the good. Humanity was aware that it had need of divine strengthening. This is what the wise Socrates, the teacher of ethics, also said when he declared: “you would continue sleeping unless God sent someone to care for you” (Apology of Socrates I), because although he taught about ethics as no one else before him, nevertheless his teaching on ethics bore no fruit. because his words lacked divine authority, and they were seeking precisely that authority. These words of the wise Socrates are, I believe, the expression of the wise moral philosopher concerning the power of philosophical ethics taught by itself without the divine light, without divine authority, without the voice of revelation.

On the Inadequacy of Philosophical Ethics

Philosophical ethics could not bear the expected fruits, because not only did it lack the necessary persuasiveness to convince the human spirit concerning the truths taught about the most important questions—about God, about man, and about salvation—but it was also unable to strengthen man in the arena of struggle, in which he was obliged to contend with zeal and self-denial, so that he might be perfected in ethics and receive the prize of glory. because philosophical ethics was deprived of divine authority and divine power. But doubt shook their convictions and weakened the athletes, while the struggle demands victorious moral strength flowing from the full assurance of the moral law sealed by divine authority.

Ethics without religion cannot bear moral fruit

From this comparison of philosophical ethics with Christian ethics it is proven that ethics without religious moral authority is a tree with luxuriant foliage but without fruit. Therefore, in order for ethics to bear fruit, it is an inescapable necessity that it bear religious authority and possess divine power. Ethics and religion are two concepts indissolubly bound together, inseparable from one another, and whoever separates ethics from religion and seeks moral formation seeks the impossible, because moral principles flowing from theories are powerless to shape the moral human being, since they lack fire and moral power to strengthen the human being so that he may be able to fight against the demands of the material human being, against whom the spiritual human being must struggle and show the spirit ruling over matter.

Ethics Must Be Grounded in Religion

It is well known that Aristotle separated ethics from religion, but the later Stoa (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) attempted to warm ethics again through religion, because they saw that its separation from religion led to complete moral dissolution. The separation of ethics from religion is contrary to the very nature of the matter and the nature of man, as daily experience and history testify. For religion is the power that shapes and regulates character, and morality necessarily seeks a religious foundation. The one who despises religion is also immoral, because he lacks a religious foundation. History testifies that as long as religion had deep roots among a nation, ethics also flourished there, but as soon as religious convictions were shaken, moral decline immediately followed. The quality of ethics depends on the quality of religion. Just as a plant cannot remain vigorous without the warmth of the sun and the earth, so too morality cannot exist without the light and power of religion. Just as the existence of ethics without religion is impossible, so too is the existence of religion without morality impossible. Religious observance without morality is a false, dead, and motionless mysticism. But morality without religion is freedom without foundation, full of contradictions, unable to explain devotion to duty and endurance in afflictions and self-denial and self-sacrifice for the sake of virtue, leading theoretically to arrogance and blasphemous deification of man, and practically to the repudiation of every legal and moral obligation that hinders concessions to self-love and pleasure.

That morality bears a religious character

Since ethics is grounded in the acceptance that the good is the purpose of man’s existence, because God created him out of His own goodness, and acceptance presupposes faith, it follows that ethics bears a religious character, because whoever accepts the good beyond sense perception as the purpose of man’s existence believes in the moral ordering of man, in divine providence and governance. For this reason it is impossible for ethics to exist without religion. For this reason ethics rises or falls in proportion to the height and truth of man’s religious consciousness (the tree is known by its fruit). So ethics must flow from religion.

Ethics must be grounded in the religion of revelation

But is every religion capable of achieving the great purpose that ethics seeks? Truly, every religious ethics influences the character of the human being by regulating, according to the religious principles from which each proceeds, the life and way of life of human beings and by making possible the harmonious coexistence of those who share the same religion and nationality; but such ethics lack moral formative and perfecting power. Such ethics is unable to form the human being. The only thing it can accomplish is to restrain the unbridled impulses and desires of the adherents of its religious principles for the coexistence of the like-minded in social harmony. But the moral life does not have as its only goal the peaceful coexistence of the like-minded, but the formation and perfection of humanity as a whole and the peaceful coexistence not only of the like-minded but also of those who differ in belief, and simply put, of all humanity. For the goal of the moral life is not the social coexistence of human beings, but their perfection. Social coexistence is rather imposed as a means toward their perfection.

(1) §. §. Morality and goodness are interdependent concepts. Since ethics is based on the acceptance of the good purpose of the Creator, and since this acceptance presupposes faith, it follows that ethics is based on faith, that is, on right belief.[2]

The Goal of Christian Ethics
ethics sets as its goal to bring the kingdom of God on earth, making the inhabitants of the earth citizens of heaven. This work is impossible for an ethics to accomplish unless its moral principles are divine, established by God himself. Hence the imperfections of the moral laws and the unformed heart of the followers of various religions and moral principles, and the weakness of their moral teaching. Zoroaster, Confucius, and the various religious founders of other religions did not at all succeed in forming the hearts of their own followers, because formation is accomplished only by the creative power. He who formed the heart of man—he alone is able to form and re-form it. God alone, the Creator of the heart, is able to re-form it. He alone is able to speak to it, and for it to hear his voice, to understand his words, and to submit to his laws. From this it follows that ethics must be clothed, as with a royal purple robe, in divine authority. Its laws must flow from God himself. Since the morality of the Gospel must consist of divine commandments, possess divine grace, and be attested by its results, the morality of the Gospel is therefore the only one capable of forming and reforming man into the image and likeness of God through perfection.

That the moral life is the fitting life for human beings

How many proofs can we bring by which we can demonstrate that the moral life is the fitting life?

Many. But especially the following eight.

A. Because it is desirable. The moral life is the fitting life for human beings, because it is desirable, because the life that a human being longs for and desires from the beginning to live is the fitting life. A human being desires the moral life, because it is in harmony with the divine law and with the law of his intellect written in his heart, whose fulfillment the soul seeks. According to these things, the moral life is a life connatural to the human being. Hence both the harmony of the human being’s moral life with the divine law and the submission of the human will to the divine will.

B. Because it is rational. The moral life is the fitting life for the human being, because it is a rational life, and the rational life is fitting for the human being because of the word that exists within him. Therefore the human being, as rational because of the Spirit dwelling in him, ought to be moral; the one who lives morally lives according to reason, because reason directs the impulses of the passions, the appetites and desires according to the dictates of reason, which shows what ought to be done and practiced and what ought not to be done and should be avoided.

III. Because it is pleasing. The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because it is by nature a pleasing and agreeable life for him, because it provides him with true happiness; because the moral human being is truly happy and blessed.

IV. Because it is a spiritual life. The moral life is the fitting life, because the human being feels an ineffable inclination toward the spiritual life, and a longing for the beautiful, the good, the true, the righteous. In the practice of ethics, though the human being toils and struggles, he feels greater satisfaction than in a dissolute life.

V. Because the human being distinguishes the quality of actions. The moral life is the fitting life for the human being, because he distinguishes his actions into lawful and unlawful, This discernment established from the very beginning the foundations of law; no people ever existed, however deluded it may have been, that did not make a distinction among its actions; A person often mistakenly evaluates his own actions, but the mistake does not eliminate the distinction between good and bad actions. The distinction demonstrates the difference in the character of actions, and the difference in the character of actions indicates a moral distinction among actions, some of which are good and approved, while others are disapproved and bad, and the moral distinction indicates the moral character.

Because it arouses pleasing feelings. The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because it develops in the heart a feeling of joy. The inner joy manifested in the doing of good, and the natural aversion to evil and the accompanying sorrow after its commission, are evidence of the formation of the human being into a moral being. The supposition that the human being can be a being not subject to moral law is unacceptable, because it is proven absurd and false. because his rational powers—the intellect, judgment, and conscience—reject such a hypothesis; because what the intellect as free and independent judges, approves or disapproves, accepts and rejects in actions, the conscience praises or accuses the one who acted, either rewarding him with a pleasant feeling or punishing the doer for the action done contrary to its inward will.

Because It Makes the Human Being Social

The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because this alone makes social life possible, because it makes the human being social and perfect; because through social life the human being advances, develops, and is perfected; without ethics, without moral law, social life would be impossible; without social life, perfection would be impossible; without perfection, the appearance of the human being on earth would be purposeless; and without purpose, rationality would be an absurd superfluity; but purposefulness in all things testifies to the necessity of some purpose for which rationality was given and for which perfection is required, which is achieved in social life founded upon the moral life of the moral law; therefore rationality requires morality, which is why the human being as a rational being is a moral being; and the moral life is the life proper to the human being.

Because the Human Being Has a Well-Disposed Impulse toward Discovery and toward Moral Perfection

The moral life is the life proper to the human being, because the human being hastens to be raised up into the moral life. The human being’s inclination toward more complete perfection demonstrates the innate impulse toward moral perfection. Since this inclination of the soul is unceasing and becomes stronger with development, it follows that the soul seeks to be raised up to the highest knowledge, absolute truth, and absolute goodness. The search for absolute goodness, absolute truth, and the highest knowledge is an expression of the human being’s innate inclination toward the moral life and an indication of his moral freedom. because first, the human being seeks a more spiritual world beyond sense perception, not being satisfied with the world of sense perception, which he regards as insufficient to fill the emptiness of his heart. And second, he strives to show himself independent of the energies of his sensory nature and to manifest, as far as possible, his spiritual energy in a purer form, and to be raised to a more spiritual level by applying spiritual ideas in his life. This inclination proceeds from the consciousness of one’s own moral character. The soul is conscious that it was fashioned in order to become a partaker of the divine goodness and blessedness. Yet the soul feels that it is unable to attain what it seeks while it is turned and fixed toward the sensory and limited world, because goodness and blessedness are found in the absolute good. But absolute truth and absolute good cannot be found in this sensory world, because the truth grasped by the intellect, being relative, is not, as such, the universal truth. Likewise, the good in this sensory world is also imperfect. Since the soul yearns for the perfect good, and the imperfect is unable to satisfy the soul, the soul hastens, as far as possible, to be torn away from the sensible realm, so that it may become above sense, be raised to the world above sense—the spiritual world—and attain the supreme good, perfect truth, the absolute beautiful, and its own perfect blessedness.

The soul’s ascent from the sensible realm to what is above sense takes place through consciousness, and consciousness of the absolute is accompanied by imagination, discursive thought, intellect, aesthetic sense, feeling, and will. Through imagination the soul represents the idea of the absolute, clothing it in the form of a shape; through the intellect, which makes the absolute good comprehensible as far as possible, the soul clarifies the idea of the absolute and conceives it as the absolute true; through feeling the soul is disposed favorably toward it; through aesthetic sense the soul perceives it as the absolute beautiful; and finally through the will the soul yearns for it as the absolute and perfect good and wills and strives to be conformed to it. The human being, therefore, as a rational being, as a being possessing spiritual independence and freedom, as a being yearning for a realm above sense and for a good above sense, toward which it strives to be raised through its spiritual powers as it develops and is perfected spiritually, is a being moral by nature. Since the world above sense, the good above sense, absolute truth, and supreme knowledge, which the human being longs for and seeks, are found in the infinitely perfect Being, the supreme good, it follows that the human being, seeking supreme truth and the supreme good, longs for and seeks God, with whom the human being seeks to be united by being perfected morally. The human being is therefore a being moral by nature.

That the Human Being, Being Moral, Is Morally Free

The human being, as one able to draw himself out of the sensible realm and enter into the world beyond sense, as one able to be led back to the primordial cause of creation, as one aspiring to the highest good and the highest truth, is a morally free being, because one who is not free would be unable to leave the sensible realm, being bound by the bondage of slavery—that is, by sensible nature. The human being, therefore, is a morally free being, because he is a being moral by nature. The absence of moral freedom in a being moral by nature is a denial of the morality of the moral being and consequently an absurd contradiction, since it expresses contrary concepts; for ‘moral and not free’—that is, ‘the human being is moral by nature’ and ‘the human being is morally enslaved’—are two concepts that cancel each other out, because ‘morally enslaved’ negates ‘moral by nature,’ since it removes the power to become moral, for without moral freedom one would be unable to become a moral being. The moral freedom of the human being is attested by the moral power of the human being, because the human being is able to resist the stirrings of the sensible impulse and to postpone its desires for the sake of the spiritual impulse, or even not to follow them. Moreover, he has the power to examine the objects of the impulse and to judge their worth; and he has the power to regulate his will and his actions according to the moral law. The moral power of the human being, therefore, is a testimony to his moral freedom.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Christian ethics, viewing the human being as a rational, moral, morally free, and religious being, teaches him the moral principles of the Gospel and seeks their application to his spiritual and entire moral life. Because of this moral-religious character of the human being, ethics as a scientific teaching proceeds to its most important work by means of a scientific method, so that it may more effectively influence his moral character. Since moral truths, in order to be acceptable to the rational human being, require the authority of logical demonstration—because only through this is complete assurance and certainty achieved for their acceptance—for these reasons ethics, before proceeding to the development of moral principles and treating of virtues and duties, begins with the investigation of general moral principles. For these reasons Christian ethics is divided into two parts: the first, the general part, in which it treats of God and the human being, that is, of the general moral principles concerning the highest good and evil and concerning law and related questions; and the second, the specific part, in which it treats of the moral virtues and duties of the human being in general.

[1] Translator’s note: The 1897 Greek source breaks off this sentence at ‘εἰκόνα καὶ’ (image and); the natural completion of the Bible allusion to Genesis 1:26 (‘image and likeness’) has been supplied to round out the sentence.

[2] Translator’s note: ‘right belief’: ὀρθοδοξία rendered as ‘right belief’ to capture the etymological sense; alt. ‘orthodoxy’.

Part One—General Ethics

Interior of Saint George at the Rizareios School

Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God

The Moral Concept of God

Since morality is inseparably connected with religion through its dependence on religion, as we saw in §§ 9, 10, 11, the concept of God is therefore the necessary presupposition and condition of morality, and true morality is possible only where there is also the true concept of God, that is, where God is believed as infinite Spirit. The true concept of God is found in the teaching of the Holy Gospel. “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Therefore, where the moral idea has its absolutely perfect reality in the personal holy God, there morality also has its firm foundation, its true content, and its absolute end.

God is the foundation of morality. 1) because He is the only good One: “No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18) and because the good belongs to God alone. and 2) because the good is the eternal and enduring content of His will; “For with God there is no variation or shadow of turning.” (James chapter 1:17) and because God remains in goodness always the same as Himself and always in the same way and in the same state, since His will does not fall away from His eternal essence, because goodness does not exist outside of God, but He Himself in His essence is good.

Proofs of the Goodness of God

The goodness of God is demonstrated.

1) From the creation of all things, because the goodness of God acting freely is the beginning and the cause of all things, created through His all-wisdom and omnipotence.

2) From the revelation of God, because God reveals Himself in His own world as the only holy one and presents Himself to human beings for imitation as the only living holy archetype, and the human being, recognizing God as the archetype of the good, views morality as likeness to God and himself in his true moral worth as the image of God. (1 Pet. 1:14–15: “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance, but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct.” And Eph. 5:1: “Therefore be imitators of God as beloved children.” And Matt. 5:48: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” cf. Lev. 11:44; 1 Thess. 4:7.)

3) From the omnipresence of God. Because God, present everywhere in the world, guides the moral life of the human being toward its eternal end with wisdom, love, and righteousness, and supports the human being without removing his moral freedom, such an idea of God inspires in the one who lives morally complete confidence and joy in the fulfillment of the divine will, as one who feels himself to be a co-worker with God, but anxiety and shame with fear in the rejection of the divine will, as one who feels that in some way he is destroying the plan of God.

From the revelation of the divine will: Because God as holy lawgiver reveals in time His eternal and holy will, according to which the human being ought to live in harmony with God, and the will of God is His law, which presents itself to the rational and free being as a moral commandment and obligation.

And 5. From the work of redemption, because Christian ethics recognizes the supreme goodness and eternal love of God above all in the redemption of the human race, in which the one good God is worshiped in three hypostases: the Father, who provides for us and conceived the good counsel of the salvation of the human race; the Son, who became incarnate and carried out the good counsel; and the All-Holy Spirit, who works in us, gives life, and consequently applies this good counsel to human beings.

Concerning the Human Being Created in the Image of God

What did God intend through the creation of the human being?

In the creation of the world, God purposed to establish a kingdom of moral freedom and love. He established this kingdom through the creation of the human being, forming him in His own image and likeness. This is also expressed by what is said in Acts, that the human being is of divine lineage: “For we are indeed His offspring” (¹) (Acts ch. 17. 28). And truly the human being had to be such, because only in such free beings can God be well pleased to establish a kingdom of freedom and love. For it would be impossible to achieve the desired purpose if the human being were not a personal, free, and self-conscious being, but a mere creature and part of nature, and like the other creatures moved in the vicious circle of instinctive development of virtues appearing periodically and then perishing again, in which no progress, no spiritual development, and no perfection is manifested in their own life. The human being is truly a most excellent being; he alone has a history, he alone does not live only in the present, but extending his gaze to the past as far as the first beginning of beings and to the future as far as the most distant point of what lies furthest away, where the final and highest purpose is, he lives also for the future. The human being alone is a rational being.

That the destiny of the human being is to contribute to the restoration of the kingdom of God on earth

Since the concept of personhood is inseparably connected with the concept of communion and love,

(¹) A saying of the apostle and philosopher from Cilicia, Paul.

The human being is destined to advance the kingdom of love and freedom and to contribute to the restoration of the kingdom of God; and the kingdom of God exists where creatures acknowledge Him, obey Him, and love Him, and these creatures love one another mutually in God, and God reigns in them through His holiness and love. For this purpose the human being created in the image of God is by nature capable, having both a spirit endowed with various powers and a body endowed with various advantages and perfect dexterity. Through his spirit, the human being is joined to the world of spirits and converses with God himself, and through this spiritual communion with the supreme good he becomes a moral being called to accomplish the will of God on earth. Through his spirit the human being becomes king of creation and governs the creatures on earth. The spirit becomes capable of every work through the dexterity of the body, because the body is a suitable instrument for the fulfillment of every requirement of the body, since through the senses it enters into active relation with the external world and through the dexterity and assistance of the body it masters nature for the good of its moral end. From this appears the lofty destiny of the human being, by which he surpasses all other creatures, namely his moral destiny, which is manifest not only in his spirit but also in his body.

Besides his upright gait, the very face of the human being proclaims him master of nature, having a divine mission to fulfill on earth. Only in the union of the rational soul with such a body could the human being employ speech, that marvelous gift of the Creator, for the expression of his own thoughts and of the inspirations given to him by the Holy Spirit. Among the organs of the body, the hand especially proclaims its high destiny, being suited for varied free activity. Through the hand the human being, shaping, forming, and ordering, places his own seal upon nature and establishes the kingdom of civilization by working various arts.

That the destiny of the human being is evident from his impulses

Where is the destiny of the human being manifested?

The destiny of the human being is manifested in his impulses, and an impulse is the nature of each human being tending toward development, that is, life itself in relation to its own end.

The impulse is aroused initially in the human being as a blind will tending to be elevated into an understanding and conscious will. In impulse there exists a lack seeking fulfillment and satisfaction. Therefore, impulse expresses the human being’s inclination toward development and perfection. Impulses can be divided qualitatively according to the goods toward which they tend; consequently, since human life is life in the world and life in God, the deepest and most fundamental impulses of the human being are represented under both aspects: the impulse toward life in the world encompasses all its relative goods, while the impulse toward life in God encompasses the highest good. God and the world, therefore, are two powerful forces that make the human being their own instrument through the corresponding impulse. The impulse toward the world seeks a harmonious life with it, which is characterized as happiness encompassing not only the goods of the body and social relations, but also ideas, as occurs in the impulse toward knowledge. Such an impulse often drives the human being to dedicate his entire life to a particular idea, as both political history and the history of art, discoveries, and inventions testify.

But the impulse toward God aims not at happiness, but at blessedness and the full and perfect life in God and His kingdom, of which life in this world is only a preparatory foundation and condition. The impulse toward the kingdom of God carries the human being beyond this earthly realm and drives him not in himself and the world, but in God, in whom he seeks the fulfillment of his longings, because only in Him, in the highest good, can the human being have rest and satisfaction, and the spirit its proper spiritual and immortal nourishment. By virtue of this impulse the human being strives to sanctify the world, to make the human an instrument of the divine, and to consecrate humanity as a dwelling place of God and His Spirit. In this impulse the human being desires to become worthy of the blessings of God, sacrificing the earthly things toward which he hastens, and longs to be wholly consecrated.

The impulses have dominion over moral life

The impulse in the human being is neither absolutely independent!

it does not push irresistibly, as in the case of an animal, so as to deprive the human being of moral freedom; for the human being possesses the gift of self-determination and self-activity, being able to weigh and examine his impulses and to learn their true meaning and value by comparing them with the holy law of God, both written and unwritten, whose essence is the good, and to decide which of the impulses ought to prevail. This gift of self-determination and the power of self-activity make the human being responsible for his actions, and the accountability for his actions makes him responsible, accountable, and obligated to give an account of the stewardship of his life not only before human beings and before the tribunal of his own conscience, but also before the impartial Judge, God (Luke 16:2), because in acting he has worked independently, as he himself willed, driven or compelled by no irresistible necessity.

The Reason for the Predominance of the Worldly Impulse

The reason for the predominance of the worldly impulse is the irregular and abnormal development of the spirit of the human race, because if it had proceeded normally and regularly, then the worldly impulse would have been subordinated to the impulse toward the kingdom of God, and life in the world would have been in harmony with the divine law and would have become a suitable and obedient instrument preparing for life in God. The disordered and irregular development of the spirit of the human race made life in the world also unsuited to the law of God and an unsuitable and disobedient instrument for attaining life in God; thus the impulse toward the world prevailed, while the impulse toward the kingdom of God was restrained and so strongly bound that only through redemption could the proper relation and harmony between life in the world and life in God be restored again.

Concerning the Freedom of the Human Being, That It Is Not Absolute from God

The human being as a self-sufficient person fashioned in the image of God possesses the noetic and the self-determining and consequently the free, but his freedom is not absolute from God, but relative, unable to act outside the conditions established for it by God, because on the one hand it depends on the holy law of God, and on the other hand it is limited by individuality both bodily and spiritual, which is given to each one as a personal being and can be shaped by the will, but cannot be completely altered. The relative character of human freedom is also evident in the gradual development of the spiritual essence, in which the will also has as its presupposition the impulses and desires. This relative freedom contains the destiny of the human being; being at first a potential power, it becomes actual when the human being comes to consciousness of his own essential nature and is not carried toward his goal driven by external force, but choosing it by a decision of his own will, and consequently is free in his will.

How Freedom Is Characterized

According to what has been said, freedom is characterized first of all as the power of choosing (liberum arbitrium), that is, the capacity to choose between two principles, the principle of good and evil, and through such power of choosing the will must be tested and proved. The human being, then, as a free being, can and ought to choose the good as that which leads to his goal, but he can also do what he ought not to do—that is, turn away from his end. Such freedom, called freedom in a specific sense, lacking its true content, is not full and perfect freedom, but only one element of it; it is an indication of the capacity for transition to true and real freedom, whose content is truth. If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32) Therefore, according to the sacred Augustine: “Deo servire est summa libertas,” the most inward and essential law of the human spirit is truly its relation to God. True freedom, then, is the human being’s conformity with the will of God through the continual development of the spirit of God, so that he no longer chooses by preference between good and evil, but only the good, because his freedom coincides with his destiny and becomes an inner moral necessity.

the freedom of the children of God “as free, and not using your freedom as a covering for evil, but as servants of God.” (1 Pet. 2:16) “Likewise, the one called as a free person is a slave of Christ.”[1] (1 Cor. 7:22).[2] The one who is raised to such a freedom full of love and devotion does not have the moral commandment as something external imposed and alien to his essence, but as something internal and indwelling, not as a yoke and burden, but as a living power identified with the inner man.

Is the human will driven by motives in its operations?

Admittedly, the human will is often driven in its activities, on the one hand by incentives—that is, pleasing representations that move the will to action—and on the other hand by obstacles, that is, representations not pleasing to it, which calm and quiet the will. But neither the one nor the other is in itself the cause of our will; these representations, whether they impel the will to action or keep it at rest, in both cases acquire this power from the will, because the will approves and appropriates them, and the will receives its movement from the innate ideas of the beautiful, the good, and the true.

The human being, adorned by God with both freedom according to kind and true freedom, what use did he make of them?

The human being, adorned by God with both freedom according to kind and true freedom, misused the first and was found weakened also in the second, yet he can again attain it through the grace and redemption in Christ Jesus and through self-denial and moral struggle.

In contrast to this sound Orthodox teaching concerning freedom, which walks the middle way, there have appeared from the most ancient times two other teachings and theories holding the extremes and consequently diametrically opposed: the teaching of Augustine on moral unfreedom (determinismus = determinism) and the teaching of Pelagius (indeterminism).

The first teaches that human freedom is nothing other than concealed (respectable) necessity. The will of the human being became, through the transgression of the first-formed and the general and hereditary punishment of sin that flowed from it, once and for all unfree (servum arbitrium); consequently, it can only sin through grace and salvation in Christ, and only through the creative action of divine grace, toward which the human being is disposed as a passive vessel, can moral freedom become free again.[3] We all sinned together with Adam and are branches of the corrupted tree of the human race, which can be transformed only through a new creation, and the guilt of Adam is reckoned to all of us. The second teaching, which is vigorously opposed by the first, maintains that humanity suffered nothing from the transgression of the first-formed, remaining entirely unchangeable and healthy; consequently, the human being always continues in his normal and harmonious state, having full freedom to accomplish the good at every moment.

The delusion of the first teaching lies in this: that it does not recognize the remaining freedom within the unfreedom. In the sin of the individual it sees only the inherited sin of the race, and consequently removes all personal accountability. Certainly no human being is entirely isolated, but constitutes a member of the organism of humanity and society and participates in its (the organism’s) sin, which as hereditary is innate in him; but on the other hand, each human being is not only a member of the race, but in relative independence from it possesses within himself the center of his own life (in addition to the universal center of humanity), because although sin as a fated inheritance (that is, apart from the will) dwells in us, nevertheless this fated element is transformed into guilt of the will, because the human being willingly accepts sin and voluntarily commits others. It is true that a human being conceived in sins is unable to remain completely free from sin (since sin dwells within), but it is false that we cannot either accept or reject the salvation offered to us by the Gospel of Christ, and that this acceptance or rejection should not be personally attributed to us. But although a human being is unable to remain free from sin, is he therefore compelled to commit such and so many sins as he sometimes still commits?

Who bears witness concerning this?

The conscience of the human being bears witness that in his past, when he was strongly able to resist evil, such as pride, sensuality, and other vices, the flesh, laziness, and similar things, he either resisted or resisted to the extent that he did.

Only thus is the psychological phenomenon of remorse explained; and that freedom has not been completely extinguished or deadened in the human being through sin is witnessed by the history of various men in the pagan world whom humanity honors and admires—for example, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Socrates, Epaminondas, and others who, through their sincere striving toward self-knowledge (know yourself) and the activity of their will, strongly resisted evil and through self-denial fought against many evil impulses and inclinations. Or the honor due to such men is critically undermined if we insist that for them it was not a question of moral struggle concerning freedom, but of natural action by necessity. But whoever denies this admits that there exists a real relative freedom, and consequently one can justly speak of personal accountability.

Where the Delusion of the Second Teaching Lies

In this: that it removes every relation of the individual to the species, to the organism of humanity, and regards the individual as free from every influence and effect. This teaching is more superficial than the first: first, because it is incompatible with the voice of man’s conscience, with experience, and with the true life of humanity, where it is evident that man does not have full and absolute freedom at every moment, because his will is determined in many ways by innate inclinations, previous actions, and various habits; and second, because it indirectly denies the necessity of divine grace and redemption and ascribes to the work of the Lord (as do the modern rationalists) a certain pedagogical and exemplary significance.

Besides these teachings, which bear a religious character and arose from a misinterpretation of the Church’s teaching concerning sin and grace, are there others?

Yes, there are two philosophical and psychological theories diametrically opposed, just like the preceding religious ones. First, determinismus, that is, the system of the complete lack of freedom of the human being, whose representative and champion is the well-known pessimistic German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1787–1860). Second, indeterminismus or indifferendismus—the system of the absolute freedom or indifference of the will. The first system does not differ in essence from the pantheistic and materialistic theory.

According to this system, no decision is made without a corresponding motive, and when many motives exist, the will necessarily serves the strongest; consequently, the human being always does what he must necessarily do, because he could not have acted otherwise than he did. For example, a person who goes out on the street at the sixth hour and says: I am free to go for a walk or to the theater, or to church, or to visit a friend, or to kill myself, or to return to my house, says Schopenhauer, is not free, considering this a defect, but will act by necessity according to whatever is stronger—for example, to return to his house—just as water by necessity undergoes such direction and change. Here we observe first that the will is presented as inert, and second that these motives, which he presents as indifferent, appear indifferent because we do not know the character of those individuals, whereas if we knew it, we would see that they are significant. But he should rather have given an example in which the motives had an immediately moral character, such as doing good, acting justly, and speaking the truth.

But what do we know?

But we know that a human being, by virtue of his freedom, can either approve or reject these motives, because they are only stimulating and prompting, but not compelling and irresistible, and our conscience and moral experience testify that the will of human beings in the struggle between spirit and matter, between duty and inclination, can exert its powers and grant to the motive of duty the dominion to resist evil and escape temptation. If, however, even after all the most severe reproaches of conscience, a person yields to the impulse of evil, this shows that in the past he did not resist evil and did not strengthen his will, but on the contrary continually committed evil and became habituated to it, so that he became a servant of sin, with the result that no choice between good and evil remains to him any longer, but he does evil as if by necessity, having become callous through the hardening of his heart and having lost all feeling (which Saint John of Damascus calls petrification). Often, however, such a tendency was normal, or rather natural; and conversely, even these people often feel a tendency toward the world.

Where do those who hold the opposite view take refuge to support their theory?

Those who hold the opposite view usually take refuge, to support their theory, in the individuality of each human being, in the characters of persons in dramas, and in statistical tables. But we know that individuality is not given to us in a finished state, but is susceptible to formation and transformation, and that moral character is above any such natural predetermination. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. for the tree is known by its fruit. (Matthew 12:33). Certainly, “they do not gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles” (Matt. 7:16), and yet the quality of the moral tree depends on the final decision and action of the person. “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation.” (Matt. 26:41). “Let the one who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor. 10:12) and elsewhere. Thus individuality is receptive to formation and shaping.

The characters of persons in dramas are presented as consistent with themselves, but at the same time dependent on the past and on their conduct up to that point, and the development of character is not a necessary natural course, but freedom having various decisions. Hence the poetic difference and the concept of guilt and accountability, because the one following the unfolding of actions understands that the actor could have acted otherwise than he did act; that it was a critical moment in which it depended on him either to carry out his will or not.

And finally, moral statistics that annually determine the number of marriages and divorces, legitimate and illegitimate births, crimes, murders, suicides, and the like do not prove the existence of eternal, unchangeable, and necessary laws excluding freedom and necessarily presenting the same results annually, but simply a certain temporary regularity.

Where does this come from?

This comes partly from certain sinful and vicious inclinations that prevail for a time in persons whose freedom has been so bound by the passions that their actions acquire a necessary regularity like that of natural forces;
and partly from external relations and various circumstances that the human being cannot resist because of the weakness of the will. No one can deny that a society that today presents the same moral phenomena socially can, after the passage of some time, be changed through the energies of the human will—for instance, that the number of crimes and many moral ills can be reduced and prevented through governmental measures, through religious and moral influence, through improvement of legislation and of the educational and pedagogical system. The repeated moral energies of Christian brotherhoods, taking the results of moral statistics, have succeeded in many places in strengthening the moral springs among the people and in gradually producing a different moral condition, which irrefutably testifies that what is at issue here is not a matter of eternal laws and unchangeable fate, but of a relative regularity resting on transient relations and circumstances. It should be noted that these calculations of moral statistics are probably accurate; Great instability is observed among them, and from year to year the Exaltation or the decline changes.

What is the second system or the philosophical theory that is mistaken concerning the freedom of the human being?

The second system is indeterminism or indifferentism, the indeterminate or indefinite character of the will. This teaches that the human being possesses at every moment absolute and unlimited authority to choose. According to this view, the will is in no way predisposed, but stands indifferent above all motives (libertas indifferentiae). At every moment the human being is able to act otherwise than he acts and independently of his past, as soon as it seems good to him to make a new beginning of his life. From this it follows that the virtuous person at any moment can abandon virtue and enter the path of vice, and the evildoer can break every relation with vice and be raised to the heights of self-denial and holiness.

This theory of the rationalists is both superficial and naive, utterly overturned by the life of humanity, and must yield before the divine truth that is attested by experience and confirmed by Scripture.

[1] Translator’s note: Source citation reads “4 Peter ch. 2:16” (an OCR corruption of “1 Peter”); the verse quoted in v1 above matches 1 Peter 2:16 exactly.

[2] Translator’s note: Source citation reads “4 Cor. 7:92” (an OCR corruption); corrected to 1 Cor. 7:22, the verse quoted in the preceding sentence.

[3] Translator’s note: ‘only sin through grace and salvation in Christ’: the Greek syntax is difficult; alt. ‘can only sin, and only through grace in Christ can it be saved’.

The island of Aegina, seen from the Saronic Gulf

The island where Saint Nektarios founded the Holy Trinity Convent and where he died in 1920.

Chapter 2—The Highest Good

Concerning the Kingdom of God as the Highest Good

What is called good?

Everything that a human being desires and longs for as fulfilling his impulses and needs, and consequently constituting part of his happiness, is called good in general.

What is called a moral good?

A moral good is called true moral happiness.

What is called the highest moral good?

Blessedness.

Among the moral goods, which one is preeminent?

Among the moral goods, the highest good is preeminent, which is regarded as such in two ways: a) because in essence and reality it is higher than all other things and consequently to be preferred above them as the ultimate good, in which alone the human being finds the rest and peace that he seeks in vain elsewhere; and b) because it is the most perfect good (bonum consummatum), the fullness of goods, in which every desire is satisfied and every deficiency is filled. Such a supreme good is the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual communion and such an ordering of things, such an organism of persons, powers, activities, and spiritual gifts, in which God reigns not only as Almighty and righteous, but also as redeemer and Savior of the world, making human beings partakers of His holiness, love, grace, and blessedness—that is, of His kingdom.

This kingdom, which comes into the world in time, is a kingdom of freedom and love, toward which the human being ought to strive, because it not only demands from him devotion and sacrifice, but also accords with his true and innermost nature.

The kingdom of God is the supreme good, a precious pearl that must be purchased with the sacrifice of all things, and in which the human being finds
his blessedness, even if he is deprived of all other things; as that one thing which is necessary both for the individual and for the community, because it is necessary since the community without the kingdom of God and his righteousness is deprived of true happiness even if it possesses all other goods; as the most perfect good, which encompasses all perfection; and as such it will appear in the fulfillment of all things at the second parousia of the Lord under the new heaven and on the new earth, where righteousness dwells, when more clearly God will dwell with human beings and will wipe away every tear, where there is no death, no mourning, no crying, no pain, where faith and hope pass away, the first being replaced by sight and the second being fulfilled; but love alone reigns in that heavenly city, which will have no need of the sun or the moon, because the Lord God will illumine it eternally. (Revelation of John, chapter 21:1–27).

Concerning the Kingdom of God on Earth and That It Is Relative

Although the kingdom of God, as the highest good, will be revealed chiefly after the passing away of the form of this world, nevertheless even in the present age we have a certain type of it, because the kingdom of God, being destined to refashion the present world as well, tends to bring divine unity through freedom and love amid the variety of human relations and energies. And as such a relative kingdom of God in this world we understand the totality of moral things, the renewal of humanity as far as possible through the light of the Gospel, the general social organism in which all the energies, tendencies, and purposes of both individuals and society in art and science are concentrated toward one final purpose, namely the ideal of the kingdom of God on earth. But since this ideal can be realized on this earth only in a typical and very limited way, and even where Christianity appears as a victorious culture, because the kingdom of sin is again intertwined with the kingdom of God and the weeds grow together with the wheat, the Christian must keep his gaze fixed on the coming full revelation of the kingdom of God and must await it.

“Yes, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20).

That the kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy

The kingdom of God constitutes blessedness, which begins here in this world as righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. “The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17). But the kingdom of God has its true homeland in the new heaven in the age to come, and in this respect it is distinguished from the happiness that is confined to this earth and to the present age, which from a religious perspective is the unity of the heavenly pearl with earthly goods, that is, of blessedness and prosperity. And the Lord, exhorting the disciples to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, adds that all earthly goods as secondary things will be added to them. (Matthew 6:33)

On the manner in which the kingdom of God can be realized and on evil, that it is evil

The kingdom of God can be realized little by little on this earth through the maintenance of the harmonious relation of the human will to the divine will, through continual struggle against evil.

for the contrary will does not want to recognize God and His will above all things, but itself, and apart from God it strives to rule and enjoy this world. Just as the good will in communion with God pursues the fulfillment of the divine purpose, which is the good, so the evil will, fighting against the good, pursues an entirely different purpose, which is evil. Just as the good will seeks Him, so the contrary will wants evil, which appears at first as opposition to love, as egoism, because evil is not a simple denial and avoidance of the good, but something positive, a will that is truly egoistic and opposed to the good; consequently it is something disharmonious in the world, something that ought not to exist.

The Relation of the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Sin

Just as good, so also evil is represented not only in isolated individuals, but also as a kingdom intertwined with the kingdom of God, as the weeds are sown together with the wheat. And just as the kingdom of God encompasses not only its members on earth, but also those enrolled in heaven, the myriads of angels and the triumphant Church, so also the kingdom of evil extends beyond the boundaries of this earth, encompassing the evil spirits, whose center is the devil. Although evil is represented as a disharmonious and destructive power, it nevertheless has within itself unity and harmony, because all the evil and perverted powers conspire and work together against the kingdom of God. (Luke 23:12; Acts 4:26–27).

The opposition between good and evil became more manifest and stronger through the appearance of Jesus Christ, because from that time the will that accepts salvation is represented as at war against the power that despises and fights against it.

Concerning the Supreme Evil

Just as the highest good is distinguished among all goods, so the highest evil appears in the union of sin and misery, so that the highest evil is that which is accompanied by the idea of guilt, inner condemnation, and the bitter and terrible reproaches of conscience.

The highest evil becomes most complete and fullest when it prevails and becomes universal, when every trace of conversion and correction disappears and all hope of redemption is extinguished, and to the inner misery is added a corresponding outward wretchedness and affliction—the riches of the kindness and forbearance and long-suffering of God leads the sinner to repentance. (Romans 2:4). Such a most complete evil cannot be revealed in the world, where good and evil, happiness and misery, are intertwined and inseparable, but is manifested and confined to Hades, the place of punishment.

But just as the ideal of the highest good can be realized on this earth only relatively, as a union of Christian morality and happiness, so also the most complete evil, Hades, can appear on earth iconically and relatively as the sum of all evils, as such an abnormal and abominable social condition in which egoism has broken every sacred bond, atheism and brazen blasphemy prevail, vice and crime appear in various hideous forms with inner and outer misery and wretchedness. An image of such evil was presented by the Roman state in its decline, as a great and monstrous corpse, the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), and the first French Revolution (1789). But the highest evil will be revealed in all its repulsive and abominable form after the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, in the final period of testing before the Second Coming of the Lord, “when the apostasy comes and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thess. 2:3–12; 2 Tim. 3:1–5).

Concerning the Relationship of the Kingdom to the World

The kingdom of God is opposed not only to the kingdom of sin, but also to the world, and the world in general
the totality of created things, and in a particular and moral sense, human society in its condition after the fall of man, which is usually called “this world.” The world, even after sin, was not completely corrupted in its essence, but an incorruptible part of its essence was preserved, because God did not abandon it, but in many and various ways revealed Himself to the world, which always remained God’s world, since even before the redemption the goodness and compassion of God are attested in it in many ways. If the world were identified with the kingdom of sin, the kingdom of God would be far removed from the world, and sin alone would reign in it. But the kingdom of God has not abandoned the world, and we see in the world the principle of good contending against the principle of evil, which testifies to the kingdom of God in the world. And though the world is deprived of the highest good, it nevertheless contains the totality of relative goods of relative virtue and happiness, and consequently possesses the good in its essence. The history of great men, for example, is strong testimony to the goodness of the world. The essence of the world, therefore, is twofold and unmixed, so we ought neither to condemn it absolutely as evil, as the pessimists have condemned it, nor to extol it absolutely as good and beautiful, as the optimists have extolled it, but rather to confess both in it to a certain degree.

On Optimism and Pessimism

What does optimism maintain?

Optimism ignores sin and redemption, and maintains that the world is always found in that original state when “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). According to them, the highest good was never lost, nor was the harmony of the universe disturbed; consequently, the world is found in its orderly state and development, and the highest good consists in the free development of humanity, while evil is a certain deficiency and imperfection arising from ignorance and barbarism; consequently, as humanity advances in civilization, evil is limited and diminished.

What does pessimism maintain?

Diametrically opposed to this optimism is pessimism, which accepts either that the world was evil and imperfect from the beginning, or that in the beginning there was a golden age which vanished so that evil might gradually reach its peak. The human being can never attain the highest good in this world, although he has the idea of it as a creation of his imagination and hastens toward it to his own misfortune, while life presents to him only the highest evil, an insoluble disharmony, a painful opposition to the demands of the ideal.

Optimism is more superficial than pessimism, being dim-sighted toward the real evil in the world—that is, the power of sin and death—and is refuted by the facts themselves, since its ideal of blessedness is never realized. But pessimism, penetrating more deeply into the nature of things, has no hope and is godless, denying the good in the world and keenly observing only the evil (Eph. 2:12). But Christianity is the truth of both, because it teaches on the one hand that vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccl. 1:2), that the whole world lies in the evil one (1 John 5:19), that the highest good has been lost, that man finds himself far from the lost paradise, and that human life with all its splendor shows only the ruins of its shattered greatness, since man, having abused his own freedom, was deprived of the royal glory and honor with which he had been crowned by God; but on the other hand it teaches that man can be redeemed and clothed again with royal dignity, that the highest good has been restored to humanity in Christ that we might receive adoption as sons, and that the gates of paradise have been opened again. All things are vanity, and all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, whether the world or life or death, whether things present or things to come. all things are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22). Only in Christianity, then, are optimism and pessimism united without contradiction. The gospel, bringing knowledge of sin and guilt, provokes in the soul a sorrow over this life more bitter than any other affliction and misery, but at the same time it lifts the soul above all the wretchedness of the world and fills it with that true joy through which every other innocent pleasure is sanctified. In the gospel the world is presented in the light of reconciliation and the new creation replaces the first. Yet although the perfection of the world and of humanity is seen from afar in hope, and there still remains in the heart of the Christian a feeling of sorrow over the opposition between the ideal and reality, and a longing that the partial may be abolished and the perfect may come, nevertheless in the depths of the Christian’s heart there is already reconciliation through faith and love, which work together toward the coming of the kingdom of God, because the Christian lives in God and in hope in him and his commonwealth is in heaven (Philippians 3:20).

On Laws: that is, on natural law, on rational law, on moral law, and on the law of Revelation

What is law?

Law is the imposed will of a personal being upon rational beings, according to which they ought to live and conduct their way of life under threat of penalty.

What is natural law?

Natural law is the law of creation that preserves all creation, and which is the necessary principle of the existence and perpetuation of created things.

What is rational law?

Rational law is the necessary rational requirement to act according to reason and according to the manifest demands of the rational.

What is moral law?

Moral law is the will of God imposed upon the rational being as the eternal standard of its will and action. Moral law is divided into innate moral law and the law of revelation.

What is innate moral law?

Innate moral law is the moral law written in our hearts.

What is the moral law of divine Revelation?

The moral law of divine revelation is the innate moral law revealed by God to human beings in time and place, because of their deafness to the voice of the innate moral law, first through the prophet Moses on Mount Sinai, and second through our Lord Jesus Christ, so that it might receive divine authority through the manifest declaration of God.

Is the human being subject to these laws?

Certainly. The human being, as an organic being, is subject to the natural law, whose ordinances he must observe, which are announced as needs, appetites, inclinations, and desires. As a rational being, the human being is subject to the rational law and must observe its commandments, which are announced as needs and demands of the spirit to think rightly, to universalize, to judge, and to reason. But as a morally free being, the human being is subject to the moral law, whose commandments are announced as a longing for the good, the true, and the highest good, and as love of God and neighbor.

Characteristics of the Natural, Rational, and Moral Law

What are the characteristics of the laws—the natural, the rational, and the moral?

The characteristics of the laws are (a) their catholic authority, and (b) their unalterable necessity or binding force.

From what is the catholicity and the unalterable character of the natural law demonstrated?

From the precise fulfillment of its commandments by all humanity with eagerness and reverence, and from the harm that comes upon anyone who seeks to transgress the law.

From what is the catholicity and the unalterable character of the rational law made manifest?

From the catholic reverence of humanity toward the rational law, as witnessed in the observance of the laws of logic, and from their common end.

From what is the catholic and unalterable character of the moral law made manifest?

From the form in which it presents itself. For the moral law presents itself as a universally valid canon for all humanity, admitting no violation. Witness to this is the common confession of all peoples, civil laws, social ordinances, and family bonds, which are canons and outlines of the moral law. Therefore, however different these may be among different peoples and different epochs, that element which gives them strength and respect, or deprives them of it through weakness or contempt, is their agreement or disagreement with the moral law. Laws not grounded in the moral law are rejected and opposed.

Opposing theories concerning laws

What are the theories opposed to our theories concerning laws?

Completely opposed theories are the theories of naturalism (Naturalismus) represented by Schopenhauer, and of dualism (Dualismus) led by Kant. Naturalism confuses the two laws, viewing the moral law as a development of the natural law, while dualism places both laws in eternal conflict. The delusion of both systems lies in this: that both systems reject the moral freedom of man and his moral nature. From this, naturalism accepts the irresponsibility and unaccountability of wrongdoers and tends to explain various crimes as the result of instinct, temperament, and other natural laws; while dualism is unable to accept a moral power in man for the triumph of the moral law; the delusion arises from the observed close connection of the two laws; and it is indeed true that both laws are very closely connected, but their coexistence does not mean either a necessary, irreconcilable, and futile war, or a lack of moral power in the will and the conscience for the triumph of the moral law.

Example. In our moral exemplar, Jesus Christ, and in His disciples and followers, we observe that the moral law triumphed in them, and that the natural law was subjected to the moral law. The laws are neither irreconcilable by nature, as if they were naturally opposed and naturally equivalent, nor is one a projection of the other, but each is distinct and the natural law is by nature subordinate to the moral law.

Both views are erroneous and harmful. And naturalism (1) is unable to prove how the transition occurs from irrational, unconscious, and unfree nature to rational, conscious, and free moral nature, upon which the moral law rests; and (2) it condemns the human being to an unavoidable and fruitless struggle.

On the Authority and Content of the Moral Law

Does the innate moral law require external authority?

The innate law does not; because it carries authority within itself; the moral law as innate is validated by the moral nature of the person who wills to choose to keep it; and the moral sense, moral freedom, and free will, whose content is the moral good, will uphold the moral authority of the moral law. The necessity of external authority is imposed by man’s deviation from the truth.

What is the authority of the moral law of Revelation?

The divine will and its holiness, righteousness, and power: these provide authority to the law of Revelation and secure for it strength against every rejection; the necessity of the authority of the moral law testifies that every law, whatever it may be, needs authority supported by the holiness, righteousness, and power of the lawgiver; the law that lacks authority, holiness, righteousness, and power is unable to compel its own fulfillment; such a law expresses only a weak demand and in the end loses its meaning; Power alone, when not accompanied by holiness and righteousness, also supports the authority of the law, but then this law is transformed into an unjust and tyrannical law.

But besides the holiness of righteousness and power, the authority of every law must also be grounded in love, so that it may evoke not only our respect and admiration, but also our gratitude and devotion or trust. And just as the authority of the moral law comes from God, so also does the authority of every rule and power in human society: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.” “For there is no authority except from God.” (Romans 13:1, 4, 5.)

On the Content of the Moral Law

We further observe that just as the authority of the moral law has God as its foundation, being grounded in His holy will, so also the content—the end of the law, which is the ultimate purpose of the law sought through the law itself—has God and the nature of the human person as its foundation.

that is, it will be grounded in the human being who was formed in the image of God. Different moralists define this content differently according to their theories about the nature and destiny of the human being. Among these, some accept happiness or the common good as the final aim of human activity, others freedom or truth, still others likeness to God or living in accordance with human nature, or acting and living according to the absolute value of things, and others yet other things. The destiny of the human being, as one formed in the image of God, can be none other than free communion and union with God, realized through this distinctively Christian commandment of love, which appears in a twofold form—as love toward God and as love toward neighbor—though in essence it is one, because love toward God embraces everything that has come forth from God and is loved by Him, namely the world and humanity. “On these two commandments hang all the law,” etc. (Matthew 22:37–40).

Concerning the Manner of Action

This love, working in the midst of the various relations of life, must be united with righteousness, which means giving to each person and thing what is due (suum cuique tribuere). But so that both do not fall into one-sidedness in their operation—love into blind love, and righteousness into harsh righteousness—wisdom must also be present with them, that is, practical and teleological knowledge, which shows the true value of each thing. Such content of the moral law is both universal and particular, inasmuch as it refers not only to all humanity, but also to each individual person or community, to which the social laws also apply—laws that are enacted on the basis of the principles of the unchangeable content of the moral law and that regulate the social relations of human beings. Hence also its other distinction into unchangeable and into changeable and temporal. The universal element of the moral law is constituted by its eternal and unchangeable ordinances and commands, while the particular moral element consists of the conditions of each person and each community. Hence the apostle Paul says: “that we may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2).

Accordingly, it is not enough for us to know only the eternally unchanging moral concepts and commandments, but also what exactly God requires of us according to each person’s particular personality, personal gifts, and the talent entrusted to them. From this, however, we should not suppose that we fall into contradiction by distinguishing the content of the moral law into unchangeable and changeable, because the eternal demands of love, righteousness, and wisdom always remain the same, and only their particular and specific relations change.

Why God Gave the Law of Revelation

Because in man, on account of sin, there appeared a tendency to disobey the demands of the innate moral law and to distort them, God gave him a moral law positively revealed: (a) the law of Moses, also called the old law, and (b) the law of Christ, also called the new and evangelical law, so that in it, as in a mirror, the demands of His holy will might be set before us.

The essential content of the Mosaic law, comprising all the moral and ceremonial ordinances given through Moses, is expressed in the Decalogue, which in a brief outline sets forth the duties of man, dealing with the true relation of man to God and to his neighbor. Because the chief purpose of this law was to educate the people of Israel—a crude and uncivilized people already separating from the pagan world—it was therefore directed more toward the external, toward action. Moreover, it was to be expressed in a prohibitive form by means of the negative ‘not,’ which presupposes the dominance of sin and evil desire in man. In this law full of a spirit of slavery

(Romans 8:15) the will of man, which is contrary to the will of God, was to be disciplined and raised in true freedom, to find in the law of God the law of his own nature, from there to enter into the spiritual meaning of the law, and at the same time to understand his own inability to fulfill it, and thus consequently to become receptive to the grace in Christ. This pedagogical significance of the Mosaic legislation pertains not only to the moral part, but also to the ceremonial, to the entire theocratic commonwealth of the Old Testament in general. Yet all the pedagogical care and attention of this law rests upon the preparatory grace, because in it there is the promise concerning the coming reconciliation in Christ Jesus and the fulfillment of the law by Him.

The relation of Jesus Christ and His law to the Mosaic law is expressed in Matthew 5:17. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all things have taken place. From this passage we learn that the Savior in no way abolished the old law, but fulfilled and perfected it entirely, both the moral and the ceremonial law, freeing it from the temporal forms in which it was bound and revealing its true spiritual nature. The Mosaic law, considered as a whole and not excluding even the ceremonial part, has not lost even a stroke, because the ideas that constitute its foundation and essence were confirmed and included in the gospel law, and the moral part of the old law was freed from its immediate connection with legal ordinances (from slavery to the letter) and from the legal compulsion of external works, and was confined to the mind and disposition. The ritual system of bloody sacrifices and purifications was brought to completion through the spiritual offering, that is, worship in spirit and truth. But while Christ transfers the law from the external to the internal, He simultaneously establishes it as the universal law of humanity—a law that is not [imposed] upon people as some external and positive commandment, but is [recognized] by them as their own law, as the law of their very nature.[1] «As you wish that people would do to you, do likewise to them» (Luke 6:31). Christ, having fulfilled the law, also fulfilled its authority not only through His teaching but also through His example, appearing as both lawgiver and fulfiller, and thus binding people to the exalted power of His words, by which He will judge them. Yet in the precise fulfillment of the gospel law, the inadequacy of human powers becomes evident, and consequently the necessity of divine grace. And people receive these powers in the regeneration that is in Christ.

How should the gospel law be regarded when compared to the Mosaic law?

The most perfect law under all aspects—the religious or liturgical, the moral, and the political: (a) From a religious perspective it excels, because it is the image and the body—that is, the reality of the types and symbols of the worship of the Old Covenant, which prefigured the worship of the New Covenant; (b) From a moral perspective it excels, because it established the most perfect moral principles so that all humanity might be bound together by unbreakable bonds and remain united forever; (c) From a political perspective it excels, because the political principles of the Gospel flow from love and are founded upon equality, freedom, and brotherhood.

The Mosaic law was a Jewish law. The Gospel law is the law of humanity, destined to guide the nations to salvation. The Mosaic is a law of works. The Evangelical is a law of moral formation. The Mosaic is a law of curse. The Evangelical, a law of grace. The Mosaic is a law of the letter. The Evangelical, a law of the Spirit. The Mosaic law is a law of fear and slavery; the Gospel law is a law of freedom and adoption as sons. The Gospel law is the most perfect law, the law of promise; the law of the New Covenant, the law of faith, hope, and love; it is the easy yoke and the light burden; it is the law of salvation.

The Relation of Moral Freedom to the Gospel Law

(Legalism, antinomianism, and Jesuitism.)

Our Lord not only revealed to us a law freed from the bondage of the letter of the Mosaic law, but He also showed us at the same time the true relation of human freedom to this law, releasing the person from the entirely external definitions (ordinances) of the law, and strengthening its (the law’s) inner and spiritual character.

Among all the redeemed, the law of Christ becomes one with moral freedom, becoming a proper law of freedom (James 1:25), but even among those who are simply emancipated there comes a new relation to the moral law, because they too are freed from the external authority of the law and are set before its spiritual demands.

Against this true relation of human freedom to the moral law rise up both legalism and antinomianism, both personal and social. And legalism is that tendency which, regarding the external relation to the law as the only true and saving one, denies the true spirit of the law in opposition to evangelical freedom; Antinomianism is the system that, in the notion of a false emancipation and an imaginary freedom, releases itself from the commandments of the law and denies its universal necessity and validity. Among the legalists—such as the ancient Pharisees, Catholicism in part, and the Pietists—the law is full of various traditions, usually human, which burden the conscience and destroy the moral freedom of the human being. “Do not touch this, do not taste that”—behold the oft-repeated demands of such a law. The opposite happens among the antinomians, where it is not the moral law that collides with freedom, but freedom, wrongly conceived, that rules over the law. Antinomianism, which has been observed throughout the history of Christianity—as among the ancient Gnostics and in the Reformation—exists even today among many, and especially as a teaching that aims to justify antinomianism itself for the sake of supposedly higher purposes. Antinomianism, proclaiming itself on the one hand as the true ideal ethics, the only one able to satisfy the emancipated human being, and on the other hand as the true practical ethics, is divided into personal antinomianism and social antinomianism.

Personal antinomianism makes a claim for the independence of persons from the law, saying that certain individuals, by virtue of their personal qualities, are independent of the moral obligations to which the masses are bound. Such were the ancient Gnostics, who, distinguishing human beings into carnal, psychical, and spiritual, believed that they themselves, as spiritual persons living in unceasing contemplation of the divine, were above the law and consequently could safely give themselves over to carnal pleasures. Hence their maxim, “Abuse the flesh.” Related to these were other heretics who, misinterpreting the Apostle Paul’s statement, “where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20), taught that in order for a person to experience divine grace more deeply, he must plunge into sin. The error of personal antinomianism lies in this: that it transforms the eternal moral law, which is valid for all, into a personal moral law. Similar to this (personal antinomianism), but with even more destructive consequences, is social antinomianism, which, denying all force and validity to the divine ordinances in the world, seeks to destroy them and consequently to remove from the earth the family, the state, and the Church. According to this view, the highest law is the natural one, and all the rest must be cast out as the cause of human misery. From this is taught the emancipation of the flesh and of marriage, the legitimacy of the passions, communism of property, and so on. A particular manifestation of social antinomianism is political or diplomatic antinomianism, which distinguishes a lower ethics for private life and a higher ethics for political life. Here it is not politics that is reconciled to ethics, but on the contrary, ethics is transformed according to the interests of politics.

A second class of such political thinkers is that of fatalism, who, denying the moral ordering of the divine and human freedom, accept only chance and fate. They recognize as the only forces operating in history power and deceit. A third class consists of those who waver between the moral ordering of the divine and that which rests on fate. Such people serve, according to circumstances, two gods: the god of conscience and the god of circumstances.

Related to both legal and political antinomianism is Jesuitism, established by Ignatius Loyola (d. 1539), which, while at first presenting itself as a conservative champion of the established order, and especially of absolute authority
against the free-mindedness of those who protest, for the attainment of which all other duties change according to circumstances—he can, for example, support one thing today and another tomorrow—and on the other hand he is also antinomian, because for him what has absolute authority is not the moral law but expediency, and consequently expediency is placed above the law. Jesuitism supports its erroneous theories by means of the following three anti-evangelical principles: its first principle is: “the end justifies the means,” that is, one may employ all means, both lawful and unlawful, provided one fulfills a sacred purpose. second principle: moral probabilism (probabilismus), that is, the discovery and implementation in life of the more plausible moral course on the basis of the authority of various teachers;[2] The third is mental reservation (reservatio mentalis) [which is also found in the Gnostic Valentinian, against whom Tertullian wrote], that is, thinking one thing and saying another. It was against the teaching of the Jesuits in general that Pascal (1623–1662) wrote those brilliant Provinciales.

Since the entire life of man is a continuous and unbroken relation of freedom and moral law, it is therefore impossible for there to be any action that is not commanded as a duty or forbidden as evil. Consequently, the idea of legalism that actions neither explicitly permitted nor forbidden by the law are morally indifferent is proven to be entirely erroneous. Legalism here forgets that duty encompasses the whole life of moral freedom, that duty always consists of two elements—the universal and the personal—and that the personal cannot be expressed universally. Starting from these two elements, we can understand that even what is called morally permissible is not something unrelated to the moral law, but has its moral value only in relation to the moral law. The person ought to act in accordance not only with the universal moral law, but also with himself in particular, insofar as he does not violate the general canon of ethics; whether human beings recognize or do not recognize the moral value of his actions, they will at least recognize that these actions are morally permissible.

From the concept of the morally permissible, which appears more commonly in the actions of aesthetics, two theories arose, both false, concerning the relation of the aesthetic to the moral. The first theory was held by the ancient Manichaeans and Montanists, and today by the Pietists, who reject all worldly pleasures of an aesthetic kind, such as theaters, music, dance, gymnastics, the viewing of images, and so on. The second theory is held by the so-called orthodox (ORTHODOX) protesters, who regard these things as morally indifferent.[3] The error of both theories lies in this: the first understands morality as a denial of nature, while the second regards the worldly aesthetic as unrelated and irrelevant to ethics and conscience, whereas, as we observed above, no action can be considered morally indifferent. Concerning aesthetic actions, which can contribute to the development of the human being, it is necessary to examine whether these are morally permissible and do not destroy the normal relation of our persons either to the universal moral law or to its particular manifestation in relation to our neighbor. because it is possible for an action to be morally permissible when only my relation to the moral law is taken into account, and on the other hand for the same action not to be permissible if my relation to my neighbor is also taken into account. Here especially the word of the Apostle Paul applies: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12). From this it is evident that there are cases in which we ought, even though we are entitled to do something, to refrain from it for the sake of the brothers, and other cases, conversely, in which we ought to do something that we could otherwise have refrained from doing.

On Moral Condescension

This question of so-called moral condescension illuminates both the negative and positive aspects, both of which Paul proclaims: in the first case he declares that I will never eat meat again, lest I make my brother stumble (1 Cor. 8:13), even though he himself considers the foods that are eaten not unclean and profane; In the second arrangement, the circumcision of his co-worker Timothy, so that he might not scandalize those from among the Jews, even though he believed that circumcision has no power now that grace has come.

At this point one might justly observe that through such condescension on our part toward the weak, not only are we ourselves disturbed in our normal development, but we also strengthen them in their delusion. This objection is resolved by Christian love, which imposes upon us the duty to care for the bodily and spiritual development and improvement of our neighbor, even to the point of sacrificing our own good for his sake. Acting contrary to the spirit of this evangelical condescension are the Jesuits, who, for the easier spread of their preaching among the pagans, permit them to mix religious and moral elements from their former religions with Christianity, which is utterly absurd. From what has been said above concerning the universal imperative meaning of the law and its fulfillment in different ways by individual persons, the true meaning of the evangelical counsels is also understood, by which theologians have always meant certain means that are not imposed upon all as duties, but are recommended only to the one who wishes them for the easier attainment of his destiny (Matthew 19:21). “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions,” etc. (Matt. 19:21).[4] «Now concerning virgins, I have no command from the Lord; “ I give my opinion, as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy, etc.” The true meaning of such means is challenged on the one hand by Protestants who either reject them entirely or interpret them as duties because of the persons who accept them, and on the other hand by the Latin Church, which accepts, like the Orthodox, the distinction between duties and counsels and regards those who follow the latter as being in a canonical state of perfection (status perfectionis), yet assigns to the counsels such great value and significance that it derives from this the false teaching concerning works of supererogation (opera supererogatoria). “But we have made them without complexity.”[5] (Luke 19:10).

On Duties

What is duty?

Duty is a moral obligation that demands its fulfillment from the one who has undertaken it.

From where do duties arise?

From the agreement between two or more persons, which obliges those who have entered into the agreement to fulfill the obligations they have undertaken on account of the mutual concession of their own rights, which flow either from natural law or from moral law or from civil law.

Are these duties absolute or relative?

Relative. because they undergo alteration.

What are absolute duties?

Those that do not undergo alteration, those that flow from the moral law and have catholic and eternal force.

On the Conflict of Duties

What is a conflict of duties?

A conflict of duties is the obligation that arises at the same time to fulfill two or more duties that mutually exclude or even oppose one another.

From where do conflicts of duties arise?

From the presence of two or more laws or social contracts that obligate the contracting party; because within one and the same law a conflict of duties cannot exist; in the moral and natural law especially, a conflict of duties is absolutely impossible.[6]

(1) Note. Some moral philosophers divide duties into negative and positive, proceeding from the prohibitions and prescriptions of the law. But a prohibition does not impose a new duty that is not already present in the prescription. For in the prescription, love your neighbor as yourself, the commandment “do not hate him” is also contained. Therefore, “do not hate your neighbor” does not impose a new duty, as does love your neighbor. Love your neighbor is an obligation indicating action on behalf of one’s neighbor. the commandment “do not hate your neighbor” does not impose an obligation requiring action, but rather the denial of action. Consequently it indicates neutrality, but neutrality is not a duty; duty is only that which expresses action. The commands and prohibitions of the Mosaic law pursue one and only one purpose, which is the love of God and neighbor. Our Lord Jesus Christ summed up the spirit of the law in two affirmative commandments, without formulating any prohibitive commandment. “You shall love God and your neighbor.” Therefore, negative duties do not exist. Duty and prohibition are contradictory.

Because both the natural law and the innate moral law are so ordered that not even one conflict arises among these duties; therefore a conflict of duties is impossible. In the simultaneous appearance of different duties arising from different laws or agreements, those of the moral and natural law are more authoritative, because these have absolute validity and are neither limited nor do they lose their force from the assumption of the observance of new laws and new duties, because in the new agreement the validity of the moral and natural law is presupposed intact. A conflict of duties cannot arise between civil law and moral law when the civil law is founded upon the principles of the moral law. Where the moral law reigns, a conflict of duties cannot exist.

On Right

What is right?

Right is the end of the law.

What is divine right, or moral right?

The end sought by the moral law.

What is natural right?

The end sought by the natural law.

What is civil right?

The end sought by the civil law.

On the Just and Righteousness

What is just and what is unjust?

To live according to law and to render to each his own (quique tribuere) is just, but to live contrary to law and not to render to each his own is unjust.[7]

What is righteousness?

The firm and unchanging disposition toward the establishment of what is just, of truth, of the beautiful, of the good, of ethics.[8]

On Virtue

What is virtue?

The voluntary, firm, and unwavering observance of the moral law by the morally free person, that is, the identification of his free will with the divine will, the divine law, which he wills as his own law, as an innate law, as the law of his intellect.

On Conscience

What is conscience?

Conscience is the moral power within us that judges our moral actions according to the moral law written in our hearts.

According to this, conscience ought to be the impartial judge who pronounces on the quality of our actions.

Is conscience infallible?

No, because sin, which darkened the soul’s powers in man, also darkened conscience; and this darkening makes conscience fallible.

What is born from this darkness?

From this darkness arises the distinction between an enlightened and a darkened conscience. The enlightened conscience—that which has been illumined by the light of revelation—is regarded as a right or good conscience, since it has been freed from darkness and judges reliably what is good and what is evil; its judgments are right and good. But the conscience that has not been illumined, since it has not cast off the darkness of sin that has darkened the soul’s faculties, is regarded as an erring or mistaken conscience.

(1) “Conscience is like an angel and messenger of God,” and whatever it says, it does not say this of itself, but in a certain manner on behalf of God, like the herald who proclaims the command of a king. Hence conscience has binding power. “Strictly speaking, the eternal law alone—that is, the will of God—is the measure of morals and the rule of virtue; but this does not prevent conscience from also being called a rule according to common usage, insofar as it presents to man and applies to his actions the eternal law of God” (Neophytos Vamvas).

NOTE. Conscience, self-awareness, and consciousness are synonymous when they refer to ethics. In Sacred Scripture, “conscience” sometimes means people’s judgments about the morality of their own actions, and sometimes their feelings and dispositions. (John 8; Acts 23.)[9]

(2) Acts 23. “I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.”

What does this discernment produce?

This distinction gives rise to other subdivisions characteristic of conscience, arising from the degree of illumination—that is, of deliverance from darkness through the light of truth—or from the degree of darkening of the soul’s faculties by the darkness of sin and delusion.

How many principal distinctions do we recognize?

We recognize the following principal distinctions: (1) the weak conscience; (2) the narrow or timid conscience; (3) the broad conscience; (4) the doubtful conscience; (5) the strict and scrupulous conscience; (6) the sensitive conscience; and (7) the insensitive or hardened conscience.

What do we call a weak conscience?

We call a weak conscience the conscience of a person who is not fully developed and is unable to enter into the spirit of the law, and who is disturbed or even led astray by the supposed transgression of the law (1 Corinthians 8:7).

What is called a narrow or timid conscience?

A narrow or timid conscience is the name given to the conscience of a person who doubts the moral value of every action and wavers between fear and confidence about carrying out any particular action; those who have a narrow conscience are people who are undeveloped and fixated on the letter of the law.

What Is Called a Broad Conscience

A broad conscience is the name given to the conscience of one who is excessively confident in the moral value of his actions and who departs from the moral principles of the law through delusion, thinking that he is supposedly fulfilling the spirit of the law. Those who have a broad conscience are people who are incompletely developed and imperfectly formed, as well as those who are entirely unformed.

What is a doubtful or uncertain conscience

A doubtful or uncertain conscience is the conscience that wavers—

(1) When, for example, some people eat food sacrificed to idols.

(4) If, for example, on the day of Sunday or a feast, it is permissible to save one’s harvest from heavy rain.

(8) These are those who think that for the sake of the feast they behave indecently, or that amusements, dances, and other such things are appropriate during feasts.

wavering from ignorance concerning whether some action is lawful or unlawful (¹).

What Is a Strict or Scrupulous Conscience?

A strict or scrupulous conscience is a fearful conscience that is troubled out of ignorance and in matters where no transgression of the law exists. The strict or scrupulous conscience is almost the same as the narrow conscience (²).

What Shall We Call a Sensitive Conscience?

We call a sensitive conscience one that is aroused even by the slightest perceived transgression of the moral principles of the law, through vivid feelings.

What Is Called an Insensitive or Hardened Conscience

An insensitive or hardened conscience is called the conscience that is not aroused even by the transgression of the totality of the moral principles of the law, but remains quiet and rests in sin.

How Does the Deluded Conscience Differ from the Hardened Conscience

The deluded conscience is led astray concerning the truth of good or evil actions, and approves what are regarded as good through delusion; but the insensitive or hardened conscience approves evils with full knowledge of their opposition to the divine law. Those who have not been illumined by the light of truth and have not been given over to evil with full knowledge have a deluded conscience, but those who have been illumined by the light of truth and have turned to the darkness of sin have a hardened conscience—as do those who have not been fully illumined.

In What Forms Conscience Manifests Itself in Moral Actions

Conscience, according to the degree of illumination by the light of truth and the spiritual development of the person, manifests itself at the moment of conceiving any moral idea either as approving and encouraging, or as disapproving and dissuading. From this, however, its judgment is as correct and true as the illumination from the light of truth is greater, and as perfect—

(1) Concerning what is righteous or fitting or right or good. (2) When, for example, someone who is fasting is afraid to eat meat. (3) When, for example, on a certain day of fasting he ate in ignorance. These people cling tenaciously to vice and never wish to return to virtue; and they repel not only those who pursue virtue, but also those who dare to speak out on its behalf. (Chrysostom.)

Further development. Accordingly, the conscience can undergo transformations from the lesser to the greater and from the inferior to the proper, and from delusion to truth, and consequently can condemn and disapprove what it had already approved as good; the conscience that judges and evaluates an action already performed is called the subsequent or reproving conscience; but if the recognition and evaluation occur at the beginning of the performance of the action, it is called the concurrent or prohibitive conscience; and if before the commencement, the antecedent and counseling conscience.

[1] Translator’s note: Source contains OCR corruption ('Goer toi Gv', 'ave 3'): rendered the reconstructed sense; alt. leave lacunae unfilled.

[2] Translator’s note: ‘more plausible’: πιθανώτερον rendered as comparative of probability; alt. ‘more persuasive’ or ‘more probable.’

[3] Translator’s note: “orthodox (ORTHODOX) protesters”: the Greek source reads ὀρθόδοξοι (Orthodox) with the term spelled out again in capitals for emphasis—Nektarios’s own typographic stress. The referent is Protestant Christians who call themselves “orthodox” in faith while adopting a permissive aesthetic stance; the all-caps is retained from the source.

[4] Translator’s note: Source citation reads “Α΄ Κορ. κγ΄. ζ΄. 358-38”—an OCR corruption of an unidentified reference; the quoted text matches Matthew 19:21 exactly, and is cited as such here.

[5] Translator’s note: This sentence and its citation are corrupt in the 1897 source. The Greek is unrecoverable; Luke 19:10 (“the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost”) does not correspond to the quoted text. The passage may be a garbled marginal gloss on the preceding discussion of evangelical counsels. Citation and sentence retained as printed, with this caveat.

[6] Translator’s note: The 1897 source splits this sentence across a page break; the completion “impossible” is supplied from §57.6.1, where it appears as the opening word of the following paragraph—a clear OCR page-turn artefact.

[7] Translator’s note: quique tribuere: Latin phrase meaning ‘to render to each’; retained from source.

[8] Translator’s note: The 1897 source breaks off here; the definition appears to have continued but the remainder of the sentence is lost in the printed edition.

[9] Translator’s note: Source reads “Ἰωάν. 8. 1: Πράξ. 38”—the second citation has been corrected to Acts 23 (the chapter quoted immediately below in §61.10.3); the first remains as-is.

Part Two—Special Ethics

The entrance of the Holy Trinity Monastery, Aegina

Introduction to Special Ethics

On What Special Ethics Is Based, and What It Seeks

Special ethics is based on general ethics and seeks the application and implementation of its conclusions.

From What Does Special Ethics Proceed

Special ethics proceeds from two concepts: from the concept of virtue and from the concept of duty. Both flow from the moral principles of the Gospel law. In the first case, special ethics shows how virtue in its realization is manifested and confirmed in the various relations of man to God, to his neighbor, and to himself. In the second case, it derives and defines the specific duties that are derived from the absolute fundamental duties.

Special ethics, in the first case, becomes a special doctrine of virtues, that is, a special teaching about virtues. In the second case, it becomes a special doctrine of duties, that is, a special teaching about duties. They differ from one another essentially, because the doctrine of virtues deals with the voluntary fulfillment of the innate moral law, as interpreted by the intellect of the Gospel law—that is, with the perfect and enduring agreement and harmony of man’s will with the divine will, the moral ideal—whereas the doctrine of duties deals with the obligatory fulfillment of the Gospel law.

Concerning the Moral Good

What is the moral good?

The morally good action.[1]

What does a morally good action presuppose?

A morally good action presupposes three things: (a) conscience of the moral law, (b) arousal of moral feeling, and (c) free will.

What follows from this?

It follows that moral actions, in order to be perfect moral actions, must proceed from the cooperation of all the moral faculties and must conform both internally and externally to the moral law.

In all morally good actions, all the faculties of the soul cooperate equally.

Not because in a given good action sometimes moral knowledge of the law may prevail, and then the action is a legally good action, as imposed by the law; sometimes moral feeling, when the action is a morally good action as dictated by good intention; and sometimes free will, when the action is absolutely good as actualized by the moral idea. Examples: An example of a legally good action is acting according to the commandments. to show mercy, to do what is just, and to speak truth. The morally good action consists in doing morally good deeds not commanded by the law, such as the example of the Samaritan who showed mercy to the man who fell among robbers. A morally good action belongs to free will when it is done neither by command of law nor by the sudden arousal of conscience from some representation that stirs up conscience, but from free will setting out from the concept of the absolute good—as dying for the salvation of others, for the common good, for the Church, for the nation, for the state, for society, for the good, for the true, and so on. From such a particular dominance of the soul’s powers in morally good actions arises a difference in the qualitative value of actions; and from this comes their different estimation. Accordingly, the actions of the gnostic are good in a purely legal sense, since they are done out of necessity and obligation, without the arousal of feeling or the eager cooperation of the will. But the actions of the emotional faculty are morally good actions, or rather morally good actions as dictates of a pure and good choice of the volitional faculty are absolutely morally good actions, manifesting the perfect identification of the will with the will of God and the cooperation of the soul’s powers; because in free will both knowledge and emotion work together.

On Morality

What is morality?

Morality is a concept expressing the relation of the moral being to the moral law.

In how many ways is it understood?

Morality is understood in two ways, in a more general and in a more particular sense: in the more general sense the word denotes the innate tendency of the soul to be united with God, and in the more particular sense the actual conformity of the will and action of man to the moral law. According to these two senses, the morality of the human being can be defined in different ways. According to the first sense, the human being can be called a moral being, as having moral faculties through which he is able to become moral, to know, to desire, and to will the good. According to the second sense, the human being is called a moral being when he freely wills and acts in accordance with the moral law, so that he may become moral.

On Moral Accountability

What is moral accountability?

Moral accountability is the imputation of sin to someone who acts with awareness and voluntarily contrary to the moral law.

Moral accountability for a person’s actions is a consequence of his moral freedom; because the morally free person, having free will and knowledge of the moral worth or unworthiness of his actions, is able either to do them or not to do them; and by willing and acting he becomes morally responsible for his actions.

What actions are counted as sins?

a.) Those committed with knowledge and with correct awareness of their opposition to the divine law.

“The striving to be united with the center, God, constitutes morality” (Schelling).

even against a conscience that forbids something mistakenly (Romans 14:23) because whoever acts contrary to conscience intends to sin and acts against the divine law that forbids every consent and inclination toward what is believed to be evil, even if by deception; for sin is judged by the consent of the will of the one acting (Romans 14:14).

Which actions are not counted as sins?

a) those done without awareness of their opposition to the divine law, and b) those done involuntarily and with sorrow through external compulsion—these are not counted as sin to the one who does them (¹).

Are there actions that have no relation to ethics or to the moral law, for which the one who does them is not accountable?

No, because even actions that are neither commanded by the moral law nor forbidden cannot be considered morally indifferent, on account of the continuous and unbreakable relation of the moral law to moral freedom, and of the person to society. For this reason there cannot be any action that does not relate to the moral law and does not entail moral accountability.

How should sins committed not from intention or from erroneous judgment be regarded?

As sins, but of lesser guilt. Scripture says: The one who knew and did not do the will of his master will be beaten with many blows, but the one who did not know, yet did things deserving of blows, will be beaten with few. (Luke 12:47).

The New Testament charges people with sin for every action performed in a state of sobriety and with free will, and teaches that a person will be held accountable on the day of judgment.

Likewise, the New Testament counts as sins both desire with consent (Matt. 5:27, John 5:19), and also inaction toward the doing of good (1 Pet. 3:11), as well as consent or any kind of evil assistance (Matt. 9:4 and 1 Tim. 5:22).

Clement of Alexandria says that the involuntary is not judged. For this reason, one thing happens through ignorance, another through necessity.

By what verbs does Holy Scripture express the concept of imputation?

By two verbs: ‘I reckon’ and ‘I set.’ (Mark 15:28; 1 Corinthians 13:11; 2 Timothy 4:16; Acts 7:60).

On the Evaluation and Imputation of Others’ Moral Actions

No: the New Testament shows in many places that it is very difficult and hard for someone to judge rightly and safely concerning the moral worth or unworthiness of the actions of others, and it exhorts us to be lenient and reserved in our moral judgments about other people. (Matthew 7:1). “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Romans 14:1). “Let not the one who eats despise the one who does not eat, and let not the one who does not eat judge the one who eats, for God has received him.” “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” “But the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time.” (1 Corinthians 4:4)

[1] Translator’s note: The 1897 source appends an alternative definition at this point, prefaced by a cross-reference that reads “Or Ch. 4:”—a corrupted citation likely pointing to another section of the work: “the moral good is the just, the beautiful, the good, the pleasing to God.” The alternative definition is preserved here for completeness.

The Church of the Holy Trinity, Aegina

Section 1—On Virtue

On Virtue

Virtue, as it was defined in General Ethics, can be called the Harmony of the moral life with the innate moral law, because it consists in the harmony of the human being’s psychic powers—knowledge, will, and consciousness—with the divine will, the divine law, the moral idea.

Is virtue innate?

The question is not appropriate, because the answer yes or no will not be entirely true; for if we nod yes, virtue might be identified with instinct and assimilated to the virtue of animals; but if we shake our heads no, then the human being might be considered free and released from every obligation toward virtue, as not having the disposition toward virtue innately. The inaccuracy of the answer testifies to the inappropriateness of the question.

(1) “Virtue,” says Sellingius, “is a state in which one conforms not to a law laid down outside oneself, but to a law inherent in the necessity of one’s own nature.” A good disposition of the soul concerning the whole of life (Stob. Ecl. Eth. 166).

Where does the defect of the question lie?

The flaw in the question lies in the assumption of the questioner, who views virtue as something other than what virtue actually is—either as a faculty of the soul, or as a concept, or as something completely foreign to human nature. Therefore the question must be formulated as follows:

Does Virtue Belong to Human Nature?

Absolutely. Virtue naturally belongs to the human being, because the human being, as morally free, is potentially moral—that is, virtuous. But the human being becomes actually moral (good, virtuous) by his free will and by divine help and assistance, because within the human being there exists both the disposition and the inclination to draw near to God continually through perfection and holiness.

Who is truly virtuous?

The one who wills virtue voluntarily and freely and who labors voluntarily for it, because what is unwilled and unfree, being involuntary, is not virtue. Virtue is chosen and voluntary and is joined to voluntary struggles, and the struggles are eternal, because of the eternal conflict of the flesh against the Spirit. “For the flesh covets against the Spirit, says the Apostle Paul, and the Spirit against the flesh.” And Job says that “life on earth is a trial.” Because of this struggle, virtue is the prize of the victors. It begins with choice, but is strengthened and perfected through struggle and vigilance.

When is virtue genuine and pure?

When it is pure and sincere; that is, when it is practiced by choice for the sake of virtue itself and not for the attainment of some goal. (6) One of the Fathers said somewhere that even the person who abstains from evil and does good only in hope of future blessedness or through fear of eternal punishment does not possess true virtue, nor has he been made like God.

What are the good things lavished by divine energy upon the virtuous person from pure and sincere virtue?

(1) Peace of soul and heart, (2) absolute confidence toward God, (3) ineffable love toward neighbor; 4) boldness before God and men; 5) courage in dangers, and endurance and consolation in afflictions; 6) true and steadfast hope; and 7) likeness to the divine.[1]

Does the word “virtue” appear in the Holy Scriptures?

The word “virtue” is not common in the Holy Scriptures; but the reality is expressed in other terms. such as (1) righteousness, (2) the mind of the Spirit, (3) holiness, (4) fear of God, (5) keeping the commandments, etc.

Is virtue absolutely necessary?

Most certainly. (1) Because it is a demand of the soul; because the human being by nature loves virtue, since by nature he desires the highest good, and (2) as the offspring of God we have by nature the capacity to become like God, and therefore we ought to become like Him. Holy Scripture says: “You therefore shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Is virtue one or manifold?

Virtue is essentially one and indivisible, as the enduring harmony of a person’s moral life with the moral law. Nevertheless, it is distinguished by ethicists according to kind based on the subjects with which it is concerned, for example into theological, moral, governing, political, and domestic virtues.

What are the theological virtues?

The theological virtues are the following three: faith, hope, and love (6). They are called theological because all three of these are traced back to God or to His divine attributes: for example, faith relates to His revealing Himself to the world, and consequently to the divine attributes of eternal Wisdom, power, divinity, goodness, righteousness, and holiness. Hope relates to the contemplation of glory and omnipotence, and consequently to the attributes of mercy, long-suffering, compassion, and love for mankind; and love relates to the perfections of the divine attributes—Wisdom, omnipotence, goodness, providence, and consequently compassion, love, and love for mankind—from which comes the salvation of the human race.

What are moral virtues?

Moral virtues are all actions that are in harmony with the rational nature of the human being and relating both to ourselves and to our neighbor, that is, to the human being;
so the moral virtues encompass all moral actions that relate to the spiritual and bodily nature of the human being.

What are the foundational virtues?

Foundational are those that relate to the soul’s faculties of the human being.

Which are considered civic virtues?

Civic virtues are considered those that relate to the social relations of the human being.

What are considered domestic virtues?

Domestic virtues are considered those that relate to one’s own household.

Do all these virtues differ essentially from one another?

All the virtues do not differ essentially or at all from one another, because virtue is one, stable, and unchangeable; the distinction is made for the scientific teaching of the subject of ethics. We will divide them into theological and moral, because in the concept of moral virtue every particular concept is contained.

On the Moral Value of Virtue

What is the moral value of virtue?

The moral value of virtue is absolute. It is considered more in terms of its inner nobility than its outward disposition or energy. Virtue, according to its moral value, is nobility of spirit, nobility of heart, and nobility of soul. Plato says concerning the moral value of virtue: “Virtue would be a kind of health and beauty and well-being of the soul” (Plato, Republic 448), and again, “All the gold on earth and under the earth is not worth as much as virtue.” [Plato, Laws], and Isocrates says: “There is no possession more honorable or more secure than virtue” (see Treasury of Sayings, vol. 1, ch. 114, ch. 515). “The absolute value of virtue consists in this: that it is not only the way that leads to likeness to God, but also the very likeness itself.”

On Religious Value

What is the value of virtue from a religious perspective?

From a religious or spiritual perspective, the value of virtue is the spiritual and true worship befitting man and pleasing to God, because true, pure virtue is the worship of God in spirit and truth (1) and the religious observance that is pure and undefiled (2). Concerning worship without virtue, the Savior said of the Jews what Isaiah said: “This people honors me with their mouth and with their lips, but their heart is far from me”; therefore, worship without virtue is vain babbling. Worship requires fervent and pure zeal for union with God. But these things are found in virtue alone.

Concerning Virtue in Relation to Happiness

What is the relation of virtue to happiness?

The relation of virtue to happiness is the relation of the spiritual person to spiritual goods, because the happiness of the virtuous person is spiritual enjoyment.

Concerning Virtue in Its Relation to Blessedness

What is the relation of virtue to blessedness?

The relation of virtue to blessedness is a relation of human nature to divine nature, because the human being, by being assimilated to God through virtue, becomes a partaker of God’s goodness and blessedness according to divine good pleasure.

Aristotle says the following concerning happiness and blessedness: “So the energy of God, which surpasses in blessedness, would be contemplative; and of human activities, the one most akin to this would be most productive of happiness.” A sign of this is also that the other living creatures do not partake of happiness, being completely deprived of such activity. For to the gods the whole of life is blessed, but to human beings, insofar as some likeness of such activity belongs to them. But none of the other animals is happy, since they in no way share in contemplation. And as far as contemplation extends, so does happiness, and to those to whom contemplating belongs more fully, so does being happy, not accidentally but in accordance with contemplation. For virtue is honorable in itself. “So happiness would be a kind of contemplation.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics X, 8.3) See On Happiness.

Aristotle says that happiness consists in activity and virtue in a complete life (Nicomachean Ethics X, 6).

The Stoics said that external things pose no obstacle to happiness, but that the virtuous person is blessed even if burning in the Bull of Phalaris. (from Gregory the Theologian, Letter 32, to Philagrius.)

On the Theological Virtues, that is, Faith, Hope, and Love

On Faith

What is faith?

“Faith is unhesitating assent to what has been heard, in full assurance of the truth of what has been proclaimed by the grace of God,” says Basil the Great. Clement says: “Faith is a concise knowledge of urgent matters.” And the Apostle Paul defines faith as follows: “Now faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen.” (1) And Chrysostom says: “Faith is the unwavering and unhesitating hope both of what has been promised to us by God and of the success of our petitions.” (see Treasury of Dogmas, Vol. 4, chs. 4, 2, 3, 5, 6.)

To which divine attribute is faith particularly related?

Faith is particularly related to divine revelation and confirms the recognition in God of the divine attributes of Wisdom, of eternal power, of divinity, of goodness, of righteousness, and of holiness. Whoever confesses divine revelation confesses the Wisdom of God that so wisely created the world of beings, both visible and invisible. (2) Faith confesses His ineffable goodness, through which He was pleased to make known to us the dogmatic truths through supernatural revelations, to give commandments, the divine law and the promises, and to teach through revelation all truth. Likewise, he confesses His eternal power manifested in the creation of the universe, and His divine providence. Likewise, it confesses the divinity and holiness of God revealed in all things. Likewise, the believer confesses His righteousness, which is attested by the destruction of the devil’s power, from which He delivered us.

So what do we receive and confess by believing?

“and teachers, and in the end saved him through His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” Moreover, we receive and confess the revealed Godhead in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a Trinity consubstantial and inseparable.

Moreover, we believe and confess that through divine revelation there have been made known to us the things concerning God, the things concerning man, the things concerning the life to come, the things concerning recompense, and all truth.

Is faith a product of knowledge, that is, of the intellect, or of feeling, that is, of the heart?

Faith is properly a product of the heart, because the heart receives or rejects faith. Hence it is neither imposed nor reckoned a duty, but is reckoned and is a virtue. Therefore faith is a characteristic peculiar to virtue: no one virtuous is an unbeliever, nor is anyone faithful devoid of virtue, just as no one vicious is faithful, nor is anyone faithful vicious. The good Nathanael, as soon as he saw, became faithful; the vicious Judas lived as an unbeliever, as did the unbelieving Jews.

What are the characteristics of faith?

The characteristics of faith are the following: living, active, formative, illuminating, sanctifying, revealing, strengthening. All these make it luminous; luminosity is the distinguishing mark of true faith. Because of this particularity of faith, the Savior said to his disciples: “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven”; and the Evangelist: “that we shall see him as he is.”

If, then, faith is light and possesses the characteristics mentioned, unbelief is therefore darkness and deprivation of all things. And if faith is the highest of the virtues, unbelief is the highest of the vices.

Concerning Hope

What is hope?

Hope is the expectation of good things; an innate consolation, an anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast, faith confessed in deed.

What is the foremost good that is expected?

God, whose enjoyment we desire. The Evangelist says, “We are now children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be; but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him.” And: “We shall bear the image of the earthly man and the image of the heavenly man.”[2]

What are the secondary goods?

The means of salvation and life provided by God.

Or to which attributes of God does hope refer?

The one who hopes in the glory, the omnipotence, the goodness, the righteousness, the compassion, and the love for humanity expects to see the glory of God and be satisfied: “I shall be satisfied when Your glory appears.”

Moreover, he hopes to obtain salvation through divine help and support: “I will never leave you, nor will I ever forsake you.”

What are the characteristics of hope?

To provide courage, bravery, fortitude, endurance, strength, unyielding resistance, and expectation. All these things bear witness to the power of hope.

Is hope a fruit of the spirit or of the heart?

Hope is a fruit of the heart, as is faith, of which it is the confirmation and confession; therefore it coexists with faith: where faith is, there also is hope; no one who is faithful is without hope, and no one without hope is faithful. Hence hope, like faith, is a virtue; therefore it is not imposed from outside. Hope that does not spring from faith, that does not have its seat in the heart, turns out rather to be a vice, because it begets irrational courage and irrational thoughts that assault the divine attributes. True hope leads to salvation; false hope leads to destruction; false hope leads very quickly to despair, and despair is a lack of faith and virtue.

Hope in Christ is a sweet expectation of eternal life. Therefore the Apostle Paul also says to the Romans: “Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we also boast in our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” (Rom. 5:1–5. Cf. also 8:24–25 and 1 Cor. 13:12–13).

The Image of Hope

Hope, a delightful sound, full of joy, of good things!

How truly wonderful is your power! How wonder-working! Your energy! You are truly beautiful as a daughter of heaven. Who can describe your beauty? Who is able to recount your benefits? Your power is the pillar that supports the afflictions of men, and your energy bears the dominion of the kingdom of good things. You are an inalienable gift of God, for you were fashioned together with the human soul to strengthen it in the trials of life, to prove it superior to circumstances and an undefeated contender; you were given to award it the victory and to adorn its head with unfading crowns. You were given to him innately, so that you might lead him to perfection, so that you might lift him up to the heights and bring him out of the chaos into which he would have fallen without you. You were given to him as guide and helmsman, so that you might direct his course in the storm-tossed sea of life, often covered by gloomy darkness and troubled by all kinds of winds, threatening the seafaring or wave-tossed vessel with shipwreck through successive waves. O! What is more beautiful than hope? What is brighter than this, or holier, or more precious, or greater, or better? Truly, nothing. Behold, a sick man lies on his bed suffering incurably, and when he has been abandoned by everyone, hope alone sits unceasingly by his pillow, comforting, strengthening, and consoling the one who suffers terribly, and relieving his afflictions. Hope strengthens timid hearts and makes them strong and courageous, so that they may face calamities. Hope in God gives life to the one who has already despaired from the struggle, and with new strength invigorates his weakened sinews. Hope in God drives out dark and dreadful despair, and draws down divine mercy and salvation. Hope in God saves those who have fallen. Hope in the mercy of God lifts up the broken; it looses the bonds of those in chains. Hope shines like the rosy-fingered dawn in the moral firmament and illuminates the days of the afflicted soul that have been darkened by gloom; it pours the balm of consolation upon the wounds of the grieving heart. It takes hold of the orphans. And it supports the widow. Hope in recompense consoles the one who is wronged and relieves the one who is oppressed; hope strengthens the elderly so that they may bear old age without complaint; it emboldens abandoned virgins to live in chastity, and young men to prove themselves good men. It wipes away the warm tears from the eyes of the unfortunate.

Hope in eternal life makes death painless for the one who walks toward it. Hope comforts the one breathing his last, strengthens the one fighting courageously, consoles the one condemned to death, supports the one living miserably, and makes the one struggling for virtue, for truth, for justice, for the beautiful and the good, unyielding and unconquerable.

Hope is progress, development, and advancement. If you remove hope from the field, the world would vanish from despair. Hope is the creative power of all good things. Hope guides the wise and learned person in his investigations and subjects him to countless labors and struggles; hope teaches those sailing on a wooden raft how to cross the dark sea. Hope moves everyone to their various undertakings. Hope nourishes and gives life.

Hope regenerates the human being corrupted by sin and truly reveals a virtuous and good man. Truly great is hope, a divine gift, because it alone strengthens all things, beautifies all things, perfects all things, secures all things, and advances all things. Let us ask humanity, and it will answer with one voice that hope in God, promising eternity, has saved humanity by guiding it safely along the long course of its life. The heroes, the martyrs of faith, of freedom, of knowledge, of the good, of the beneficial, of the just, and in general all the great men who have benefited humanity, who have offered themselves as holy sacrifices on the altar of virtue, were led as by a hierophant and high priest, by hope, to the living God, the eternal one, who grants to those who commune with him eternal life. Truly blessed is the one who hopes in the Lord.

Despair is opposed to hope.

Despair! A dreadful sound, full of condemnation! Of every kind of evil! Who can number the evils that accompany it? Who can depict her? She is black as a daughter of Hades,

A Fury; her homeland is Tartarus. She ascended from the depths of Hades to the earth, in order to plunge creation into gloomy Tartarus; she was born in order to destroy the existence of men and to blot them out from the face of the earth; Wherever her name resounds, there corruption and destruction establish their dominion. Desolation and annihilation follow in her footsteps; an avenging demon directs her paths, and fear and trembling accompany her appearance. Despair! Your name expresses denial of all things, denial of hope, denial of heaven, denial of the Creator of all, and your denial expresses your impiety toward God. You deny His providence and omnipotence, and you reject the existence of the Savior and redeemer of those in danger; wherever you enter, from there you drive out hope, on which the world is founded; your work is destruction, and your mission is annihilation; You terrify the naturally bold, you frighten the naturally courageous, you make the brave man a coward, you render the daring man timid, you discourage bold champions, you strike down noble defenders who fight for homeland and freedom, you crush those who contend for virtue and truth, and you turn those who labor for justice, the good, and knowledge into deserters and shield-throwers, and you hand everyone over as captives to the enemy. You came forth from Tartarus, envying the happiness and blessedness of man, and you visited the earth in order to cut short his journey toward progress, to turn him back as he runs in his course, and to halt his labors as he works for happiness and perfection. You came to bind his intellectual and bodily powers and activities and to bring about his erasure and annihilation. You came to pour out misery, tribulations and distresses among human communities, and to drench the flower-crowned earth with abundant tears. For you hate the happiness of men and war against their joy. Your very name torments with dark thoughts even the man who has already grown old and is already walking toward the end of life, and discourages and strikes down the young man who has already entered the course and is in the fullness of life and vigor as a runner, and causes the virgins who fight for virtue and truth to despair and delivers them to destruction, and you, striking down all people in general, bring them to ruin. You present the idea of death to those who are not suffering, and you lead youth to destruction even when the unfortunate are not unfortunate, against their own life, and you overthrow the strength of hearts. You persuade the one who finds himself in distress to disregard divine and human laws, and to become guilty of crime. You counsel evil things and commit all crimes. Your appearance is accompanied by thick and gloomy darkness, and covers all things with black clouds. Wherever you pass by, there no ray of light shines through. Everywhere your presence stirs up storms in the hearts of men, and raises up raging and foaming waves, which flood and sink the tossing vessel and all its crew. No one can be saved from this shipwreck; the bottom of the abyss becomes the eternal tomb of the shipwrecked; wretched is the human being who has abandoned hope, the anchor of salvation, and given himself over to despair.

Concerning Love

What is love toward God?

Love toward God is devotion to Him with all the soul, with all the heart, with all the strength, and with all the mind. But since devotion is impossible for one who does not know God, it follows that devotion to God is knowledge of God. For devotion is born from love, and love from knowledge.

Where does love for God come from?

1) From the divine perfections revealed in the mind and the heart: for example, of His glory, wisdom, omnipotence, goodness, providence; and 2) from the divine grace that fills the human heart, dwelling in it, giving it life and warming it, and teaching about the divine perfections, as well as about compassion, love, kindness toward humanity, etc. “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).[3]

What place does love as a virtue hold among the virtues of faith and hope?

The first: what the Apostle Paul said, that faith, hope, and love remain, these three; But the greatest of these is love.

He himself says that love is poured out from God. The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Rom. 5:5).

Concerning the characteristics of love for God

What are the characteristics of love for God?

The characteristics of love for God are the following: sincerity, purity, selflessness, energy, fearlessness; these characterize true love for God. Whoever does not have such love is led astray, thinking that he loves God; For love that is not of this kind is not truly love, nor is it simple virtue, nor virtue at all, because it is not a pure prompting of the heart, but a prompting of the mind. it is love of the lips. Both the prophets and our Savior condemned such love. The prophets in many places rebuke the Jewish people for such love. The prophet Isaiah says in rebuke: “This people honors me with their mouth and with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” And the Evangelist John says: “My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth, and by this we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before Him.” “ for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” (2)

Q: What other characteristics mark rational and genuine love?

The longing for union with God; as the deer longs for the springs of water, so the loving soul longs for God; therefore the prophet-king David says, “When shall I come and appear before the face of God?” (3); 2) the willing fulfillment of the commandments of the divine law and the identification of one’s own will with the divine will; and 3) love for one’s neighbor.

What are the vices that oppose love?

These are ten: 1) hatred toward God and toward one’s neighbor, 2) indifference to spiritual things, 3) envy, 4) discord, 5) word-battle, 6) strife, 7) sedition, 8) unjust war, 9) schism, 10) scandal.

(3) Psalm 51.[4]

On the Moral Virtues

What is a moral virtue?

A moral virtue is a rational action in harmony with the rational nature of man and with the divine law written in his heart.

Are the virtues distinguished from one another?

Certainly. Into primary and derivative.[5]

Which are the primary moral virtues, and which are the derivative?

The primary moral virtues are the principal virtues from which the remaining virtues are derived, and they are traced back to the innate moral faculties: the rational, the spirited, and the desiring. The virtues of the intellect are traced back to the rational faculty, the virtues of the heart or of feeling to the spirited faculty, and the virtues relating to desires in general to the desiring faculty. The virtues of the intellect are, first, prudence. From prudence, as from a primary cause, are begotten wisdom, understanding, knowledge, truth, and counsel. The virtue of the heart, or of the spirited faculty, is courage. From courage are derived strength and boldness, endurance, magnanimity, greatness of soul, generosity, almsgiving, and magnificence. The virtues of the appetitive part are self-control, from which come purity, virginity, integrity, and so on.

Are there other principal virtues besides the principal moral virtues already mentioned that are not reducible to the categories already discussed?

Certainly. According to Plato, justice is “for in justice is summed up every virtue,” but according to the Holy Scriptures, which do not reject this notion of justice, the holy fear of God is higher. as that which comprehensively embraces every virtue, because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the one who fears the Lord will greatly delight in His commandments.

On the Virtues of the Intellect: Namely, Prudence, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Truth, and Counsel

What is prudence?

Plato, giving the definition of prudence, says: “A power productive in itself of human happiness; knowledge of good and evil.”[6]

“a disposition by which we judge what should be done and what should not be done” (Plato, Definitions). That is why he also says in the Meno: All the undertakings and endurances of the soul, when led by prudence, end in happiness, but when led by foolishness, in the opposite. Theodoret says, “Prudence is the wakefulness of the reasoning faculty within us.”

What is wisdom?

Wisdom is knowledge of ignorance, says Cleobulus of Rhodes. Plato says, “Wisdom is knowledge without presuppositions.” knowledge of things that always exist; “theoretical knowledge of the cause of things” (Plato, Definitions); Gregory says: The Theologian says, “The first Wisdom is a praiseworthy life purified for God.”

What is understanding?

Aristotle says: It is a critical kind of knowledge that only judges what is good and what is evil. Understanding and prudence are not the same thing. “For prudence is prescriptive—what one should or should not do is its end—while understanding is only critical.” (Nicomachean Ethics, ch. 10).

What is knowledge?

Knowledge is self-knowledge, for to be ignorant of oneself is worse than the most extreme madness and delirium; the latter is a disease of necessity, but the former is the result of a corrupted will (Chrysostom). Clement of Alexandria says that knowledge is the knowledge of God; but if you wish to know God, first know yourself—so say Evagrius, Nilus, and others. Holy Scripture calls knowledge light, saying, “Take care lest the light in you be darkness” (Luke 11:35).

What is truth?

Truth is a clear word full of power and persuasive to the mind and the heart. But absolute truth is the Word of God, which through faith gives full assurance to believers concerning what God is, what man is, and what the world is; because faith in the divine truth is a light that illuminates and exposes all things. According to these things, we may say that absolute truth is right faith.

On Counsel

Counsel is the helmsman of reasoning and the light of thoughts, and the advisor of good decisions.

What are the corresponding vices of the intellect?

Foolishness, senselessness, folly, vanity, lack of understanding, falsehood, lack of counsel, etc.

What is foolishness?

The absence of prudence, and a deficiency of discernment even in ordinary and human matters. Hence the fool says, There is no God; he abandons the law, and praises impiety. (See Treasury.)[7]

What is folly?

The deprivation of right reason and spiritual blindness. From this the senseless person is handed over to many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1 Tim. 6:9) Thesaurus, Vol. 4, p. 149.

What is lack of understanding?

A lack of understanding.

What is vanity?

Fruitless labor of the spirit and unprofitable desire of the heart. The vain person always builds without foundations and adorns outward things; his works have no depth, nor do his plans contain anything good.

What is folly?

A disease of the spirit and an inability of judgment to discern between good and evil, through which one is always led astray.

What is falsehood?

A lie is a multifaceted statement containing deceit, presented as truth by the liar for the purpose of deceiving others for his own advantage. Scripture calls falsehood the offspring of the devil. (John 8:44).

What is thoughtlessness?

Thoughtlessness is unexamined deliberation and a lack of right reasoning: Like a city with its walls broken down, so is a man who does everything without counsel. (Proverbs of Solomon)

Concerning the Virtues of the Spirited Part: Courage, Endurance, Magnanimity, Greatness of Soul, Magnificence, Strength, and Boldness: What Is Courage?

Theodoret says concerning courage: “This is the just movement of the spirited part, just as the other is unjust and disordered.”

What Does Clement of Alexandria Say Concerning Courage?

Clement, describing the character of courage, says: “Courage consists not only in enduring circumstances, but also in not caring about pleasure and desire, grief and anger, and in general in resisting everything that either by force or by some deceit captivates us.” For we must endure not only evils and evil things, but also fearful things … “The forms of courage are endurance, magnanimity, greatness of soul, generosity, and magnificence.” But Gregory— How does Gregory of Nazianzus define courage? Courage is firmness in the face of fearful things. Scripture calls courage “strength.” Isidore says: The Pelusiot says, “We consider courage to be contempt for difficulties and bearing what happens nobly.” (See Thesaurus, Vol. 1, chapters 134 and 135.)

What are the vices opposed to this virtue?

The vices opposed to the virtue of courage are cowardice, desertion, and betrayal.

What is endurance?

According to Plato, “Endurance is the patient bearing of pain for the sake of what is good; the patient bearing of toil for the sake of what is good” (Plato, Definitions). Endurance is a virtue that enables the virtuous person to bear misfortunes and hardships nobly.

What is the vice opposed to it?

Yielding and giving way to evil, avoidance of labor, and listlessness; for the one who does not endure sorrows and toils for the sake of the good yields and gives way to the dominance of evil, and becomes listless, indifferent to the consequences of such dominance.

What are the consequences of a lack of endurance?

The dominance of ignorance and evil; for the one who lacks endurance becomes both ignorant and evil.

What is magnanimity [or nobility of soul]?

To think and act in great and noble ways. In this virtue are nobility, generosity, long-suffering, forgiveness, and freedom from remembrance of wrongs.

What is nobility?

Plato defines nobility thus: “Nobility is the virtue of a noble character, the leading of the soul toward words and deeds” (Plato: Definitions). Theopompus says that those who choose what is good in common are noble. Euripides says:

“For the good man is noble in my eyes, but the one who is not righteous, even if he is born of a better father than Zeus, seems to be ignoble.”

Plutarch says: “This is true nobility: likeness to righteousness.” But Phalaris says: “I know only one nobility—virtue; all the rest is chance.” (See Treasury of Sayings, Vol. 4, p. 391.)

What are the opposites of nobility?

Boorishness and the choice of injustice.

What is magnanimity (generosity)?[8]

To generously bestow great goods upon others in order to make them sharers in one’s own good fortune—this is the virtue. Almsgiving and generosity also trace back to this.

What is the opposite vice?

Stinginess, greed, love of money, selfishness, mercilessness, and the like.

What are long-suffering and forgiveness?

Remission of every debt of any kind whatsoever out of love for one’s neighbor.

What are the opposite vices?

Harsh demand for payment of debt and vengeance.

What is freedom from remembrance of wrongs?

The forgetting, out of love, of the wrongs done to us by other people.

What is the opposite vice?

Remembrance of wrongs.

What is magnanimity?

Magnanimity is the moral strength by which one proves superior to circumstances.

What is the opposite vice?

The opposite vice is smallness of soul, that is, the lack of moral strength, on account of which the small-souled person is defeated by circumstances.

What is magnanimity?[9]

Disdain for all bodily things as worthless in comparison with invisible realities. No circumstance will grieve the magnanimous person, nor will any passion disturb him at all, nor will the sins of base and contemptible people move him, nor will the impurity of the flesh humble him. For he is inaccessible to the humiliating passions, which cannot even approach him because of the loftiness of his disposition. (See Nicomachean Ethics, bk. IV, ch. 2.)

What is the opposite vice?

Pettiness. From this vice, as from a spring, flow small-mindedness, hypersensitivity, distress, and the like.

On the Virtues of the Desiring Part, That Is, Chastity, Purity, and Virginity

What is chastity?

What Pythagoras calls the strength of the soul is chastity. For chastity is the light of an impassible soul. Truly, chastity is the light of the soul, because it drives away the darkness of the passions and illuminates the eyes of the mind to gaze rightly. And truly it is the strength of the soul, because it preserves the soul by not permitting it to be weakened by the activity of desires.

Chrysostom says: “Chastity is all the manifold self-control concerning the body, the leadership of the spirit, the freedom of the soul, the crown of virtues, the capstone of virtues.” What is this manifold self-control concerning the body? Let us hear from Basil the Great: “to admit no stimulus from pleasure, but to be disposed with self-control and unyieldingly toward every harmful enjoyment.”

Plato says: “Not to be alarmed by desires, but to hold them lightly and in an orderly manner; this is self-control.” Through these things Plato made clear the moral strength of the truly virtuous person, through which alone temperance can be preserved.

Iamblichus says: “Self-control is voluntary restraint in things that are permitted, not in things that are forbidden.” Therefore, the temperate person is not the one who refrains from what is forbidden, but the one who abstains from what is permitted, because what is prohibited is also unlawful, and not doing unlawful things is not temperance but observance of the law; whereas voluntary restraint from what is permitted is truly temperance. “that it comes about through deliberate choice and philosophical reasoning.”

Holy Scripture says: “Self-control is a sacrifice to God and reasonable worship.” Temperance is truly a sacrifice to God, because on the sacred altar of love toward God the temperate person offers his own heart as a sacrifice, casting away every disordered desire. It is also a rational worship, because the temperate person worships God in spirit and truth, seeking to live, as a rational being, a life fitting to his rational nature.

Who is truly temperate?

Isidore of Pelusium says: “The one who preserves the ship tossed by waves in the very height of the storm by bridling nature—this one is temperate.” For self-control in old age is not continence, but rather the inability to indulge. Plato calls the temperate person a friend of God, as one who is like Him. Eusebius says: “Temperance prepares for the soul a life that is free from turmoil, calm, and peaceful.”

On Purity

What is purity?

To think holy thoughts is purity, according to Clement of Alexandria. Therefore he says: “Be pure not by washing, but by intellect.” And again, “For purity is the sincerity of the intellect and of works and of thoughts, and also of words, and sinlessness in dreams.” Pure is everyone who is conscious of no evil in himself. And John of the Ladder says: “Purity is reverence toward sins against God, the natural service of honor to God.”[10] Purity is the perfection of chastity; therefore the vices opposed to purity are those opposed to chastity.

What are the vices opposed to chastity?

Licentiousness and incontinence.

What is licentiousness?

The tyranny of the passions, enslavement of the spirit, worship of idols, service to matter, sickness of the soul, darkening of the intellect, the summit of vice, enmity toward the divine. But the licentious person, though he was in honor, did not understand, but was compared to the senseless beasts and made like them.

And what is incontinence?

He ran after his desires and was not restrained from God who made him. He gave his soul satisfaction.

On Virginity

What is virginity?

According to Jerome: “Virginity is a sacrifice to Christ that has an angelic imitation.” “When the Son of God came down to earth, He established an angelic way of life, so that He who is worshiped by angels in heaven might have angels on earth.” Truly it is a sacrifice to Christ, because it is done for Him and for His love, since the virgin seeks how to please Christ, according to the apostle Paul. It is an angelic imitation, because virgins live on earth as an angel of God.

Ignatius the God-bearer called the virgins priests of Christ. Truly they are such, because they offer worship to God in spirit.

Saint Ambrose calls the virgins martyrs. Truly martyrs: because through complete self-denial they are deemed worthy of the gift.

Saint Cyprian calls virginity the flower and rose of the Church. Most true! For the fragrance of sweet-smelling myrrh breathes forth from virginity, and virgins are lilies planted in the paradise of the Church.

Saint Athanasius says, ‘Virginity is an inexhaustible treasure, an unfading crown, a temple of God, a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, a precious pearl, a trophy over Hades and death.’

According to the divine revelation, virgins are those who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men as first-fruits to God and to the Lamb, and in their mouth no deceit was found. For they are blameless before the throne of God. (Revelation 14:4–5).

Gregory the Theologian urges the virgin to guard not only her body in virginity, but also her ears and her eyes and her tongue, saying:

Be a virgin in your ears and eyes and tongue. “For sin runs swiftly upon all.”

Chrysostom says: Virginity is neither good nor bad in itself, but becomes so from the intention of those who pursue it.

[1] Translator’s note: The original 1897 printing breaks the list of seven goods between item 3 (‘love toward [neighbor]’) and item 4, intercalating an aside on divine assistance: ‘God assists souls that are willing through their eagerness, and the Spirit given by God…’. The list has been reunited here for readability; the aside is preserved in this note.

[2] Translator’s note: Source label reads “Ἰωάν. α΄” (John 1), which is an OCR corruption; the first quotation matches 1 John 3:2 and the second matches 1 Corinthians 15:49 exactly.

[3] Translator’s note: Source quotation is truncated mid-verse (“…ἠγάπησεν”); the verb’s object “us” is supplied here from the full text of 1 John 4:19.

[4] Translator’s note: Marker (3) in the preceding paragraph §92.12.4 refers to the Ps. 42:2 quotation (“When shall I come and appear before the face of God?”); the source footnote reads “Psalm 51,” which is a different psalm entirely. This appears to be an OCR or typesetting error in the 1897 edition; the correct reference is Psalm 42 (MT), and the footnote is retained as printed.

[5] Translator’s note: ‘primary’: ἀρχικάς rendered as foundational virtues; alt. ‘cardinal’, ‘principal’.

[6] Translator’s note: ‘prudence’: φρόνησις rendered as the traditional patristic virtue term; alt. ‘practical wisdom.’

[7] Translator’s note: The 1897 source breaks off mid-citation here at ‘(Ἴδε θησαυρ.’, without the volume / chapter reference. The reference cannot be reconstructed from the printed edition.

[8] Translator’s note: ‘magnanimity’: μεγαλοδωρία rendered as greatness of soul in giving; alt. ‘munificence’ or ‘liberality’.

[9] Translator’s note: ‘magnanimity’: μεγαλοπρέπεια rendered in its classical sense of greatness of soul; alt. ‘magnificence’.

[10] Translator’s note: ‘natural service of honor’: rendering θεραπεία as ‘service’ in its cultic sense; alt. ‘care’ or ‘worship’.

The bed of Saint Nektarios in his monastic cell

The austerity of his own life under the rule of virtue he taught.

Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin

On Moral Evil or On Sin

What is moral evil?

Moral evil consists in morally bad actions. those that occur freely and voluntarily and with knowledge of their opposition to the divine law. Scripture calls moral evil that which is evil, wicked, unjust, impious, and every action that is carried out with awareness of its contradiction to the moral law.

What other actions can we classify among morally evil deeds?

Also those actions that have a merely legal character—that is, actions that conform in their external form to the moral law but essentially disagree with the spirit of the law—because a legally moral action loses its moral value and becomes an evil action when it is performed for the sake of various calculations and not to fulfill a commandment of the law. Example: The prayers of the Pharisees at the street corners, and their almsgiving in order to be seen and to gain the people’s esteem, had no moral value whatsoever.

What is sin?

Sin is this moral evil considered as a transgression of the law and opposition to the eternal law of God. (1) In the New Testament, sin usually refers to moral evil not as an individual act, but rather as the state in which sinning has become a habit and custom (Romans 6:4–13, John 9, John 3, and elsewhere). To denote this condition or moral corruption, the New Testament sometimes uses the words disobedience, transgression, trespass, lawlessness, unrighteousness, impiety, wickedness, and evil.

On the Essence of Sin and the Degrees of Guilt and Their Division

What constitutes the essence of sin?

(1) Saint Ambrose teaches concerning the essence of sin that sin is the violation of divine law and disobedience to a commandment (On Tradition, ch. 8). Saint Augustine says: “Virtue is a stable principle, or a demonstration of the principle of the law of God” (Against Faustus, Book 22, ch. 4).[1]

The essence of sin consists in a choice contrary to the divine will.

How many things are required for sin?

Three things: First, knowledge of the divine law; second, free choice toward transgression of it; and third, voluntary transgression of it.

What follows from these three conditions?

There follows a distinction of sins into inexcusable and excusable, because of the possible absence of one of the conditions.

Which sins are excusable and which are inexcusable?

Sins committed in ignorance of the divine law or involuntarily and without free choice are excusable, but those committed with knowledge of the divine law, freely, with free choice, and voluntarily are inexcusable.

Which sins are committed by free choice and which are committed without free choice?

Those committed voluntarily with knowledge of their opposition to the divine law are committed by free choice, but those committed in ignorance of their opposition to the divine law or involuntarily are without free choice and involuntary.

Are inexcusable involuntary sins equally grave in all respects?[2]

No. For just as there are different degrees of development and rank in the communion of the Church, so too there are different degrees of guilt for those who sin.

Does the violation of every commandment of the divine law make us guilty before God?

Certainly. Because every sin is a sin against God, since the transgressor of any commandment whatsoever is a transgressor of the divine will and a transgressor of the whole law. “For whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles in one point has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10; cf. Matt. 5:19).

Concerning the Degree of Guilt

How is the degree of guilt determined?

1.) From the greater or lesser evil intention.

2.) From the sacredness and importance of the commandment.

3.) From the complete or incomplete awareness of the spirit and knowledge of one’s duty.

4.) From the greater or lesser deliberation and the time given.

5.) From the complete or incomplete understanding of the consequences of the sin.

6.) From the difficulty or ease of the sin committed.

7.) From the degree of the human being’s distance and separation from God.

Concerning What Moves the Human Being to Sin

Are sins against God, sins against our neighbor, and sins against ourselves distinguished from one another by degree of gravity?

Certainly. Sins against God are of a greater degree than sins against our neighbor, and sins against our neighbor are of a greater degree than sins against ourselves.

Do these sins, since they are all sins against God, admit of remission? And when?

They receive remission when the one who has sinned repents, turns away from sin, and makes satisfaction to the offended divine righteousness through works of virtue that are opposed to the vice committed. “Turn away from evil and do good.”

Are there unforgivable sins? That is, mortal sins?

Certainly. Holy Scripture says that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people. but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men; and whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:31–32).

Who are those who have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit?

Those who despise the divine law and do not accept its divinity: these blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Likewise, anyone who attributes the works, graces, and gifts of the Holy Spirit to other powers, or who willfully denies them out of vice, blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees who said: “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons” (Matt. 12:24; cf. Mark 3:34), blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the Things That Move a Human Being to Sin

Are the passions of the soul and body innate and manifest themselves necessarily, or are they self-generated and manifest themselves as a consequence of what has happened?

The passions, both of the soul and of the body, are manifested by the darkening; they are self-generated and consequent. These passions are a distortion of the innate good desires that entered through the darkening of the soul’s faculties: the cognitive, the volitional, and the affective. A consequence of this darkening was to think, will, and desire things completely contrary to what one ought to think, will, and desire. Therefore the passions are manifested and develop in proportion to the deficiency, that is, the darkening of the soul’s faculties.

The faculties of the human soul in their original state were illumined and functioned without error. and the cognitive faculty recognized the good and that in this the Spirit finds rest; the affective faculty loved and desired it as the source of supreme blessedness and enlightened the intellect and stirred the will; and the volitional faculty willed the good as the supreme good and sought its realization; but sin, which came through the devil’s deception, darkened the cognitive faculty so that in many things it cannot reliably distinguish the true from the false, or the good from the evil, and goes astray in its estimation of things; it debased and corrupted the affective faculty so that it takes pleasure in corruptible things and things that are good only in appearance; and it weakened the volitional faculty so that it wills and does evil as well; This darkening transformed both the natural and spiritual appetites and desires into passions and causes of sins, and from this come all the sins that proceed from ourselves, as well as the passions of soul and body.

Q. What are the passions of the soul?

Pride (1), anger, envy, sloth and despondency (2), and desire (3).

Q. What are the passions of the body?

Avarice, gluttony, and licentiousness.

Q. What are these passions of soul and body called?

Primary passions: For these things become the origin and cause of many other passions that rise up against the divine law.

On Pride

What is the passion of pride?

A terrible passion and the beginning of every sin. because pride, according to the divine Chrysostom, is the ultimate folly: “The beginning of pride”

(1) From the intellect. (2) From the irascible part.

Arrogance comes from not knowing the Lord; but the fool denies God. For when the soul is captured by this passion and loses its humble-mindedness, it becomes weak and cowardly and rash and foolish, and it will not know itself. But how will someone who does not know himself understand the things above himself? [Treasury, Vol. 4, pp. 440–448] and Sirach says: “The beginning of human pride is to depart from the Lord, and his heart has departed from the One who made him.” For the beginning of pride is sin, and whoever clings to it will pour out abomination (Sirach 10:12–13). [see Thesaurus, p. 441].

Where does pride spring from?

From a deluded opinion of oneself, on account of ignorance of oneself and ignorance of things outside oneself. For how will someone who does not know himself come to know the things outside himself? This begets a violent desire for glory, for the sake of which the one gripped by it dares everything.

The divine Chrysostom—behold what he says about the one gripped by pride: “There is no evil equal to pride. It makes a person a demon—insolent, blasphemous, perjured—and causes him to desire deaths and murders. The proud man always lives with sorrows, always feels indignation, always wanders in distress. There is nothing that can satisfy his passion; even if he saw the king bowing down and doing obeisance, he was not satisfied, but rather was inflamed all the more. For just as the greedy, however much they receive, need that much more, so also the arrogant, however much honor they enjoy, desire that much more. for the passion grows in them. For it is a passion, and a passion knows no limit, but stops only when it has killed the one who possesses it” (see Thesaurus of Sayings, Vol. 4, p. 441).

What evils spring up from pride as from a root?

Self-conceit, love of glory, vainglory, boastfulness, haughtiness, vanity, arrogance, puffed-up pride, disdain.

What passion is conceit?

A passion impure by nature and, as the ancient saying goes, “conceit is the cutting off of progress.” For “the one who imagines himself better does not tolerate improvement,” says Cyril of Alexandria.

What is love of glory?

A trafficking in virtue. For those who love glory do nothing for the sake of virtue, but for the sake of glory, as though to some idol.

And nothing is sincere or confessed, but they do many things that are spurious and mixed, says Plutarch.[3]

What is vainglory?

A disordered desire for glory and praise, a poverty of virtue, an obstacle to virtue. For Chrysostom says that he who seeks empty glory is empty of all virtue within (Thesaurus, Vol. 2, 212).

What vices are born from vainglory?

From it are born disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy, stubbornness, and innovation.

Who is the disobedient person?

The disobedient person is contemptuous of his superiors. The boaster is arrogant and exalts himself above all, and utters blasphemous words even against God himself, calling himself God.

What kind of vice is hypocrisy? And who is the hypocrite?

“The hypocrite always harbors hatred in the depths, yet displays a love that is spread across the surface, and just as submerged rocks barely covered by water become an unforeseen danger to the unwary,” says Basil.

As a devout man, he wants to be called holy and to be worshiped by all; you see his outward appearance and think he does everything according to God, but his heart is full of envy and deceit and every kind of evil.[4]

(Chrysostom). He will think to hide his inward arrogance behind a veil of dejection, and to cover the ugliness of his soul with borrowed garments. (Nilus.) Draws near with the mouth, and honors with the lips. but their heart is far from me. He teaches teachings in vain, deceiving everyone under a venerable guise. Do not play the hypocrite in the mouths of men. Hypocrites will hide anger in their heart, and their soul will die in youth; Hypocrisy is hidden bitterness. (Job 36.) See how great a vice hypocrisy is! It is itself the fruit of envy, bringing with it all vices. (Basil.) It seems to have the speech and face of a lamb, but inwardly it is no different from a serpent. (Hermippus.) It is not right to love or hate anyone based on appearance; one must judge by their deeds. Some people outwardly pretend friendship, but are filled with murder, cruelty, and harshness. (Aesop, Fable 340.)

The ultimate unrighteousness is to seem to be righteous when one is not. (Plato, Republic II.)

Who is the stubborn person and who is the innovator?

The stubborn person struggles to uphold his own opinion and rejects the truth out of vainglory, while the innovator out of vainglory is even able to deny the foundational principles of his faith in order to demonstrate a superior spirit and intellect.

Vainglory is the mother of various sins.

What is boastfulness?

Plato, giving the definition of boastfulness, says:

“Boastfulness is a disposition that pretends to possess a good or goods that do not exist.” The boaster lives in an imaginary world, rejects reality, and hates truth; he delights in deceit and seeks to deceive others as well; truth never comes forth from the lips of the boaster; But falsehood sits upon them.

What is arrogance?

Arrogance is an irrational exaltation of the mind and an overestimation of one’s own virtues and accomplishments. The arrogant person does not know what humility is. His gaze revolves around great things, but his heart is empty of noble sentiments.

What is vanity?

Lack of sense, according to the Proverbs. All the vain make their desires, which will not profit them. They trust in vain things and speak empty words; They conceive only and bring forth vain things and weave a spider’s web.

What is conceit?

Conceit is a darkening of the mind from the smoke of arrogance and vanity, and moral insensibility. it is a passion of a sick soul. the conceited person is not far from being mad; This is why Alcaeus says, “Typhon has destroyed the mind.” Socrates says: “In the presence of pride, just as in the presence of a bad sculptor, one can see distorted images of reality.”

What is pride?

Pride is a display of vanity and a demonstration of one’s own emptiness. Menander says: “Thrice-wretched, for they do not know the nature of man.”

What is arrogance?

Arrogance is pride on account of the goods of fortune. The arrogant person is self-centered and contemptuous of others. He is puffed up over noble birth, wealth, and reputation, and despises the lowly.

What is anger?

Saint Basil the Great says: “For anger is like a kind of soot and sharp vapor of the passion; Anger is persistent grief and a lasting impulse toward retaliation against those who have wronged us, as the soul rages toward vengeance.” The same author says: Wrath stirs up strife. fighting breeds insults; insults lead to blows, and blows to wounds. and from wounds often comes death. John of Damascus says, “Where there is anger, the Holy Spirit does not dwell; “Nothing healthy can come forth from where anger issues.” “Anger does not allow one to see, but just as in a night battle, having bound up both eyes and ears, it leads wherever it wishes.” (See Thesaurus, vol. 4, chapters 85 and 86, pp. 924–939.)

“Anger is the cause of the greatest evils for mortals,” says Euripides.

The evils that come from anger are:

(1) Frenzy; (2) insults, curses, outrages, blasphemies; (3) woundings, mutilations, murders. Or Scripture says: “whoever is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment.” But whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be liable to the council; “ But whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matt. 5:21–22.)

On Envy

What is envy?

According to Plato, “envy is grief at the good things of friends, whether present or yet to come.” Aristotle says that envy is the adversary of those who prosper. And Saint Basil the Great says: “No passion more destructive than envy attaches itself to the souls of men. For just as rust consumes iron, so envy consumes the soul that harbors it.” Gregory the Theologian calls envy a “Luciferian passion,” and speaks thus: “O envy, root of death, the many-branched disease, sharpest wound of the heart—[5] For what nail, however sharp, pierces as envy wounds the heart that harbors it?” Chrysostom says: “Whoever is consumed by envy experiences the continuous sting of death.[6] He considers everyone enemies, even those who have done him no wrong. he says and does everything in order to destroy his neighbor. What soul is more wretched than this?” (See vol. 2, ch. 79, etc.)

From envy the following passions are born. First, hypocrisy is born. As Saint Basil the Great says, “and this is the fruit of envy: For duplicity of character comes to people chiefly from envy” (2). Hatred, malice, jealousy, slander, false accusation, rejoicing in evil, and the like. Scripture calls envy the worker of murder. In the Wisdom of Solomon you will find the following: God created man for incorruption and made him in the image of His own eternity. but through the envy of the devil death entered into the world (2:23–24; cf. Rom. 1).

On Acedia and Despondency

Acedia is a passion of the soul that refuses every labor of virtue. enduring no labor or trouble for its sake. John of Damascus says, “More harmful than any demonic activity is the excess of acedia and despondency.” since the demon, wherever he gains mastery through despondency— The one afflicted with acedia hates what is present but desires what is not present.

The passions born from it: (1) hatred toward spiritual goods; (2) cowardice; (3) despair; (4) hostility toward those who teach and practice virtue; (5) slackness of soul and indifference toward every good.

Concerning Desire

Desire moves us toward the sins of the body. The Apostle James (1:14) says: Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (See Thesaurisma, vol. 4, pp. 589–592).

On Love of Money

What is love of money?

The root of all vices, leading astray from God. For no lover of money has ever become a lover of humanity (Chrysostom). But Bion the philosopher says: “The disease of love of money is the mother of every vice.” “Love of money is the most shameful disease” (Plutarch). Scripture calls it idolatry.

And the Wisdom of Solomon says, “For nothing is more lawless than the lover of money;” “for he makes even his own soul a thing for sale” (chapter 10:9).

On Gluttony

What is gluttony?

The root of transgressions, preoccupation with the throat (John Climacus), darkening of the soul, enemy of self-control, sharpening of sensual pleasure, cause of drunkenness, dissipation, buffoonery and jesting, occasion for insensibility and carelessness, agent of wretchedness, reason for callousness, denial of God— because the belly is the god of gluttons (Phil. 3:19).

On Licentiousness

What is licentiousness?

The Fathers call it the metropolis of evils. a sin against one’s own body, a destruction of the temple of the Holy Spirit within us; because we are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in us. Therefore, if anyone defiles his own body, he defiles the temple of God; God will destroy him. (1 Cor. 3:16–17). Or Scripture says: “The works of the flesh are evident, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness … I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19–21).

The evils that come from licentiousness: 1) hardening of the spirit; 2) instability of judgment; 3) hatred toward God; 4) extreme love of life; 5) contempt and disregard for chastity; 6) unbelief toward the life to come; 7) destruction and ruin of the health of body and soul; 8) hardening of conscience.

Besides the passions of soul and body that move us to sin, does something else also move us to sin?

Exactly. The devil, who seeks to lead us astray from the straight path, the moral law, and to lead us into crooked paths.

Sins That Come About Through the Operations of the Devil

How do we know that the devil also moves us to sin?

From the holy Scripture, both Old and New.

For in the Old Covenant the devil is mentioned as the cause of man’s fall. In the New Testament, both passages concerning the temptations of the Savior by the devil (or concerning Judas, as having been moved by the devil to betray Jesus (2), and concerning Peter, that he was assailed by the devil and slipped into denial (3). Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself, teaching about the devil’s incitements to sin, says, “Watch, that you enter not into temptation” (by the devil). (4) Matthew 4.). Likewise the holy Fathers of the Church in their writings often speak about the temptations of the devil. An example is also Job, who was put to the test.

The Evils from Being Mastered by the Temptations of the Devil

What evils come from the temptations of the devil?

1.) Darkening of the spirit; 2) the distortion of truth; 3) the violent suppression of the good; 4) evil schemes; 5) distress through terrifying images; 6) hatred toward the good; 7) inclination toward evil. 8) Unbelief in the existence of God; 9) Hatred toward God; 10) Despair; 11) Denial of blessedness and of the life to come and eternal, apostasy, etc.

Concerning Hardness of Heart

How a Human Being Reaches the Final Degree of Sin

According to the Apostle Paul, there is a continual struggle between the sensory and the spiritual life of man. “For the flesh covets against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are opposed to one another.” (Galatians 5:17). But for the most part the flesh conquers, because it has as an ally, so to speak, the sensory world that is of the same kind as itself, while the Spirit, being as it were an exile in this world, has no other help except the all-powerful divine grace alone, which is always for all
people, and for this reason the sensory life usually conquers the spiritual, as being stronger. At the beginning the sensory life is subject to the spiritual and is directed according to the dictates of the moral law, with the will also in agreement. but it begins to resist the Spirit and in the end rises up, raising demands; and the spirit, having grown listless and not seeking the help of divine grace, begins to feel itself powerless against the demands of sensuality. Finding himself in this situation, the human being still does works in accordance with the divine commandments, but the commandments now appear to him as a heavy burden.

Now sensuality begins to dominate him, and the stronger the sensual life becomes, the weaker the spiritual life becomes; the human being still feels what he ought to do, as a being with free will, and hears the voice of conscience proclaiming to him the moral law, but he lacks moral strength to resist the demands of the sensual life; he obeys conscience and follows the dictates of the moral law only insofar as the tranquility of the sensual life is not disturbed and its demands are not harmed. At this stage the human being feels himself bound, yet is unable to break the bonds. He has knowledge of his spiritual and moral wretchedness, but he does not have the power to free himself from it and to restore his own spirit to the sovereignty that belongs to it. This condition of the spirit is not yet complete slavery, because, still hearing the voice of conscience, it continues to resist the sensual yoke imposed upon it, which it bears with displeasure and despondency.

At last the resistance ceases; the spiritual nature submits and surrenders to the sensual nature; and so the voice of conscience also ceases, and the human being willingly serves the sensual life, denying his own spirituality; This is the state of complete moral slavery.

The longer a person remains in this slavery, the more decisively wickedness dominates his spiritual life. And not only does he no longer resist its demands, but he also willingly employs all his spiritual powers
for the achievement of its goals. This is the state of depravity.

When a person is in this state, he practices evil shamelessly, his conscience is completely silent, the admonitions given to him no longer make any impression on him, and even misfortunes are no longer sufficient to bring him to sincere repentance. This is the state of moral hardening.

[1] Translator’s note: The 1897 source garbles the author of the second quotation as ‘Ἀδε γονέριος’ and the parenthetical biographical aside on Ambrose as ‘born in 880 and died’ (which would be impossible for Ambrose, who lived c. 340–397). ‘Ἀδε γονέριος’ has been reconstructed as Augustine on the strength of the citation immediately following (‘Contra Faustum’ Book 22 is by Augustine), and the corrupt biographical aside has been removed. Note: the quoted definition of virtue does not correspond to a verified passage in Contra Faustum Book 22; the citation may itself be corrupt in the 1897 source.

[2] Translator’s note: ‘equally grave’: ἰδοβαρεῖς rendered as equally weighty in all respects; alt. ‘of the same weight.’

[3] Translator’s note: ‘confessed’: ὁμολογούμενον rendered as ‘confessed’ in the sense of genuine or acknowledged; alt. ‘genuine’.

[4] Translator’s note: ‘every kind of evil’: ἀντὸς εἴδους κακῶν rendered idiomatically; alt. ‘instead of good things, evils.’

[5] Translator’s note: ‘Luciferian passion’: ἑωσφορικόν (heōsphorikon), lit. ‘of the morning star,’ referring to Satan’s fall.

[6] Translator’s note: ‘sting of death’: ζῆλον θανάτου rendered to capture the painful, piercing quality; alt. ‘zeal of death.’

Part Three—Moral Deontology

Section 1—General Duties

The chapel of Saint Nektarios's former tomb

Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration

Concerning the fall of man and the necessity of his moral regeneration

The fall of man according to sacred Scripture brought about his separation from God; and this separation brought about his moral downfall and corruption; and these in turn produce forgetfulness of the moral law written on the human heart and the misleading of the conscience, that herald of the divine will.

The human being’s return from delusion required a divine revelation. Sin made the revelation of the divine will necessary, so that the human being might again know the will of God. Before sin, man had no need of a law to make God’s will known to him, because he had the moral law written on his own heart and knew of himself what was to be done and what was to be avoided. But sin, which estranged him from God, darkened his soul’s faculties to such a degree that the mind became unable to recognize clearly what is good and to be done and what is evil and to be shunned; the conscience went astray and took pleasure in sin; and the will became unable to resist the disordered impulses of the passions and desires, yielding instead and giving in to their demands. Or, as it advanced along this road, a gradual forgetfulness of the divine law inscribed in the heart of man made necessary the revelation of the divine law, so that man might recognize the innate moral law and the obligation of keeping and fulfilling this law—and bring back the erring conscience of the human being to the straight path from which it turned aside.[1]

That the moral law is an innate law in man and a condition natural to him is also testified by the divine Apostle Paul, who says: “For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves.” “ who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:14). From these words of the Apostle Paul it is indeed attested that humanity as a whole has not lost the awareness of the moral law written in their hearts, and that this awareness is confessed through their works as well as through the witness of their conscience; yet these words do not provide assurance concerning the perfect fulfillment of the moral law and the absence of the need for the revelation of the divine law, the education of conscience, and the regeneration of man. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul himself—who knew the law and served as an Apostle of the Gospel—testifies concerning the moral fall of mankind, concerning the power warring within him against his good intentions, and concerning the erring conscience of men. For these reasons, as an Apostle of the Savior of revealed truth, he proclaimed the spiritual and moral renewal of mankind to be absolutely necessary for moral perfection and knowledge of the truth. Thus man after sin needed divine revelation for knowledge of the perfect moral law, for knowledge of the truth, for the correction of his conscience, and for moral restoration and perfection.

On the Moral Regeneration of Man

Q. How was the moral regeneration of the human being accomplished?

The moral regeneration of the human being was accomplished through the divine incarnation of the Son and word of God, our Savior Jesus Christ, our Lord and God.

Q. What do we believe concerning our Savior Jesus Christ?

We ought to believe without hesitation that He is the Messiah proclaimed by the prophets, the only-begotten Son and word of God, the Redeemer of the world sent by the Father (John 1:1, 2, 3, 14; 10:16; 13:44, 46).

Q. In order for the human being to be regenerated, what must he do?

He must believe in the Savior of the world and be born again through water and Spirit. because “unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and birth from above signifies renewal through the Holy Spirit, as the Savior himself interpreted to Nicodemus who questioned him, saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Q. What is revealed through faith and baptism?

It is evident that the salvation of man is brought about on the one hand by the operation of divine grace, and on the other hand by the cooperation of man who receives divine grace with attentiveness.

E. What is moral regeneration?

Moral rebirth is properly a transformation and renewal of the inner man, a turning from evil to good, and a complete harmony of his free will with the divine will, the moral law.

Q. Through what is the salvation of man accomplished?

The salvation of man is accomplished through the Church, because the Savior, after His ascension into heaven, sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, and inaugurated the Church He had founded on earth, that it might remain forever and enlighten, sanctify, and save those who believe in Him.

Q. What, then, is the Church?

The Church is the perpetuation of the work of the Savior on earth for the salvation of the human race, in the religious sense of the word. it is the fullness of the divine will; it is the truth prefigured through types and shadows in the legal Church; it is the ark of salvation for the human race, the earthly paradise in which is the throne of the true God; it is the only teacher of truth and interpreter of the sacred Scriptures, and the only true and precise guardian of the sacred tradition, of the divine proclamation, of the written and unwritten volume of the holy Gospel.

Given such a character of the Church, how ought the Church’s teaching to be regarded by the faithful?

As the standard of their religious, moral, and civil life; because the teaching of the Church—that is, the Gospel law that replaced the teaching of the legal Church—is divided, like that one, into three laws: the liturgical or religious law, to which can be referred all things pertaining to worship; the moral law, to which can be referred all things defining the relation of man to God, to neighbor, and to himself; and the civil law, which regulates the relations of the faithful to the state, to rulers, to subjects, and to every society of men. The believer is obliged to observe and fulfill these three laws, as set forth by the teaching of the Church, down to the last stroke, so that he may not work against the Church’s teaching and her religious, moral, and civic principles, but may be found in all things in harmony with her.

[1] Translator’s note: [Reconstructed from a heavily corrupted source passage; the sense is best-effort. The clause “bring back the erring conscience…” continues the preceding incomplete sentence.]

Chapter 2—Duties From the Priestly Law

Duties flowing from the liturgical law

What are the duties imposed on the faithful by the liturgical law?

The duties imposed on Christians by the liturgical law are the following:

1) To love the Church of Christ with all his soul and heart; (b) to take care to transmit and spread her teaching, so that the kingdom of God may be established on earth, the work of salvation may be accomplished, and there may come to be one flock, one shepherd, Christ (1); (c) to confess openly the revealed truth and to bear witness, by deed and word, to his devotion to the Church: “Everyone who confesses me before men, I also will confess before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in heaven;” (2); (d) to keep himself as a child of the spotless bride of Christ, the Church…[1]

(1) John 10:16.[2] (2) Matt. 10:32–33.[3]

Christ loved her and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, and that he might present her to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she might be holy and blameless; (5) to revere her ministers as servants of the divine word and stewards of the mysteries and faithful guardians of sacred tradition; (6) to worship God not only privately, but also with the fullness of the Church in the sacred temples, participating in the rites and praying together and communing in the immaculate mysteries; (7) to submit and obey the Church’s laws and ordinances; and 8) he must have love toward all, and especially toward those of the household of faith, demonstrating his love both in word and in deed (2), striving to advance their enlightenment and sanctification (3).

[1] Translator’s note: Source has only “Ch” before the paragraph trails off; the completion “Church” is supplied by context.

[2] Translator’s note: Source footnote (1) was printed as “Matt. 10:32–33,” which is the reference for marker (2) in the preceding paragraph; corrected to John 10:16 (the “one flock, one shepherd” quotation that carries marker (1) in §141.3.2).

[3] Translator’s note: Source footnote (2) read “See the parable of salt and leaven”—a reference that does not correspond to the Matt. 10:32–33 passage it glosses; corrected to Matt. 10:32–33 to match the quotation in §141.3.2.

Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God)

Duties Flowing from the Moral Law

Concerning the duties of man toward God.

a) The first duty of man is to know God and to confess Him as Creator, Maker, and fashioner of the universe; for it was for this purpose that he was fashioned. Whoever does not know God and does not confess Him as Creator and fashioner deviates from his own destiny and denies and rejects the divine grace lavished upon him. such a person is guilty of unbelief and ingratitude before God; (2) he ought to believe in His divine revelation, which was made to him in many portions and in many ways from the foundation of the world for his teaching, illumination, and guidance, and above all the revelation made through the Son of God for the salvation of the world; for without divine revelation the salvation of human beings and their freedom from the tyranny of the devil was impossible. The one who does not believe in divine revelation denies the work of salvation, and the one who denies it, having placed himself outside it, is condemned; but let him confess His divine attributes, for through confession he confesses the unceasing relation of God and His particular providence toward human beings. The one who denies these things attributes to God the abandonment of the world, denies His daily benefits toward human beings, and rejects faith, hope, and love toward God. Such a person is wretched; wretched he passes through life, and wretched and pitiable he departs from it. (4) For the human being ought to praise, bless, worship, glorify, and give thanks to God.

These duties flow from the moral law.

What other moral reasons impose upon the human being the duty to worship the divine?

The following: The human being ought to worship God.

Because God made him in His image and likeness, so that he might establish on earth a kingdom like the one in heaven, of love and freedom, and so that human beings as angels of God on earth might praise and bless God—which is his mission; because through such hymnody he communes with the angels and draws near to God, to whom he is destined to approach and pass; because the divine majesty, His infinitely perfect attributes, and the splendor and greatness of His divine nature call the human being to praise and glorification; because the infinite benefits lavished upon him by God ought to inspire his thanksgiving; and because God wills that His kingdom be restored on earth, so that He may bestow His own goods upon him—for He created the human being in order to make him a partaker of His own goodness and blessedness.

What other duties toward God flow from the moral law?

From the moral law flow also the following duties. 1) He must submit and be obedient to God and fulfill His divine will, which is inscribed upon his heart; for only in this way does he truly become free, perfected, and sanctified. 2) He must love Him with all his soul, with all his heart, with all his strength, and with all his mind; for this is the very purpose of his creation, and only such love is worthy of God. And 3) he must have faith in Him and hasten toward Him, striving to return to Him by becoming pure in mind and heart.

What theories and practices indicate a rejection of this duty?

a) Atheism, impiety, idolatry, man-worship, pantheism, materialism, and the false notions about God held by the pagans and those who deny divine revelation, and heresy; b) unbelief, despair, hatred; c) Epicurean principles, sorceries, enchantments, divinations, auguries, superstitions; and d) lying, perjury, false swearing, blasphemy, cursing, godlessness, and the profanation of the Lord’s days out of indifference, or greed, or contempt. All these things are forbidden also by the Mosaic law in the first four commandments, which the Christian has a duty to keep; whoever transgresses them sins greatly against God.

Among the most important duties toward God are: reverence toward His divine name: whoever utters the name of God irreverently and without compelling necessity sins greatly against God; likewise, those who swear thoughtlessly in their daily conduct to confirm the truth of their words sin greatly, as do those who swear for trivial gain; equally, those who swear without serious and compelling necessity. Therefore, a Christian ought not to take an oath unless required to do so by civil law; and when swearing, he ought to swear for the sake of truth and justice and to say nothing beyond the truth.

On Oaths, False Swearing, and Perjury

What is an oath?

An oath is an invocation of the divine name to confirm a true word.

What is false swearing?

An invocation of the divine name to confirm a false word as true in order to deceive one’s neighbor.

What is perjury?

The transgression of the sacredness of the oath, and false swearing.

Is an oath, swearing, permitted?

The use of oaths among one another appears from sacred Tradition to be completely forbidden. Our Lord Jesus Christ, fulfilling the law of Moses, says to His disciples: Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord’. I swear not at all ….. but let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no; “But anything more than this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:37). That it is forbidden even before the Sanhedrin is not proven by what has been said;
such a prohibition could have been regarded by the Jews as an attack on the laws of the Sanhedrin and on the state itself and denounced by the guardians of the law, but nothing of the sort happened, so the Savior does not appear to be forbidding oath-taking before the authorities. On the contrary, from other passages of the holy Gospel and the epistles of the holy apostles it appears that an oath before the authorities is permitted. The disciples of the Savior are shown to understand the prohibition in this way. The Apostle Peter denied the Savior with an oath (Matt. 26:72–75). The Apostle Paul does not at all appear from his words to accept a complete prohibition of oaths, because in the epistle to the Hebrews he speaks of the use of the oath as necessary without even disapproving it, saying, “For people swear by someone greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation” (6:16). That the Lord’s words forbade oath-taking among one another is also shown by the words of the Apostle James, who in his catholic epistle, citing the very words of the Lord and forbidding oath-taking, adds “so that you may not fall under judgment” (5:12), from which it appears that he forbids the use of oaths among one another, because before the authorities they would fall under no judgment.

Our Lord Jesus Christ accepted the oath proposed by the high priest of the Sanhedrin. The evangelist Matthew records the following: “And the high priest stood up and said to him (to Jesus), ‘I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so’” (26:63). And “You have said so” is equivalent to the pronouncement of an oath and a confession of the truth; The subsequent words of the Savior bear witness to this, through which he affirms that he is the Son of God, who presents himself as the Son of Man, and whom they will see from now on seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven; and the words of the high priest bear witness that he blasphemed. The Apostle Paul likewise often swears, invoking the name of God for the confirmation of his words (Acts 20:26; Gal. 5:3; Eph. 4:11; Rom. 9:1, etc.).

From what has been said it becomes clear that the oath is not absolutely forbidden by sacred Scripture, and the Christian who is summoned to an oath by the authorities and powers, and who accepts the oath for the service of truth and righteousness, does not sin. This is also shown in another way by the spirit of Christianity, which is a spirit of freedom and truth. Through the prohibition of the oath, what was sought was not the prohibition of the utterance of the name of God according to the Jewish spirit, but reverence toward the divine name and the moral formation of the human person. But reverence and moral formation are in no way harmed by the acceptance of the oath imposed by the authorities.

Chapter 4—Duties Toward Self

Duties of a Human Being Toward Himself

From the natural law flow the duties of a human being toward himself. The innate natural law is the power inherent in the human being that moves him toward the preservation, development, and advancement of his material and spiritual nature. But in the human being, as we saw in general ethics, there also exists another law—the innate moral law—which requires that the development, preservation, and advancement of both body and spirit be built upon the principles of morality, that is, of the moral law, written in the heart of the human being. This other law imposes the duty that the human being direct the demands of the natural law according to the commands of the moral law. From this obligation are born the duties of a human being toward himself.

Duties of a Human Being toward Himself

The duties of man toward himself are many and varied; these can be reduced to two categories: natural duties and moral duties; natural duties are those relating to human nature, both material and spiritual, whose preservation and advancement they seek. Moral duties are those relating to the moral life of man, through which he seeks the direction of the impulses of the material and spiritual man according to the principles of the moral law.

What is the foremost duty?

The duty of preserving, developing, and advancing our material and spiritual nature; The second duty is the regulation of the developing powers of the body and the spirit according to the innate moral law.

Duties toward the Sensible Nature of the Human Being

What duties does the human being have toward his sensible nature?

The duties toward the preservation of the body and of one’s sensible life. From where do these flow? Our duties toward the body for its preservation, development, and advancement, and for its care in general, flow from both the natural and moral law, because both laws impose love toward ourselves.[1]

The human being naturally loves himself and naturally seeks the perpetuation of his own existence. The natural desire for life is the voice of the natural law that commands care for the body for the perpetuation of our life. Sensory life is the highest earthly good of the human being, and as such we ought to care for it. Since the human being was created for a purposeful and deliberate end, and this end is accomplished through the fulfillment of the moral law, the moral law commands care for the body and sensory life, so that care for our body and sensory life is commanded by both the natural and moral law.

Therefore, the human being has the duty to care for his own body for its preservation, development, and advancement, and for the maintenance of sensory life. Therefore, he ought to avoid everything that can harm it. Care for the body is a timely and indirect care for our spiritual nature, because the body is a servant of the spirit and an instrument serving its demands. And insofar as the spirit is united with the eternal Spirit, the body becomes serviceable to His purposes as well. Hence, care for the body must be such that the body becomes a useful instrument of the spirit and of the divine Spirit working through it.

Life is the highest of the goods, among the natural goods bestowed upon man by God. Therefore, one ought to give it the proper value and not sacrifice it for the sake of natural goods.

The duty of preserving physical life ceases when its maintenance depends on another’s will and is granted under conditions that oppose the moral or religious law. Therefore, the ransoming of physical life through the denial of one’s moral and religious convictions is impiety both toward our spiritual nature and toward God, and a purposeless preservation of life; because it no longer fulfills any purpose. On the contrary, the sacrifice of life in such a case is an obligatory duty and the highest virtue, because the one who sacrifices life for the sake of virtue dies for his appointed purpose in the world. Opposed to the concept of physical life in Christian ethics are cowardice toward death and anxious care for the maintenance of the body and physical life; Christian ethics requires prudent care, free from irrational anxiety and cowardice and fear.

Duties Toward the Harmonious Development of the Powers of the Body

Physical life requires the harmonious development of the physical powers for harmonious functioning. Therefore it is necessary that the physical powers be developed normally and directed and regulated properly by the spirit for the harmonious functioning of physical life.

Means toward normal development are work and exercise. Through work we both strengthen the powers of the body and procure the means of sustenance that strengthen the body and protect our sensory life. Through exercise the bodily powers are developed normally and the body becomes strong and skillful for the fulfillment of the required tasks. Virtue lies in the mean.

(1) Aristotle says that “both excess and deficiency destroy the soul;” Temperance is preserved in moderation. Labors practiced through long habit,

Our sensory life is also protected by observing the rules of hygiene, moderation in food, restraint of the passions, and generally good conduct of life.

Violation of the duty toward the life of the senses consists in abandoning ourselves and removing all care and attention for the body, in negligence toward treatment during illnesses, in reckless impulse toward dangers, in exposing life to the changes of the seasons out of vanity, and similar things. All these are forms of suicide deserving the greatest censure for violating our duty toward our physical life. Dueling likewise is an exposure of life to the greatest danger for the sake of vanity, because justice could have given satisfaction to the wronged party. Therefore, one who is killed in a duel is also considered a suicide; suicides will give an account before God for the evil stewardship of their life on earth.

How does Holy Scripture view physical life?

Holy Scripture views the life of the senses (a) as the first stage of the spiritual life, as a preparatory school for the soul, which now sees through a mirror in an enigma, but when it is freed from the body will see face to face, because the spiritual life is manifested, developed, and advances toward the perfection to which the soul hastens to arrive through its sensory nature. (1 Corinthians 13:10–13).

(b) Scripture views it as a race in which the human being must compete so that he may be crowned by the God of the contest with the unfading crown of glory. (2 Timothy 4:5; Ephesians 1:33; 1 Corinthians 9:25; 2 Timothy 4:8)

(c) Scripture views it as the greatest of the earthly goods given to the human being by God, as it is also the foremost, because God made the human being so that he might become a partaker of His own
to those who have been trained (Basil). Let us imitate those who practice their drills in the military exercises, who, having acquired skill through maneuvers and formations, enjoy the profit from their training in actual contests.[2] The one who is unpracticed in works is quickly overcome by circumstances (Theol.). “Through much study and practice comes strength and freedom from the weakness caused by passions” (Didymus). “Continuous practice establishes knowledge, just as neglect of practice produces ignorance, and again, practice increases experience through repetition” (Philo).[3] Study is the nurse of knowledge. (See Treasury of Sayings, Vol. 4, ch. 151, p. 818.)

His goodness and blessedness, so that life is the greatest of earthly goods, because through it man becomes a partaker of God’s goodness and blessedness. (Gen. chs. 1, 2, 3.)

Concerning the Duties of the Human Being toward His Rational Nature

What are the duties of the human being toward his rational nature?

The duties of the human being toward his rational nature are (a) the development of his spiritual powers, their strengthening, and their advancement, and (b) his moral perfection; because, having been formed according to the image of God and according to His likeness, the human being ought to be conformed to the divine, developing spiritually and being perfected morally. Because of this twofold obligation, the duties toward his rational nature are divided into spiritual duties and moral duties.

Spiritual Duties

What are the spiritual duties? Spiritual duties consist in caring for the preservation, development, advancement, and perfection of our spiritual nature. What do we mean when we speak of spiritual nature? The noetic aspect of the human being, that is, his spiritual faculties. How does the human being preserve, develop, advance, and perfect his spiritual faculties? The human being preserves, develops, advances, and perfects his spiritual faculties through the pursuit of knowledge of himself. Through the pursuit of knowledge of his relation to creation and of his relation to its Creator, the human being finds what he seeks, is led gradually from the particular to the more general, from the individual to the universal, and thus advancing he is perfected. For the canonical development of spiritual faculties, the canonical and natural ministry of the intellect is required. The intellect ministers canonically and naturally when it is maintained in continuous energy and tranquility; it is maintained and undisturbed, when the human being lives a temperate life befitting one who is noetic and made in the image of God; because the bestial life is the greatest obstacle to the canonical and natural ministry of the intellect. The bestial life, which luxuries, pleasures, delights, drinking, and similar things produce, darkens the intellect, deprives it of the power of canonical energy for development, debases it, and condemns it to stagnation.

To prevent such a condition, the human being ought to bridle his own sensory impulses, passions, and desires, so that the clarity of the intellect is not darkened and its free energy is not hindered. We accomplish the restraint of impulses, passions, and desires when we avoid the representations that arouse them.

The spirit in the course of its development needs some guidance; but the human being must also act on his own initiative. He ought to have confidence in his teachers and to receive their opinions, yet not passively but actively; he ought to search, so that he himself may also discover the truth contained in the teaching and act freely according to the measure of his own spiritual development.

The development of the spirit does not reject faith; because faith is the teacher of truth; faith in the teaching is the first step of the ladder leading up to the truth. without faith there is no knowledge, and without knowledge there is no development: “If you do not believe, you will not understand,” says Scripture (Isaiah 7:9).

A duty imposed by the moral law is also the moral development of the imagination, because when it is well directed it becomes a means toward moral perfection, shaping the desire for perfect goodness, perfect beauty, and perfect truth; but when it is badly directed it becomes a means of error and an instrument of corruption, shaping false images and nonexistent pleasures, and inflaming the passions and desires of the body.

Moral Duties

What are the moral duties toward oneself? The first moral duty of man is to cultivate his spiritual faculties and to regulate them according to the requirements of the moral law.

How ought the faculty of knowledge to be directed?

A human being must direct the power of the cognitive faculty in such a way as to guard the spirit from every deception, because if it is not well directed, it can fall into many delusions and be drawn away from the truth. The spirit is led astray either by a darkening that comes upon it from the influence of the sensory nature, or by erroneous theories born from erroneous judgments. The delusion of the intellect can affect the whole moral life and destroy it, because a deluded mind also leads astray the feeling and the will and disposes them in opposition to the moral law. Therefore a human being must avoid everything that can darken or lead the spirit astray, and must always act with circumspection and reject theories that are opposed to the moral law.

A darkened and disturbed mind also leads the conscience astray, and the delusion of the conscience distorts the truth of the innate moral law and destroys every moral idea. From a darkened mind every vice has sprung. But since the mind is the light within us, if this light within us becomes darkness, how great then will be the darkness within us—the darkness that comes from the impulses, passions, and desires of the body!

Therefore a human being must first of all take care of his spiritual power, the mind.

A moral duty imposed upon the human being by the moral law is also the direction of the will, because a human being can be mistaken either about the moral quality or about the moral value of something and can will evil instead of good. But a human being must always choose the good as the true content of his will. A human being, as a morally free being, can choose either good or evil, but since the choice of evil is not the desire of his own heart—as it was not created together with him—it cannot be the true content of his will. When he wills a false content of his will, he wills what he does not desire; he wills it because he is deluded. Therefore a human being must examine whether what appears in his will as desirable is in harmony with the moral law; and if it is in harmony, he must will it and seek its fulfillment; but if he recognizes that it is opposed to the moral law, then he must reject it as the false content of his own will and cease willing it.

The false content of the will is a product of sin that has darkened our intellect and weakened our will. Holy Scripture also says this. The Apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans: “For the will is present with me, but I do not find the ability to perform what is good; for I do not do the good I will, but the evil I do not will, this I practice.” But if I do what I do not will, it is no longer I who perform it, but sin that dwells in me… For I delight in the law of God according to the inner human being. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my intellect, and taking me captive to the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:18–23).

To strengthen the will and to accomplish the good, endurance is required; and endurance is strength of the will drawn from the illumined intellect and the moral law. Through endurance the will is shown to be steadfast and unyielding, and it overcomes the sin that wars within us. The unstable and yielding will lacks the strength that comes from the moral law and the illumined intellect. Steadfastness in carrying out evil is strength drawn from the sin in our members; in such a person the intellect has been darkened and the heart has been hardened.

The character of the strong will that possesses reason and has true content is courage, boldness, confidence, magnanimity, and the other virtues that accompany courage.

The character of an irrational strong will that has false content is reckless audacity, cowardice, rash actions, pettiness, and so on.

The signs of the strengthening of the will are its identification with the divine will, the moral idea. Toward such strengthening of the will, the human being must struggle against the false will dwelling within him; and he prevails in the struggle if he keeps his mind illuminated and fulfills the moral law.

Another duty imposed on the human being by the moral law is the governance of the affective faculty, the heart; just as the will, so also the affective faculty, if it is governed morally, is directed rightly and can become useful and capable of developing the religious and moral
sentiments through which the human being hastens toward divine love and toward the fulfillment of the divine law with God-inspired zeal; But if it is poorly governed, it becomes a destructive instrument that corrupts the moral life of the human being, because it is dominated by the sensory nature, is given over entirely to earthly things, and pursues earthly goods. Feeling governed by reason prefers spiritual goods over earthly things, and seeks its own harmony and accord with the divine law.

The result of the harmony of feeling and the divine law is the inward joy of the heart, the supreme peace and exultation of the soul, the tranquility of the spirit, and the inward assurance of the soul concerning the future enjoyment of the supreme good, with which it feels itself to be in mystical communion. These, then, are the duties toward each one of the spiritual powers. Since, however, the desired perfection can be attained from the harmonious development of all the spiritual powers of the human being, the human being ought to seek this with all his strength.

[1] Translator’s note: The 1897 source breaks this sentence across a page turn after ‘natural—‘; the continuation ‘of the natural and moral law…’ is rejoined here.

[2] Translator’s note: ‘formations’: ὀρχήσεσι rendered in its military sense of coordinated movements; alt. ‘dances.’

[3] Translator’s note: ‘strength’: βία rendered in its positive sense of vigor/force; alt. ‘power’ or ‘force’.

Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour

Duties toward One’s Neighbor

What are the duties toward one’s neighbor and from where do they flow?

The first of the duties toward one’s neighbor is love; it flows from both the natural and the moral law; the natural law draws us toward our neighbor; this law has inscribed in the heart of man love for one’s neighbor; Friendship, sympathy, and fellowship with others are testimonies of the innate disposition of love toward others. Likewise, the desire for the love of others is also a testimony of the innate love toward others. The human being seeks and wants to be loved. Therefore the human being must also love, because what one innately desires and seeks, every human being desires and seeks. Thus love is a dictate of the natural law, because through love the human being is both preserved and developed both materially, spiritually, and morally. Love is the innate fundamental law upon which existence and happiness are built. without innate love, creation on earth would be a purposeless work; before God breathed into Adam the breath of life, He inscribed on his heart the law of love, so that he might love Him and His creation, and live blessed in this love; love makes the earth paradise, because it establishes the kingdom of God on earth; without love, all creation is an earthly punishment; love is the light of the eyes of the soul, through which the soul beholds the image of the divine Creator inscribed by the divine finger upon the divine creation, and rejoices with ineffable joy; therefore the human being by nature loves his neighbor.

Love is imposed upon the human being as a duty by the moral law of revelation, because the human being, having been led astray and deceived, became deaf to the voice of the innate law of love and turned away from the love of God and the love of neighbor. the turning away from love, when magnified, led to hatred of God and of neighbor, and these things to true misery and punishment. The moral law is a reminder of the innate moral law, and it prescribes as a duty the innate virtue.

Duties Flowing from Love

What duties toward our neighbor does love prescribe? First, the duty to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and second, to care for the preservation, development, and advancement of both his bodily and spiritual nature, and for the proper development of his affections. because love moves a person to recognize in his neighbor one of the same high worth and to feel inward joy both at his existence and well-being, and to strive with all his might to promote this well-being of his neighbor; the foundational elements of love toward others are respect and benevolence; and their manifestation is action that aims at promoting the well-being of other human beings.

The New Covenant encourages love toward one’s neighbor (a) because of the high worth of human nature, as having been fashioned in the image of God, and redeemed by the Savior Christ (Acts 17:28–29; James 3:9, cf. Gen. 2:7; Matt. 18:11–14; John 3:16; Rom. 14:16–19)[1] and (b) because of the brotherly relation that all people have toward one another, and because of the even closer relation of those who have and confess the same faith in Christ (Luke 10:28; Rom. 12:4–10. 1 Corinthians 6:6 and 12:4. Ephesians 4:4–6).

Characteristics of Love for Neighbor

What is love for one’s neighbor? Love for one’s neighbor according to the New Testament must be, first, a holy and pure love, and must flow from the pure spiritual life in God of the human person. (1 John 3:16, 17 and 4:12, 20, 21; John 13:6; 2 Pet. 1:17)

(2) it must be absolute and unlimited, that is, universal toward all people and toward our enemies. (Matthew 5:28); (3) completely selfless. (1 Corinthians 13:4–5); (4) continually active for the salvation and happiness of others. (Luke 10:29; 1 Corinthians 2:4–9; 1 John 3:8); (5) ready for every sacrifice. (1 John 3:16); and (6) it must be inspired by a religious spirit. (Gal. 5:14; Eph. 5:1; John 3:16, 4:7).

On what is love for neighbor founded?

Love for neighbor, being rational, is founded on the rational nature of man. Therefore, the more regularly and perfectly the spiritual nature of man is developed, the fuller and more perfect love for neighbor becomes.

How is love for neighbor manifested?

Love for neighbor is manifested as reverence and respect for his spiritual nature, and as kindness toward his person. Reverence and respect for one’s neighbor are the foundation of harmonious relations among people, while benevolence is the foundation of mutual assistance and sharing.

But since the imperfect development and formation of others contributes to the diminishing of respect for one’s neighbor and weakens benevolence toward him because of the hostility with which he sometimes approaches, the dictate of love from the natural law proves unprofitable; for this reason the dictate of love from the law of revelation is regarded as absolutely necessary. For the one who has submitted to the law of revelation and raised love for his neighbor to a reflective height both loves his neighbor as himself and does so for two reasons: first, because love for one’s neighbor is bound up with love for God, and second, because he regards him as a child of the heavenly God and Father.[2]

Only the one who has been developed in a canonical, spiritual manner and has rightly and perfectly developed his religious disposition possesses an unchanging love toward his neighbor. Without religious feeling and perfect love for God, it is impossible for there to be pure and true love for one’s neighbor.

Contempt for people and hardness of heart stand opposed to pure love for them. Contempt removes the respect owed to others by disregarding their moral worth, while hardness removes the goodwill that is owed, transforming it into ill will and hatred. (Matt. 11–14, 18, 29, 25, 27). From the lack of respect and goodwill, the most abominable schemes against one’s neighbor are conceived in the human heart, and the most terrible passions develop, undermining the life, honor, and freedom of other people.

Duties Toward the Physical and Spiritual Life of Other People

Love for other people is manifested in the care we take for their physical and spiritual life. The twofold nature of man imposes twofold duties as well: that is, duties toward the bodily life of others and duties toward their spiritual and moral life.

These duties are duties not only of love, but also of righteousness; for whoever transgresses them wrongs his neighbor. But Christian ethics does not ground these duties in legal right, but in love; for justice seeks recompense, but love freely gives all things; This difference also distinguishes the Mosaic law from the law of Christ the Savior. Therefore the former was a law of righteousness and retribution, while the latter is a law of grace.

Why was Christian ethics founded on love?

Because love alone is able to bring about the realization of the rational and purposeful end of creation, and to establish the kingdom of God on earth. Through love the human being cooperates with God on earth. Through love, by an unbreakable bond, all humanity is united. through love humanity is advanced and perfected; through love humanity is united to God; through love humanity reaches the good; through love human beings are made like the angels and as angels of God live on earth;
through love the earth is joined to the heavens, and its inhabitants become citizens of heaven; Through love the earth is transformed into paradise, and the human being receives back what he lost. Through love in Christ the human being inherits the heavenly kingdom and is brought into the heavenly paradise. Because this was the work of the mission of the Savior Christ, he founded it upon love. This is the reason why Christian ethics is founded upon love.

How Can the Duties toward One’s Neighbor Be Formulated?

The duties toward one’s neighbor can be formulated as follows:

Out of pure respect and heartfelt goodwill toward others, do everything that preserves, develops, and advances their sensory and rational nature. And since in this way the kingdom of God on earth, established by Christ the Savior, is advanced, this canon can be formulated as follows:

Strive to advance the kingdom of God among people through faith working through love.

Duties toward the Sensory Life of Others

Sensory nature is the necessary condition for the activity and manifestation of the spiritual nature of man in the sensory world, and for the beginning of its development in earthly life; as such, sensory life is the highest of all sensory goods. Therefore, just as we ought to preserve our own physical life, so we ought to respect the physical life of others. This respect is innate, because love for our neighbor is also innate. Only the one who has lost this innate love through hardness of heart can plot against the life of others.

The New Covenant condemns with abhorrence every action that aims to disturb or destroy life or to bring some harm to it.

(1) We place duties toward physical life before duties toward our spiritual nature as being more necessary, because without care for our physical nature, care for our spiritual nature becomes impossible.

From the duty of respecting the life of others there also arises the duty to defend their life against the dangers that threaten it, and to cooperate in everything that contributes to the preservation of the life and health of others through the establishment of philanthropic institutions.

After bodily life, the highest good is external freedom, which consists in that condition in which a human being is able to use freely his natural and spiritual powers for the development, advancement, and moral perfection of himself and others.

External freedom is the first condition of the well-being and development of the human being. Whoever deprives someone of this deprives him of the highest good after life, takes away his well-being, and condemns him to ignorance and stagnation. The restriction of the freedom of the human beings who constitute societies by mutual agreement is voluntary and indeed becomes a necessary condition for development and progress. Involuntary deprivation of freedom is imposed on someone when he makes use of it to the detriment of society and its development, so that freedom may not bring any harm.

Likewise it is morally permissible to restrict the freedom of immature young people, of the morally corrupt, or of the non-spiritual, or of those held captive by certain passions and darkened in their understanding, and on account of this unable to make proper use of their external freedom. Parents and the state are justified in restricting their freedom for the benefit of both themselves and society. Directly opposed to the duty of respecting the external freedom of others is slavery, which is a degradation of the human person, since it strips away his personhood and reduces him to the position of an irrational animal, placed at the disposal of his master.

Scripture teaches respect for the freedom of one’s neighbor by teaching love. Christianity abolished slavery through love. It did not declare war and abolish slavery by denouncing it, but through the regeneration of love for one’s neighbor. It sought to abolish slavery not through the revolt of the slave, but through the emancipation granted by the masters.

Another important duty toward other people, dictated by love for one’s neighbor, is respect for their lawful property. (Luke 16:1, Romans 13:7) not only because the secure possession of the goods of property is one of the most necessary conditions of external prosperity, but also because without such respect there cannot exist a social coexistence of people, toward which—as the first foundation of the development of some spiritual kingdom of God on earth—love for people imposes a sacred respect; therefore the Christian religious observance forbids not only robbery, that is, the violent seizure of property lawfully belonging to other people (Exodus 20:15 and 6:10) and theft, that is, the secret seizure of the property of others (Matthew 19:18, Luke 18:20, Ephesians 4:28, James 5:4), but also every kind of deceit by which, under the pretense of justice, another’s property is embezzled (1 Thessalonians 5:6).

The spirit of Christianity demands that not only every action disturbing the property of others be considered unlawful, but also every greedy intention and desire for another’s possessions; this is also strictly forbidden by the Old Testament as the root of every action against the property of others. (Exodus 20:17, Leviticus 19:21, Romans 7:7). Theft should also be considered any reproduction of books without the permission of the author or the original publisher.

Because of the importance that honor and reputation have for the human being, we ought not only to spare the honor and reputation of others, but also to take care to preserve and increase them. Therefore the New Testament forbids all reckless and unjust condemnation, blasphemy, and slander as defamation against others. (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37; Matt. 15:19).

As for the effort to preserve the reputation of others, the New Testament it requires that, insofar as we are not convinced of the contrary, we hold a good opinion of others. (1 Cor. 13), let us readily acknowledge the worth of others. (Phil. 2:3), let us show to others the honor due to their station. (Rom. 13:7), let us keep silent about faults insofar as higher duties do not require their disclosure, (1 Cor. 13:6), and let us defend the innocence of those unjustly condemned.

Duties toward the spiritual nature of our neighbor

The moral law imposes upon us duties toward the spiritual nature of our neighbor; by commanding us to love our neighbor as ourselves, it commands us to care for the spiritual nature of our neighbor just as we care for the development and advancement of our own spiritual nature; the Christian religious observance, striving to perfect humanity, assigns the greatest importance to the development of the spirit for its elevation and its liberation from ignorance, delusion, superstition, and prejudices. Christianity, setting as its goal to enlighten the human spirit with the light of divine truth and to establish on earth the heavenly kingdom, that is, the kingdom of love and freedom, requires an enlightened mind for its understanding because of the close connection between knowledge and practice—for virtue without knowledge is action without worth; it is something deficient. (John 1:4–8, 9:12, 12:36, 17:31). Jesus Christ severely condemned all those who hinder the spiritual freedom of others for free thought and inquiry, and who keep them in ignorance and delusion. (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52), and he urged his disciples to proclaim freely the revealed truth. (Matthew 5:18, 11:25), and not to avoid any danger for the sake of spreading it. (Matthew 11:16, John 16:31). And his disciples were obliged to respect the moral freedom of others and not to force them into accepting the proclaimed truth, nor to employ evil schemes, but always to proceed with appropriate understanding and prudence, so that they might not cause even one of the lowliest to stumble.

Be wise and innocent. (Matthew 6:6–11). The disciples of the Savior, having labored in this way in the work of their apostleship, distributed the light of truth and illuminated the ends of the earth. Following their example, we too ought to labor selflessly with courage, perseverance, and endurance for the advancement of the illumination of humanity.

General Conduct toward One’s Neighbor

Our relations with our neighbor and our entire conduct toward him must be governed by the moral law founded on love and righteousness; and we must always examine what is good and acceptable and perfect before God. (Romans 12:3), giving no offense in anything. (2 Corinthians 6:3), to contribute to the development of their spirit and to the formation of their heart, and to strengthen their zeal for the truth; all our conduct toward others should be unfeigned, sincere, and an expression and reflection of our inward disposition. Falsehood, apart from the vice in it, is a moral assault against the human being made in the image of God, because it attacks his personhood, which the liar seeks to humiliate and degrade through the lie.

[1] Translator’s note: Source reads “Μάρκ. ιη΄. 11–14” (Mark 18:11–14, impossible—Mark has only 16 chapters) and “Φίρμιος ζ΄. δ΄” (Firmius 7:4, unidentified). “Mark 18” corrected to Matt. 18:11–14 (the parable of the lost sheep, thematically consistent); “Firmius 7:4” removed as unrecoverable OCR corruption.

[2] Translator’s note: [Reconstructed from a corrupted source passage; the closing connective is omitted.]

Section 2—Particular Duties

The Markellos Tower, Aegina

Civic life on the island Saint Nektarios chose as his final see.

Chapter 1—Civic and Family Duties

Duties Arising from Social and Family Life

What duties are imposed by social life?

From social life the following duties are imposed: (a) duties toward the state; (b) duties toward society as a whole and individually; and (c) duties toward the family.

Duties toward the State

Does the Christian as a member of the State have various duties toward it? These are summed up in patriotism, which consists in love for the country and the state in which one was born and raised, or which one has freely chosen as one’s own homeland. Christian patriotism does not have exclusivity, but has as its character universal love.

Paul also showed such particular love toward his own nation. (Romans 9:8). The spirit of Christian religion imposes upon Christians the obligation to submit to the laws and ordinances of the state in which they live, as having their origin in the will of God, and to contribute to its development and advancement.

The Christian religious observance commands us to respect the rights of others and to fulfill our own duties.

the laws of the state not from fear of punishment, but from reverence toward God, and from a good conscience (Rom. 13:1, 4; 1 Pet. 2:13). Since the state and the fatherland provide for the security of the religious, moral, and intellectual development of its members, Christian citizens also ought to contribute to the needs of the fatherland and to pay without complaint the taxes necessary for the realization of the national idea and the moral purpose of the state (Rom. 13:6; Mark 12:17). Since every state ought to provide for its own security and to vindicate its rights when they are trampled upon by other nations, every citizen has a duty to serve in the military and to fight for the fatherland. This is so because the idea of the kingdom of heaven has not been fully realized on earth; and as long as the state of moral imperfection continues, it will necessarily entail war.

Opposed to true patriotism are national indifference and political apathy, which proceed from self-love and, pursuing only individual advantage, are indifferent to the general interest of the fatherland and the state. Likewise opposed to true patriotism is false cosmopolitanism, in which a human being, viewing himself only in relation to humanity, forgets entirely that humanity is composed of particular nations, and that each individual belongs first to a definite nation and to a definite state, and ought to have an active concern for the welfare of his own nation and his own national state; only that patriotism is blameworthy which, caring only for the interests of its own nation and its own state, forgets that a human being is not only a citizen of a particular nation and a particular state, but is at the same time also a member of all humanity, and, reasoning falsely, views the other nations with indifference or with contempt. Therefore the Christian, deeply conscious of his connection with all humanity, will never, because of his most lively concern for his own nation and his national state, appear indifferent to the general interests of all humanity. (Matt. 22:37–39).

Those who serve the state, to be ordained by God, as also every authority.[1] (Rom. 13:1–4; 1 Pet. 2:11; and John 19:11). The words of the New Testament.[2] These passages, in which political authority is presented as having been established in power according to divine will, do not exclude the idea that political authority also receives its power through the universal will of the nation. For God governs the world and directs it toward its final purpose, for which He created it, through the cooperation of His divine power with the natural and moral powers of creation, among which are both the will of individual human beings and the collective will of nations. The apostle Paul calls the rulers of the state ministers of God for good. (Rom. 13:4, 6). From these words it is concluded that the will of God concerning the obedience to the rulers of the state is conditional and exists only insofar as the rulers do not conflict with the purpose for which authority was ordained by God. The rulers of the state as ministers of God ought to advance the moral order of God in the world through strict righteousness (Rom. 13:4, 6; 1 Pet. 2:11). And since the moral order of God in the world sets forth the spiritual perfection of man and his likeness to God, the ministers of the state also ought in all their activity to aim at the moral education and spiritual perfection of the citizens, and through this at the fullest possible realization of the kingdom of heaven on earth. Certainly it is improper for the state to neglect the material well-being of the citizens, because spiritual development presupposes a certain material well-being. But the material well-being of the citizens should not be regarded as the highest goal at which the ministers of the state aim, because if they regard the material well-being of the citizens as the highest goal, they are no longer ministers of God for good. Just as God in all His activity keeps the immutable laws He has established, so also the ministers of the state ought to keep the laws in force in the state, in no way departing from them. The workers of the state ought to fulfill their civic duties not out of self-interest and love of power, but out of love for their country and from pure moral motives with wisdom, endurance, and steadfastness (Rom. 13:6), not becoming discouraged by toil nor disheartened by difficulties.

Likewise, the New Testament defines the duties that citizens ought to fulfill toward the ministers of the state. (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; 1 Tim. 2:1-2).

Citizens ought to honor the ministers of the state and obey their ordinances not by force, but willingly, and to cooperate toward every good. (Titus 3:4) Citizens likewise ought to submit to the ministers of the state. Disobedience is permitted only when the authorities command violation of the divine commandments. (Acts 6:19)[3] Therefore the laws that the officials of the state impose on the citizens ought to be grounded in the principles of the moral law, so that the citizens do not disobey.

[1] Translator’s note: This sentence is incomplete in the 1897 source; the predicate is missing. The sense appears to be an introduction to Rom. 13:1–4 (ministers of the state are ordained by God), continued in the following paragraphs.

[2] Translator’s note: Κ. 4.: abbreviation for Καινὴ Διαθήκη (New Testament), following standard Greek Orthodox convention.

[3] Translator’s note: Source citation reads “Πράξ. ς΄. 19” (Acts 6:19), but Acts 6 has only 15 verses; the underlying reference is likely Acts 4:19 or 5:29 (the apostolic refusal to obey unjust commands), but cannot be confirmed.

Chapter 2—Duties Toward Social Life

Duties of the Human Being Toward Social Life

According to the spirit of the Christian religious observance, every human being is called, or predestined by God, to a certain work, to which he ought to devote his powers throughout his life. (1 Corinthians 12:17). This work, to which we devote ourselves, is called a calling or profession.

The New Covenant recognizes that a profession should serve each human being as a lawful means for obtaining the necessities of life. (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:10). But such a conception of profession should not be the predominant one for the Christian; rather, the Christian ought to regard his profession as a sphere of activity to which he has been called by God, so that by employing in it the powers given to him by God, he makes himself useful to other human beings, advances the lofty purposes of God, and prepares himself for another and eternal life. (Luke 9:11; Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 10:7; Eph. 4:7; 1 Pet. 4:10).

A profession binds a human being into more or less close relations with other human beings, which relations are various. Yes, for the most part these associations, like most others, are external and based on material interests. But closer associations are those into which a human being enters, partly by free choice, partly because of circumstances and relations, and because of the necessity within him. All these various associations, up to friendship, which constitutes an entirely new relation, are summed up in that relation which can be called par excellence the social relation, or the relation of social life. A human being feels the need to enter into closer association with other human beings, because the advancement of his spiritual development requires as a necessary condition free spiritual communion with other human beings. And social life provides the human being with many new stimuli toward the good, and new occasions for good works. The higher the vantage point from which the Christian views human beings, the more gladly a person enters into social relation with other human beings. The Christian must be very careful when entering into social relations with other human beings, and must not enter into them merely for the sake of amusements, but must aim above all at the purposes of social life dictated by the Christian religious observance and by reason, and consequently must associate with such human beings who, through their good character and spiritual development, are able to influence the Christian’s moral and intellectual perfection. Respect and love of a human being toward other human beings is manifested in certain established types of common etiquette. Therefore the Christian in all his social relations must conduct himself with friendliness and courtesy. (1 Pet. 2:17).

From the relation of a human being to social life come various duties, one of the chief of which is the duty of beneficence or doing good, which consists in the effort to help others in their needs and to promote their true well-being. (Luke 7:33. Romans 1:13. 3:17). Whoever receives a benefit ought to be grateful to his benefactor. Gratitude or thanksgiving consists in the inward acknowledgment of the benefits one has received from the benefactor, and in the readiness to do everything that promotes the true well-being of the benefactor.

Duties toward the household.[1]

The foundation of family life is marriage. Its moral meaning, when examined, is the mutual union of two persons of different sexes for the sake of procreation, for intimate communion, and for their mutual perfection. Not every human being has the duty with respect to the relation of marriage, because the following are excluded from marriage: a) those who are naturally unable, or who lack the qualities that are necessary for marriage, such as the insane, the feeble-minded, etc.; b) those who lack the spiritual qualities that are necessary for marriage, such as the insane, the feeble-minded, etc.; c) those who lack the means to support a family; and d) those who voluntarily do not enter into the communion of marriage for the sake of a higher spiritual purpose.[2]

Duties of Spouses toward One Another.

The duties of spouses toward one another derive from the concept of marriage. Spouses ought to have pure morals. (1 Thess. 4:3), complete trust, and heartfelt goodwill. (Eph. 5:25 ff.), endurance in bearing with the imperfections, weaknesses, and faults of the other, steadfast effort to make life mutually joyful and to advance moral and religious perfection, and to work together harmoniously toward the purposeful upbringing of children; in addition to these things, the husband owes his wife protection and consideration. (Ephesians 5:33, 1 Peter 3:1), and the wife reverence and submission toward her husband.

Duties of Parents toward Their Children

What are the duties of parents toward their children? The duties of parents toward their children are those imposed upon them by both the natural and the moral law. By the natural law they are obligated to care for them and to provide for their preservation, development, and advancement, and by the moral law to seek their spiritual and religious perfection so as to raise them as upright citizens and children of the kingdom of God, which they ought to advance on earth. For the easy fulfillment of this duty, God has placed in the hearts of parents a natural affection, that is, a natural love toward their own children, which is stronger even than love for their own life. But such love of parents toward their children must proceed from prudence, rational and voluntary, and worthy of a rational being. Therefore it is in danger, first, of being led astray as a blind innate love that owes everything to sensory nature, and second, of growing distant as time goes on. Proper love and upbringing are taught by both the Old and New Covenants. (See Treasury of Sayings, vol. 2, chapters 40 and 46.)

Duties of Children toward Their Parents

Children also have a natural love toward their parents, which must become a free love with full awareness. All their duties toward their own parents are dictated by love, as toward the causes of their own life, development, and happiness, and reverence (Malachi 1, Ephesians 6:2), and gratitude for the countless benefits they received from them (1 Timothy 5:8), as well as submission, obedience, and compliance toward them with love (Ephesians 6:1), and zealous diligence in promoting the welfare of their parents. (1 Timothy 5:4, 9; cf. Sirach 3:9–18, Proverbs 23).

Concerning the Mutual Duties of Masters and Servants

From the mutual and voluntary concession of rights arise mutual obligations and duties between the persons involved. From this agreement arise relations between masters and servants. The servant provides his service, and the master compensates him with wages.

Duties: Servants (a) ought to fulfill their own duties faithfully, and fulfill the will of the master as those obeying God. 2) to love and respect them. Masters have a duty toward their servants: a) to compensate them according to the worth of their labor, and b) to treat them with fairness, to love them, and to provide for their moral and religious development, and to care for their life and health.

THE END AND GLORY TO GOD.

[1] Translator’s note: Source has 'oixoyevera', an OCR-corrupted form of οἰκογένεια (household / family).

[2] Translator’s note: The source repeats categories (a) and (b) identically; translated as given in the text.

Persons and Places

Persons and places mentioned in this book, with short notes and back-links to every occurrence.

Persons

Alcuin

Anglo-Saxon scholar and clergyman (c. 735–804 AD), leading intellectual of the Carolingian Renaissance at the court of Charlemagne.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.2).

St Ambrose of Milan

Bishop of Milan (c. 339–397), one of the four traditional Latin Doctors of the Church. Wrote the De Obitu Theodosii. Mentor of St Augustine of Hippo. Feast day 7 December.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.8.1, 4.1.8); Section 1—On Virtue (115.4.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (117.2.1).

St Antony the Great

Egyptian desert father (c. 251–356), founder of monastic eremitism. Feast day 17 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.2).

Aristotle

Greek philosopher (384–322 BC), student of Plato and founder of the Peripatetic school. His Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics defined the vocabulary of moral philosophy for later Christian writers.

Mentioned in: Foreword (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.8); Introduction (2) (15.1.1); Section 1—On Virtue (86.3.1, 86.3.7, 86.4.2, 94.7.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (130.2.2); Chapter 4—Duties Toward Self (147.3.1).

St Athanasius the Great

Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 296–373), the leading defender of Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism, exiled five times. Author of the Life of Antony and On the Incarnation. Feast day 18 January and 2 May.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.2); Section 1—On Virtue (115.6.1).

St Augustine of Hippo

Bishop of Hippo (354–430 AD) and the most influential theologian of the Latin West. Nektarios cites him repeatedly on sin, grace, free will, and moral theology. Feast day 28 August.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.11, 4.3.3); Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God (32.1.5, 34.2.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (117.2.1).

St Basil the Great

Cappadocian Father (c. 330–379), Archbishop of Caesarea, monastic legislator and theologian; one of the Three Hierarchs. Author of the Longer and Shorter Rules and the Liturgy bearing his name. Feast day 1 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.2); Section 1—On Virtue (87.3.1, 113.3.3); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.22.1, 121.24.12, 129.1.1, 130.2.3, 130.3.3); Chapter 4—Duties Toward Self (147.10.1).

Bede the Venerable

Northumbrian monk and scholar (672/3–735 AD), author of the Ecclesiastical History of the English People and numerous biblical commentaries. Feast day 25 May.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.2).

Hermann Busenbaum

German Jesuit moral theologian (1600–1668), author of the Medulla theologiae moralis (1645), a widely distributed casuist manual that became a flashpoint in debates over Jesuit probabilism.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.5.2).

Clement of Alexandria

Alexandrian theologian (c. 150–215 AD), head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. His Protrepticus, Paedagogus, and Stromata set out a vision of Christian moral formation toward perfection that influenced Nektarios directly.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.5.3); Introduction to Special Ethics (75.4.1); Section 1—On Virtue (87.3.2, 94.9.1, 106.1.1, 114.2.1).

St Cyril of Alexandria

Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD), defender of Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus (431). Feast day 9 February / 27 June.

Mentioned in: Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.11.2).

David

King of Israel (c. 1010–970 BC), traditional author of the Psalms; a central figure of Old Testament typology in patristic exegesis.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (92.12.3).

Dionysius the Areopagite

Author of the Dionysian corpus (fl. c. 500 AD), a body of mystical theology that profoundly influenced both Eastern and Western Christian thought. Identity debated; traditionally identified with Dionysius of Acts 17:34.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.7).

Epictetus

Greek Stoic philosopher (c. 50–135 AD), freed slave whose Discourses and Enchiridion were highly influential on later moral thought.

Mentioned in: Introduction (2) (15.1.1).

St Eubulus of Caesarea

Martyr (died 311 AD) in the province of Tyre, mentioned by Nektarios in the context of early church witnesses; named Eubulus ‘because of his wisdom and virtue’. Feast day uncertain; commemorated with the martyrs of Caesarea Maritima.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.9.1).

Euripides

Athenian tragic playwright (c. 480–406 BC). Cited by Nektarios for moral apophthegms, particularly on anger and envy.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (112.1.3); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (129.2.1).

Eusebius of Caesarea

Bishop of Caesarea (c. 260–339), often called the father of Church history. Author of the Ecclesiastical History (HE) and the Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini), the principal sources for the conversion of Constantine.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (113.8.4).

Evagrius Scholasticus

Sixth-century Antiochene ecclesiastical historian (c. 536–c. 600). His Ecclesiastical History covers 431–593 and is a principal source for the late patristic and early Byzantine East.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (94.9.1).

St Gregory the Theologian

One of the Three Hierarchs (c. 329–390), Archbishop of Constantinople, author of the Five Theological Orations and the Invectives Against Julian. Feast day 25 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.3); Section 1—On Virtue (86.5.2, 106.1.4, 115.8.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (130.2.4).

St Gregory of Nyssa

Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335–395 AD), Cappadocian Father, author of the Life of Moses and On the Soul and Resurrection; closely allied with his brother Basil the Great. Feast day 10 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.2).

St Gregory Palamas

Archbishop of Thessalonica (c. 1296–1359), the chief defender of hesychasm; his theology of the divine energies was endorsed by the Constantinopolitan synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351. Feast day 14 November and the Second Sunday of Great Lent.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.9.2).

Jean-Pierre Gury

French Jesuit moral theologian (1801–1866), author of the Compendium theologiae moralis (1850), the standard Jesuit casuistry textbook adopted across European and American seminaries.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.5.2).

the Holy Spirit

The Third Person of the Holy Trinity, proceeding from the Father (John 15:26); confessed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as ‘the Lord, the Giver of Life’. The Holy Spirit anoints with chrism in baptism, indwells the Church, and is invoked at every Eucharist (the epiclesis).

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.8, 5.1.1); Introduction (2) (8.2.1, 14.1.3, 19.4.3); Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God (25.6.1, 27.3.5, 27.4.2, 28.4.2, 30.1.1, 30.1.2, 32.1.7); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (47.14.3, 55.2.4, 61.16.1, 62.1.1); Section 1—On Virtue (82.9.3, 87.7.1, 90.12.1, 90.14.1, 101.1.1, 102.1.1, 113.3.1, 114.6.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (116.4.1, 118.4.1, 119.8.3, 119.8.5, 129.1.5, 135.3.2, 137.2.1, 138.2.4, 138.3.4, 138.4.6); Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration (140.7.2); Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God) (143.11.2); Chapter 4—Duties Toward Self (145.3.2, 146.4.3, 146.4.4, 146.4.5, 147.1.2, 149.4.1, 149.5.1, 150.3.1, 150.14.1); Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour (159.10.1, 160.1.1); Chapter 1—Civic and Family Duties (163.2.3); Chapter 2—Duties Toward Social Life (164.1.1).

Iamblichus

Syrian Neoplatonist philosopher (c. 245–325 AD), influential on later Platonism and cited by Nektarios on the nature of temperance.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (113.5.1).

St Ignatius of Antioch

Bishop of Antioch and Apostolic Father (c. 35–c. 108), martyred in Rome; author of seven letters written en route to martyrdom, foundational texts on the Eucharist, episcopacy, and Christian unity. Also known as Theophoros (the God-bearer). Feast day 17 October (West) / 29 January (East).

Mentioned in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (54.7.1); Section 1—On Virtue (115.3.1).

St Isidore of Pelusium

Egyptian monk and theologian (c. 360–435 AD), author of over two thousand letters. Feast day 4 February.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.5); Section 1—On Virtue (113.8.1).

St Jerome

Latin biblical scholar and translator (c. 347–420 AD), produced the Latin Vulgate. Cited by Nektarios on virginity. Feast day 30 September.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (115.2.1).

Jesus Christ

The incarnate Son of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity; his name forms the centre of the Jesus Prayer and of all Orthodox spiritual life.

Mentioned in: Introduction (2) (9.3.2); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (43.2.1, 47.12.1, 49.3.2, 53.4.1, 57.5.13); Section 1—On Virtue (87.7.1, 90.14.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (136.3.2); Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration (140.3.1, 140.4.1); Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God) (143.8.2, 143.10.1); Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour (160.1.4).

Jews

The Jewish people. In early Christian and patristic literature ‘οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι’ often denotes specifically the religious authorities who opposed Christ and the apostolic preaching (cf. the polemical use in the Gospel of John); the term is occasionally extended to the Jewish nation more broadly.

Mentioned in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (55.1.2); Section 1—On Virtue (84.2.2, 88.1.2); Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God) (143.9.2).

St John Chrysostom

Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407), one of the most prolific homilists of the early Church; one of the Three Hierarchs. Exiled twice for challenging imperial corruption; died in exile. Feast day 13 November.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.5); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (68.2.4); Section 1—On Virtue (87.3.2, 94.9.1, 113.3.1, 115.10.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.2.2, 121.7.1, 121.16.2, 121.24.2, 130.2.5, 133.2.2).

St John Climacus

Abbot of Sinai (c. 579–649), author of The Ladder of Divine Ascent, the standard manual of monastic ascesis in the Eastern Church. Feast day 30 March.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.6); Section 1—On Virtue (114.2.4); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (134.2.1).

St John of Damascus

Eighth-century Syrian theologian (c. 675–749), monk of Mar Saba. Author of the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and the chief Iconodule theologian of the iconoclast controversy. Feast day 4 December.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.2); Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God (37.1.2); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (129.1.5, 131.1.3).

St Justin Martyr

Christian apologist and martyr (c. 100–165 AD). Feast day 1 June.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.5.2).

Immanuel Kant

German philosopher (1724–1804), whose Critique of Pure Reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals reshaped moral philosophy. Nektarios credits him with freeing ethics from eudaimonism through the categorical imperative, while criticising his separation of ethics from religion.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.6.1, 4.6.2); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (49.2.1).

Lactantius

Latin Christian apologist and rhetorician (c. 250–325 AD), called the ‘Christian Cicero’. His Divine Institutes addressed moral philosophy and Christian ethics.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.8.1).

Martin Luther

German theologian and reformer (1483–1546), initiator of the Protestant Reformation. Cited by Nektarios in the history of Christian ethics.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.6).

St Macarius the Great

Egyptian desert father (c. 300–391), abbot of Scetis; attributed author of the Homilies on the heart and spiritual fire central to the hesychast tradition. Feast day 19 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.5).

Marcus Aurelius

Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher (121–180 AD), author of the Meditations. Cited by Nektarios as a classical philosophical witness to natural moral law.

Mentioned in: Introduction (2) (15.1.1).

St Maximus the Confessor

Byzantine theologian and ascetic writer (c. 580–662 AD), author of the Centuries on Love and the Ambigua. Feast day 13 August / 21 January.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.6).

Philip Melanchthon

German Lutheran theologian and humanist (1497–1560), ‘Praeceptor Germaniae’, collaborator of Luther and author of the Loci Communes.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.8).

Menander

Athenian comic playwright (c. 342–290 BC), author of New Comedy. Cited by Nektarios for moral maxims.

Mentioned in: Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (127.1.2).

St Methodius of Olympus

Bishop and martyr (died c. 311 AD), possibly bishop of Olympus in Lycia or of Patara; martyred in the province of Tyre. Author of the Symposium (Banquet of the Ten Virgins), an allegorical dialogue on virginity. Feast day 20 June.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.7.1).

St Nilus of Sinai

Ascetic writer (c. 360–430 AD), prolific author of ascetic treatises and letters on moral and spiritual themes. Feast day 12 November.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.5); Section 1—On Virtue (94.9.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.24.4).

Origen

Alexandrian theologian and biblical scholar (c. 184–253 AD), prolific writer on prayer, exegesis, and the spiritual life. His works were widely influential despite later controversies over his speculative theology.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.6.1).

Blaise Pascal

French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher (1623–1662), author of the Pensées and the Provincial Letters (Lettres provinciales), the latter directed against Jesuit moral casuistry.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.5.3); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (54.8.6).

Plato

Athenian philosopher (c. 428–348 BC), student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. His dialogues on virtue, justice, and the soul were extensively cited by Christian moral theologians.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (83.2.4, 93.8.2, 94.2.1, 94.3.1, 94.5.2, 94.5.4, 108.1.1, 112.1.1, 113.4.1, 113.4.3, 113.8.3); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.25.1, 123.1.1, 130.2.1).

Plutarch

Greek biographer and moralist (c. 46–119 AD), author of the Parallel Lives and the Moralia. Frequently cited by Nektarios for apophthegms on virtue, nobility, and character.

Mentioned in: Foreword (1.3.1, 1.3.2); Section 1—On Virtue (112.3.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (121.14.1, 133.2.3).

Socrates Scholasticus

Fifth-century Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical historian (c. 380–c. 439), author of an Ecclesiastical History continuing Eusebius down to 439.

Mentioned in: Introduction (2) (12.2.6, 12.2.7, 12.2.9); Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God (34.8.2); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (126.1.5).

Solomon

King of Israel (c. 970–931 BC); traditional author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (104.1.1); Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (130.3.6, 133.3.1).

Son of God

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate to unite humanity with divinity. A central christological title in Orthodox theology referring to Christ’s divine nature and eternal relationship with the Father.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (115.2.3); Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God) (143.10.2).

Tertullian

Latin Christian writer of Carthage (c. 155–c. 240), author of the De corona militis cited here. The earliest substantial Latin Christian author and an important witness to early-third-century Christian practice.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.8.1); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (54.8.5).

Theodoret of Cyrus

Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (c. 393–c. 458), Antiochene theologian and ecclesiastical historian. Wrote a continuation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.5); Section 1—On Virtue (94.3.4, 105.1.1).

Theophylact of Ohrid

Byzantine archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1055–c. 1107), prolific commentator on the Bible and one of the most cited medieval Greek exegetes.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.10.1).

Theopompus

Greek historian and rhetorician (c. 380–315 BC), student of Isocrates. Cited by Nektarios for a maxim on nobility.

Mentioned in: Section 1—On Virtue (112.1.2).

Thomas Aquinas

Dominican theologian (1225–1274 AD), the greatest scholastic ethicist, whose synthesis of Aristotle and Christian theology deeply influenced Western moral philosophy. Nektarios describes him as ‘the greatest ethicist of the Middle Ages’.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.3.3).

the Twelve Apostles

The twelve disciples chosen by Christ to be the foundational witnesses of the Church. In the ascetical tradition the Apostles model submission to a divine teacher—Paul going first to Ananias (Acts 9:6) and then consulting the other Apostles (Gal. 2:2)—and so illustrate the principle that even the spiritually advanced sought external guidance.

Mentioned in: Foreword (3.4.1).

Places

Jerusalem

The holy city of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tradition; the place of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection; seat of one of the five ancient patriarchates.

Mentioned in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (44.3.2).

Moscow

Capital of the Russian state from the 15th century; seat of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; spiritual and administrative centre of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.10.1).

Mount Sinai

The mountain in the Sinai peninsula where Moses received the Law (Exod 19–20) and site of St Catherine’s Monastery, centre of a long Sinaitic spiritual tradition (Anastasius of Sinai, Philotheus of Sinai, John Climacus).

Mentioned in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (47.12.1).

Paradise

The Garden of Eden where God placed Adam and Eve before the Fall; in patristic theology also refers to the state of blessedness and communion with God, both original and eschatological.

Mentioned in: Foreword (4.1.6); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (46.5.3); Section 1—On Virtue (115.5.3); Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration (140.15.3); Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour (151.2.13, 157.2.3, 157.2.4).

Glossary

Theological and spiritual terms used in this book, with short definitions and back-links to every occurrence.

apostles, prophets, and teachers

Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos, ‘one sent’), προφήτης (prophētēs, ‘one who speaks for God’), διδάσκαλος (didaskalos, ‘teacher’). The three itinerant ministries of the early Christian movement (Didache 11–13). Apostles travel from community to community and may stay no more than two days; prophets speak in the Spirit and may settle and be supported by their host community; teachers transmit the doctrine. The Didache devotes three chapters to discerning genuine prophets from impostors by their conduct—‘it is by their conduct that the false prophet and the true prophet can be distinguished’ (11:8). By the mid-second century these itinerant offices had largely given way to the settled bishops and deacons of chapter 15.

Occurs in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (47.12.1); Section 1—On Virtue (92.10.9, 92.12.3).

baptism

Greek βάπτισμα (baptisma), from βαπτίζω (baptizō, ‘to dip, immerse’). The sacrament by which a person is incorporated into the Body of Christ through threefold immersion (or, where immersion is impossible, by pouring water three times on the head) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Didache (chapter 7) is the earliest extra-biblical source describing the rite, and the only ancient witness to permit affusion as a substitute for immersion when running cold water is unavailable—a concession that shaped Latin sacramental practice for the next two millennia.

Occurs in: Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration (140.8.1).

confession of sins

The act of acknowledging and confessing one’s transgressions before God and the community, required as preparation for worthy participation in the Eucharist so that the sacrifice may be pure.

Occurs in: Foreword (4.9.2); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (48.8.3); Section 1—On Virtue (90.13.1); Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God) (143.10.1).

contemplation

Direct apprehension of divine reality, distinguished by the Fathers from rational knowledge (γνῶσις) and conceptual reasoning; the highest degree of prayer in the hesychast tradition.

Occurs in: Foreword (4.3.4); Introduction (2) (11.1.4); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (54.5.2); Section 1—On Virtue (82.15.4, 86.3.4, 86.3.5, 86.3.7).

disobedience

The act of disobedience to God’s command, particularly referring to the Fall of Adam and Eve; contrasted with obedience (ὑπακοή) and central to patristic discussions of sin and redemption.

Occurs in: Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin (116.6.3, 117.2.1, 121.18.1).

fasting

Greek νηστεία (nēsteia), from νηστεύω (nēsteuō, ‘to abstain from food’). Voluntary abstinence from food undertaken as spiritual discipline. The Wednesday/Friday weekly fast (attested in the Didache, ch. 8) and the four canonical fasting seasons—Great Lent, the Apostles’ Fast, the Dormition Fast, and the Nativity Fast—together structure the Orthodox liturgical year. Fasting is paired with prayer and almsgiving as the principal ascetic practices.

Occurs in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (68.2.2, 68.2.3).

fear of God

Reverent awe before God’s holiness; in patristic usage, the disposition that opens the heart to grace, distinct from servile dread.

Occurs in: Section 1—On Virtue (82.9.3, 93.8.2).

justification

The theological concept of being made righteous or justified before God, a central theme in patristic soteriology. In this context, it refers to how lawless and ungodly humanity can be made righteous only through the Son of God.

Occurs in: Section 1—On Virtue (90.14.1); Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour (159.7.2).

Kingdom of God

The reign of God in the heart and in the age to come; in patristic and ascetic theology, an inner reality cultivated through prayer and ascesis and not merely a future state (cf. Luke 17:20–21).

Occurs in: Introduction (2) (7.3.3); Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God (27.3.1, 28.4.2, 30.1.1, 30.1.2); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (39.8.4, 39.10.1, 40.1.1, 40.1.2, 40.1.3, 41.1.1, 41.1.3, 43.1.1, 44.3.3, 45.1.1, 45.2.3, 45.2.4, 46.5.10); Chapter 2—Duties From the Priestly Law (141.3.2); Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour (151.2.13, 157.1.1, 158.2.2, 159.9.2).

makrothymia—long-suffering, patience

Divine attribute denoting God’s patience and forbearance toward humanity; a fundamental characteristic of God’s mercy in patristic theology, often paired with philanthropia.

Occurs in: Section 1—On Virtue (82.15.4, 111.1.2, 112.10.1).

mysteries

The hidden divine realities or secrets of creation and salvation. In this context, refers to the cosmic mysteries faithfully kept by the elements of creation under God’s governance.

Occurs in: Chapter 2—Duties From the Priestly Law (141.5.4).

parousia

Greek παρουσία (parousia), ‘arrival, presence’. In secular Greek the word for the official arrival of a king or magistrate; in the New Testament and patristic literature it is the technical term for the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age (Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Thess. 4:15; 2 Pet. 3:4).

Occurs in: Chapter 2—The Highest Good (39.11.4, 44.3.3).

Prophets

The Old Testament prophets who spoke God’s word and foretold the coming of Christ. In patristic theology, the ‘grace of the prophets’ refers to their divinely inspired proclamation and their role in salvation history.

Occurs in: Section 1—On Virtue (92.10.7, 92.10.8); Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration (140.5.1).

Two Ways

Greek ὁδοὶ δύο (hodoi dyo). The moral-teaching framework of the way of life and the way of death, which opens the Didache (1:1–6:3). The same pattern is closely paralleled in the Epistle of Barnabas (chapters 18–20); both works are now generally thought to draw on a common Jewish-Christian catechetical source rather than depend directly on each other. The discovery of the Qumran Community Rule (1QS 3:13–4:26, the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’) has reinforced the case for a pre-Christian Jewish source.

Occurs in: Foreword (3.4.1); Introduction (2) (17.1.2); Chapter 2—The Highest Good (39.8.1, 47.2.1); Introduction to Special Ethics (71.4.1); Section 1—On Virtue (115.2.3).

virgin

In patristic literature, often refers to the Virgin Mary or to the state of virginity as a spiritual ideal. In this context, contrasted with Eve’s corruption, likely alluding to Mary as the New Eve who is ‘believed’ or ‘trusted.’

Occurs in: Section 1—On Virtue (115.8.1, 115.9.1).

Illustration Credits

Sources and attribution for every illustration in this book. Each entry lists the photographer or artist when known, the licence under which the image was released, and a link to the original page on Wikimedia Commons or the equivalent host. Images released into the public domain are listed without further obligation; images released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence are reproduced here under the same licence.

1. Saint Nektarios of Aegina at the Rizareios School

Photograph by Unknown author.

Licence: Public Domain Mark 1.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

2. The Church of Saint George at the Rizareios School

Photograph by C messier.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

3. Interior of Saint George at the Rizareios School

Photograph by C messier.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

4. The island of Aegina, seen from the Saronic Gulf

Photograph by George E. Koronaios.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

5. The entrance of the Holy Trinity Monastery, Aegina

Photograph by Aleksei m.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

6. The Church of the Holy Trinity, Aegina

Photograph by Aleksei m.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

7. The bed of Saint Nektarios in his monastic cell

Image by Aleksei m.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

8. The chapel of Saint Nektarios's former tomb

Photograph by Aleksei m.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

9. The Markellos Tower, Aegina

Photograph by Jebulon.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Colophon

Course in Christian Ethics
by Saint Nektarios of Aegina.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
The Good Samaritan (1852)
by Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798–1863), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia. Polytonic Greek is set in SIL Gentium.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

- Title Page
- Copyright
- Introduction
- Foreword
- Introduction (2)

- Part One — General Ethics

- Chapter 1—The Moral Concept of God

- Chapter 2—The Highest Good

- Part Two — Special Ethics

- Introduction to Special Ethics
- Section 1—On Virtue
- Section 2—On Moral Evil, or Sin

- Part Three — Moral Deontology

- Section 1 — General Duties

- Chapter 1—The Fall and Moral Regeneration

- Chapter 2—Duties From the Priestly Law

- Chapter 3—Duties From the Moral Law (Toward God)

- Chapter 4—Duties Toward Self

- Chapter 5—Duties Toward the Neighbour

- Section 2 — Particular Duties

- Chapter 1—Civic and Family Duties

- Chapter 2—Duties Toward Social Life

- Persons and Places
- Glossary
- Illustration Credits
- Colophon