Meanwhile, it is said that God, the Father of Christ, is visible, because "he who has seen" says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Of course, this makes it very difficult for you; but we do not understand this in the sense of seeing, but in the sense of knowing: for he who knows the Son also knows the Father. In the same way, it must be thought, Moses saw God: he did not behold Him with his bodily eyes, but knew Him with the sight of his heart and the sense of his mind, and even then only partially, since it is clearly said: "Thou shalt see Me from behind, but My face (i.e., Him Who gave the answer to Moses) shall not be seen" (Exodus 33:23). Of course, this expression must be understood with the mystery with which it is proper to take divine words at once, completely rejecting and despising those old women's fables which inhabit invent by inexperienced people about the "front" and "back" of God. Let no one think that we think something ungodly when we say that the Father is invisible to the Saviour. It is necessary to take into account how far we differ from heretics in using this expression in the struggle against them. For we have said that it is one thing to see and be seen, and another thing to know and be known, or to know and be known. To see and to be seen is proper to bodies; and this, of course, cannot be applied either to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit in their mutual relations: the nature of the Trinity is not subject to the conditions of vision: it grants the property of seeing each other to beings who have a body, that is, to all other creatures; but it is proper for the incorporeal, i.e., in the proper sense of the spiritual sense, nature only to know and be known, as the Saviour Himself declares when He says that "no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and to whom the Son willeth to reveal" (Matt. 14:27). So, clearly, He did not say, "No one sees the Father but the Son," but, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

The heretics think to find a basis for refuting us in those sayings of the Old Testament where repentance or anger or some other passionate human disposition is ascribed to God, they assert that God must be thought of as completely impassible and alien to all these disturbances. But it must be shown to them that there is something similar (to what is contained in the Old Testament) also in the Gospel parables. Here, for example, it is said that someone planted a vineyard and entrusted it to tenants; but when the tenants killed the servants sent to them, and finally even killed the son who had been sent to them, the master, in anger, took away the vineyard from them, and gave the wicked tenants over to cruel destruction, and gave the vineyard to other tenants, so that they might give him the fruit in due time (Luke 20). In another parable it is said that when the lord went to obtain the kingdom, the citizens sent an embassy after him, saying: "We do not want him to reign over us"; then, having received the kingdom and returning, the lord in anger gave orders to kill these citizens in his presence, and destroyed their city with fire (Lk. 19). But when we read about the wrath of God, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, we do not pay attention to the letter of the story, but look for a spiritual meaning in such passages, in order to understand them in a way that is worthy of thinking about God. Thus, when we explained that verse of the second Psalm, where it says: "Then shall He speak to them in His wrath, and with His wrath He shall cause them to be troubled" (Psalm 2:5), we have shown, as far as we could, in accordance with the smallness of our minds, exactly how this (the saying about the wrath of God) should be understood.

Chapter Five

On the Righteous and the Good

Some are also troubled by the fact that the representatives of this heresy seem to have invented a certain division for themselves, and on the basis of it they say that truth is one thing, and goodness is another; the heretics have also applied this division to the Godhead, and therefore they affirm that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a good God, but not a righteous one; But the God of the law and the prophets is a just God, but not a good one. I think it is necessary to answer this question as briefly as possible. Thus, they consider goodness to be a certain disposition by virtue of which good should be shown to all, even if the one to whom the good is done is unworthy and does not deserve to receive (it). But it seems to me that they misuse this definition (of goodness), on the basis of which they think that good deeds are no longer given to him to whom anything sad or severe is done. As for justice, they consider it to be such a disposition that gives everyone what he deserves. But even in this case they again misinterpret the meaning of their definition, they think that a just being makes evil evil, and good good, i.e., according to their understanding, the just does not seem to wish good to evil, but rushes against them with a kind of hatred. At the same time, they collect various stories from the Old Testament, for example, about the punishments of the flood and those drowned in it, or about the devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah with rain of fire and brimstone, or about the destruction of all (Jews) in the wilderness for their sins, when none of those who came out of Egypt entered the promised land except Jesus and Caleb. From the New Testament they collect the words of mercy and love with which the Savior instructed His disciples, and which seem to proclaim that no one is good except God the Father alone. On the basis of all this they dare to call the Father Jesus Christ good, and distinguish from Him the God of peace, Whom they are pleased to call righteous, but not good.

But first of all, I think we need to ask them the following. Can they, from the point of view of their definition, prove the justice of the Creator, Who deservedly punished those who perished in the flood, or the Sodomites, or the Jews who came out of Egypt, when we see that sometimes deeds are committed that are much more unseemly and criminal than those for which the aforesaid people perished, and yet we do not see that each of these sinners washes away his crimes with the punishment he deserves? Will they say that what was once just (afterwards) became good? Or would they rather think that the Creator is now just, of course, but patiently bears human sins, and then was not even just, because together with ferocious and impious giants He destroyed innocent boys and suckling children? But they think so because they can't hear anything but the letter. Let them then show how it is true to the letter that the sins of parents are given to the bosom of their sons to the third and fourth generation, and to the sons of their sons after them. (Deuteronomy 5:9). We do not understand all these and similar expressions in the literal sense; on the contrary, according to the teaching of Ezekiel, who called them a parable (Ezekiel 18:3), we search only for the inner meaning of this very parable. They must also show how it is possible to recognize as just and rewarding each according to his merits the one who punishes the earth-born and the devil, although they have done nothing worthy of punishment. In fact, if, according to the heretics themselves, they were evil creatures and perished by nature, then they could not do anything good. Consequently, since the heretics (in this case, too) call the Creator the judge, then He turns out to be the judge not so much of works as of nature: because evil nature cannot do good, neither can good nature do evil. Further, if God, whom they call good, is good to all, then surely He is good also to those who are perishing; but why does He not save them? If He does not want (to save them), then He is no longer good; but if He wills, but cannot, then He is not omnipotent. But let them rather listen to the fact that, according to the Gospel, it is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who prepares fire for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). And how would this matter, as punitive as it was harsh, from their point of view, be proper to a good God? And the Saviour Himself, the Son of the good God, testifies in the Gospels and says that if miracles had been manifested in Tyre and Sidon, they would have once repented of sackcloth and ashes (Matt. 11:21). But why, I ask, does Christ, having come very close to these cities and even having entered their borders, still evade entering the cities themselves and showing them an abundance of signs and wonders, although it was known that after performing these miracles, they would repent "in sackcloth and ashes? If He does not do this, then He leaves to perdition those cities that were not evil and perished by nature, as the Gospel narrative itself shows, noting that they could repent. In the same way, in a certain Gospel parable, the king, having entered to look at the guests who were at table, saw one (of those reclining) not dressed in wedding garments, and said to him: "Friend, how did you come here not in wedding clothes?" Let them tell us, who is this king, who, having come in to look at those who are reclining, and finding among them one in filthy clothes, commands his servants to bind him and cast him into outer darkness? Is this the one they call just? But, in this case, why did he order the good and the evil to be invited (indifferently) and not command the servants to inquire about their merits? This, of course, no longer shows the mood of some just, as the heretics say, God, who gives what he deserves, but the mood of indifferent goodness (in relation to all). But if it is necessary to understand this in relation to the good God, that is, to Christ or to the Father of Christ, how does this differ from what they blame the righteous judgment of God, and, furthermore, what do they blame in the God of the law? For it is the same in a good God, Who sent His servants to call the good and the bad, and yet ordered the man they invited to be bound hand and foot for unclean clothes, and cast into outer darkness.

In order to refute what heretics usually represent, the testimonies which we have taken from the Scriptures are sufficient. However, in the struggle against them, it seems not superfluous to present some arguments from reason. So we ask them whether they know what is considered a virtue or vice among men, and whether it is possible to speak of virtues in God, or, in their opinion, in two gods. Let them also answer the question: If they acknowledge goodness as a virtue, with which they will undoubtedly agree, what will they say about justice? It seems to me that they will never, of course, go so mad as not to recognize justice as a virtue. But if good is virtue, and justice is also virtue, then without a doubt justice is goodness. But if they say that justice is not good, then it is either evil or something indifferent. Of course, if they say that justice is evil, then, in my opinion, it is foolish to answer them. And indeed, how can one consider evil that which, according to their own consciousness, can repay good to the good? Further, if they call truth an indifferent matter, then it will be necessary to consistently recognize moderation, prudence, and all other virtues as indifferent. And what will we then answer Paul to his words: "As virtue and praise, think on this. What you have learned, what you have received, and heard, and seen in me, do it" (Phil. 4:8-9). Let them, therefore, learn through the study of the Scriptures what the individual virtues are, and do not deviate from the fact that they say that God, who gives each one according to his merits, repays evil for evil out of hatred of the wicked, and not because those who have sinned need to be healed by more or less severe means, and for this reason measures are applied to them, which at the present time, under the guise of correction, cause, Apparently, a feeling of suffering. They do not read what is written about the hope of those who perished in the flood, of which Peter himself, in his first epistle, says thus: "And Christ, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the spirit, by which he also came down and preached to the disobedient long-suffering of God that awaited them, in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved from the water. So also we are now baptism like this image (saves)" (1 Pet. 3:18-21). As for Sodom and Gomorrah, let them tell us whether they recognize the prophetic words as belonging to God the Creator, that is, to Him who, according to the Scriptures, sent upon them a rain of fire and brimstone. What does the prophet Ezekiel say about them? "Sodom will be restored as before" (Ezekiel 16:53). It is clear that when He crushes those who are worthy of punishment, He crushes them for good. He even says to Chaldea: "Sit on the coals of fire, and these shall be thy help" (Isaiah 47:14-15) Let them also listen to what is said in Psalm 77, attributed to Asaph, about those who fell in the wilderness: "When He slew them, they sought Him" (Psalm 77:34). He does not say that after the killing of some, others sought Him, but says that the destruction of those who were killed was such that, after being killed, they sought God. From all this it is clear that the righteous and good God of the law and the Gospels are one and the same, and that He both does good with righteousness and punishes with goodness, because neither goodness without righteousness, nor righteousness without goodness, can be indicators of the dignity of the divine nature. But, prompted by their cunning, let us add the following. If truth is not good, then, without a doubt, unrighteousness is not evil, because evil is opposed to good, and untruth to truth; therefore, in your opinion, just as the just is not good, so the unjust is not evil, and vice versa, just as the good is not just, so the evil is not unjust. But who does not think it absurd that the evil God is opposed to the good God, and that no one is opposed to the righteous God, whom they consider inferior to the good? For there is no one who is called unjust, just as Satan is called evil. So, what then? Let us reject what we defend. For they cannot say that the evil is not at the same time unjust, and the unjust is not evil. If, therefore, in these opposites, justice is inseparably bound up with evil, and evil with injustice, there is no doubt that the good is inseparable from the just, and the just from the good; And just as we call the lewdness of evil and unrighteousness one and the same lewdness, so we must consider the virtue of goodness and justice as one and the same virtue.

But they are again calling us to the words of Scripture, offering their proverbial question. They say: it is written that "a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:18; Matt. 12:33). But why do they say this? Which tree the law is, is revealed from its fruit, that is, from the words of the commandments. If the law is good, then, without a doubt, the God who gave this law must also be recognized as good. If the law is more just than good, then the lawgiver-God must also be recognized as just. But the Apostle Paul says without any circumstance: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12). From this it is clear that Paul did not learn letters from those who separate righteousness from good, but was instructed by that God and inspired by the Spirit of that God, who is at once holy, good, and just; speaking by the Spirit of this God, he therefore called the commandment of the law holy, and just, and good. And in order to show more clearly that goodness in the commandment prevails over righteousness and holiness, when repeating the saying, instead of these three attributes, he indicates only goodness (goodness); he says: "Has good become deadly to me? In no way (let it be)" (Romans 7:13). The Apostle knew, of course, that goodness is a generic virtue, while truth and holiness are a kind of race; therefore, having first named both the genus and the species together, when repeating the saying, he limited himself to the genus alone. And in the following words: "Sin is a good death for me" (Romans 7:13 O.S.), he designates by a generic concept that which he has designated above by species. The words should be understood in the same way: "A good man brings forth good things out of a good treasure, but an evil man brings forth good things out of a good treasure, and a wicked man brings forth evil things out of an evil treasure" (Matt. 12:35). The Saviour took here the generic concepts of good and evil, undoubtedly showing that in a good man there is justice, and moderation, and prudence, and piety, and everything that can be called or considered good. In the same way, without a doubt, He called evil a man who is unjust, unclean, and ungodly, in a word, has all the particular qualities that disfigure an evil man. And just as no one considers a person to be evil, and no one can be without these faults, so without those virtues, of course, no one can be considered good. But they still have what they consider to be a shield, given to them primarily, these are the words of the Lord in the Gospel: "No one is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19). They say that this is the proper name of the Father of Christ, Who is different from God the Creator of all things, to whom the Saviour did not give the name of goodness. So, let us see if the God of the prophets, the creator of the world and the lawgiver, is not really called good in the Old Testament? But here are the words of the Psalms: "How good God is to Israel, to the pure in heart!" (Psalm 72:1) and: "Let the house of Israel speak now, for His mercy endures forever" (Psalm 117:2). And in the "Lamentations of Jeremiah" it is written: "The Lord is good to those who trust in Him, to the soul that seeks Him" (Lamentations 3:25). Thus, in the Old Testament, God is often called good. In the same way, in the Gospels, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is called righteous. Thus, in the Gospel of John, our Lord Himself says in prayer to the Father: "Righteous Father! And the world did not know Thee" (John 17:25). Let them not say that in this case the Saviour called the creator of the world Father, because of the perception of the flesh, and called this very (the creator) righteous: such an understanding is excluded immediately by the following words: "And the world did not know Thee." After all, according to their teaching, the world does not know only a good God; but he fully knows his creator, according to the word of the Lord Himself, that the world loves its own. It is clear, then, that the God whom they consider good is called righteous in the Gospels. At leisure, it will be possible to collect more testimonies, where the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is called righteous in the New Testament, and the Creator of heaven and earth in the Old Testament is called good, so that someday heretics who are convinced by these numerous testimonies will be ashamed in this way.