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.

Chapter Six

On the Incarnation of Christ

After these investigations, it is time to turn to the question of the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, how and why did he become man? In fact, to the extent of our little strength, we have already considered the divine nature, more on the basis of its own works than on the basis of the contemplation of our thoughts; we have also considered its (divine nature's) creations, both visible and invisible, contemplated by faith, because even human mortality cannot see everything with its eyes and comprehend it with its mind, because, of course, we humans are the weakest and weakest animal of all rational animals; while those beings, heavenly or superstitious, are much higher (than us). Now, therefore, we are left to ask ourselves the question of the mean between all these creatures and God, i.e., of the Mediator, whom the Apostle Paul proclaims to be "the firstborn of all creation." We see that in the Holy Scriptures much is said about His greatness, we find that He "is the image of the invisible God, born before all creation, for by Him was created all things, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things stand." (Col. 1:15-17). He is the head of all, and alone has God the Father as his head, for it is written: "And God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). It is also written that "no man knoweth the Son but the Father, and no man knoweth the Father except the Son" (Matt. 11:26), for who can know what Wisdom is, except him who begat it? Or who knows with complete clarity what Truth is, except the Father of Truth? Who can truly examine the whole nature of the Word of God and the nature of God Himself, which is of God, except God alone, who had the Word? Therefore, we must be sure that this Word, or Reason, this Wisdom, this Truth, no one knows except the Father alone, and therefore it is written about Him: "I think that even the world itself could not contain the books that are written" (John 21:25), i.e. (books) about the glory and majesty of the Son of God. And indeed, it is impossible to set forth in writing what relates to the glory of the Savior. And so, when we see so many great testimonies concerning the nature of the Son of God, we are stunned in the greatest amazement that this superior Being, humbling Himself from the state of His majesty, was made man and dwelt among men, as the grace that poured out through His mouth bears witness, and as the Father in heaven testified to Him, and as various signs, and wonders, and powers, confirm, committed by Him. Before this appearance in the flesh, He sent prophets as forerunners and heralds of His coming. After His ascension into heaven, He commanded the holy apostles, filled with the power of His Divinity, to go around the entire universe – people who were inexperienced and unlearned, (who came out) from among the publicans or fishermen; He gave them a command that from every tongue and from all nations they should form an assembly of godly people who believe in Him.

But of all the miracles and great deeds pertaining to Him, this one in particular excites the wonder of the human mind, and the feeble thought of a mortal being cannot in any way understand and comprehend in particular that so great a power of divine majesty, that the Word of the Father Himself and the Wisdom of God Herself, in Whom all things visible and invisible were created, were found, as it should be believed, within the limits of the limitation of the person who appeared in Judea; that the Wisdom of God entered into the womb of the mother, was born as a child, and wept in the likeness of weeping babies; that later (this Son of God) was troubled by death, as He Himself confesses when He says: "My soul is sorrowful unto death" (Matt. 26:38), and that finally He was brought to death, which is considered by people to be the most shameful, and in spite of this, three days later He was resurrected. Thus we see in Him, on the one hand, something human, in which He does not seem to differ in the least from the general weakness of mortals, and, on the other hand, something divine, which is peculiar to no other nature than that first and ineffable nature of the Godhead. Hence arises the difficulty for human thought: struck by amazement, it is at a loss where to lean, what to hold onto, what to turn to. If she thinks of Him as God, she sees Him as mortal; if it considers (Him) to be a man, then it sees Him who trampled on the power of death and Who rises from the dead with prey. Therefore, we must observe with all fear and reverence, so that in one and the same (person) we discover the truth of both natures, so that, on the one hand, we do not think anything unworthy and unseemly about that divine and ineffable essence, and, on the other hand, our deeds (as a man) are not considered false illusory images. To put all this into human ears and to explain it in words is, of course, far beyond the power of our dignity, mind, and word. I think that this surpasses even the measure (of the abilities inherent in) the holy apostles; Or perhaps the explanation of this mystery is not accessible even to the entire creation of the heavenly powers. We shall expound the doctrine on this subject, as briefly as possible, not from the motives of any boldness, but only because the plan of the work requires it; And let us set forth more what our faith contains than the ordinary proofs presented by human reason, and on our part we will present our conjectures rather than any clear statements.

Thus, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, the Only-begotten Son of God, through Whom, as the preceding reasoning has shown, all things visible and invisible were created, He created all things, and loves created things. Therefore, being Himself the invisible image of the invisible God, He invisibly granted participation in Himself to all rational creatures, so that each would participate in Him to the extent that he was imbued with a feeling of love towards Him. But, in consequence of the faculty of free will, there was a difference and variety among the souls, because one soul had a more ardent love for its Creator, the other a more superficial and weaker one. The same soul of whom Jesus said that "no one takes it away from me" (Jn. 10:18), from the very beginning of creation and in subsequent time, inseparably and inseparably, she dwelt in Him as in the Wisdom and Word of God, as in Truth and eternal light, and, with all her being and entering into His light and radiance, she became primarily one spirit with Him, as the Apostle promises to those who should imitate her: "He who unites with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord" (1 Corinthians 6:17). By means of this substance of the soul between God and the flesh (for it was not possible for the divine nature to be united to the body without an intermediary), God, as we have said, is born of man, because it was not unnatural for this middle substance to assume a body, and, on the other hand, it was not unnatural for this soul, as a rational substance, to receive God, in Whom, as we said above, it has already fully entered, as in the Word, both Wisdom and Truth. Therefore, being in God and having received the whole Son of God into Himself, this soul with the flesh it has taken on is justly called the Son of God, the power of God, Christ and the Wisdom of God, and vice versa, the Son of God, through Whom all things were created, is called Jesus Christ and the Son of Man. Thus it is said that the Son of God died – of course, by that nature, which, of course, could accept death, and He who has to come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels is called the son of man. For this reason, in all Scripture, just as the divine nature is called by human names, so the human nature is adorned with the glorious names of the divine nature; for more than anything else can be said in the words of the Scriptures: "And the two shall be one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Mark 10:8). It must be thought that the Word of God is more one with the soul in the flesh than husband with wife. In the same way, who is more fitting to be one spirit with God than this soul, which through love has been so united with God that it is justly called one spirit with Him?