4. Let us accustom our tongue to say good things: "Restrain thy tongue," says (the Psalmist), "from evil" (Psalm 33:14). God did not give it to us so that we might slander, that we might reproach, that we might slander one another, but that we might glorify God, that we might say that which grace inspires in those who hear, that (serves) for edification, for profit. You have said something bad about someone; What benefit do you get by harming yourself along with him? After all, you deserve the name of a vilifier.

Good fame is much better than wealth; it is not easy to lose it, but it is easy to lose wealth; or rather, when it is not there, then he who does not suffer any harm, and when it is not, then a person is condemned and ridiculed, becomes an enemy and hated by all. Likewise, the angry one punishes himself beforehand, tormenting himself in himself, and then the one against whom he is angry. In the same way, the slanderer shames himself beforehand, and then the one of whom it is bad to speak; or even cannot achieve this, but he himself deserves to be called a bad and hateful person, and makes him even more loved. For if he of whom he speaks ill does not repay him in kind, but praises and exalts him, he does not give praise to him, but to himself. Just as the reproach of one's neighbor is directed in advance, as I said before, on the reproaches themselves, so the good done by one's neighbor brings joy in advance to those who do it. He who does good and evil is certainly the first to experience the consequences; As the water that flows out of the fountain is either bitter or delicious, and fills the vessels of those who come, and does not diminish the fountain that produces it, so evil and good, from whom it comes, both delight and destroy. It happens here.

And what good or evil will be there, who can express in words? No one can. (There) goods surpass all understanding, not only words; and what is contrary to them, although it is expressed in words that are common to us - there, it is said, fire, darkness, bonds, an endless worm - yet they mean not only what they express, but something else, much more terrible. In order that you may be convinced of this, now pay attention first of all to the following. If there is fire, tell me, how is it also darkness? Do you see that the fire there is much more terrible than the one here? It has no light. If there is fire, how does it burn continually? Do you see that he is much more terrible than the one here? It does not fade away, which is why it is called inextinguishable. Let us imagine what a torment it is to be burned incessantly, to be in darkness, to utter innumerable cries, to gnash one's teeth and not to be heard. If here a man who has been brought up nobly, having fallen into prison, considers only to feel the stench, to be in darkness and to be kept together with murderers more terrible than any death, then imagine what it is like to be burned together with the murderers of the universe, to see nothing and not to be seen, but to consider himself alone among such a multitude of people. Indeed, darkness and the absence of light will not allow us to recognize even our neighbors, but everyone will be in such a state as if he suffered alone. If darkness in itself burdens and troubles our souls, then what will happen when such torments and burnings are added to the darkness? Therefore, I beseech you, let us constantly keep this in mind and endure sorrow from words, so as not to experience punishment in deed. And all this will certainly come to pass, and those who do deeds worthy of the punishments there will not be delivered by anyone, neither father, nor mother, nor brother, even if he has great boldness and great strength before God. A brother will not deliver, says (Scripture), shall a man deliver (Psalm 48:8)? (God) Himself will reward each one according to his deeds, and through them alone can one be saved and be tormented.

"And I say unto you, Make yourselves friends with the riches of unrighteousness" (Luke 16:9). Let us obey, for this is the commandment of the Lord; let us share the surplus of wealth to the needy; let us give alms as long as it is in our power - this is what it means to make friends for ourselves with wealth; let us squander wealth on the poor, that we may exhaust the fire there, that we may quench it, that we may have boldness there. There they (friends) will not receive us, but our works. And that it is not just the acquisition of friends that can save us is evident from the addition itself. Why, indeed, did He not say, "Make yourselves friends, that they may receive you into eternal dwellings," but added also how (to do this)? Having said, "By unrighteous riches," He expressed that it is necessary to make friends by means of possessions, and suggested that friendship alone will not protect us, unless we have good works, unless we squander righteously the wealth we have gathered unjustly. Such a commandment to us about alms applies not only to the rich, but also to the poor; even if one eats by begging from others, and this commandment applies to him, for no, verily, there is not a single poor man, no matter how poor he may be, that he does not have "two mites" (Mark 12:42). Consequently, it is possible for him who gives little to surpass those who have much, and those who give much, as was the case with that widow. The amount of alms is measured not by the measure of what is given, but by the will and diligence of those who give. So everywhere there is a need for will, everywhere love for God. If we do everything according to its prompting, then, even if we give a little, having a little, God will not turn away His face, but will accept even the small as great and extraordinary. He looks at volition, and not at what is given; if he sees that it is great, he turns his decision and sentence upon it, and makes (the givers) partakers of eternal blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed to attain, by grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen).

CONVERSATION 2

"This, being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis, and upholding all things by the word of His power, having accomplished by Himself the cleansing of our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3).

1. It is always necessary to have a reverent frame of mind, especially when we speak or hear anything about God, because neither the tongue can say nor the ear can hear anything commensurate with the (greatness) of God. What do I say, tongue and ear? The very intellect, which greatly surpasses them, cannot comprehend anything exactly when we want to say something about God, because if the peace of God surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), and if the things prepared for those who love it have not ascended into the heart of man (1 Cor. 3:9), how much more does the God of peace Himself, the Creator of all things, incomparably surpass our understanding. Therefore, we must accept everything with faith and reverence, and when the word becomes weak and cannot express exactly what is offered, then we must especially praise God, because we have such a God who surpasses our mind and word. Much of what we think of God we cannot express in words, and much that we express in words we cannot represent with the mind; for example, we know that God (is present) everywhere, but in what way we do not understand this; We know that there is some incorporeal force, the author of all good, but how it exists we do not know. This we say, but we do not understand; I say that God is everywhere, but I do not understand; I say that He is without beginning, but I do not comprehend it; I say that He begets from Himself, but again I do not know how to understand this. Otherwise, it is impossible to express in words, i.e. the mind imagines, but language cannot express. And so that you may know how Paul himself was unable (to express) how the similitudes he adduces are not exact, and that you may be terrified after that and seek nothing more proper, listen: having spoken of the Son and called Him the Creator, what does he add? "This is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis." This must be accepted with reverence, and absurd thoughts must be rejected. "Radiance," he says, "of glory." See in what sense he accepts this, and accept in the same way, i.e., what is of Him (the Son is from the Father), what is impassible, what is without diminution or humiliation; and there are people who deduce some absurdities from this likeness. "Radiance," they say, is not independent, has (the foundation of) being in another.

But you, man, do not accept this, do not fall into the illness of Marcellus and Photinus. (The Apostle) immediately offers you healing and does not allow you to accept such a thought and fall into such a pernicious disease. What does he say? "and the image of His hypostasis"; by this addition he expresses that just as the Father is independent and has no need of anyone in order to be independent, so also is the Son. Here he proves their indifference (in essence) and, pointing you to the corresponding image of the prototype, teaches that the Son is also independent in himself. Having said above that God created all things by Him, here he ascribes power to Himself. What does he say? "Keeping all things by the word of His power." From this we learn that (the Son) is not only the image of the hypostasis (of the Father), but also governs everything with authority. You see how what belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore he did not simply say, "Holding all things," nor did he say, "By his power," but, "By the word of His power." As before (the Apostle) little by little ascended with us, then descended, so now, as it were, by steps, he ascends to the heights, then descends again, when he says: "And he created the worlds." See how here too he paves two paths: warning us against the innovations of Sabellius and Arius, of which the first rejected the rest (the difference of persons) in the essence of God, and the second dissolved the one being by inequality (the Son to the Father), he strongly refutes both. How does he do this? He alternately says both - so that they do not think that (the Son) is without beginning, or alien to God. Do not be surprised at what is said, beloved; For if even after such proofs there are men who consider (the Son) to be alien (to the Father), give Him another father, and even say that he is opposed (to the Father), what would they not say if they did not say this? When it is necessary to heal those who are in error, he finds it necessary to say something derogatory. Namely, "Whom," he says, "He made heir of all things," and again, "Through Whom He also created the worlds." And then, in order not to do harm in another respect, he passes from expressions signifying humiliation to expressions signifying authority, and shows that (the Son) is equal to the Father, and so equal that many considered Him to be the Father. And look at the great wisdom (of the Apostle): he sets forth the first thing beforehand, and firmly proves it; but when He proved that He is the Son of God and is not alien to the Father, then He offers without fear all the lofty things that He wanted to offer. Since, by offering lofty things about Him, it was possible to lead many to the above-mentioned thought, (the Apostle) sets forth in advance what is despised, and then without fear ascends to the height to which he wished; having said, "Whom He hath made heir of all things," and "By Whom He also created the worlds," he further adds, "Upholding all things by the word of His power." He who governs all things with one word cannot have need of anyone to produce everything.

2. And that this is really so, see how (the Apostle) in the following words ascribes to Him authority and no longer says: "through Whom." Having said that (God) through Him created what He willed, he then abandons this expression and says: "In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands" (Hebrews 1:10); no longer to say: "through Whom," i.e., that through Him He created the worlds. But how, were they not created by Him? True, but not as you say, not as you imagine, not as through an instrument, and not so that He would not have created them if the Father had not given Him a helping hand. As (the Father) judges no one, but judges, it is said, through the Son (John 5:22), because He begat Him as the Judge, so He creates through Him, because He begat Him as the Creator. If the Father is His beginning, how much more is His creation.

Therefore, when (the Apostle) wants to show that (the Son) is from Him, he necessarily speaks that which is despised; and when he wishes to speak lofty, he strikes Marcellus and Sabellius. But the Church has avoided the extremes of both and is following the middle path. He does not stop at the humiliated, so that Paul of Samosata does not find refuge, and does not confine himself to the lofty, but at the same time shows the great closeness (of the Son to the Father), so that Sabellius would not object. When he said, "The Son," Paul of Samosata immediately rises up and says that He is the same Son as many. But (the apostle) inflicted a mortal wound on him, adding: "heir of all." But he is still shameless with Arius; namely, the words, "Whom he hath appointed heir of all things," they both accept, the first asserting that (these words) signify impotence, and the second trying to reinterpret the further (words). Paul said, "By Whom also he created the worlds," and thus decisively overthrew the shameless Paul of Samosata; but Arius still seems to hold firm. See how (the apostle) overthrew him also, saying further: "This is the radiance of glory." But now Sabellius, Marcellus, and Photinus are still rebelling. To all of them (the Apostle) struck one blow, saying: "And the image of His hypostasis, and holding all things by the word of His power." Here he also strikes Marcion, although not too strongly, but nevertheless he strikes. In general, in the entire epistle he refutes them. He called the Son, as I said, the radiance of glory, and that was good. Christ Himself, listen to what to say about Himself: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). For this reason (the Apostle also) called Him radiance, in order to show that the same thing is said there, i.e., that (the Son is from the Father) as light from light. However, not only this is shown here, but also that He enlightened our souls. In a word, radiance (the apostle) expresses equality in essence and closeness to the Father. See what subtlety there is in the words: by naming the one being called hypostasis, he proves that (the Son and the Father) there are two hypostases, just as he does in relation to the Spirit. As he said that the knowledge of the Father and the Spirit is one (1 Cor. 12:4,5), which is really one and in no way different in itself, so here he uses one word to prove two hypostases. At the same time he adds: "and the image". The image is something different from the prototype, although it is not completely different, but in relation to independence; so here "image" means indifference from Him whose image, likeness to Him in everything. But if He is called likeness and image, then what will (the heretics) say to this? And man, it will be said, is called the image of God (Gen. 1:26). But is it like the Son? No, it will be said, but (from which it is seen) that the image does not mean resemblance. On the contrary, when a person is called an image (είχών), then the likeness (of him with God) is signified, as far as it is possible for a person. As God is in heaven, so is man on earth, that is, by dominion; as he possesses everything on earth, so God possesses everything in heaven and on earth. And on the other hand, man is not called in the same way (χαρακτήρ), is not called the same likeness (μορφή), is not called radiance, by which is meant a being, or resemblance in essence. Just as "the image of a servant" (Phil. 2:7) means nothing else than a perfect man, so the image of God means nothing else than God. "This is," he says, "the radiance of glory." See how Paul acts. Having said: "This is the radiance of glory," he further adds: "He is seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty"; of all the names used, he does not find a single one that would express the very essence (of God). In fact, neither "greatness" nor "glory" expresses what he wants to say; In general, it does not find a name. That is why I said at the beginning that we imagine other things in our minds, but cannot express in words; and the very name: God is not the name of His being, so that it is absolutely impossible to find a name to express His essence; However, what is surprising, if this is the case in relation to God, when in relation to an angel it is impossible to find a name that would express his essence, and perhaps even in relation to the soul: it seems to me that this name (soul) does not mean its very essence, but the ability to breathe. That is why it is called soul, heart, and mind: "A pure heart," says (the Psalmist), "create in me, O God" (Psalm 50:12). And not only that, but it is often called spirit. "And keeping all things by the word of his power." Do you see what to say (the apostle)?

3. Tell me, how then, do you, heretic, pointing to the words of the Scriptures: "And God said, Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3), say that the Father commands and the Son obeys? And here He Himself creates with the verb: "holding," says (the Apostle), "all," i.e. governing, restraining that which may fall apart. To keep the world is no less important than to create the world, or, if I may say something amazing, even more. To create means to bring something out of non-existence in everyday life; And to hold on to what already exists, but is ready to turn into nothing, to unite the opposing with each other, is a great and amazing thing, it is a sign of great power. By the word "holding" he also expresses the ease of this work (for the Lord). He did not say: governing, but used a figurative expression borrowed from those who move something and turn with one finger. At the same time, it expresses the great greatness of creation, and the fact that this greatness means nothing to Him. Further, he again expresses that (for the Lord) this work is not difficult, with the words: "by the word of His power." He said well, "By the word"; with us the word is powerless, but with God, he says, it is not powerless. Having said, "holding all things by word," he did not add how to bear it by word, because it is impossible to know this. Then he speaks of His majesty. Thus did John: having said that He is God, he added that He is the Creator of creatures. What (John) expressed in the words: "In the beginning was the Word," and "All things were made through Him" (John 1:1,3), the same Paul expresses when he says: "by the word," and also: "through Whom He also created the worlds" - he expresses precisely that He is the Creator and exists before all ages. Thus, if the prophet says of the Father: "From everlasting to everlasting Thou art God" (Psalm 89:2), and it is said of the Son that He exists before all ages and is the Creator of all things, then what can (the heretics) say? Or is it better if it is said of the Father that He is before the ages, and the same is said of the Son? As (John) said: "In Him was life" (John 1:4), expressing that He preserves creatures, that He is the life of all things, so (Paul) says: "And holding all things by the word of His power"; and not as the pagans say, who deprive Him, as much as they can, of both creativity and providence, and limit His power to the moon. "By himself," he says, "having made atonement for our sins." Having spoken of the wondrous and great deeds, the highest, (the Apostle) then speaks of His care for people. Although the above-mentioned words, "holding all things," referred to all, these mean much more. They also apply to everyone, because as much as He depended on Him, He saved everyone. So John, having said: "In Him was life," and thereby pointing to His providence, says again: "And light" (John 1:5), expressing the same thing. "By Himself," he says, "having made atonement for our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty on high." Here he presents two great proofs of His care: one that He cleansed our sins, and the other that He did it by Himself. And you can often see how (the apostle) admires not only that the reconciliation with God was accomplished, but also that it was accomplished by the Son. Truly, this great gift is made even greater because it is (communicated) by the Son. Having said: "He sat down at the right hand," and: "having accomplished by Himself the cleansing of our sins," and recalling the cross, (the Apostle) at the same time adds about the resurrection and ascension. And look at his ineffable wisdom; He did not say, "He is commanded to sit down," but, "He is seated"; And then, lest thou think that He was standing, He added: "To whom of the angels did [God] ever say, Sit at my right hand" (Hebrews 1:13)? "He is seated," he says, "at the right hand of the throne of majesty on high." What does it mean: "on high"? Does he not limit God to a certain place? No, he did not say this to inspire us with such a thought; but just as by the expression, "at the right hand," he does not depict His outward appearance, but shows His equality with the Father, so by the expression, "on high," he does not enclose Him there, but signifies that He is above all, and has surpassed all things, and as if to say, He has attained to the very throne of the Father. As the Father is "on high," so is He; and neighbourhood means nothing but equality of honour. And if (the heretics) object: (but God said to Him:) "Sit down," then we ask them: What then, to him who stands (God said this)? It is impossible to prove. And on the other hand, he does not say that God commanded or commanded, but, "He said, Sit down," and so that you may not think that he has no beginning and no cause (in God the Father). And that this is really so is evident from the place of graying; If it were necessary to express a diminution, it would not be said at the right hand, but at the right hand.

"Being," he says, "so much more excellent than the angels, as the most glorious name hath inherited before them" (Hebrews 1:4). The word "being" is used here instead of: having appeared; In other words, there is. Further, (the Apostle) confirms this. Than? Name. Do you see that the name Son always signifies His true sonship? Truly, if He had not been the true Son, it would not have been said so. Why? Because He is true (the Son) only by receiving being from (the Father) himself. Therefore (the Apostle) to give such a confirmation. And if He had been the Son by grace, He would not only not have been more glorious than the angels, but would have been even lower than them. Why? For even righteous men are called sons (of God); and the name Son, if it does not mean true (Son), cannot prove superiority Meanwhile (the Apostle), wishing to prove that there is some difference between creatures and the Creator, listen to what he says: "For to whom of the angels did [God] ever say, 'Thou art my Son, I have begotten thee this day?'" and again: "I will be His Father, and He shall be My Son" (Hebrews 1:5)? Here one thing is said about the flesh (of Christ), namely, the words: "I will be His Father, and He will be My Son" - mean His incarnation; and the other, namely, "Thou art My Son," signifies nothing else than that He is of the Father. As the expression "He who is" is used of God in the present tense, because it is most appropriate to Him, so the expression "now, it seems to me, is said here in relation to the flesh." When He accepted it, then all such things are said about Him without fear. The flesh can be exalted, just as the Godhead can be humiliated; and if God did not abhor becoming man, did not renounce the work, then will He renounce names?

4. Knowing this, let us not be ashamed, let us not be puffed up. If He, being God, Master and Son of God, did not refuse to take the "form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7), then how much more should we do everything, even if it be the most humiliating. And with what, tell me, art thou exalted, O man? Are they worldly goods? But they immediately disappear as soon as they appear. Spiritual, or not? But even this is one of the spiritual blessings not to be exalted. What do you exalt yourself with? Is it because you do good deeds? But listen to Christ, who says: "When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are worthless servants, because we have done what we ought to have done" (Luke 17:10). Do you exalt yourself with riches? But, tell me, why? Have you not heard that we have entered into life naked, and naked will depart (Job 1:21)? Or rather, do you not see how others depart before you naked and deprived of everything? Who is exalted by the fact that he has someone else's property? And whoever wants to use it for his own pleasure alone is deprived of it against his will, often even before death, and certainly at death. But they will say: as long as we are alive, we use it as we want. No, it is not soon that you will find a person who would use his property as he wishes; And even if someone used it as he wished, then this is not an important matter, because the present time is short in comparison with the endless ages. Are you exalted, O man, because you are rich? Why? Robbers, thieves, murderers, lechers, adulterers, and all wicked people have wealth. Why do you exalt yourself? If you use it as you should, then you should not be puffed up, lest you break the commandments; If (you use) not as you should, then you should rather lament that you have become a slave to the property and wealth that possesses you. Tell me, if a man, suffering from fever, drank much water, which quenches thirst for a short time, but then kindles the fire, can he be exalted by this? Or if someone were to take care of many things in vain, can he be exalted by this? With what, tell me, (should you be exalted)? Is it because you have many masters over you? Is it because you have an innumerable number of concerns? Is it because many flatter you? But this is nothing but slavery. And in order that you may be convinced that you (in this case) become a slave, listen carefully to the following. Our other passions are sometimes useful; so often anger is useful: "Unjust anger cannot be justified" (Sir. 1:22); Consequently, it is possible to be angry righteously. And again (the Lord says): "Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment" (Matthew 5:22). Jealousy and lust are also good; the latter when ministering to procreation, and the former when directed to the competition in good works, as Paul said: "It is good to be zealous for good things always" (Gal. 4:18), and again: "Be zealous for great gifts" (1 Cor. 12:31); therefore, both are useful. And pride is never good, but is always useless and harmful. And if there is anything to be proud of, it is poverty rather than wealth. Why? For he who can live little is much better and higher than he who cannot.

5. Tell me, if some people were invited to a royal city, and some of them did not require horses, slaves, tents, inns, clothing, or vessels, but were content only with bread and water from springs, while others would say, "If you do not give us chariots and soft beds, we cannot come; If we do not have a multitude of guides, if we are not allowed to rest often and be on the road only a small part of the day, if we do not provide us with horses and many other things necessary for us, then we cannot (go), tell me: which of them are worthy of our respect, the first or the last? Obviously, those who do not need anything. So it is here: some require much in order to walk the path of real life, while others require nothing; therefore, those who live in poverty should rather be exalted, if only they should. But, you will say, the poor are often despised. No, it is not he (who is worthy of it), but those who despise him; How, indeed, can I not despise people who do not want to respect what should be respected? The painter laughs at all those who, being ignorant themselves, laugh at him, and pays no attention to their words, but is content with his own testimony: why then do we make ourselves dependent on the opinion of others? Is this forgivable?