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?

We are contemptible when we do not despise those who despise us for our poverty, and do not consider them unhappy. I do not mention what sins come from wealth and good things from poverty; or rather, neither wealth nor poverty is good in itself, but is so according to those who use it. A good Christian is found more in poverty than in wealth. Why? Because in poverty he becomes not more proud, more chaste, more honest, humbler, more prudent; and in wealth there are many obstacles to this. Let us remember what a rich man does, or better yet, who abuses his wealth. He steals, covetous, oppresses. And whence come criminal attachments, illicit liaisons, sorcery, sorcery, and all other kinds of evil, if not from wealth? Do you see that it is much easier to be virtuous in poverty than in wealth? Do not think that if the rich are not punished here, they are not sinful; no, if it were possible to punish the rich without hindrance, the prisons would be filled with them. In addition, wealth also contains the evil that he who unjustly acquires it, committing sins with impunity, never ceases to commit them, receives wounds that are not healed, and no one puts a bridle on him. Poverty, if you will, can give us much more reasons for pleasure. Why? Because it is free from worries, hatred, enmity, envy, abuse and countless evils. Therefore, let us not strive to become rich, and let us not constantly envy those who have much; but if we have wealth, let us use it as we should; but if we do not have, let us not grieve over it, but thank God for everything, and for the fact that He has given us the opportunity, with a little effort, to receive a reward equal to the rich, or, if we wish, even more, and to extract great fruits from the small. The one who brought two talents was honored and honored with a reward equal to the one who brought five talents. Why? Because, although two talents were entrusted to him, he on his part fulfilled all that was due and returned what was entrusted to him in double quantity. Why then should we strive to obtain much, when it is possible to obtain the same thing by means of a little, or even more, when with a little labor one can be worthy of a reward much greater (than labor). A poor person will part with property much more easily than a rich man who has too much. Do you not know that the more a man has, the more he desires? Therefore, in order that we may not experience this, let us not seek riches, let us not complain about poverty, let us not seek to become rich, but even if we have (wealth), let us use it as Paul commanded: "Those who have," he says, "must be as those who do not have; and those who enjoy this world as if they did not enjoy it" (1 Cor. 7:29,31), so that we may receive the promised blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed 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 3

"Likewise, when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him. Of the angels it is said: Thou makest spirits by Thy angels, and flaming fire by Thy servants. And of the Son, Thy throne, O God, for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is the scepter of righteousness. (Hebrews 1:6-8).

1. Our Lord Jesus Christ calls His coming in the flesh an exodus, for example, when He says: "Behold, a sower went forth to sow" (Matthew 13:3); And again: "I came forth from the Father, and came into the world" (John 16:28), and in many places this can be seen. And Paul calls His coming His entrance: "... when," he says, "he brings the Firstborn into the universe," meaning by this introduction the incarnation. Why then do they express themselves differently about the same subject, and why do they speak in this way? This is evident from the meaning of the expressions themselves. Christ rightly calls His coming the Exodus, because we were outside of God. As prisoners who have offended the king are usually outside the king's palaces, and he who wishes to reconcile them (with the king) does not bring them inside (the palaces), but himself goes outside and converses with them, until he makes them worthy to appear before the eyes of the king, so did Christ. He, having come out to us, i.e. having taken on flesh and given us what was pleasing to the King, then He brought us in, cleansing us from sins and reconciling us (with God). That is why He calls (His coming) the Exodus. And Paul calls it the entrance, borrowing this figurative expression from the example of heirs who receive possession of some property; to say, "when He brings the Firstborn into the world," is to show that (God) has entrusted the universe to Him; He then took it all into his possession when he was known. This is not spoken of God the Word, but of the incarnate Christ; and indeed, if He "was in the world," as John says, "and the world was made through Him" (John 1:10), how else could He have been brought into the world if not in the flesh? "And let all the angels of God worship Him," he says, "all the angels of God." Intending to say something great and lofty, he prepares his listeners for this and disposes them to the most convenient acceptance (of the truth), representing the Father as introducing the Son. And behold, he said above that (God) did not speak to us through the prophets, but through the Son, and he showed that the Son is more excellent than the angels, proving this both by the very name (of the Son) and by the fact that the Father himself brought in the Son. And here he proves the same thing in another way. What? Worship, which shows how much more excellent he is than the angels, how much more excellent the Lord is than the servant. Just as if someone were to lead someone into the king's dwelling place and command those who were there to worship him immediately, so does the Apostle when he speaks of coming into the world according to the flesh, and adds: "And let all the angels of God worship Him." Is it possible that only angels without other powers? No; listen further: "Of the angels it is said: Thou makest spirits by Thy angels, and flaming fire by Thy servants." And to the Son: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." This is the greatest difference: they are created, and He is not created. Why is it said of the angels, "He who creates," and of the Son it is not said, "He who creates"? Because in this way the difference between them is clearly expressed. That is why it is said of angels: "He who creates spirits by His angels"; and of the Son, although it is said: "The Lord created me" (Prov. 8:22), and again: "God made this Jesus Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), but neither this is said about Christ the Lord the Son, nor this about God the Word, but refers to the incarnation. Wishing to show the true difference between them, (the Apostle) has in mind not only the angels, but also all the heavenly ministering powers. Do you see with what clarity he distinguishes between the creature and the Creator, the servants and the Master, the servants and the Heir and the true Son? Of the Son He says: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"; This is the sign of the Kingdom! "The scepter of Thy kingdom is the scepter of righteousness"; Here is another sign of the Kingdom! Then again (turns) to the Incarnation: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore have I anointed Thee, O God thy God" (Hebrews 1:9). What does it mean, "Thy God"? Having said the great things, (the Apostle) again softens his speech.

Here he refuted the Jews, and the followers of Paul of Samosata, and the Arians, and Marcellus, and Sabellius, and Marcion. How? The Jews - by showing in one and the same (Christ) two beings - God and man; the latter, i.e. the followers of Paul of Samosata, in that he spoke of His eternal existence and His uncreated being, since in contrast to the expression: "Thou createst," he added: "Thy throne, O God, for ever and ever"; the Arians by the same, as well as by the fact that (the Son) is not a slave, and if He were a creature, He would be a slave; Marcellus and others - by the fact that (the Father and the Son) are two persons, different hypostatically; Marcionites - by the fact that it is not the divinity that is anointed, but humanity (Christ's). Further he says: "... more than Thy fellow-partakers." Who are these communicants, if not people? That is, "for not by measure" Christ received "the Spirit" (John 3:34).

2. Do you see how (the Apostle) everywhere unites the doctrine of the economy with the doctrine of the uncreated Being? What could be clearer than this? Do you see that creation and birth are not the same thing? Otherwise he would not distinguish between them; in contrast to the expression, "Thou createst," he would not have added, "Of the Son, Thy throne, O God, (ό Θεός) for ever and ever"; and he would not have called the name "Son" by the most glorious name, if it meant the same (as the creature). Indeed, in what way would it be more glorious? If creation and birth were one and the same, and the angels were created, how would (the Son) be more excellent than they? Here again the word "God" is used about Him, with a member [1]. "And, In the beginning, O Lord, thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but Thou remainest; and all shall be worn out like a garment, and as a garment thou shalt roll them up, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not end" (Hebrews 1:10-12). Lest thou, hearing the words, "When He brings the Firstborn into the world," think that (the Son) was afterwards given this as a gift, (the Apostle) warned above against such a thought, and now, again, he warns, saying, "In the beginning," not now, he says, but of old. Here, too, he again inflicts a mortal gift on Paul of Samosata and Arius, attributing to the Son what is also attributed to the Father. At the same time, he inspires something else, something more important; namely, depicts the change of the world: "... and all shall be worn out like a garment, and as a garment thou shalt roll them up, and they shall be changed"; just as in the Epistle to the Romans, he says that (God) will transform the world. (Romans 8). Wishing to express the ease of this matter (for God), to say: "You will turn away"; as man rolls up clothes, so (God) will roll up and change the world. If He so easily transformed and changed the world into a better and higher state, could He have needed anyone else in the lower (original) formation of the world? How long will you not be ashamed (to say this)? At the same time, it is very comforting to know that the world will not always be in its present state, but everything will be transformed and everything will change; but he himself (God) is always alive and infinitely living. "And Thy years," they say, "shall not end. To which of the angels did [God] ever say, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool?'" (Hebrews 1:12-13). Behold, he again encourages (the believers) that their enemies will be defeated; and their enemies are the same as those of Christ. And again it is a sign of the kingdom, a sign of equality, a sign of honor, and not of powerlessness (of the Son), that the Father is angry for (the insults) inflicted on the Son; it is a sign of the great love and closeness of the Father to the Son. And indeed, if He is angry for Him, how can He be alien to Him? "Until I lay down Thy enemies." So in the second Psalm it is said: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh, and the Lord shall mock them: then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and with his wrath shall cause them to be troubled" (Psalm 2:4-5). And Christ Himself says: "Bring my enemies, those who would not have me to reign over them, and slay them before me" (Luke 2:10). 19:27). And what are these of His words, listen to how He says in another place: "How often would I have gathered Thy children together, as a bird gathered its young under its wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Luke 13:34-35); and again: "The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and it shall be given to the people that bear its fruits" (Matthew 21:43); And again: "Whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whomsoever it falls on him will be crushed" (Matthew 21:44). On the other hand, if He judges His enemies there, how much more will they be accountable for the offenses inflicted on Him here. Thus, the words: "How long will I make Thy enemies Thy footstool" are spoken solely to the honor of the Son.

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to minister to those who are to inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14). Is it surprising, he says, that they serve the Son, if they also serve for our salvation? Thou seest how (the Apostle) exalts the minds of his hearers, and points out the great honour bestowed upon us by God, who has appointed such a service to the angels, who are above us, a service for us; it is as if to say: angels are used for this, their service is to serve God for our salvation. Thus, the task of the angels is to fulfill everything for the salvation of the brethren. Although this is the work of Christ Himself, He saves us as Master, and they as slaves; and we, though slaves, are also the sorabs of the angels. Why are you, he says, amazed at the angels? They are the servants of the Son of God, they are sent everywhere for us, they serve for our salvation; therefore they are slaves like us. See how little difference he thinks between creatures; Although the difference between angels and men is significant, He places them near us, and how to say so: they work for us, flow everywhere for us, one might say - they are enslaved to us. Their service consists in the fact that they are sent everywhere for us.