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.

3. The Old Testament is fulfilled with such examples, and the New Testament is fulfilled. When the angels preach the gospel to the shepherds, when they appear to Mary, when they appear to Joseph, when they sit at the tomb of Christ, when they are sent to say to the disciples: "Men of Galilee! Why do you stand and look up to heaven?" (Acts 1:11) - when Peter is released from prison, when they talk to Philip - is it not clear that they serve us? Imagine, then, what an honor it is for us when God sends angels to serve us as His friends, when an angel appears to Cornelius, when an angel releases all the apostles from prison and says: "Go and stand in the temple, and speak to the people all these words of life" (Acts 5:20). But what do I say about others? An angel appeared to Paul himself. Do you see how they serve us for God, and serve us in matters of great importance? That is why Paul says: "Either the world, or life, or death, or the present or the future, are all yours" (1 Cor. 3:22). And the Son was sent, not as a slave, not as a servant, but as the only-begotten Son, as wanting the same thing that the Father wills; or rather, He was not sent, because He did not pass from one place to another, but took on flesh, and they change places, leaving some places in which they were, then go to others in which they were not. This (the apostle) says in order to encourage them. What (he says) are you afraid of? Angels serve us. Having spoken of the Son, of the works of economy, creation, and the kingdom, having proved the equality (of the Son with the Father) and that (the Son) reigns as Lord, not only over men, but also over the heavenly powers, (the Apostle) further exhorts them, suggesting that we must be attentive to what is said, and says: "Therefore we must be especially attentive to what we hear" (Hebrews 2:1). Here he wants to say that it is necessary to pay attention to the "especially" of the law, but he is silent about this; but he explains this in proofs, and not in the exhortation or counsel itself, because it was better that way. "For if," he says, "the word spoken by angels was firm, and every transgression and disobedience received a righteous recompense, how shall we escape, neglecting a little salvation, which, having first been preached by the Lord, was established in us by those who heard [from Him]" (Hebrews 2:2-3)? Why should we be "especially" attentive to what is said? Is not the former as much from God as the present? Here he commands to be attentive either "especially" to the law, or very much; but by no means condemns (the law), - no. Since (the Jews) had a high opinion of the Old Testament because of its antiquity, so that the present, as the new, should not be despised, he strenuously proves that the latter should be given even greater attention. How does he prove it? As if he were saying: although both are from God, they are not the same. However, he explains this to us later; now he briefly points this out, and then he sets it out more clearly, when he says: "For if the first [covenant] had been without defect," and again: "That which is old and old is near destruction" (Heb. 8:7,13), and many other similar things. But at the beginning of his speech he does not dare to say anything of the kind, until he has prepared and disposed the listener to it by many proofs. Why, then, tell me, is it proper for us to pay "special" attention? But not when, he says, let us fall away, that is, so that we do not perish, do not fall away. Here he shows the gravity of falling away, how difficult it is to restore what has fallen away again, when it happens through negligence. And he borrowed the expression itself from Proverbs: "My son!" says (the Most Wise), "do not let it go" (Proverbs 3:21), expressing both the ease of falling away and the severity of perdition, i.e., that disobedience is not safe for us. By the very proofs (the Apostle) inspires that the punishment will be very great. However, he leaves this as a subject for investigation, and does not give it in the form of a conclusion. Such a way of speaking makes the rebuke not so harsh, i.e. when the denouncer does not pronounce the decision everywhere on his own, but leaves it to the will of the listener to give his voice; this makes (the hearers) more reasonable. This is what the prophet Nathan does in the Old Testament, and Christ in Matthew, when He says: "What will he do to these tenants?" (Matthew 21:40) – calling (the disciples) themselves to pronounce judgment. This is the greatest victory. Further, (the Apostle), having said: "If through the angels the spoken word was firm," he did not add: how much more so that which was spoken by Christ; but, leaving this, he said more meekly: "How shall we escape, neglecting a little salvation." And see how he makes a comparison: "if," he says, "the word proclaimed through the angels"; there – "Angels", and here – "the Lord"; there is the "word", and here it is "salvation". Then, lest any one should say, Is it Christ's that thou sayest, Paul? - he warns of this and proves the authenticity of what has been said, proving the authenticity both by the fact that he heard it from the Lord, and by the fact that even now God speaks it, not with a voice simply uttered, as it was in the time of Moses, but by means of signs and certifying events.

4. What does it mean, "if the word spoken by angels was firm"? In a similar way he says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "... given through angels, by the hand of a mediator" (Gal. 3:19); and in another place: "... they received the law in the ministry of angels, and did not keep it" (Acts 7:53); and everywhere he says that (the law) was given through angels. Some say that Moses is meant here, but this is not justified, because he here names angels in the plural; At the same time, he speaks here about the angels of heaven. What can be said to this? That he either speaks of the ten commandments alone, as Moses then spoke, and God answered, or that the angels were present when God taught the commandments, or that he speaks of all that was said and done in the Old Testament, because the angels took part in it. Why does it say in another place: "... for the law was given through Moses" (John 1:17), and here: angels? For (Moses) says, "And God descended into darkness" (Exodus 19:20). "For if by angels the spoken word was firm." What does it mean, "it was firm"? It means true and true, because all that was said came to pass in due time. Either he says this, or that the word was firm and the threats were carried out, or he calls commandments by a word, because many commands were given without law by angels sent from God, as for instance in the place of weeping, in the presence of judges, in the time of Sampson (Judg. 2:1; 8:3). For this reason the Apostle did not say, "law," but, "word." It seems to me more probable that he means here everything that was arranged through angels. What are we going to say? That at that time there were angels to whom the people (the Jews) were entrusted, who produced trumpet sounds, fire, darkness, and so on. "… and every crime," he said, "transgression and disobedience received a righteous recompense." Not so that one thing receives and the other does not, but: "everyone." Nothing, he says, remained unpunished, but "received a righteous recompense" instead of punishment. Why did he express himself in this way? Paul is usually not too strict in his choice of expressions, but sometimes he uses indifferently less precise instead of more precise ones, as, for example, in one place he says: "We take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5); and in another place he uses "recompense" instead of punishment, just as here he calls punishment "recompense": "For it is right," he says, "before God to repay those who offend you with tribulation, and to you who are offended with joy" (2 Thess. 1:6,7). That is, righteousness has not lost its power, but God fulfills it and subjects those who have sinned to punishment, although not all sins are manifest, but only those by which the commandments are directly violated. And so, "how," to say, "shall we escape, neglecting a little salvation"? By this he expresses that there was not a great salvation before; And therefore it is good, he added: "About a little." Now, he says, God will not deliver us from war, nor will He give us earth and earthly goods, but there will be the destruction of death, the destruction of the devil, the kingdom of heaven, eternal life. All this he briefly expressed in the words: "having neglected a little salvation." Further, he speaks of the authenticity of what was said: "Being first preached by the Lord," i.e. it received its beginning from the very source, because it was not man who brought this (salvation) to earth, not the created power, but the Only-begotten Himself. "Those who have heard [from Him] have been strengthened in us." What does it mean: "confirmed"? That is, it is correctly taught, or carried out; we, he says, have a pledge; it has not been destroyed, it has not ceased, but it is preserved and victorious; and the reason for this is the active divine power. What does it mean, "hearing"? That is, the very ones who heard from the Lord confirmed us. This is a great and reliable deed. In a similar way, Luke says at the beginning of the Gospel: "As those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning have handed them down to us" (Luke 1:11). 1:2). How was it established? And what, they will say, if those who heard from themselves made up an idea? In order to refute such an idea and to prove that this grace is not from men, (the Apostle) adds: "with the testimony of God" (Hebrews 2:4). Truly, God would not have testified about them if they had invented something themselves. They testify, and at the same time God testifies. How does He testify? Not with a word, not with a voice, although that would be true - but how? "… signs and wonders, and various powers." Well did he say, "by various powers," expressing the abundance of gifts; but the ancients did not have such and such different signs. We have believed them not simply, but in the testimony of signs and wonders; therefore, they did not believe them, but God Himself. "And by the giving of the Holy Ghost according to His will." How is it, when both sorcerers perform signs, and the Jews said of Christ that "He casteth out demons by the power of Beelzebub" (Luke 11:15)? But they did not perform such signs; wherefore (Paul) says, "by divers powers." Those signs are not power, but powerlessness, fiction and vain actions; That is why he says of these: "... And by the dispensing of the Holy Spirit according to His will."

5. Here, it seems to me, (the apostle) hints at something else; There were probably a few people there who had spiritual gifts, which became impoverished because the believers became less zealous. Therefore, in order to console them in this and to protect them from falling, he ascribes everything to the will of God: He Himself (God), he says, knows to whom what is beneficial, and in this way distributes grace. He says the same thing in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "But God arranged the members, each in the body, as it pleased Him"; and again: "But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit," according to His will (1 Cor. 12:8,7,11), proves that gifts depend on the will of the Father. Often many did not receive gifts for an unclean and negligent life; and sometimes even people who led a good and pure life did not receive them; For what purpose? So that they do not stumble, so that they do not become proud, so that they do not become negligent, so that they do not become too arrogant. For if even without gifts the very consciousness of a pure life can arouse pride, then how much more (this is possible) when the gifts of grace are added. For this reason they were communicated more to humble and simple people, and especially to simple people, who dwelt, as the Scriptures say, "in gladness and simplicity of heart" (Acts 2:46). In this way (the admonition of the Apostle) could have a stronger effect on them and, if they were negligent, stir them up. He who is humble and does not think much of himself becomes more zealous when he receives a gift, like a person who has not received what he deserves and considers himself unworthy; but whoever thinks that he has shown merit, considers the gift due and is exalted. That is why God arranges this matter in this way with benefit. This can be seen in the Church: one has the gift of teaching, while the other cannot even open his mouth. If a man - the owner of the house knows to whom to entrust what, then how much more so does God, Who sees the human mind and knows everything before fulfillment. Only one thing is worthy of sorrow - sin, and everything else - not at all. Do not say, Why do I not have wealth? - or: if I had, I would give to the poor. You do not know if you had, whether you would not become even more covetous; now you say this, but in fact if you had received it, perhaps you would have become different. Thus, when we are full, we think that we can fast; And when a little time passes, we have other thoughts. Also, when we are not drunk, we think that we can overcome this passion; but when we give ourselves over to it, we no longer (think). Do not say, Why do I not have the gift of teaching? - Or: If I had, I would edify many. You do not know if you had, whether it would not have served to condemn you, and whether envy or laziness would not have forced you to hide your talent. Now you are free from all this, and if you do not give a measure of torment, you are not subject to condemnation; And then you would be guilty of many things. However, even now you are not completely devoid of talent. Show in small things what you would be like if you had (the greater): "unfaithful in small things," says (the Lord), "unfaithful in many things... who will believe you" (Luke 16:10,11)? Show me like a widow; She had two mites, and she donated everything she had. Are you looking for riches? Show me that you despise small things, so that I may entrust you with the great; and if you do not despise the former, how much more will you not despise the latter. Likewise, with regard to the gift of speech, show that you will properly use it for exhortation and persuasion. Do you have no outward eloquence? Do you not have an abundance of thoughts? But general (truths) thou knowest; you have a son, you have a neighbor, you have a friend, you have a brother, you have relatives; if you cannot make a long speech before the people in the church, you can exhort them in private; there is no need for flowery and lengthy speeches; show them that if you had the gift of speech, you would not be negligent. But if you do not show diligence in small things, how can I believe you in great things? And that indeed everyone can do this, listen to how Paul commanded the laity to do this: "Exhort," he says, "one another, and edify one another" (1 Thess. 5:11); and again, "Comfort one another therefore with these words" (1 Thess. 4:18). God knows how much to give to everyone. Are you better than Moses? But he, too, listen to how he complained: "... "Have I," he said, "borne in my womb all this people, and have I borne them, that Thou sayest unto me, Carry them in thy arms, as a nurse beareth a child?" (Num. 11:12). What about God? He separated him from his spirit and gave it to others (Num. 11:17), showing that if he had guided (the Jews) before, it was not from his own gift, but from the Spirit. If you had a gift, you would often be exalted, you would often fall; you don't know yourself as God knows you. Let us not say: what is this for, and what is it for? - when everything is arranged by God; let us not demand an account from Him; This is utterly impious and insane. We are slaves, and slaves, far removed from the Lord, not knowing even what is under our feet. Let us not test God's counsels, but let us keep what He has given us, even if it be small, even if it be extremely small, and then we will surely deserve praise; or better, (let us not consider) any of the gifts of God to be small. Do you complain that you do not have the gift of teaching? But tell me: what gift seems greater to you, the gift of teaching, or the gift of healing? Of course, the latter. And does not giving sight to the blind seem to you more than healing diseases? And to raise the dead, does it not seem to you even greater? Tell me, then, does it not seem to you more to do this by means of shade and towels than to do it with words? What do you desire, tell me, whether to raise the dead by means of shade and towels, or to have the gift of teaching? Surely you will say: to raise the dead by means of shade and towels.

6. But if I prove to you that much greater than this gift is another gift that you can acquire, and that by not acquiring it you justly deprive yourself of others, what will you say? Moreover, such a gift can be acquired not by one or two, but by everyone in general. I know that you are amazed and amazed to hear that you can have a gift much greater than the gift of raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, and doing what was done in the time of the apostles; Perhaps you even think it is improbable. What kind of gift is it? Love. Believe me; these are not my words, but the words of Christ, who spoke through Paul. What exactly should he say? "Be zealous for greater gifts, and I will show you a way even more excellent" (1 Cor. 12:31). What does it mean, "even more excellent"? His words mean the following: The Corinthians were then exalted with gifts, and having the gift of tongues, which is the least of the gifts, they were proud above the rest. Therefore he says: Do you desire to have gifts? I will show you the path to gifts, not only the best, but also the most excellent. And then he says: "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, then I am sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, and have not love, then I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:1,2). Do you see (what a gift) it is? Try to acquire it. It means more than raising the dead; it is far above all other gifts. And that this is really so, listen to what Christ says in His conversation with His disciples: "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). Explaining by what they would know, he did not say: by miracles, but why? "… if you have love one to another." Also (in prayer) to the Father He says: "And that they may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (John 17:21); and to His disciples He said: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another" (John 13:34). Thus (the loving man) is more excellent and glorious than those who raise the dead, and rightly so, because the latter proceeds entirely from the grace of God, and the former together from your diligence; the first is characteristic of a true Christian, and proves that he is a disciple of Christ, crucified (for the world) and having nothing to do with the earth; In order to convince you of this, pay attention to the following: Blessed Paul in two respects attained the height of virtues, or rather, in three, in signs, in wisdom, and in life; but without love, he says, all this is nothing. And how this is nothing, I will explain: "And if I give away," I say, "all my possessions, and give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2, 3), because even he who gives away possessions and squanders money may not have love. Of this I have said enough in the place where I spoke of love; thither I send those who wish. Let us, then, as I have said, strive to acquire this gift, let us love one another, and we shall have no need of anything else in order to progress in virtue, but everything will be possible for us without effort, and everything will be accomplished with great success. But, you will say, we love each other even now; one has two friends, another three, and another four. But this does not mean to love for God, but in order to be loved oneself; whoever loves for God does not have such an impulse to love, but is disposed to everyone as to his own brothers - he loves his fellow believers as his own brothers, while he pities heretics, pagans and Jews as his own brothers by nature, only as unkind and useless, he is crushed and weeps for them. We can become like God if we love everyone, even our enemies, and not if we perform signs; we are also amazed at God, it is true when He works miracles, but much more so when He shows love for mankind and mercy. If this is especially worthy of wonder in God, how much more so in men, and therefore it is evident that it gives us special respect. Let us take care of this, and then we will have no less than Paul, Peter, and others, who raised up a multitude of the dead, even though we could not heal fevers; but without love, even if we perform signs more than the apostles themselves, even if we expose ourselves to innumerable dangers for the sake of the faith, we will not benefit at all. It is not I who say this, but the pet of love himself knows it; We must believe him. In this way we will be able to receive the promised blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] Some of the Arians asserted that the word God with a member (ό Θεός) is used in the Holy Scriptures only about God the Father, and from this they concluded that His Son, Jesus Christ, is not the true God. The saint refutes here and elsewhere such an incorrect teaching.

CONVERSATION 4

"For it was not to the angels that God subdued the world to come, of which we speak; on the contrary, someone somewhere testified, saying, "What is man, that Thou rememberest him?" or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast humbled him not much before the angels" (Hebrews 2:5-7).