Thus, it will be said: nevertheless, Peter expressed this clearly and definitely! Where and when? Then, when conversing with the Jews, He said: "What God has made this Jesus Lord and Christ... " (Acts 2:36). And why do you not add further words, namely: "... This Jesus, Whom you have crucified!" Or do you not know that some of the sayings refer to the incorruptible nature, and others to the incarnation? Otherwise, if you understand everything about the Divinities in this way, then you will come to the conclusion that the Divinity is also subject to suffering. If it does not participate in suffering, then it is not created. If blood had flowed from the most divine and ineffable nature, and instead of flesh it had been pierced and cut by nails on the cross, then your cunning in this case would have had a basis.

But just as the devil himself would not blaspheme in this way, why do you pretend to take upon yourself such unforgivable ignorance, with which even the demons did not cover themselves? Moreover, the words: the Lord and Christ do not refer to essence, but to dignity. The first means power, and the second means anointing. And so, what do you say about the Son of God? Even if He had been created, according to your wisdom, these sayings would not have taken place. It is impossible to imagine that He was first created, and then God appointed Him (Lord and Christ). He has an inalienable rulership, and He has it by His very nature and essence. Being asked if He was a King, He answered: "For this I was born" (John 18:37). And Peter speaks here of Him as being ordained (in the Lord and Christ), and this refers only to the Incarnation.

4. Why are you surprised if Peter says this? And Paul, conversing with the Athenians, calls Him only a man, saying: "... by means of the Man whom He had ordained, having given a testimony to all, having raised Him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). He says nothing here about the image of God, nor about His equality (with the Father), nor about the fact that He is the radiance of His glory. And so it should be. At that time it was not yet the time for such teaching, but it was desirable that they should first accept that He is a man and that He has risen. Christ Himself did so; and from Him Paul, having learned, arranged the work of his preaching in the same way. Christ did not suddenly reveal His divinity to us, but at first He was revered only as a prophet and Christ, as if He were a simple man; Only later did He appear from His deeds and words what He was. That is why Peter at first uses the same way of speaking. This was his first public preaching to the Jews. And since they were not yet able to clearly know His divinity, the Apostle addresses to them the word about the Incarnation, so that their ears, previously trained by this word, would be predisposed to other teaching. If anyone wants to read the entire sermon of the Apostle from the beginning, what I am saying will be very clear to him.

The Apostle Peter also calls Him a man, and discusses at length about His suffering, resurrection and birth according to the flesh. And Paul, when he says, "... was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. I:3), not anything else that inspires us, namely, that the word "created" is used in relation to the incarnation, as we also confess. On the contrary, the son of thunders now speaks to us of an ineffable and pre-eternal existence; therefore, leaving the word "created," He put "was"; whereas if the Son of God had been created, this would have to be shown with precision. If Paul feared lest one of the foolish people suppose that the Son is greater than the Father, and that He who begat will one day submit to Him, for this reason he said in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "... But when it is said that all things are subject to Him, it is clear that except Him who subjected all things to Him" (1 Corinthians 15:27), although who would have thought that the Father would ever be subject to the Son, on an equal footing with all creatures? And if Paul feared such foolish opinions, wherefore he said, "Except him that subjected all things to him," it was much more fitting for John, if the Son of God had been created, to be afraid lest any one should acknowledge him to be uncreated, and this was the first thing to explain to him. But now, since the Son is begotten, neither John nor any other apostle or prophet rightly said that He was created. And the Only-begotten Himself would not fail to say this if it were so.

He who, out of condescension, spoke so humbly about Himself, would not be silent about it. I do not think it improbable that He would rather have kept silent about His greatness, which He had, than if He had not had it, He would have left it unnoticed that He does not have this greatness. This was a plausible motive for default - the desire to teach people humility, and therefore He was silent about the great things that belong to Him. And here you can't give any fair preposition to the default. If He had been created, why would He have kept silent about His origin, when He did not mention many things that really belonged to Him? He who, in order to teach humility, often spoke of Himself in a derogatory way, and ascribed to Himself that which is not really His own, He, I say, if He had been created, would not have failed to say much more about it. Or do you not see how He Himself does everything for the purpose that no one should recognize Him as unborn, and speaks and does, even to speak of Himself, apparently inconsistent with His dignity and essence, and condescends to the humility of a prophet? The saying: "As I hear, so I judge", also: "... He gave Me a commandment what to say and what to say." (John 5:30; 12:49) and the like are peculiar only to prophets.

If, therefore, in order to dismiss such a supposition, He did not mince words about Himself with such humble words, how much more would He have spoken in the same way, if He had been created, lest anyone should acknowledge Him to be uncreated, e.g., "Do not think" that I am begotten of the Father; I am created, not begotten, and I am not of the same being with Him." But He does the opposite. He uses expressions that involuntarily, even unwillingly, force one to accept a contrary opinion. Thus, He says: - "... that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 14:10, 11); See also: " ... so long have I been with you, and you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; …” (v. 9); or, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. ... (John 5:23); “... as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whom He will." (Article 21); "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (Article 17); "As the Father knoweth Me, even so do I know the Father; ... I and the Father are one." (John 10:15, 30). Everywhere using the expressions "as" and "so and," he shows that He is one with the Father and that He has an inseparable essence with Him. And He reveals the power of His authority both in these same sayings and in many others, for example, when He says: "Be silent, cease; I will, purify yourself; I command you, dumb and deaf spirit, to come out of it" also: "... have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, ... But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment..." (Mk. 4:39; Matt. 8:3; Map.9:25; Matthew 5:21). And everything else like this, which He lays down the law and works miracles, sufficiently proves His authority; or rather, even the slightest part of it can enlighten and convince people who are not entirely insensitive.

5. But such is the spirit of vanity that it blinds the mind of the people who are carried away by it, even in relation to the most obvious subjects, and induces them to contradict even the recognized truths; and others, who understand the truth very well and are convinced of it, are forced to hypocritically oppose it.

So it was with the Jews. They did not reject the Son of God out of ignorance, but in order to receive honor from the people. "They believed," it is said, "in Him, but for the sake of the Pharisees they did not confess, so as not to be excommunicated from the synagogue... " (John 12:42), and for the sake of pleasing others they sacrificed their own salvation. And it is impossible, it is impossible for one who is so subservient to temporal glory to receive glory from God. That is why Christ rebuked the Jews, saying: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that is from the One God?" (John 5:44)? This is some kind of strong ecstasy; Embraced by this passion, a person becomes incorrigible. Tearing away the soul of its captives from heaven, it nails it to the earth, does not allow it to look up to the true light, and induces it to constantly turn in the mud, assigning to them rulers so strong that they possess them without even commanding anything.

He who suffers from this disease, even if no one orders him, voluntarily does everything he thinks to please his masters. For them, he dresses himself in elegant clothes, and adorns his face, taking care not of himself, but of pleasing others, and takes his escorts with him to the square, in order to deserve the surprise of others, and everything he does, he undertakes solely to please others.

And so, is there a spiritual illness more painful than this? A person often throws himself into the abyss so that only others are surprised at him. The quoted words of Christ sufficiently show all the tormenting power of this passion; but it is also possible to know it from the following. If you want to ask any of the citizens who make great expenditures, why they spend so much gold, and what such expenses mean, you will hear nothing else from them, but about pleasing the crowd. But if you ask them again, What is a crowd? - they will answer: it is something noisy, rebellious, for the most part stupid, rushing aimlessly to and fro, like the waves of the sea, often composed of various and opposite opinions. Whoever has such a ruler, will he not be more miserable than any other?

However, when worldly people cling to it, it is not yet so dangerous, although it is really dangerous. But when those who say that they have renounced the world suffer from the same or even more serious illness, then this is extremely dangerous. Worldly people only waste money, but here the danger concerns the soul. When the right faith is exchanged for glory, and in order to be glorified by themselves, God is despised, tell me, is this not the highest degree of senselessness and madness?

Other passions, although they contain great harm, at least bring some pleasure, albeit temporary and short. Thus, the greedy, the lover of wine, the lover of womanhood, have a certain pleasure, albeit a short one; but those possessed by the passion of vanity always live a bitter life, devoid of any pleasure. They do not attain that which they love so much, I mean, the glory of the people; and although they apparently use it, they do not really enjoy it, because it is not glory at all. That is why "this passion itself is not called glory, but vanity. And rightly all the ancients called it vanity. It is vain and has nothing brilliant or glorious in it. Just as the faces [of statues] seem (outwardly) bright and pleasant, but inwardly empty, therefore, although they appear to be more beautiful than corporeal (natural) faces, yet they have never yet aroused love for themselves in anyone, in the same way, or even more, fame among the crowd covers this incurable and painful passion. It has only a bright appearance on the outside, but on the inside it is not only empty, but also full of dishonor and cruel torment.

Where, you say, does this insane and unpleasurable passion come from? Nowhere else, but from a low and insignificant soul. A man who is carried away by glory is incapable of conceiving anything great and noble; it necessarily becomes shameful, base, dishonest, insignificant. Whoever does nothing for virtue, but has only one thing in mind, that in order to please people who are not worthy of any attention, in any case, follows a sinful, wandering opinion, can he be worth anything? Notice, then, if anyone had asked him, How do you think of the crowd? "No doubt he would have said that he thought the crowd ignorant and idle. What then? Would you like to become like this crowd? If someone were to ask him about this again, I do not think that he would wish to become the same. Is it not exceedingly ridiculous, then, to seek glory from those whom he himself would never wish to become like him?

6. But if you say that there are many people in the crowd, and that they are one, then it is especially necessary to despise it. If everyone in the crowd is in himself worthy of contempt, then when there are many of them, they deserve even more contempt. The folly of each of them, when they are gathered together, becomes even greater, increasing in number. Therefore, each of them separately could certainly be corrected, if someone took upon himself this task, but it would not be easy to correct all of them together, because in this case their madness increases; they are led by the customs of animals, at any rate following one another in opinions. Tell me, then, in such a crowd will you seek glory? No, I beg and pray. This passion perverted everything; it gave rise to covetousness, envy, slander, and slander. It arms and embitters people who have not suffered any offense against those who have done no offense.