1. Children who are just beginning to learn are not subjected to many labors at once by teachers, and even at one time they occupy them a little with the sciences, but little by little, and moreover, the same thing is often repeated to them, in order to put their lessons more conveniently into their minds, and so that the children, bored at the very beginning with the multitude (of lessons) and their difficulty for their memory, do not thereby become more incapable of assimilating what is taught, because from difficulty a certain relaxation can occur in them. In the same way, desiring to arrange my own teachings and to facilitate the work for you, I take little by little from this divine table and pass it on to your souls. Therefore I shall again touch upon the same words of the Gospel, not in such a way as to say the same thing again, but only to add the rest to what has been said. And so, let us raise the word to the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." When all the other Evangelists began with the Incarnation (Matthew says, "the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David"; Luke first tells us about Mary; and Mark similarly gives the story of the Baptist first), for which John only briefly touched upon the subject, after those first words, saying, "And the Word was made flesh" (v. 14), and all the rest, His conception, birth, upbringing, growth, - bypassing, suddenly announces to us His eternal birth? What is the reason for this, I will tell you now. Since the other Evangelists for the most part narrated about the human nature of the Son of God, it was necessary to fear that, therefore, one of the people who crawl on the earth himself would stop only at these dogmas, which happened to Paul of Samosata[1]). Thus, raising people prone to fall from such groveling on earth and drawing them to heaven, John rightly begins his narration from above, from the eternal existence. While Matthew began to narrate, beginning with Herod the king, Luke with Tiberius Caesar, Mark with the baptism of John, the Evangelist John, leaving all this, ascends above all time and age, and there directs the mind of his listeners to one thing: "In the beginning was," and, not allowing the mind to stop anywhere, sets no limit to it, as those (the Evangelists) – Herod, Tiberius and John. But at the same time it is also worthy of wonder that just as John, having aspired to the lofty word, nevertheless did not leave the Incarnation without attention, so they, while narrating the Incarnation with special care, did not keep silent about the pre-eternal existence either. And this must be so, because one Spirit moved the souls of all of them; and therefore they showed perfect unanimity in their narration. But you, beloved, when you hear "about the Word," never tolerate those who call Him a creature, nor those who worship Him by a mere word. There are many divine words by which the angels also act, but not one of these words is the Divinity itself, but all this is only a prophecy and God's command. This is how the Scriptures usually call the laws of God, commands, and prophecies. For this reason, speaking of angels, it adds: "His servants, who do His will" (Psalm 102:21). On the contrary, this Word (of which the Evangelist John speaks) is a hypostatic Being, impassibly proceeding from the Father Himself. This, as I said before, (the Evangelist) depicted by the very name of the "Word." For just as the saying, "In the beginning was the Word," signifies eternity, so the expression, "It was in the beginning with God," shows His co-eternity (with the Father). And so that you, having heard: "In the beginning was the Word," and recognizing it as eternal, do not nevertheless think that the life of the Father precedes (the life of the Son) by a certain distance, that is, by a large number of centuries, and in such a way that you do not lay the foundation for the Only-begotten, (the Evangelist) adds: "It was in the beginning with God," i.e., He is as eternal as the Father Himself. The Father was never without the Word; but there has always been a "God" (the Word) "with God" (the Father), in his own hypostasis. But how, you will say, does the Evangelist say that the Word "was in the world," if He really was with God? Truly, God had it, and it was in the world: neither the Father nor the Son is limited to any place. If "great is [His] strength, and His understanding is immeasurable" (Psalm 146:5), then it is clear that His essence has no temporal beginning. Have you heard that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? What do you think of this beginning? Without a doubt, the heavens and the earth came into existence before all visible creations. Thus, when you hear of the Only-begotten that He was "in the beginning," understand His existence, first of all, conceivable and before the ages. But if anyone says, "How is it possible for the Son not to be after the Father in time?" He who comes from someone must necessarily be after the one from whom he came - we answer that only human reasoning is like this, and he who proposes such a question will probably give even more absurd questions. But this should not be allowed even to hear. We now speak of God, and not of human nature, which is subject to order and the necessity of such speculations. However, for the complete satisfaction of weaker people, we will answer this as well.

2. Tell me: Does the radiance of the sun flow from the very nature of the sun, or from something else? Anyone who has intact senses necessarily acknowledges that radiance comes from the very nature of the sun. But although the radiance proceeds from the sun itself, yet we can never say that it exists after the solar nature, because the sun never appears without radiance. If, then, in visible and sensible bodies, that which proceeds from something else does not always exist after that from which it comes, why do you not believe it in the reasoning of the invisible and ineffable nature? And here it is the same, only in the way that it is in accordance with the eternal being. For this reason Paul also called the Son the radiance of the glory of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), depicting both that He is born of the Father, and that the Son is co-equal to the Father. Tell me, then, did not all the ages and every space of time come into existence through the Son? And this must be admitted by anyone who has not yet lost his mind. Thus, there is no distance (time) between the Father and the Son; and if not, then the Son does not exist after the Father, but is co-existent with Him. The expressions "before" and "after" denote the concepts of time. Without the century or time, no one could have imagined such concepts. And God is above times and ages. If, in spite of this, you assert that the Son has received a beginning, then see to it that through such reasoning you do not come to the necessity of bringing the Father Himself under some beginning, under a beginning, even though it is the first, it is still a beginning. Tell me, when you ascribe to the Son any limit or beginning, and from this beginning ascend still higher, do you not say that the Father exists before the Son? Obviously, so. Tell me further: how much did the Father exist before? Small or great distance you will indicate here, in any case, you will bring the Father under the leadership. It is evident that if you call this distance great or small, you will measure it in this way, but you cannot measure it if there is no beginning on either side. For this, therefore, as far as depends on you, you also give rise to the Father; and, therefore, according to your reasoning, the Father will no longer be without beginning. Do you see how true what the Saviour said, and how His word everywhere manifests its power? What is this word? "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either" (John 5:23). I know that for many people what has been said is incomprehensible; Wherefore in many cases we are careful not to enter into such conclusions, since the common people cannot follow them, and even if they did, they do not retain anything of them with firmness and accuracy. "The thoughts of mortals are uncertain, and our thoughts are erroneous" (Wis. 9:14). In the meantime, I would gladly ask our adversaries what is meant by what the prophet said: "Before Me there was no God, and after Me there will be none" (Isaiah 43:10). If the Son exists after the Father, then how is it said: "And after Me there shall be none"? Or will you already reject the very essence of the Only-begotten? And it is necessary either to dare to do so, or to admit the one Divinity in one's own hypostasis of the Father and the Son. Likewise, how is it true that "all things were made through Him"? If there was an age before Him, how could that which existed before Him come to pass through Him? Do you see to what audacity their reasoning leads, after they have once shaken the truth? Why did not the Evangelist say that the Son came "from things that do not exist"[2]), as Paul explains this about all creatures, saying: "calling things that do not exist as things that are" (Romans 4:17), and says: "in the beginning they were"? The latter expression is the opposite of the first. But it is very true: God does not come from anything and has nothing before Himself. Tell me again: do you not acknowledge that the Creator is incomparably superior to His creatures? But if He were like them, in that He came from the bearer, where would His incomparable superiority be? And what is the meaning of the saying: "I am the Lord first, and in the last I am the same" (Isaiah 41:4), "before Me there was no God, and after Me there will be none" (Isaiah 43:10)? If the Son is not of the same being with the Father, then He is another God; if He is not co-equal (to the Father), then after Him; and if it did not come from His essence, then it is evident that He was created. But if it is objected that this is said to distinguish (God) from idols, then should we not agree that here in order to distinguish from idols it is said about the one true God? And if this is really said to distinguish it from idols, then how do you explain all this saying: "After Me there will be no other God"? Not rejecting the Son, he says the word of God in this way, but expressing only that besides God (the true God) there is no god – idols; but not that there is no Son. Very well, someone will say, but should not the words, "Before Me there was no God," be understood to mean that there was no idolatrous god, that therefore the Son was before the Father? But what demon could say that? I think that the devil himself will not say this. On the other hand, if the Son is not co-equal to the Father, then why do you call His being infinite? If He has a beginning, and at first, even though He be immortal, He cannot yet be infinite. The Infinite must be without limits on both sides. Explaining this, Paul also says: "He who has neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3), and thus expresses both carelessness and infinity, i.e., in both respects He has no limit; As there is no end, so there is no beginning.

3. Further, how, if the Son is "life," could there ever be a time in which He was not? If He is "life," as He really is, then everyone will agree that life must always exist, be beginningless and infinite. If there was a time when He was not, how could He have been the life of other beings, if He had never been life himself? But how, someone will say, does the Evangelist John himself give Him a beginning, when he says: "In the beginning was." And why, I say, did you pay attention to the expressions, "in the beginning," and "was," and do not think of the saying, "The Word was"? What then? When the prophet says of the Father: "From everlasting to everlasting Thou art God" (Psalm 89:3), does He set limits to Him by such an expression? In no way: it expresses eternity. Think the same here. The Evangelist, speaking thus of the Son, sets no limit to Him. He did not say of the Son: He had a beginning, but "in the beginning was," through this "was" suggesting the idea of the beginningless existence of the Son. But now, someone else will say, the Father is spoken of with the addition of the term (article – "ο"), and of the Son – without the member[4]. What then? When the Apostle says: "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and also: "God Who is over all," then here he mentions the Son without a member. But he also does this in relation to the Father. In the Epistle to the Philippians, he says: "He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" (2:6). Also in the Epistle to the Romans: "Grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7). And on the other hand, it was superfluous to add a term here, because it was above, often attached to the word: "God." Just as the Evangelist, speaking of the Father, expresses: "God is spirit" (John 4:24), and we do not reject the incorporeality in God, because there is no member attached to the word "Spirit," so here, although no term is used in the expression about the Son, nevertheless, the Son is therefore not lesser. Why is that? Because, repeating the words: "God" and "God", the Evangelist does not show us any division in the Godhead; but on the contrary, having said before, "The Word was God," he, lest anyone should consider the divinity of the Son to be less, immediately adds a proof of His true divinity, ascribes to Him eternity: "It was," he says, "in the beginning with God," and the creative power: "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made." This is the same thing that the Father everywhere, through the prophets, provides as the pre-eminent proof of His (divine) being. And the prophets often use this kind of proof, and not only in this way, but also in arming themselves against the worship of idols. "The gods," it is said, "who did not create the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens" (Jeremiah 10:11). And in another place: "I, my hands, have stretched out the heavens" (Isaiah 45:12); and in any case He presents it as a sign of divinity. But the Evangelist is not satisfied with these sayings, but also calls Him "life" and "light." If, then, He has always been with the Father, if He Himself has produced, arranged, and maintained all things (this is expressed by the word "life"), if He enlightens all things, then who is so mad as to say that the Evangelist wanted to show in these utterances a lesser degree of His divinity, when by them it is especially possible to prove His equality and indivisibility? Let us not confuse the creature with the Creator, lest we also hear the words: "And they worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator" (Romans 1:25). Though some say that this is said of heaven, yet in speaking of them, the word of God completely forbids the service of every creature in general, as a pagan deed.

4. Let us not subject ourselves to this oath! For this reason the Son of God came (to earth), in order to free us from this ministry. For this reason He took the form of a servant, in order to deliver us from this slavery. For this reason He subjected Himself to spitting, to strangulation, for this He endured a shameful death. Let us not make all this fruitless (for us), let us not return to the former, or rather, even more grievous impiety. It is not the same to serve the creature, and to reduce the Creator Himself to the insignificance of the creature, as much as, at least, this depends on us, since He Himself always remains as He is, according to what is said: "But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not end" (Psalm 101:28). Let us glorify Him, according to the tradition of the Fathers; let us glorify Him both in faith and in works. There is no benefit to our salvation from right dogmas when our lives are corrupted. Therefore, let us direct it to please God, keeping ourselves away from all impurity, injustice, and covetousness, as strangers and strangers, and strangers to this world. And if anyone has much money and acquisition, let him use it like a wanderer who, after a short time, willingly or unwillingly, must leave it. If someone suffers offense from someone, let him not be angry forever, but rather let him not be angry temporarily. The Apostle does not allow us to continue our anger for more than one day. "The sun," he says, "let not it go down on your anger" (Ephesians 4:26). And rightly so: it is necessary to wish that even in such a short time nothing unpleasant happens. And if the night overtakes us (in anger), it will be worse for us, because at the mere remembrance of it an immeasurable fire will be revived in us, and we will meditate on it with great grief in freedom. The Apostle commands to warn and avert danger. The passion of anger is strong, stronger than any flame; That is why it is necessary to warn the power of fire with great haste and not to allow it to ignite. And this illness is the cause of many evils. It overthrows entire houses, breaks up old associations, and in a short and short time produces the most disappointing cases. "The very movement of anger," it is said, "is a fall for man" (Sir. 1:22). Therefore, let us not leave this beast unrestrained, but let us throw a strong bridle over it on all sides – the fear of the future judgment. If a friend offends you, or one of your neighbors grieves you, then think about your sins against God, and that by your meekness in relation to them you will propitiate for yourself even that (future) judgment – it is said: "Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37) – and anger will immediately flee (from you). At the same time, pay attention also to when you, being enraged, restrained yourself, and when you were carried away by passion; compare the two times, and you will receive a significant correction from this. Tell me, when you praise yourself, is it when you have been overcome (by anger) or when you have conquered? Is it not precisely then (when we are carried away by anger) that we most blame ourselves and are ashamed, even though no one rebukes us, and come to repentance for our words and deeds? And when we overcome anger, do we not then rejoice and boast as overcomers? Victory over anger does not consist in repaying offense in the same way (this is not a victory, but a complete defeat), but in meekly enduring insults and reproaches. Not to do, but to endure evil, is the true advantage. Therefore, do not say in anger: "Behold, I will rise, behold, I will attack him." Do not resist those who urge you to tame your anger, do not say: "I will not tolerate so-and-so laughing at me." And he never laughs at you, except when you arm yourself with him. And if he laughs at you even then, he will only do it in madness. But you, when you are victorious, do not seek glory from fools, but consider it sufficient for you to have glory from men of understanding. But why do I bring you out to a small and insignificant spectacle made up of people? Look immediately to God, and He will praise you. And he who is glorified by Him should not seek honor from men. Human honor is often dependent on people's hostility and enmity, and, in any case, does not bring any benefit. On the contrary, the judgment of God is alien to such a mood and brings great benefit to the one who is glorified by God. And so, it is to this glory that we will strive.

5. Do you want to know what a great evil anger is? Stand in the square when others are quarreling there. You can't see this ugliness in yourself like that, because your mind is darkened in anger and your consciousness is lost, like in drunken people. But when you have purified yourself from this passion, then observe yourself in others, for at that time your reason is not damaged. Therefore, look at the surrounding crowd, and in the midst of it at the people who are rampaging in anger, like those who are possessed. When rage, kindled in the chest, rises and becomes hardened, then the lips breathe fire, the eyes emit fire, the whole face swells, the arms stretch out in disorder, the legs jump ridiculously and jump on those who hold them. They are no different from the irritated and the insane, doing everything unconscious, and they are not even different from wild donkeys when they beat and bite each other. Truly, an irritated person is ugly. Later, when after this ridiculous sight they return home and come to their senses, they will have even greater sorrow and fear, imagining who was present at their quarrel. Like madmen, who did not see those present before, then, when they regain consciousness, they reason whether their friends were spectators, or their enemies and enemies. They are equally afraid of both: the first, because they will reproach them and increase their shame; and the second, because they will rejoice in their shame. And if they happen to inflict wounds on each other, then the gravest fear is that something even worse may happen to the wounded person, lest, for example, illness from wounds bring him death, or lest an incurable tumor arise and endanger his life. "And what was the need for me to quarrel? What kind of abuse and quarrels? They'll disappear completely." And so they curse all those accidental circumstances that served as a reason for the quarrel. And the most foolish of them blame the evil demons and the evil hour for the incident. But this does not come from an evil hour, because there is never an evil hour, and it does not come from an evil demon, but from the malice of those who are carried away by anger. They themselves attract demons, and bring all kinds of evil upon themselves. But the heart, someone will say, is indignant and tormented by insults. That is why I exalt those who tame this terrible beast. If we wish, we can reflect this passion from ourselves. Why are we not subjected to this passion when we are reproached by those in authority? Is it not because fear arises in us (in this case), which is equivalent to this passion, which strikes us and does not even allow anger to arise in us? Why do slaves, receiving thousands of reproaches from us, endure all this in silence? Is it not because the same bonds are imposed on them? In the same way, think about the fear of God, about the fact that God Himself then humiliates you, commanding you to be silent, and you will bear everything meekly. Say to the assailant against you, What can I do to you? Someone else is holding my hand and my tongue. And this thought will impel both you and him to prudence. Sometimes because of people we endure even unbearable offenses, and say to our offenders: "It was not you, but so-and-so who insulted me." Shall we not even have such reverence for God? What will be the justification for us? And so, let us say to our souls: God now despises us, God who restrains our hands; let us not be brave, and let not God be less honorable to us than men. Are you horrified by these words? But I wish that you should be afraid not only of words, but also of deeds. God has commanded us not only to endure being choked, but also to be willing to endure anything worse. On the contrary, we resist with such effort that not only are we not ready for suffering, but we try to avenge ourselves, and often we are even the first to raise unrighteous hands; we consider ourselves humiliated if we do not repay in kind. It is strange that we consider ourselves victorious, while we suffer extreme defeat and are prostrated; Receiving countless blows from the devil, we think that we overcome him. And so, I beseech you, let us know this kind of victory, and let us conquer in this way. To suffer is to be crowned. If we wish to be glorified by God, let us observe not the customs of worldly feats, but the law given by God for spiritual feats; let us endure all things with longsuffering. In this way we will conquer those who dispute with us, and all that is in this world, and we will receive the promised blessings, through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom the Father and the Holy Spirit have not been able to do so. Glory, power, honor in the Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, heretic of the sixth century.

[2] Thus the Arians said of the Son of God.

[3] Here St. Chrysostom has in mind the expression of the Arians about the Son of God: "it was when He was not."

[4] In the original text of the Gospel: "ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος". First: "τον θεον" refers to the Father; and the last: "θεος" - to the Son. The Arians and Anomoeans therefore objected that the Son does not have one divine nature with the Father.

[5] Here the name of God is repeated twice without a member.

CONVERSATION 5

"All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3).

1. Moses, at the beginning of the Genesis of the Old Testament, tells us about sensible objects and enumerates them in detail. Having said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," he then adds that there was light, firmament,1 the nature of the stars, all kinds of animals, and all the rest; Let us not dwell on each creation, so as not to delay. And the Evangelist John, encapsulating everything in one utterance, embraces with it both everything visible and that which is above the visible. Leaving what is known to his listeners, and elevating his thought to higher objects and embracing all creativity – in general, he speaks not of creatures, but of the Creator, Who produced everything from non-existence into being. Thus Moses touches only the smaller part of the creation (since he has told us nothing about the invisible powers), and to that he confines himself. And the Evangelist, hastening to ascend to the Creator Himself, justly bypasses all the rest, and Moses concludes what was said, as well as what was silent, in one short saying: "All things were made through Him." But lest you think that he speaks only of what is also said by Moses, he adds: "And without Him nothing was made that was made," i.e., nothing created, seen, or contemplated by the mind received existence except by the power of the Son. After the word "nothing" we will not put an end to it, as heretics do. They, wishing to prove that the Holy Spirit. is a creature, it is read thus: "That which was made, in him was life" (v. 4). But there is no point in such reading. And, in the first place, it was inappropriate to mention the Spirit here; and if the Evangelist wanted to mention, then why did he use such a vague expression about Him? And how can we see what is said about the Spirit? Otherwise, from this exposition of the words, we may conclude that it was not the Spirit, but the Son, who came into being through himself. But stop at this saying, so that it does not pass you by. Let us read as they did; In this way, the absurdity will be even more obvious to us: "That which was made, in him was life." They say that here the "life" is called the Spirit. But, as we can see, this very "life" is at the same time "light," because the Evangelist adds: "And the life was the light of men" (v. 4). Thus, in their opinion, "and the light of men" in the Evangelist means the Spirit. What then? When the Evangelist continues: "There was a man sent from God; in order to bear witness to the Light" (v. 6, 7), they must already admit that the Spirit is also spoken of here. Whoever is above called the Word, is afterwards called God, life and light. Life, says the Evangelist, was the Word, and this same life was light. Thus, if the Word was "life" and the Word "was made flesh," then the life also "became flesh," and we have seen his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father. Consequently, as soon as they say that the Spirit is here called "life," see what absurdities arise from this: it follows that it is not the Son who was incarnate, but the Spirit, and that the Spirit is the only-begotten Son. And if this is not so, then, avoiding this absurdity, they can fall into an even greater absurdity in their reading. If they agree that the Son is spoken of here, and yet do not punctuate us, and do not read as we do, they will have to say that the Son came from himself, for if the Word is "life," and "that which was made was in him was life," then, as a result of their reading, the Word came from itself and through itself. Further, the Evangelist adds, among other things: "And we saw His glory, the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father." Behold, according to their reading, the Holy Spirit also becomes the only-begotten Son, because all this narration refers to one and the same person. Do you see how a thought is perverted when it deviates from the truth, and how many absurdities arise from this? So, what then? Is not the Spirit light, you say? Of course, it is light; but it is not spoken of Him here. Thus God is called spirit, i.e., incorporeal; but not everywhere where the spirit is spoken of, of course, God. And why are you surprised if we say this about the Father? Nor will we assert about the Comforter that wherever the spirit is spoken of, the Comforter is invariably there. Although this is His most distinctive name, it is not necessary to understand the Comforter wherever the word "spirit" occurs. Likewise, Christ is called "the power of God" and "the wisdom of God"; but not everywhere where the power and wisdom of God is spoken of, Christ is understood. So it is here: although the Spirit enlightens, now the Evangelist does not speak of the Spirit. However, when we bring them to such absurdities, they again try to oppose the truth, and still cling to their reading: "What was made, in him was life," they explain it in such a way that all created things were life. What then? And the plague of the Sodomites, and the flood, and hell, and the like, are all these life? But we, they say, mean creation. But what we have now indicated also applies to creation, of course. However, in order to fully expose them, let us ask them: Tell me, is the tree life? Stone – life? Are these soulless and immovable objects life? And man is a perfect life? Who will say that? Man is not an original life, but only a being who participates in life.

2. But look here too, what absurdities again. Let us draw conclusions in the same order in order to find out all the nonsense. Thus they ascribe to the Spirit that which is never in the least proper to Him. And having begun with this, they already attribute to people what they think is really said about the Spirit. Let's consider this reading again. The creature is here called life; therefore, it is also light, and it was about it that John came to bear witness. Why is he not the light himself? It is said, "He was not light." But he was one of the creatures, wasn't he? Why is it not light? How was he "in the world, and the world was made through him"? Was the creature in the creature, and the creature came through the creature? How is it that "the world did not know Him"? Did the creature not know the creature? "And to those who received Him He gave power to become children of God" (v. 12). But enough laughter; I leave it to you to follow all these monstrous thoughts for yourself, lest it be thought that I have said this merely for amusement, and so as not to waste time. If those words are not spoken of the Spirit (as indeed they have not been spoken, and as I have already shown), nor are they spoken of the creature, and yet they still hold to their reading, then at last there must come a still more absurd consequence from this, that, as we have said before, the Son came into being through Himself. If the "true light" is the Son, and this light is both "life" and the life was in Himself, then from their reading such a conclusion is necessary. Let us, therefore, leave it and turn to a proper reading and explanation. What is the correct reading? With the words, "That which was made," it is necessary to end the previous thought, and then to begin the following words: "In Him was life." These words mean the same as the previous ones: "Without Him nothing was made that was made." Of all that exists, he says, nothing happened without Him. Do you see how, with this brief addition, the Evangelist removes all the inconsistencies that may arise? Having said: "Without Him was nothing made" and adding: "That which was made," he thus embraced all creatures, even intelligible ones, and excluded from them the Holy Spirit. Spirit. Such an addition was necessary, so that in response to his words, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made," someone would say, "If all things came through Him, then also through Him came the Spirit." I, he says, said that everything that was created came through Him, whether it be invisible, or incorporeal, or heavenly. That is why I did not simply say, "everything," but "all that was made," that is, all created things. But the Spirit is not created. Do you see how accurate the teaching is? The Evangelist only mentioned the creation of visible creatures, as Moses had already taught about it; The Evangelist, who have already been instructed in this subject, raises people to higher creatures, i.e., incorporeal and invisible, and completely excludes the Holy Spirit from their number. Paul, inspired by grace, said in a similar way: "For by Him all things were created" (Col. 1:16). Here again the same exactness, because the same Spirit ruled Paul's soul. And so, lest anyone exclude anything created from God's creation, since there are invisible creatures, and on the other hand, lest anyone include the Comforter among them, Paul, bypassing the sensual and well-known creatures, enumerates the creatures of heaven and says: "Thrones, dominions, principalities, powers" (Col. 1:16). The particle "li" expresses nothing else, as well as those words: "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And if it seems to you that the expression, "through Him," as it were, diminishes His dignity, then listen to what Paul says: "In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands" (Hebrews 1:10). Thus, what is said in the prophet (Psalm 101:26) about the Father as the Creator, Paul speaks of the Son, depicting Him as the Creator, and not as if He had the meaning of a purely servant being. And if it is said here, "through Him," it is so expressed only so that someone would not consider the Son unborn. But that in relation to creation belongs to Him a dignity no less than the Father, listen to Him Himself: "As the Father," says He, "raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). Thus, if in the Old Testament it is said of the Son: "In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst found the earth," then His dignity as Creator is obvious. But if you say that the prophet spoke these words about the Father proper, and Paul only ascribed to the Son what was said about the Father, then the same thing happens. And Paul would not have dared to attribute this to the Son, if he had not been absolutely sure of the equality of honor (of the Father and the Son). It would be extremely bold to attribute what belongs to nature, incomparable with anything, to a nature that is smaller and subordinate.