6. It's about prayer. But since the devil has invented, in addition to negligence in prayer, some other very deplorable evil, it is necessary to block this entrance for him as well.

Therefore, that this may not be the case, and that the loss of money may not in time extinguish the zeal for listening, if many should be subjected to it, I beseech and persuade you all, that no one should enter here with gold; Your diligence in listening should not be an excuse for them to commit an evil deed, and the pleasure you derive from being here should not be poisoned by the theft of money. The devil did not arrange this to make you poor, but so that the loss of money, grieving you grievously, would distract you from zeal to listening. In the same way, he deprived Job of all his possessions, not in order to make him poor, but in order to divert him from godliness. The devil is not concerned with taking away money (he knows that money is nothing), but with drawing the soul into sin by depriving him of money; and if he is not able to do this, he will consider himself unsuccessful in anything. When, therefore, he robs thee of gold, either by means of predators, or in some other way, thou, beloved, knowing his intention, glorify the Lord; then you will gain more than you have lost, and you will strike the enemy a double blow, because you were not grieved, and because you gave thanks (to God).

It was the same with Job. When the devil, having taken away his property and struck his body, saw him offering thanksgiving (to God), he did not dare to approach any more, but suffered a shameful and decisive defeat and retreated, making the ascetic of God more glorious.

Thou knowest that Job, too, after being crowned with all the crowns of patience and courage, received doubly all that was lost. And you will receive everything, not twice or three times, but a hundred times more, if you endure misfortune courageously and inherit eternal life, which may we all be vouchsafed to receive, through the grace and love of humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

AGAINST ANOMEE

FIFTH WORD.

IF anyone intends to speak on a vast subject, which requires lengthy reasoning, and is fully explained, not in one, two, or three days, but in a longer time, he must, in my opinion, offer the teaching to the mind of the hearers, not all at once and at once, but divide the whole into many parts, and through such fragmentation make the burden of speech light and acceptable. Our tongue, and hearing, and each of our senses have their own measure, laws, and limits assigned to them, and if anyone ever decides to transgress these limits of the senses, he is deprived of their inherent power. What is more pleasant than light, tell me? What is more joyful than the sun's rays? However, this pleasant and joyful becomes unpleasant and burdensome when it affects our eyes excessively. For this reason God determined that after the day we should follow the night, so that it, accepting our weary eyes, would close its eyelids, put our pupils to sleep, calm our weakened visual power, and make it more capable of contemplating the next day. Therefore waking and sleep, which are opposite to each other, are equally pleasant in moderation, and when we call light pleasant, we also call sleep pleasant, which separates us from light. Thus, the immoderate is always painful and unpleasant, and the moderate is pleasant, useful and pleasant to us. For this reason, I also, having continued my discourse on the incomprehensible for the fourth or fifth day, and today I do not intend to finish it, but, having offered you, beloved, a moderate discourse on this, I think again to give rest to your mind. What did we dwell on earlier? It is necessary to continue it from that point; because the teaching follows in a continuous order. Then we said that the son of thunder said: "No one has ever seen God; The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath manifested" (John 1:18). Today it is necessary to find out where the Only-begotten Son of God Himself confessed this. Jesus "said" to the Jews, says the Evangelist, "and answered, 'Not that any man has seen the Father, except Him who is of God; He saw the Father" (John 6:43,46). Here again He calls knowledge "seeing." He did not simply say, "No man knoweth the Father," and was silent, lest any one should think that this was spoken only of men; but, wishing to show that neither angels, nor archangels, nor higher powers (do not know the Father), He explained this by addition; for when He said, "Not that any man has seen the Father," He added, "Except Him who is of God; He saw the Father." If He had said simply, "No one," many of the listeners might have thought that this was only about our race; and now, having said, "no one," and adding, "only" the Son, by this addition of the Only-begotten, He has excluded all creation. Is it possible, it will be said, that He excluded the Holy Spirit as well? No, because the Spirit is not part of creation. The word "nobody" is always used to exclude only one creature. In the same way, when the Father is spoken of, the Son is not excluded, and when the Son is spoken of, the Spirit is not excluded. And in order to show here that the word "no one" is spoken not to exclude the Spirit, but to remove creation, let us hear how Paul speaks of the same knowledge that is attributed to the Son alone in his conversation with the Corinthians. What does he say? "For who among men knoweth what is in a man, except the spirit of man that dwelleth in him? In the same way, no man knoweth the things of God, save the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11). Just as here the word "no one" excludes the Son, so the word "no one" spoken by Christ does not exclude the Holy Spirit. Hence the truth of what has been said is obvious. If the Spirit were excluded in the words "no one" except Him who is of God, then Paul would have said in vain that just as man knows what is in himself, so the Holy Spirit knows exactly what is in God. The word "one" is used in the same sense, it has the same meaning and force. See: "one," says the Apostle, "God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things, and we in Him" (1 Cor. 8:6). If calling the Father "one God" excludes the Son from the Godhead, then calling the Son "one Lord" excludes the Father from dominion; but the Father is not excluded from the dominion by the word, "one Lord Jesus Christ," and consequently the Son is not excluded from the Divinity by the words, "one God the Father."

2. But if it is said again that the Father is called "one God" because the Son, though God, is not such a God as the Father; then from the very propositions which the heretics admit (and we would not say this), it would follow that the Son is called "one Lord" because the Father, although there is also a Lord, is not such a Lord as the Son. But if the latter is impious, then the former is also unfounded. On the contrary, as the expression, "there is one Lord," it does not exclude the Father from true dominion, nor does it ascribe dominion to the Son alone; so the expression, "One God" does not exclude the Son from the true, essential, and perfect Godhead, nor does it show that it belongs to the Father alone. And that the Son is God and the same God as the Father, while remaining the Son, is evident from the addition itself. If the name "God" belonged only to the Father, and could not indicate to us any other Hypostasis than the one unborn and first Hypostasis, of which alone it would be a proper and distinctive name, the word "Father" would be added unnecessarily; then it would be enough to say "there is one God," and we would understand who is being spoken. But since the name "God" is common to the Father and the Son, and by saying, "One God," Paul would not have defined of whom he spoke, he had to add, "Father," to show that he was speaking of the first and unborn Hypostasis, since the name "God" could not have indicated it, because it is common in the Father with the Son. Some of these names are general, and others are proper; the general ones are used to show the indifference of the being, and the proper ones are used to signify the property of the Hypostases. The names "Father" and "Son" are the proper names of each Hypostasis; and the names "God" and "Lord" are common. And so, having put the general name "one God," the Apostle had to add his own name, so that you would know of whom he was speaking and so that we would not fall into the madness of the (heretic) Sabellius. And that the name "God" is not greater than the name "Lord," and the name "Lord" is not less than the name "God," is evident from the following. Throughout the Old Testament, the Father is constantly called Lord. "The Lord thy God," it is said, "the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4); and again: "Fear the Lord thy God, and Him [alone] shalt thou serve" (Deuteronomy 6:13); and again: "Great is our Lord, and great is [His] might, and His understanding is immeasurable" (Psalm 146:5); and again: "And let them know that Thou, whose name alone is the Lord, the Most High over all the earth" (Psalm 82:19). And if the name "Lord" were less than the name "God" and unworthy of this being, then it would not be necessary to say: "That they may know that You, whose only name is Lord." Likewise, if the name "God" were greater and more honorable than the name "Lord," then it would not be proper for the Son, who in their opinion is less than the Father, to be called by a name belonging to the Father, such as would be the proper name of the Father alone. But this is not so, not so. And the Son is no less than the Father, and the name "Lord" is not inferior to the name "God." For this reason the Scriptures use these names indifferently both about the Father and about the Son. You have heard that the Father is called Lord; now we will show you that the Son is also called God. "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means, God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23). Do you see that the name "Lord" belongs to the Father, and the name "God" belongs to the Son? As it is said there: "And let it be known that You, whose only name is the Lord"; so it is said here: "They shall call His name Immanuel." And again: "For unto us a child is born, a son is given unto us; and they shall call his name Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Consider the prudence and spiritual wisdom of the prophets. In order not to suggest that they are speaking of the Father, by simply saying "God," they first mention the economy, since, of course, the Father was not born of a Virgin and was a child. And another prophet speaks of Him in the same way: "This is our God, and no one else can compare with Him" (Baruch 3:36). But of whom is he saying this? Is it not about the Father? No; for he, too, listen to how he mentions the economy. Having said, "This is our God, and no one else can be compared to Him," he added, "He found all the ways of wisdom, and gave it to His servant Jacob, and to His beloved Israel: After that He appeared on the earth, and conversed among men" (Baruch 3:37-38). And Paul says: "And of them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever, Amen" (Romans 9:5); and again: "No fornicator, or unclean, or covetous, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Ephesians 5:5); and again: "the manifestations of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). John also calls Him the same, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

3. So, it will be said, but show also those passages where the Scriptures, mentioning the Son together with the Father, call the Father Lord. And I will show not only this, but also that the Scriptures call the Father Lord and the Son Lord, and also call the Father God and the Son God, putting both names together. Where can you find it? Christ, once conversing with the Jews, said: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He? And they said to him, David. He said to them, "How then does David, by inspiration, call Him Lord, when he says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand" (Matt. 22:42-44)? Here is the Lord and the Lord. Do you want to know where the Scriptures, speaking of the Father together with the Son, call them God and God? Listen to the prophet David and the apostle Paul, who show us this. "Thy throne, O God, endureth for ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore hast thou anointed thee, O God, thy God, with the oil of joy more than thy fellow-partakers" (Psalm 44:7-8). And Paul also gave this testimony in the words: "Of the angels it is said, Thou makest by Thy angels spirits, and by Thy ministers a flaming fire. But of the Son, Thy throne, O God, endureth for ever and ever" (Hebrews 1:7-8). But it will be said, why, in the passage mentioned above (1 Cor. 8:6), Paul called the Father God, and the Son Lord? There he did this not in vain and not without reason, but because he had spoken to the pagans who suffered from polytheism. Lest they be able to say to him, "In accusing us of acknowledging many gods and many masters, you yourself are subject to the same accusation when you speak of gods and not of God; therefore Paul, condescending to their weakness, calls the Son by another name, having the same power. And that this is true, for the sake of conviction I will read this passage higher, and you will clearly see that what I have said is not my guess. "Of things sacrificed to idols we know, because we all have knowledge: but knowledge puffs up, and love edifies: concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols we know that the idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but the One" (1 Cor. 8:1, 4). Do you see that he says this to those who recognized many gods? "For though there be so-called gods, either in heaven or on earth" (again he rebels against them), "for there are many gods and many lords," i.e., the so-called gods; "but we have one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things, and we in Him" (1 Cor. 8:5-6). For this reason he added the word "one," so that they would not think that polytheism was being introduced again; he called the Father "one God," not excluding the Son from the Godhead, just as he called the Son "one Lord," not excluding the Father from the Lordship, but correcting the defect of his hearers, and not wishing to give them any cause for error. This was also the reason why the prophets did not clearly and openly, but obscure and rarely proclaim to the Jews about the Son of God. As soon as they were delivered from the polytheistic error, the Jews would again be subjected to the same disease, if they again heard about God and God. For this reason the prophets everywhere incessantly say that God "is the Lord God, [and] there is not yet besides Him" (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isa. 45:5, 21), not denying the Son - let it not be - but wishing to heal the infirmity of the Jews and divert them from the thought of many and imaginary gods. Therefore, when you hear the words: "One and there is not yet Him besides Him" and other similar things, do not despise the glory of the Trinity, but from these expressions conclude about the distance between Her and creation; for in another place it is said, "Whosoever hath understood the spirit of the Lord" (Isa. 40:13. Rom. 11:34)? And that here also understanding is not denied either in the Son or in the Spirit, is explained by what has already been said before, when we quoted as a witness the words: "For who among men knoweth what is in a man, except the spirit of man that dwelleth in him? In the same way, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11): Likewise, Christ says: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; and no man knoweth the Father, save the Son" (Matt. 11:27). So also in the following words: "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is of God; He saw the Father" (John 6:46). Having said that he knows the Father with certainty, Christ at the same time gave the reason why He knows. What is this reason? Being from Him; and the proof of being from Him is again that He knows the Father with exactness; for therefore He knows the Father perfectly, because He has existence from Him; and the sign of being from Him is the perfect knowledge of Him. No being can know the supreme being well, even if there is a small distance between them. Listen to what the prophet says about the angels and the human race, how great is the difference between them. Having said: "That [is] a man, that Thou rememberest him, and the son of man, that Thou visitest him," he added: "Thou hast humbled him not much before the angels" (Psalm 8:5-6). And yet, since there is undoubtedly a certain distance between them, though a small one, we do not know with certainty the essence of the angels, and cannot know it, no matter how much we meditate on it.

4. But what do I say about angels, when we do not know well, or rather, do not even know the essence of our soul? And if they argue that they know it, then ask what the soul is in essence: is it air, or breath, or wind, or fire? They will say that the soul is none of these things, because they are all corporeal, and the soul is incorporeal. Do they therefore know neither the angels nor their own souls, but claim to know with certainty the Lord and Creator of all things? What could be worse than such madness? But why do I say: what is the soul in essence? It is not even possible to say how it is in our body. What can be said about this? Is it that it extends over the composition of the body? But this is ridiculous; because this is proper to bodies; but this does not apply to the soul, as is evident from the fact that often even after the hands and feet are cut off, it remains intact and is not in the least reduced by the distortion of the body. Or is it not in the whole body, but concentrated in some part of it? In such a case, the other parts must necessarily be dead; for that which is soulless is utterly dead. But this cannot be said either. Thus, we know that the soul exists in our body, but we do not know how it exists. God hid the knowledge of it from us in order to shut our mouths more strongly, to restrain us and force us to remain below, and not to be curious and not to investigate what is above us. However, in order that we may not prove this by considerations of reason, we will again turn to the Scriptures. "Not that anyone has seen the Father," says (the Lord), "except Him who is of God; He saw the Father" (John 6:46). What of this? - it will be said, - this saying does not yet ascribe perfect knowledge to the Son. That the creature does not know the Father He expressed in the words, "Not that any man has seen the Father," and that the Son knows Him, He also expressed in the addition, "Except Him who is of God; He saw the Father"; but that he knows the Father perfectly and as He knows Himself, this has not yet been proved. It may be thought that it will be said that neither creature nor Son fully knows Him, and that the Son, although He has a clearer conception of the Father than the creature, is also imperfect. That He sees the Father as He is, and knows Him, He said; and that He knows Him perfectly and as He knows Himself, this has not yet been declared. But do you want me to prove this also by the Scriptures, and precisely by the saying of Christ Himself? Let us listen to what He says to the Jews: "As the Father knows Me, so also I know the Father" (John 10:15). What other knowledge do you want more perfect than this? Ask the objector: Does the Father know the Son perfectly, and does He have all knowledge of Him, so that nothing is hidden from Him concerning the Son, but "To Him" belongs the complete knowledge? Yes, he will say. Therefore, when you hear that the Son also knows the Father as He knows the Son, seek nothing more, when the knowledge of them is exactly the same. He expresses the same thing in another place, when He says: "No one knows the Son except the Father; and the Father knoweth no man but the Son, and to whom the Son willeth to reveal" (Matt. 11:27). And He reveals about the Father not as much as He Himself knows, but as much as we contain. Not only Christ does this, but even Paul, who says to his disciples: "And I could not speak to you, brethren, as to spiritual ones, but as to carnal ones, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, and not with food, for you were not yet able, and even now you are not able, because you are still carnal (1 Cor. 3:1-2). But, it will be said, he said this only to the Corinthians. And what if I prove that he knew something else that no man knew, and that he died knowing it alone of all men? Where is it said? In the Epistle to the Corinthians, where he himself says: "And I heard words that cannot be uttered to man" (2 Cor. 12:4). And yet, the same one who heard then, "and heard ineffable words that cannot be told to man," had private knowledge and much less of the future. He Himself, having said this, said this also: "We know in part, and prophesy in part," and again: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child," and again: "Now we see as through a [dark] glass, divinationly, then face to face" (1 Cor. 13:9, 11, 12). From this all the falsehood of the heretics is revealed to us; If the being itself is unknown, not in what it exists, but in what it is, then it would be extremely insane to give it a name. Even if it were known and known, it would not be safe for us to give a name to the being of the Lord on our own behalf. If Paul did not dare to give names to the powers above, but after saying that God had set Christ "above all principality, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come" (Ephesians 1:21), and having taught us that there are names for powers that we will know only in the future, he did not dare to replace them with others himself, and even to examine them, then what forgiveness, or justification, can be vouchsafed to those who dare to act in this way in relation to the essence of the Lord? If the very essence (of God) is unknown, then it is necessary to distance oneself from them as from madmen. It is known that God is not begotten; and that this name is the name of His being, no prophet has said, no apostle, no evangelist has revealed. And that's understandable, because without knowing the creature itself, how could they call it by name?

5. But what do I say of the divine Scriptures, when this absurdity is so evident and the iniquity so great, that even the heathen, who have deviated from the truth, have never dared to say anything of the kind? And none of them dared to define the Divine Being and express it by one name.

Tell me, If two men were disputing among themselves about the knowledge of the magnitude of the heavens, and one of them said that it was impossible for the human eye to grasp it, and the other asserted that the whole heaven could be measured by a span of the hand, to which of them would we attribute the knowledge of the magnitude of the heavens, or to him who claims to know how many spans there are in it? Or to the one who admits his ignorance? If, however, he who retreats before the magnitude of heaven turns out to know more of that magnitude, how can we not treat God with the same reverence? Isn't this extreme madness? All that is required of us is to know that God exists, and not to investigate His essence, as Paul says: "It is necessary that he that cometh unto God should believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6). In the same way, the prophet, condemning some in wickedness, condemns not for ignorance of "what" God is, but for not acknowledging that God "exists," he says, "foolish in his heart: "there is no God" (Psalm 13:1). If, then, this fool is found to be wicked, not because he does not know the essence of God, but because he does not acknowledge the existence of God, then it is sufficient for godliness to acknowledge that God "exists." But they have invented some other objection. What is it? It is said, they say, that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). But is this, tell me, what determines His essence? Who can admit this, if he has approached the doors of the divine Scriptures in any way? On this basis it might be said that God is fire; just as it is written that God is spirit, so it is written that "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29); and in another place, that He is "the fountain of living water" (Jeremiah 2:13); and not only could it be said that God is spirit, source, and fire, but also soul, wind, and human mind, and many other things that are much more irrelevant; There is no need to enumerate everything and imitate their madness. The name "spirit" means many things; for example, our soul, as Paul says: "to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved" (1 Cor. 5:5); and the wind, as the prophet says: "with the east wind it broke" them (Psalm 47:8). The spiritual gift is also called by the same name: "the very spirit," says the Apostle: "bears witness to our spirit" (Rom. 8:16); and again: "I will pray in the spirit, I will pray also with the mind" (1 Cor. 14:15). Anger is also called, as Isaiah says: "Did you not think with a cruel spirit to kill them" (Isaiah 27:8 – Glory)? God's help is also called the Spirit: "The breath of our life, the anointed of the Lord" (Lamentations 4:20). All this, in their opinion, would be God with us, and would be made up of all this. But in order that we may not talk idlely, exposing what does not need to be refuted, let us now conclude our speech against them and turn entirely to prayer; and the more wickedness they do, the more we shall beseech and pray for them, that they may some day give up their folly. "For this is good, and pleasing to our Saviour God, who wills that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

6. Therefore, let us not cease to pray for them. Prayer is a great weapon, an inexhaustible treasure, a wealth never inexhaustible, a serene harbor, the foundation of tranquility; prayer is the root, source and mother of innumerable blessings and is more powerful than royal power. Sometimes it happens that a person clothed with a diadem suffers from fever and lies on his bed in inflammation, and around him stand doctors, spearmen, servants, military commanders, but neither the skill of doctors, nor the presence of friends, nor the helpfulness of slaves, nor the multitude of medicines, nor the preciousness of adornment, nor the abundance of wealth, nor anything else human can alleviate the illness that has befallen him. But if someone who has boldness before God enters, and only touches his body, and offers a pure prayer for him, then all the sickness disappears, and thus, what wealth, a multitude of servants, experienced skill and the greatness of royal power could not do, then often the prayer of one poor and needy person could not do. However, I am not talking about a prayer that is empty and scattered, but is offered up with zeal, from a sorrowful soul and a broken heart.

And in order for you to be convinced that prayers made in tribulation can be heard by God more quickly, listen to what the prophet says: "I cried to the Lord in my tribulation, and He heard me" (Psalm 119:1). Let us stir up our conscience, let us grieve the soul with the remembrance of sins, let us grieve not in order to constrain it, but in order to help it be heard, so that it may be sober, awake and reach to the very heavens. Nothing drives away carelessness and absent-mindedness so much as sorrow and sorrow; it concentrates the soul from everywhere and turns it to itself. Whoever grieves and prays in this way can experience great pleasure in his soul after prayer. As thickened clouds first make the air gloomy, and when they emit abundant rain and pour out all the moisture, they leave the air pure and bright; In the same way, sorrow, while it accumulates inside, darkens our mind, and when it is resolved by the words of prayer and the tears associated with it, and goes out from within, it leaves great clarity in the soul, since God's help enters the soul of the praying person like a ray. Meanwhile, what is the cold excuse for many? I have no boldness, they say, I am ashamed and cannot open my mouth. This is satanic modesty, this is a cover for carelessness; by this the devil wants to shut the doors for you that lead to God. Do you have no boldness? But great boldness, great benefit, consists precisely in considering oneself as having no boldness; as well as shame and extreme danger - to consider oneself to have boldness. If you have many merits and do not know anything bad about yourself, but consider yourself to have boldness, then all your prayer is not valid; but if you bear a great burden of sins in your conscience and at the same time acknowledge yourself to be the last of all, then you will have great boldness before God, although there is still no humility in the fact that a sinner should consider himself a sinner. Humility consists in not thinking anything great about oneself, being aware of many great things about oneself, so that, being like Paul and being able to say: "I know nothing about myself," at the same time say: "But by this I am not justified" (1 Cor. 4:4), and again: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first" (1 Tim. 1:15). This is what humility consists of, when one, being high in merit, humbles himself in his mind. However, God, in His ineffable love for mankind, does not reject from Himself and accepts not only those who are humble-minded, but also those who sincerely confess their sins - He is merciful and good even to such people.