Беседа 38

Against the Manichaeans. - Paul's humility. – Advantages of poverty. 1 Corinthians 15:1–2. I remind you, brethren, of the Gospel which I preached to you, which you received, in which you have stood, and by which you are saved, if you keep what was taught as I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 1. Having finished his speech about spiritual (gifts), the apostle moves on to the most important subject, to the doctrine of the resurrection, because (the Corinthians) were very weak in this regard. As in bodies, when fever touches the most basic parts of it, i.e. nerves, veins and the first elements, evil becomes incurable if you do not apply great care, and here a similar danger was imminent, because evil extended to the very foundations of piety. That is why Paul takes great care; he no longer needed to talk about everyday matters, not about the fact that one fell into adultery, another into greed, another covered his head, but about the most important good, because (the Corinthians) disagreed regarding the resurrection itself. Since all our hope lies in it, the devil strongly rebelled against it, and sometimes completely rejected the resurrection, and sometimes said that it had already happened. In his letter to Timothy, Paul called this ungodly teaching gangrene and identified its spreaders: “And their word will spread like cancer. Such are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and are destroying the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17-18). Sometimes they said this, and sometimes they said that the body would not be resurrected, and that resurrection was the purification of the soul. Such a teaching was instilled in them by an evil demon, wanting not only to reject the resurrection, but also to represent as a fable everything that was accomplished for us. If they believed that there is no resurrection of bodies, then little by little he would convince that Christ was not resurrected, and from here, extending further, he would conclude that (Christ) did not come and did not do what He did. Such is the wickedness of the devil! Therefore, Paul calls his actions wiles (Eph. 6:11), since he does not directly reveal what he wants to do, so as not to be exposed, but, taking on a certain guise, he produces something else, just as an insidious enemy, having approached the city and the walls, secretly digs in from below, so as not to be noticed and succeed in his enterprise. But this wonderful and great man always opened his nets and pursued his evil machinations: “so that Satan would not harm us, for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). So here too he reveals all his cunning, shows all his cunning, reveals all his intentions and pursues everything with great diligence; That’s why he talks about this subject after others, because it is the most important and is everything for us. And look at the wisdom (of the apostle): he confirms his own in advance, and then, continuing his speech, he strongly stops the lips of those outside (the pagans). He confirms his own not with rational proofs, but by pointing to events, to what they themselves have already accepted and believed as real. This was very amazing and enough to convince them: after all, if they did not begin to believe after that, they would no longer believe in Paul, but in themselves, this would also serve to condemn them, who once accepted and then retreated. That is why he begins his speech from here, showing that there is no need for other witnesses to prove the truth of his words, except for themselves, who fall into error. But in order for what I said to be clearer, it is necessary to listen to the words themselves (of the apostle). What are these (words)? “I remind you,” he says, “brothers, of the Gospel that I preached to you.” Do you see how meekly he begins? Do you see how at the very beginning he suggests that he is not teaching anything new or strange? Anyone who speaks about something already known, but later forgotten, only reminds of it with his words. Calling them brethren, he thereby greatly confirms his words. We became brothers only through the economy of the incarnation of Christ. With this name, on the one hand, he humbles and calms them, and on the other, he reminds them of countless benefits. And the following expression also serves as confirmation. What is it? Evangelism. The essence of the gospel is that God became man, was crucified and rose again. Gabriel preached this to the Virgin; this was announced to the universe by the prophets and all the apostles. “Which you received, in which you stood, and by which you are saved, if you hold fast what was taught, as I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.” Do you see how he calls them themselves to witness his words? He does not say: what you heard, but: “accepted,” demanding from them, as it were, some kind of deposit and expressing that they were convinced to accept this not only by word, but also by deeds, signs and wonders, and therefore must firmly hold it. 2. Having recalled the past, (the apostle) further points to the present: “in which they have established themselves,” he says, warning them that they cannot reject it, even if they really wanted to. That is why at the beginning he did not say: I teach you, but: “I preached the gospel to you,” i.e. what is already known. How does he call those who waver, those who stand? He shows an appearance of ignorance, for their benefit, just as he does in relation to the Galatians, only in a different way. There it was inconvenient to show the appearance of ignorance and therefore he says differently: “all who are established in the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal. 3:10). He does not say: you mean nothing else, because their error was known and obvious, but he vouches for the future; and, although it is unknown, it (does this) in order to win them over. Here he shows the appearance of ignorance and says: “in which they established themselves”; then (reminds) the benefits: “and you will be saved if you keep what was taught as I preached to you” - therefore, the instruction now offered is only an explanation and interpretation. You, he says, do not need me to teach you the dogma itself, but to remind you of it and correct it; He says this, not wanting to suddenly shame them. What does it mean: “as I preached the gospel to you”? How, he says, did I preach to you the reality of the resurrection; that the resurrection took place, you seem to have no doubt about it; but perhaps you only want to understand what has been said more clearly; this is what I will do; and the dogma itself, as I see clearly, you contain. Further, so that after his words: “in which they are established,” they do not become careless, he again instills fear in them: “if you hold back what was taught as I preached to you, unless you believed in vain,” and thereby shows that evil concerns the main subject, that it is not about something unimportant, but about the whole faith. Here he talks about this briefly, and then, inflamed, he cries out openly and says: “if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is vain: you are still in your sins.” But in the beginning it wasn’t like that (he said), because it was more useful to move forward calmly and little by little. “For I taught you from the beginning what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). And here he does not say: I told you, or: I taught you, but again he uses the same expression: “taught you what he himself accepted.” And he also does not say: I learned, but: “accepted,” instilling two thoughts - the one that they should not introduce anything from themselves, and the one that they were convinced of the truth not only in words, but also in deeds; and thus, little by little making his words reliable, he relates everything to Christ and shows that of the dogmas there is not a single human one. What does it mean: “first taught you”? Those. in the beginning, not now. Here he points as a witness for a time and suggests that it is extremely shameful to betray faith after having believed for such a long time, and not only this, but also that dogma is necessary; that is why it was taught between the first and at the very beginning. Well, tell me, have you betrayed? But he does not explain this suddenly, but says in advance: “what he himself accepted.” What did you take? "Christ died for our sins." He does not say directly: there will be a resurrection of our bodies, but he proves this from afar and through other truths: “that,” he says, “Christ died,” and thereby lays the great foundation and unshakable support for the doctrine of the resurrection. And he doesn’t just say: “that Christ died,” although this serves as sufficient proof of the resurrection, but with the addition: “that Christ died for our sins.” However, first you need to listen to what those infected with Manichaean (heresy), enemies of the truth, rebelling against their own salvation, say about this. What are they saying? They say that Paul here calls death nothing more than remaining in sin, and resurrection - liberation from sins. Do you see how error is powerless, how it is caught in its own networks and does not require outside attack, but defeats itself? Look how these people amaze themselves with their own words. If this is exactly what death consists of, and if, as you think, Christ did not take on a body, and yet died, then it follows, according to you, that He was in sin. I affirm that He took on a body, and I say that His death was bodily; and you, rejecting this, must of necessity affirm what was said. If He was in sin, then how does He say: “Which of you will convict Me of unrighteousness?” (John 8:46), and again: “the prince of this world comes, and has nothing in Me” (John 14:30); and again: “We must fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15)? And how did He die for sinners if He Himself was in sins? He who dies for sinners must himself be sinless, because whoever is a sinner himself will die for other sinners? If Christ died for the sins of others, then He died, being himself sinless; and if He died, being sinless, then He did not die the death of sin - how could this happen to a sinless one? - but by bodily death. That’s why Paul didn’t just say: “died,” but added: “for our sins,” and thus makes them involuntarily acknowledge the bodily death (of Jesus Christ) and shows that He was sinless even before death, since one who dies for the sins of others must himself be sinless. Without stopping there, (the apostle) adds: “according to Scripture,” thereby further confirming the truth of his words and showing what kind of death he is talking about. Scripture everywhere speaks of (the death of Christ) bodily; for example, it says: “They have pierced my hands and my feet” (Ps. 21:17), and also: “They will look at Him whom they have pierced” (John 19:37). 3. We will not count separately all the other places, some of which by words, and others by the transformations contained in them, prove that Christ died in the flesh and that He died for our sins. “For the crimes,” it says (in Scripture), “my people suffered execution”; and again: “The Lord laid on Him the sins of us all”; and again: “He was wounded for our sins and tormented for our iniquities” (Is. 53:8, 6, 5). If you do not want to believe the Old Testament, then listen to John, who, crying out, clearly shows both of them, both bodily death and its cause: “behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29): listen to Paul, who says: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21); and again: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13); and again: “having taken away the strength of the principalities and powers, he authoritatively brought them to shame” (Col. 2:15); and very many other places prove that Christ’s death was physical and, moreover, for our sins. So He himself says: “And for them I consecrate Myself” (John 17:19); also: “the prince of this world is condemned” (John 16:11), and thus expresses that He died without sin. “And that He was buried” (1 Cor. 15:4). And this confirms the above idea, because burial, of course, is characteristic of the body. Here (the apostle) did not add: “according to Scripture”; although he could have, he did not add more. Why? Either because the tomb is known to everyone, both then and now, or because the word “according to Scripture” refers to everything in general. Why then does he add - “and that he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures” - and is not content with the first, said about everything in general? Because this too was unknown to many; here he points to Scripture by inspiration, instilling a wise and divine thought. Doesn't He do the same regarding death? And there the cross was known to everyone, because Christ was crucified in front of everyone, and the reason was not known to everyone; that He died, everyone knew, but that He suffered death for the sins of the universe, many did not yet know; That is why (the apostle) brings evidence from the Scriptures. However, this is already sufficiently explained by what we have said. Where in the Scriptures does it say that Christ will be buried and rise again on the third day? In the type of Jonah, which Christ himself points to when he says: “As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40); in the type of the bush in the desert: just as it burned and was not consumed, so the body (of Christ) was dead, but was not kept by death forever (Exodus 3:2-3); in the type of the serpent who was with Daniel: just as he, having accepted the food given to him by the prophet, sat down (Dan. 14:27), so hell, having received the body (of Christ), disintegrated, because the body dissolved his womb and was resurrected. If you want to hear in words what you see in types, then listen to Isaiah, who says: “He is cut off from the land of the living” (Is. 53:8); and again: “But the Lord was pleased to strike Him, and He gave Him over to torture; when His soul brings a sacrifice of propitiation, He will see long-lasting offspring, and the will of the Lord will be successfully fulfilled by His hand. He will look at the feat of His soul with contentment; through the knowledge of Him He, the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify many and bear their sins on Himself” (Is. 53:10–11); also - David, who even earlier said: “You will not leave my soul in hell, and you will not allow Your saint to see corruption” (Ps. 15:10). That is why Paul refers you to the Scriptures, so that you know that this did not happen simply and not in vain. And could it be so if so many prophets wrote and foretold this, and if Scripture, mentioning the Master’s death, nowhere speaks of sinful death, but everywhere of bodily death, and the same burial and resurrection? “and that Cephas appeared” (1 Cor. 15:5): first of all indicates the most reliable witness. “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, and some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to Jacob, and also to all the Apostles; and last of all he appeared to me, as to a certain monster” (1 Cor. 15:6–8). Having brought evidence from the Scriptures, (the apostle) adds evidence from events, after the prophets he brings the apostles and other faithful people as witnesses to the resurrection. And if by resurrection he meant liberation from sin, then it would be unnecessary to say: “appeared” to such and such; to say this is characteristic of one who proves the bodily resurrection, and not of one who talks about liberation from sin. 4. That is why he said more than once: “he appeared,” although it was enough to use this expression once about everyone in general, but he repeats it two and three times and about almost every one of those who saw: “he appeared,” he says, “to Cephas, ... appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, ... appeared to me too.” How, on the contrary, does the Gospel say that (Christ) appeared to Mary first of all? But of the men, first of all (Peter), who especially desired to see Him. Which eleven apostles is Paul talking about here, when Matthias was chosen after the ascension of Christ, and not immediately after the resurrection? But He probably appeared after the Ascension; therefore this same apostle, after the ascension, was chosen and saw Him. Paul does not indicate the time, but simply and vaguely counts the phenomena, of which there were probably many; That’s why John says: “He has already appeared the third time” (John 21:14). Then “he appeared to more than five hundred brothers.” Some say that the word “more” 61 means from above, from heaven, that is, He appeared to them, not walking on the ground, but above, above their heads, because He wanted to assure them not only of His resurrection, but also of His ascension. Others argue that more than five hundred means more than five hundred. “Of which most are still alive”; although, he says, I narrate past events, I have witnesses still living. “And some died”; He did not say: they died, but: “they fell to rest,” also affirming with this expression the truth of the resurrection. “Then he appeared to Jacob,” it seems to me, to his brother; They say that He himself ordained him and made him the first bishop in Jerusalem. “Also to all the Apostles,” because there were other apostles, namely seventy. “And after all, he appeared to me, like some kind of monster”; He says this more out of humility. It was not because Christ appeared to him after others, as if he was lower than everyone else; although he calls himself the last, he turned out to be more glorious than many who were called before him, and even all; and the five hundred brethren are not better than Jacob because Christ appeared to them before him. Why didn’t Christ appear to everyone together? To pre-sow the seeds of faith. Whoever saw Him first and was completely convinced spoke about it to others; then what was said spread, created in those listening the expectation of this great miracle and paved the way for faith in (His) appearance. That is why Christ did not appear to everyone together and not to many in the beginning, but before all to one only, namely, the highest of all and the most faithful. The most faithful soul should be the first to be granted such a phenomenon. Those who saw after they had seen others and when they had already heard from them, in their testimony had a considerable benefit, which disposed them to faith and prepared their souls, and whoever was first vouchsafed to see the Lord, as I said, needed great faith so as not to be embarrassed by the extraordinary sight. That is why Christ appeared to Peter first of all. Whoever was the first to confess him as Christ was rightly the first to be worthy of seeing His resurrection. And not only because (Christ) appeared to him alone first of all, but also because he denied; In order to completely comfort him and show that he was not rejected, (Christ) honored him with His appearance before others, and entrusted the sheep to him first. That is why He appeared to the wives first; since their sex was subjected to humiliation, he was the first to be granted grace both at birth and at the resurrection (of Christ). After Peter (Christ) appeared to each individual, both to the few and to the many, so that they might become witnesses and teachers for each other in this matter, and so that the apostles would be reliable preachers. “And after all, he appeared to me, like some kind of monster.” What does he want to say here in such humble words, and for what reason? If he wants to show himself reliable and count himself among the witnesses of the resurrection, then he should do the opposite, he should exalt and magnify himself, as he does in many places when circumstances require. And here he humiliates himself because he intends to do the same thing, only not suddenly, but with his characteristic prudence. Namely, having humiliated himself in advance and expressed many reproaches towards himself, he then exalts his deeds. For what? So that when he says about himself a great and lofty saying: “But I have labored more than all of them” (1 Cor. 15:10), his words will be undoubted and accepted, as if spoken in the course of speech, and not intentionally. So in the letter to Timothy, intending to say something great about himself, he sets out his misdeeds in advance. He who says something great about others speaks boldly and boldly; but he who is forced to praise himself, especially when he presents himself as a witness, is ashamed and blushes. That is why this blessed man humiliates himself in advance and then exalts himself. He does this both in order to soften the unpleasantness of self-praise, and in order to thereby give credibility to his subsequent words; Having said truthfully about what is worthy of condemnation, and without hiding anything, for example, that he persecuted the church, that he destroyed the faith, he makes his deeds undoubted and praiseworthy through this. 5. And look how great his humility is. Having said: “And after all he appeared to me also,” he was not content with this, since “many,” says (the Lord), “will be the first last, and the last first” (Matthew 19:30), but adds: “like a certain monster”; and does not stop there, but adds his own judgment and gives the reason: “For I am the least of the Apostles, and am not worthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9). He did not say: only twelve, but also all the others. He says all this both out of humility and with the intention that I said, i.e. in order to dispose (listeners) to the speedy acceptance of subsequent words. If he had instead said: you must believe me that Christ has risen, because I saw Him, and I am more reliable than all (witnesses), because I worked more than anyone else, then he could have offended the listeners with such words. And now, depicting in advance the circumstances that serve to his humiliation and condemnation, he softens his speech and paves the way to faith in his testimony. Therefore, as I said, he not only presents himself as the last and unworthy of the title of apostle, but gives the reason: “because he persecuted the church of God.” And although all this was forgiven him, he himself does not forget it, wanting to show the greatness of grace; That’s why he continues: “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). Do you see again how great his humility is here? He attributes his shortcomings to himself, and his virtues not to himself, but to God. Further, so that the listener does not become careless, he says: “And His grace in me was not in vain,” and again (speaks) with humility. Didn't say; I showed zeal worthy of grace, but: “it was not in vain; but I worked harder than all of them.” He did not say: “honorable,” but: “he labored” and, having the right to point out mortal dangers, limits himself to the name of labor. Then, with usual humility, he immediately stops talking about this and attributes everything to God: “Not I, however, but the grace of God that is with me.” What could be more amazing than this soul? Having humiliated himself so much and said only about one of his merits, he does not call it his own, in every possible way weakening the greatness of the spoken expression, both with previous and subsequent words, and, moreover, when he expressed it out of necessity. Look how he abounds in words of humility: “and after all,” he says, “he appeared to me also,” - thus he does not equate himself with anyone else, and: “like some monster,” he recognizes himself as the last of the apostles and even unworthy of such a name. Not content with this, he wanted to show that he was humble not only in words, he gave reasons and evidence: he was a monster - because he saw Jesus after all; unworthy of the title of apostle - because he persecuted the church. He who humbles himself only in words does not do so; and whoever gives reasons speaks everything from a contrite heart. He mentions the same thing in another place: “I thank him who gave me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful, appointing me to serve, who was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and an offender” (1 Tim. 1:12-13). Why did he say those lofty words: “he worked harder than all of them”? Circumstances prompted him to do so. If he had not said this, but only humiliated himself, then how could he boldly bring himself as a witness, put himself along with others and say: “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me” (1 Tim. 1:11)? The witness must be a person of credibility and greatness. And how he worked more than them, he explained this above when he said: “or do we not have the power to eat and drink... like the other Apostles?” And again: “to those who are strangers to the law, as one who is stranger to the law, not being a stranger to the law before God, but under the law of Christ, so that he may win those who are strangers to the law” (1 Cor. 9:4-5, 21). Where it was necessary to show jealousy, there he surpassed everyone; and where leniency had to be shown, there he was again excellent. However, some say that he was sent to the pagans and traveled around most of the universe; That’s why he received great grace. Truly, if he labored more, then the grace was greater; and he received greater grace because he showed more zeal. Do you see how the very thing with which he tries and strives to cover up his affairs proves that he was the first of all? 6. Hearing this, we too will reveal our shortcomings and remain silent about our virtues; if circumstances require, then let us speak about them modestly, and attribute everything to grace, as the apostle does: he depicts his previous life in detail, and attributes everything that follows to grace, in order to show in everything the love of God, who saved such a (sinner), and having saved him made him such (a righteous man). Therefore, let none of the vicious despair, and let none of the virtuous rely on themselves, but let the latter be careful, and the former zealous. Just as a careless person cannot maintain virtue, so a zealous person cannot be powerless in avoiding vice. An example of both is the blessed David: as soon as he committed a little carelessness, he fell deeply; and when he surrendered to contrition, he again ascended to his former height. Both, despair and carelessness, are equally bad; one soon casts down from the very heights of heaven, and the other does not allow the one lying down to rise. Therefore, about the first, Paul said: “Therefore, if anyone thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12); and about the second: “today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps. 94:7-8); and again: “strengthen your drooping hands and weak knees” (Heb. 12:12). Therefore, he quickly encouraged the repentant incestuous man, “so that he would not be consumed by excessive sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7). So, man, why do you mourn over other things? If in relation to sins, where sorrow is the only useful thing, immoderation causes great harm, then even more so in the rest. What are you grieving about? Is it about losing property? But imagine those who do not even have their daily bread, and you will immediately receive consolation. And with every disaster, do not be sad about what happened, but give thanks for what did not happen. Did you own property and lose it? Don't cry about the loss, but be grateful for the time in which you used it. Say with Job: “Shall we really accept good from God, but not evil?” ( Job 2:10 ). At the same time, think about the fact that, although you have lost property, your body is still healthy, and despite poverty you do not yet suffer from a disorder of the body. Or is your body also upset? And this is not the edge of human disasters, but you are still in the middle of them; many, in poverty and physical disorder, are still possessed by a demon and wander in the deserts; others suffer other most painful (disasters). God forbid we endure everything that is possible to endure! Thus, always thinking about this, imagine those who suffer the most severe (disasters), and do not grieve over anything like that; when you sin, then only lament, then cry; I do not prohibit this, on the contrary, I demand it; however, even then - with moderation, remembering that there is conversion, there is reconciliation. But do you see others in luxury, in bright clothes and splendor, and yourself in poverty? Don’t just look at this, but also at the troubles that arise from it; Likewise, in poverty, take into account not only poverty, but also the pleasures that come from it. Wealth has only a bright appearance, but inside it is full of darkness; and poverty is the opposite. If everyone’s conscience were opened to you, then in the soul of the poor you would see great peace and security, and in the soul of the rich there is confusion, embarrassment, and excitement. You grieve when you see a rich man, but he grieves much more than you when he sees someone who is richer than him; As much as you are afraid of him, he is just as afraid of another - in this respect he has no advantage over you. Seeing your boss, do you grieve that you are a private person and a subordinate? But think about the day when everything will change, and even before that day imagine the turmoil, dangers, labors, caresses, insomnia and all its other troubles. However, we say all this to those who do not know wisdom; if you knew him, we could console you with other higher motives; but now for now it is necessary to present to you the lower motives. So, when you see a rich person, imagine someone who is richer than him, and you will see that he is in the same position as you. Then imagine someone who is poorer than you, and how many people go to sleep hungry, lose their father’s estates, live in prison and wish for death every day. Neither poverty gives birth to sorrow, nor wealth to pleasure; but both usually depend on our reasoning. Let's start from the bottom and see. The scavenger grieves and laments that he is not free from his apparently painful and dishonorable occupation; but, if you free him from this and provide him with abundance in necessary items, he will again begin to grieve for the fact that he does not have more than necessary; if you give him more, he will again want to have twice as much and therefore will grieve no less than before; if you give him double or triple, he will again grieve that he is not an official; if you deliver this to him, he will consider himself unfortunate that he does not belong to the number of dignitaries; having received this dignity, he will complain that he is not a ruler; when he becomes a ruler - about the fact that he does not rule the whole people; when by a whole people, - about the fact that not by many nations; when by many nations, - that not by all; when he becomes the main ruler, he will again grieve that he is not a king; if he becomes king, that he is not alone; if there is one, that he does not also reign over the barbarians and over the entire universe; if over the entire universe, why not over another world? Thus, his plans, extending to infinity, will never allow him to be satisfied. 7. Do you see that even if you make a low and poor man a king, you will not free him from sorrow unless you first correct his soul, which is devoted to covetousness? Now I will depict the opposite to you and show that a prudent person, even if you cast him down from above, will not give in to grief and sorrow. We will, if you like, go down the same stairs. Mentally bring down the ruler from the seat and deprive him of this title; he will not grieve at all if he wants to represent what I said, because he will represent not what he lost, but what still remains with him, namely the honor inherent in power; if you take that away, he will imagine private people who have never achieved such power, and will find sufficient consolation in his wealth; if you deprive him of this (wealth), he will look at those who have little; if you take away a little and leave him only the bare necessities for food, he will imagine those who do not have even that, but constantly suffer hunger and live in prison; If you throw him into this dwelling, he will imagine himself possessed by incurable diseases and unbearable suffering, and will find that he himself is in a much better condition. Just as one who is engaged in clearing garbage, even if he becomes a king, will not find peace, so this one, even if he becomes a prisoner, will never experience sorrow. Consequently, pleasure does not depend on wealth, and sorrow does not depend on poverty, but on our thoughts, on the fact that our spiritual eyes are unclean, that no matter where they stop, they do not calm down, but strive to infinity. Just like a healthy body, even if it ate only bread, is not susceptible to disease and becomes healthier; and the patient, even if he enjoyed luxurious and varied food, becomes even weaker - this is what usually happens with the soul. The cowardly, even in a diadem and in unspeakable honors, cannot feel good, but the wise, in bonds, and in shackles, and in poverty, enjoy pure pleasure. Therefore, imagining this, we will constantly look at those who are lower than us. There is another consolation, but only characteristic of the wise and beyond the understanding of many. Which one? The fact that wealth is nothing, and poverty is nothing, and dishonor is nothing, and honor is nothing, that all this is short-lived and differs from one another only by name. In addition, there is another, greater thing, which consists in imagining future sufferings and blessings, true sufferings and true blessings, and from here receiving consolation. But many, as I said, are very far from such a way of thinking; That’s why we are forced to dwell on the above thoughts, so that those who accept them can gradually be raised to higher ones. So, imagining all this, let us improve ourselves in every possible way and never grieve over random things. If we saw the rich in the picture, then, of course, we would not call them blessed, nor would we call the poor, depicted there, unhappy and pitiful. Meanwhile, they are much more durable than our rich people; in the picture the rich man remains much longer than in reality; the former often remains in this form for up to a hundred years, and the latter sometimes, without enjoying even one year of his wealth, suddenly loses everything. Therefore, thinking about all this, let us protect our peace of mind from everywhere from reckless sorrow, so that we can spend our present life with pleasure, and be counted worthy of future blessings, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: