Это зависело уже не от Призывающего, но от их неблагодарности: Он хотел даровать, а они не хотели принять, и таким образом лишили сами себя. Если бы Он призывал их к делу трудному и тяжкому, то хотя бы неповиновение их и тогда не заслуживало прощения, но, по крайней мере, они могли бы сослаться на это; если же призываются к очищению, к оправданию, к освящению, к искуплению, к благодати, к дару, к уготованным благам, «которых не видел глаз, не слышало ухо» (1 Кор. 2:9), если призывает Бог и призывает Сам, то могут ли быть достойны прощения не обращающиеся к Нему? Потому пусть никто не обвиняет Бога. Не от Призывающего происходит неверие, а от неповинующихся. Но скажешь: можно было бы привести и не желающих? Нет; Бог не желает насилия или принуждения. И кто, призывая к почестям, венцам, пиршествам и торжествам, станет влечь кого–нибудь против воли и связанного? Никто, потому что это свойственно насилующему. В геенну Он посылает против воли, а в царствие призывает добровольно; в огонь ведет связанных и плачущих, а к бесчисленным благам — не так: самые блага не были бы вожделенны, если бы они по свойству своему не были таковы, чтобы к ним стремились добровольно и по сознанию великого их достоинства.

3. Почему же, скажешь, не все стремятся к ним? По своей немощи. А почему Он не избавляет их от немощи? Но как, скажи мне, и каким способом следовало бы избавить? Не создал ли Он творений, которые возвещают о Его человеколюбии и силе? «Небеса», сказано, «проповедуют славу Божию» (Пс. 18:2). Не посылал ли пророков? Не призывал ли и не награждал ли почестями? Не совершал ли чудес? Не дал ли закона писанного и естественного? Не послал ли Сына? Не послал ли апостолов? Не творил ли знамений? Не угрожал ли геенной? Не обещал ли царствия? Не повелел ли солнцу сиять каждодневно? Не легки ли и не удобоисполнимы ли Его заповеди, так что многие силой любомудрия превышают Его предписания? «Что еще надлежало бы сделать для виноградника, чего Я не сделал ему» (Ис. 5:4)? А почему, скажешь, Он не сделал для нас естественными знание и добродетель? Кто говорит это: язычник или христианин? И тот и другой, только не в одном и том же отношении, но один возражает касательно знания, другой — жизни. Скажем наперед к нашему, так как я говорю не столько ко внешним, сколько к собственным нашим членам. Что же говорит христианин? Следовало (говорит он) вложить в нас познание добродетели. Он и вложил; если бы не вложил, то откуда мы узнали бы, что должно делать и чего не должно? Откуда законы и судилища? Но не знание только (говорит), а самую деятельность. За что же ты стал бы получать награды, если бы все происходило от Бога? Скажи мне: если и ты и язычник согрешаете, то одинаково ли наказывает нас Бог? Нет; ты имеешь преимущество по причине знания. Что, если бы теперь сказали тебе, что, несмотря на знание, ты и язычник достойны одного и того же, — ты не обиделся ли бы? Конечно, так; ты сказал бы, что язычник мог внутри себя найти знание, но не захотел.

И как можно сделаться добрым по необходимости? Тогда стали бы состязаться с нами в добродетели и бессловесные животные, из которых некоторые воздержаннее нас. Но, скажешь, я желал бы лучше быть добрым по необходимости и не получать никаких наград, нежели быть злым по свободному решению и терпеть наказания и мучения. Но невозможно быть добрым по необходимости. Если же ты не знаешь, что должно делать, заяви, и тогда мы скажем, что следует сказать; а если знаешь, что невоздержание есть зло, то почему не убегаешь зла? Не могу, говоришь ты. Но другие люди, совершившие такие великие подвиги, осудят тебя и заградят тебе уста с великой силою. Ты, может быть, и жену имея, не соблюдаешь целомудрие; а другой, и не имея жены, хранит совершенную чистоту. Какое же ты имеешь оправдание, не соблюдая меры, тогда как другой восходит выше заповеданного? Но я, говоришь, не таков по своей телесной природе или по расположению. Да — потому, что не хочешь, а не потому, что не можешь. Я утверждаю, что все способны к добродетели; кто чего не может сделать, тот не сможет и в случае необходимости; если же кто в случае необходимости может, а без нее не делает, тот не делает по свободному решению. Например: летать и подниматься к небу человеческому телу трудно и даже невозможно; потому если бы какой–нибудь царь повелел делать это, угрожал смертью (не повинующимся) и говорил: тех, которые не летают, повелеваю сечь, жечь, или подвергать чему–нибудь подобному, то послушался ли бы кто его? Нет, потому что это невозможно для нашей природы. А если бы тоже сделано было касательно целомудрия и приказано было невоздержных наказывать, жечь, сечь, подвергать бесчисленным мучениям, то не стали бы многие повиноваться приказаниям? Нет, скажешь, потому что и теперь существует закон, повелевающий не прелюбодействовать, и не все повинуются. Но не потому, что закон бессилен, а потому, что многие надеются укрыться. Если бы при тех, кто склоняется на прелюбодеяние, присутствовали законодатель и судья, то страх был бы силен прогнать похоть. Если даже я представлю другую меньшую необходимость, например возьму и уведу его от любимой женщины и, связавши, запру где–нибудь, то и тогда он в состоянии будет перенести и не потерпит ничего худого. Итак, не будем говорить, что такой–то добр по природе, и такой–то зол по природе. Если бы кто был добр по природе, то никогда не мог бы сделаться злым; а если бы был зол по природе, то никогда не сделался бы добрым. Между тем мы видим быстрые перемены: люди впадают то в то, то в другое состояние, и переходят от одного к другому. Это можно видеть не только в Писаниях, где, напр., мытари становятся апостолами, ученики предателями, блудницы целомудренными, разбойники добрыми, волхвы поклонниками, нечестивые благочестивыми, как в Новом, так и в Ветхом завете, но и каждый день можно видеть множество подобных случаев. Если бы (добро и зло) были естественны, то таких перемен не было бы. Так, — мы чувствительны по природе, и при всем старании никогда не сделаемся нечувствительными. Что свойственно природе, то не выйдет из природы. Никто, имеющий нужду в сне, не перестанет спать: никто, подвергающийся тлению, не избавится от тления; никто алчущий не достигнет того, чтобы никогда не алкать. Потому это и не ставится в вину, и мы сами за это не укоряем себя. Никто в укор другому не говорит: о, тленный, о, чувствующий! — но всегда на вид обвиняемым мы поставим или прелюбодеяние или блуд или что–нибудь подобное и за это приводим их к судьям, которые осуждают и наказывают, а за противное тому награждают. Итак, и из того, что мы делаем между собой и что делают с нами судьи, и из того, что мы написали законы и осуждаем сами себя, хотя бы не было против нас никакого обвинителя, и из того, что от нерадения становимся хуже, а от страха лучше, и из того, что видим других добродетельными и восходящими на высоту любомудрия, — очевидно, что в нас находится возможность добродетели. Для чего же многие из нас понапрасну обольщают себя холодными извинениями и предлогами, не только не заслуживающими прощения, но и навлекающими тяжкое наказание, тогда как следовало бы заботиться о добродетели, имея пред глазами тот страшный день, и, потерпев немного, достигать неувядаемых венцов? Эти извинения не принесут нам никакой пользы; рабы, нам подобные и успевшие в противном, осудят всех согрешающих, жестокого — милостивый, злого — добрый, дерзкого — кроткий, завистливого — дружелюбный, тщеславного — любомудрый, нерадивого — усердный, развратного — целомудренный. Так совершит Бог суд над нами, разделив нас на две части, и одних удостоит похвалы, а других наказания. Но да не будет никто из здесь присутствующих в числе наказуемых и мучимых, а будет в числе венчаемых и получающих царствие Божие, которого и да сподобимся все мы благодатью и человеколюбием Господа нашего Иисуса Христа, с Которым Отцу со Святым Духом слава, держава, честь, ныне и присно, и во веки веков. Аминь.

БЕСЕДА 3

«Умоляю вас, братия, именем Господа нашего Иисуса Христа, чтобы все вы говорили одно, и не было между вами разделений, но чтобы вы соединены были в одном духе и в одних мыслях» (1 Кор. 1:10).

Обличения должны быть постепенны и умеренны. — Павел не считает себя предпочтительнее пред Петром. — Спор о Павле и Платоне. — Дивная победа апостолов. — Нужно побеждать более жизнью, чем философией.

1. Reproof, as I have always said, must be done gradually and little by little; that's what Paul does here. Approaching a subject full of great dangers and capable of shaking the church to its very foundations, he begins his speech with meekness. He beseeches the Corinthians and begs by Christ, as if he alone could not offer this instruction and persuade him. What does it mean: I pray by Christ? I call upon Christ for help and His name, which has been insulted and desecrated. Very strongly (he inspires them) that they should not be shameless, since sin makes people shameless. It is always like this, if you suddenly begin to sharply rebuke someone, then he will become hardened and shameless; but if you make a suggestion, you will bow his neck, tame his insolence, and force him to humble himself. This is what Paul does, pleading in the name of Christ. What is he begging for? "So that you all speak the same thing, and there will be no divisions among you" (σχίσματα). The expressive word "divisions," including reproof, could have touched them greatly. Their parts were not in good health, and the whole was torn apart. If the parts of the church were healthy, there would be many unions. And if they had divisions, then there was no whole. When the whole is divided into many parts, not only do the parts not constitute many (wholes), but there is no longer one whole. Such is the quality of divisions! Having greatly touched them by the denunciation of divisions, he further shows his meekness and softens his speech: "that you may be," he says, "united in one spirit and in one thought." After the words: "That you may all speak the same thing," do not think, he says that I understand agreement only in words; No, I want agreement in my thoughts. And since it is possible to have the same thoughts, but not about all things, he adds: "that you may be united." Whoever agrees in one thing, but disagrees in another, is not yet united, has not attained perfect unanimity. It also happens that while there is agreement in thought, there is still no agreement in the spirit, for example, when we, having one and the same faith, are not united to each other by love. In this case, we agree in our thoughts—we think alike—but we do not yet agree in spirit. It was the same in Corinth, where one sided with one and the other with the other. That is why Paul says that it is necessary to be united "in one spirit and in one thought." Their divisions did not arise from differences in faith, but from disagreement in spirit, according to human vanity. But since the accused can remain stubborn to the point of shamelessness without witnesses, so that they cannot deny what has been said, he brings witnesses. "For from the Chloe [household] it has become known to me concerning you, my brethren" (v. 11). He did not say this suddenly, but set forth the rebuke beforehand, because he believed those who proclaimed; if he did not believe, he would not have rebuked; but Pavel could not believe blindly. In this way he did not suddenly say, "It was made known," so that it would not seem that he was accusing them only from the words of those who proclaimed, nor did he keep silent about it, so that it would not seem that he was speaking only for himself. Here again he calls them brethren. Although their sin was obvious, nothing prevented them from being called brethren. Moreover, note his wisdom, he did not point to a single person, but to a whole house, so that they would not rebel against him who had proclaimed: so he hid him also, and openly revealed their guilt! He knew what was good for some and what was needed for others. Therefore he did not say, "It has become known to me from some": he pointed to a certain house, so that it would not seem fictitious. What was proclaimed? "That there are disputes between you." When he himself rebukes them, he says, "So that there be no divisions among you; and when he relates what he has heard from others, he expresses himself more meekly: "For it has become known to me that there are disputes among you," so as not to endanger those who proclaimed. Then he says what exactly the disagreement was: "That every one of you [6] says, 'I am Paul'; I am Apollos"; "I am Cephanes"; 'but I am of Christ'" (v. 12). I mean, he says, disagreements not in private matters, but much more important ones. "What everyone says to you." The evil concerned not a part, but the whole church. However, the Corinthians did not speak thus of him, nor of Peter, nor of Apollos; but he shows that if such persons should not be treated in the same way, how much more should others be treated. And that they did not say this, he himself explains below: "I have added this to myself and to Apollos, that you may learn from us not to reason beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). If one should not be called by the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, how much more should we be called by the names of others. If the name of the teacher, the first of the apostles and the enlightener of so many peoples, is not to be appropriated, much less of people who mean nothing. Thus he only enumerates these names in order to cure their disease more quickly. Moreover, he makes his speech less disagreeable, not mentioning by name those who divided the church, but as if covering them up with the names of the apostles: "I am Paul; I am Apollos"; 'and I am Cephanes.'"

2. He placed Peter last, not preferring himself to him, but on the contrary, preferring Peter to himself. He speaks from the least to the greater; and lest it should be thought that he acts out of envy and anticipates the honor of others out of vanity, he puts himself first. Whoever thinks himself unworthy of the first does so not out of ambition, but out of great contempt for such honor. In the same way, he first rejects such an honor from himself, and then from Apollos, and finally from Cephas; therefore he does this not out of preference for himself, but first of all in his own face he shows what ought not to be. And it is obvious that those who took sides with one or the other sinned. Wherefore he justly reproaches them, suggesting that they are doing evil when they say, "I am of Paul; I am Apollos"; 'and I am Cephanes.'" But why did he add: "But I am of Christ"? If those who cleaved to men sinned, then did those who cleaved to Christ sin also? No; he reproached them, not because they were called Christ's, but because they did not all (do this). I think he added this on his own behalf, in order to make the reproof stronger, to show that in such a case Christ is assimilated only in one part, although they did not do so. That he really inspired such an idea is evident from the following words of his: "Is Christ divided?" (v. 13). This means: you divided Christ and tore His body asunder. Do you see his anger, do you see his reproach, do you see his speech full of indignation? He does not prove, but only proposes a question as a sign of the obvious absurdity of the thought contained in it. Some find here another thought in the words "Was Christ divided?", namely: did He tear apart and divide the Church among people, and took one part for Himself, and gave the other to them? Then he tries to destroy such an absurdity and says: "Was Paul crucified for you? See with what love for Christ he attributes all the evidence to his own name, and thereby clearly inspires that this honor belongs to no one. Lest it be thought that he says all this out of envy, he repeats his name incessantly, and note with what wisdom. He did not say, "Did Paul create the world, did Paul bring you from non-existence into existence?" — but presents that which was especially close to the faithful and showed the great providence of God: the cross and baptism and the blessings that come from them. God's love for mankind is also revealed in the creation of the world, but especially in His humiliation on the Cross. Nor did he say, "Did Paul die for you?" — but: "Was Paul crucified for you?" — thus representing the very kind of death. "Or in the name of Paul were you baptized?" — for he baptized many, and it is not a matter of whom they were baptized, but in whose name they were baptized. Since the cause of the strife was also that they were called by the names of those who baptized them, he corrects this and says: "Or in the name of Paul were you baptized?" It is not important who baptized, but who is called in baptism, since He forgives sins. Having said this, he does not dwell on what follows, nor does he say, "Did Paul promise you good things to come?" "Did Paul promise you the kingdom of heaven?" Why did he not add this also? Because it is not the same thing to promise a kingdom and be crucified; the former was not dangerous and did not bring dishonor, and the latter contained all this. On the other hand, in the latter the former is also understood: having said: "He who did not spare His Son," He added: "How is it that with Him He does not give us all things?" (Romans 8:32). And again: "For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved" (Romans 5:10). That is why he did not add this; moreover, (believers) did not yet have the former, but already knew the latter by experience; the former was only a promise, and the latter was a reality. "I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1 Cor. 1:14). Why are you proud that you baptize when I thank God that I did not perform baptism? With these words he wisely destroys their arrogance; it is not the power of baptism that degrades it, let it not be, but the pride of those who exalt themselves in performing baptism, first, showing that it is not their gift, and secondly, thanking God for themselves. Baptism is important, but the importance is communicated to it not by the one who baptizes, but by the One who is called in baptism. The performance of baptism means nothing in relation to human labor, and even much less in relation to the gospel. Baptism, I repeat, is an important matter, and without baptism it is impossible to receive the kingdom of heaven; but it can be done by a person who is not very important, and the preaching of the gospel requires great work.

3. Further, (Paul) gives the reason why he thanks God that he did not baptize anyone. Which one? "Lest any man say that I baptized in my name" (v. 15). What is this? Is it not of them (the Corinthians) that he speaks here? No; but I am afraid, he says, that the illness will not reach such a degree. For if there was a division in the performance of baptism by unimportant and insignificant persons, then if I, who preached baptism, had baptized many, those who received it would probably not only have been called by my name, but would have ascribed the baptism itself to me. If such evil had happened to the inferior, then of course even greater would have happened to the higher. Having thus rebuked the erring ones, and adding, "I also baptized the house of Stephen" (v. 16), he again destroys their pride with the words, "And whether I have baptized anyone else, I do not know." Here he expresses that he did not try to gain honor from the people by such a deed, and did not undertake it for glory. Not only with these words, but also with the following words, he greatly strikes their pride: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (v. 17). The latter was much more difficult, required great effort and special firmness of spirit, and contained everything; wherefore it was entrusted to Paul. But why did he, not being sent to baptize, baptize? He did this not out of opposition to Him who sent him, but out of abundance (zeal). He didn't. that he was forbidden to do so, but: I was not sent to this task, but to a much more important one. Only a few were allowed to preach the gospel, but anyone who had the priesthood could baptize. Anyone can baptize a person who has been instructed in the faith and has believed, because the disposition of the approacher and the grace of God accomplish everything; and in order to instruct the unbelievers in the faith, this requires great work, great wisdom, and even presents dangers. Everything has already been done there, the one who wishes to receive the sacrament is convinced of the faith, and it is not at all difficult to baptize the believer; and here great work is needed to change the disposition, to correct the disposition, to destroy error and to plant the truth. However, Paul does not speak of this in this way, does not prove or assert that it is not difficult to baptize, and on the contrary, to preach the gospel — he always knows how to observe moderation — but he is especially extensive in his discourse on external wisdom and offers a powerful speech about it. In this way he baptized not out of opposition to Him who sent him, but just as he had care for widows out of an abundance of zeal, and not out of opposition to the apostles, who said: "It is not good for us, having forsaken the word of God, to take care of tables" (Acts 6:2), so it is here. So now we entrust this task to the simplest of the presbyters, and the teaching of doctrine to the most prudent, because labor and effort are needed here. That is why he himself says: "It is fitting that the chief elders should be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and teaching" (1 Tim. 5:17). Just as a courageous and skilful teacher is needed for the training of warriors, and even one who is unskilled in wrestling can lay a crown on a victor, although the crown glorifies the victor, so it is in baptism: although it is impossible to be saved without it, it is not a great deed done by the one who baptizes, receiving the disposed and prepared for it. "Not in the wisdom of the word, lest the cross of Christ be abolished" (1 Cor. 1:17). Having cast down the pride of those who were exalted by baptism, he proceeds to rebuke those who were proud of outward wisdom, and speaks against them with special force. To those who were exalted by baptism, he said: "I thank God that I have not baptized anyone," and also: "Christ sent me not to baptize," and to rebuke them he did not use a strong and striking speech, but, having impressed upon them with a few words what he wanted, he passed on to what follows; but here from the very beginning he strikes a strong blow: "lest the cross of Christ be abolished," he says. That you are proud of what you should be ashamed of? For if this wisdom is hostile to the cross and contrary to the gospel, it is not to be boasted, but to be ashamed. For this reason the apostles were not of such wise men, not because of a lack of gifts, but so that the preaching would not suffer harm. The wise men did not promote preaching, but harmed it; the common people affirmed it. This could bring down pride, strike arrogance, dispose to humility. But, you will say, if not in the wisdom of the word, then why was Apollos, "an eloquent man" sent (Acts 17:24)? Not because they hoped for the power of eloquence, but because he was versed in the Scriptures and skilled in rebuking the Jews. On the other hand, it was necessary that the very first sowers of the word were unlearned. They had to have great power to begin the destruction of error; A great fortress was needed to proceed to this work.

4. Thus (God), who had no need of scholars in the beginning, if he received them afterwards, did so not because he had need of them, but because he did not consider the difference (between learned and unlearned). Just as He did not need wise men to carry out His purposes, so afterwards, when they appeared, He did not reject them. Tell me, were Peter and Paul scientists? That you cannot say: they were simple and unlearned. As Christ, when He sent His disciples into the world, first showing them His power in Palestine, said: "When I sent you without a bag, and without a bag, and without shoes, did you lack anything?" (Luke 21:35) — and then he allowed me to take the bag and the bag, and so it was here. It was necessary to manifest the power of Christ, and not to reject those who were approaching faith for their outward wisdom. Therefore, if the pagans reproach Christ's disciples for their lack of learning, then we are more likely to turn the reproach against them. Do not say that Paul was a wise man; but, extolling those who were famous among them for their wisdom and eloquence, let us call all our own ignorant. This will serve not a little to defeat them; This will give us a glorious victory.

I say this because I once heard how ridiculously a Christian contended with a pagan, how both of them refuted themselves in the contest. What a Christian ought to say, a pagan said; and what a pagan had to say, the Christian defended. The dispute was about Paul and Plato; the pagan tried to prove that Paul was a simple and unlearned man, and the Christian, in his simplicity, tried to prove that Paul was more learned than Plato. Meanwhile, if we admit the latter, the victory remained on the side of the pagan. For if Paul was more learned than Plato, many would justly conclude that he conquered not by grace, but by eloquence. In this way, what the Christian said was turned in favor of the pagan, and what the pagan said was turned in favor of the Christian. If, as I have said, Paul was unlearned, and yet surpassed Plato, then this is a glorious victory, since the unlearned man persuaded and attracted to himself all the disciples of the scientist. From this it is clear that the preaching was victorious, not by human wisdom, but by the grace of God. Therefore, in order that we may not be subjected to the same ridicule in conversation with the pagans, let us always, when we happen to contend with them, recognize the apostles as unlearned: such a confession is their praise. When it is said that the apostles were simple people, we will add that they were unlearned, and unlettered, and poor, and ignoble, and unwise, and unknown. It is not to the disgrace, but to the glory of the apostles, that they, being such, appeared more glorious than the whole universe. These simple, unlettered, and unlearned conquered the wise, the strong, and the sovereign, who boasted of wealth, glory, and all outward things, as if they were not men. From this it is clear that the power of the cross is great, and that all this is not done by human power. In fact, such things are not in the nature of things, but above nature. And when something is not done according to the laws of nature, and is much higher than nature, but at the same time worthy and useful, it is evident that it is done by some divine power and help. Behold, the fisherman, the skin-maker, the publican, a simple man, an unlearned man, come from a distant country, Palestine, and rise up against all the philosophers, rhetoricians, and those skilled in speech in their own country, and in a short time, in a multitude of dangers, when they were opposed by nations, kings, and nature itself, when they were greatly hindered by the passage of time and inveterate habits, when demons took up arms against them, and the devil armed himself and used all his efforts,  — kings, rulers, peoples, languages, cities, barbarians, Greeks, philosophers, rhetoricians, sophists, writers, laws, tribunals, various tortures, innumerable and diverse kinds of death have been defeated. The fishermen proclaimed, and all this was exposed and vanished, like light dust stirred up by a breath of strong wind. Let us learn to converse with the Gentiles in such a way that we will not remain meaningless animals, but be ready to give an answer "in our hope" (1 Pet. 3:15). Let us especially remember this main and important matter, and say to them: How did the weak overcome the strong, the twelve men, the whole universe, without using weapons, but fighting unarmed with the armed?

5.

It is not so much surprising that the naked man does not receive wounds, as it is surprising that a simple, unlearned fisherman conquers such strong people, in spite of his ignorance and poverty, nor of his dangers and inveterate habits, nor of the severity of the rules proposed, nor of the daily threat of death, nor of the multitude of deceived people, nor of the importance of seducers. Thus we must overthrow them and contend with them, and before words we must strike them with our lives; it is a great contest, it is an irrefutable proof of deeds; In words, no matter how much we reason with them, if our life is not better than theirs, then there will be no benefit.