2. In another place, when discussing food, Christ despises temptation; by this He teaches us to distinguish between the time when it is necessary to take care of those who are offended, and when it is possible to leave it unattended. And the very image, how He gives tribute, reveals who He is. Why does He not command them to pay out of the money that was kept with them? As I said above, in order to show in this case that He is God over all, and that the sea is in His power. He also showed this power when He forbade the sea, and allowed the same Peter to walk on the waves. This same power is now shown, although in a different way, but also leads to great amazement. In fact, it was not a little to say about the abyss that the first fish would be caught, with the required toll, and that His command, like one who threw a net into the abyss, would catch a fish with a stater. But the task of the directly divine and ineffable power is to command the sea to bring a gift, and to show how in all things it is subject to Him, both when, agitated, it suddenly calmed down, and in the midst of the fury of the waves it lifted up its concelebrant, and now also when it pays for Him to those who demand tribute. "Give unto them," he says, "for me and for thyself." Do you see a great preference? Know also the profound wisdom of Peter. Mark, his disciple, did not mention this important circumstance as a great honor bestowed upon Peter by Christ, but he also wrote about his rejection, and about what could glorify Peter, he kept silent, perhaps because the Teacher forbade him to speak about him that pertained to his glory. "For me and for himself," as Peter was the firstborn. Do you marvel at the power of Christ? Marvel also at the faith of the disciple, who was so obedient in such a difficult case. Indeed, the matter seemed too difficult for the human mind. As a reward for such faith, Christ added him to Himself when paying the fee: "For Me and for Himself." "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, and said, Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:1)? Something human was at work in the disciples. The Evangelist also points to this, saying: "At that time," that is, when Christ preferred Peter to all others. And Jacob was the firstborn, but Jesus did nothing of the kind to him. Being ashamed to reveal the passion with which they were afflicted, they do not say directly: Why did You give preference to Peter over us? Is he bigger than us? They were ashamed to say so, but they ask vaguely, "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" When Jesus gave preference to three of them, nothing of the kind was found in them. And when honor was given to one alone, they were grieved. And not only this, but also other circumstances, they took into account and were inflamed with passion. Thus Christ once said to Peter: "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah" (Matt. 16:19,17); and here he says: "Give them for me and for yourself"; moreover, the greater boldness, which they had repeatedly seen in Peter, irritated them. And if Mark does not say that they inquired, but thought in themselves, this does not in the least contradict the first: it is probable that both were with them; even before they had repeatedly come to such a state, but now they expressed it in words, and thought in themselves. But do not look only at what would be reprehensible, but also consider, first, that even now they do not seek anything earthly; secondly, that they afterwards abandoned this weakness and mutually yielded the primacy to each other. As for us, we cannot rise to their faults; We do not ask who is greater in the kingdom of heaven, but who is greater in the kingdom of earth, who is richer, who is stronger. What then does Christ say to them? He opens their conscience, and responds to their feelings, not just words. "Having called upon the child, ... quoth:... except ye be converted, and be as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:2,3). You search, say who is greater, and argue about the primacy. But I say, whoever is not inferior to all is not worthy of the kingdom of heaven. And it is a beautiful example. But he does not only imagine, but actually places a child in the midst of them, ashamed by the very things they see before them; He urges us to be as humble and simple-hearted as an infant, who has neither envy, nor vanity, nor a desire for primacy, but possesses the high virtue of simplicity, kindness, and humility. Thus, one must have not only courage and prudence, but also the virtue of humility and simplicity. When we do not have these virtues, then no matter how great our deeds are, our salvation is doubtful. An infant may be reviled, punished, praised, honored, or reproached in the first case, and is not proud in the latter.

3. Do you see how He again calls us to good natural works, showing that they can be done of free will? In this way He also eradicates the impious teaching of the Manichaeans.

f., to possess qualities and, at the same time, not to be haughty with them, a property of high wisdom. That is why Christ brought him and placed him in the midst. But He did not limit His instruction to this, but extended it even further: "And whosoever shall receive one such child in My name, the same receiveth Me" (Matt. 18:5). Not only, He says, if you yourselves are such, will you receive a great reward, but even if for My sake you honor them, I will appoint a kingdom for you as a reward for your reverence for them. He even expresses more: "He accepts Me," he says, "so dear to Me is humility and simplicity of heart! By the name of the infant here He means people who are just as simple-minded, humble, rejected and despised by ordinary people. In order to make the speech more convincing, He further strengthens it not only by the promise of honor, but also by the threat of execution. "And whosoever shall offend," He continues, "one of these little ones that believe in me, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea" (v. 6). As those, He says, who honor such for My sake, will receive heaven and even the honor greater than the kingdom itself, so will they suffer the most severe punishment and those who despise them (this is meant by the word "seduce"). Do not be surprised that He calls offense a stumbling-block: many faint-hearted people have often been tempted by being despised and dishonored. Thus, by increasing the crime, He represents the harm resulting from it. He depicts punishment in a different way from rewards, explaining - namely - its severity by things known to us. Thus, when He especially wants to touch people who are insensitive, He gives sensual examples. Therefore, here, too, wishing to show that they will be subjected to a great punishment, and to expose the pride of those who despise such people, he presents a sensual punishment - a millstone and drowning. In accordance with the foregoing, it would be proper to say: He who does not receive one of these little ones does not receive Me, which is heavier than any punishment. But since this terrible punishment would have little effect on insensitive and coarse people, He speaks of the millstone and drowning. He did not say that a millstone would be hung around his neck, but that it would be better to endure such a punishment, showing that another, more grievous evil awaited the unfortunate man; if it is intolerable, how much more is it the latter. Do you see what a terrible threat? Comparing it with a threat known to us, He presents it more clearly; but pointing out a greater burden, it makes one fear a greater punishment than sensual punishment. Do you see how He uproots arrogance? How does the disease of vanity heal? How does it teach you not to look for primacy anywhere? How does he inspire those who seek primacy everywhere to seek the last place? Truly, there is nothing worse than arrogance. It deprives us of the most ordinary prudence, makes us look fools, or rather, makes us completely insane. If any one, being not higher than three cubits, were to strive to be higher than mountains, and considered himself as such; if he had stretched himself out as if he had been higher than the mountain peaks, we would not have looked for any other proof of his madness. In fact, when you see an arrogant man who thinks himself the best of all, and who puts it for dishonor to live with the common people, do not look for any other proof of his folly. Such a person is much more worthy of ridicule than those who are foolish by nature, because he has voluntarily brought this disease upon himself. And not only because he is worthy of pity, but also because he falls into the abyss of evil without feeling it.

And what can be more insane than when they are proud of completely opposite things: some because they had poor fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and others because they had glorious and famous ancestors? So, how can the pride of both be humbled? Some should be told: go far away from your grandfathers and great-grandfathers: perhaps among them you will find many cooks, drivers, taverns; but to those who are proud of themselves, looking at the baseness of their ancestors, it is proper to say the opposite: "Look also at your ancestors who lived earlier: you will find many, much more famous than you."

4. That this is the order of nature, I will prove to you from the Scriptures. Solomon was the son of a king, and a king of renown; but the father of the latter was one of the poor and ignoble people; so was his maternal grandfather, otherwise he would not have given his daughter in marriage to a simple soldier. But if you ascend higher, you will again see the most famous royal family after these poor ancestors. So, let us not be proud of our ancestors. Tell me, indeed, what is a genus? Nothing more than one empty name. And this you will find out on the last day. But since it has not yet arrived, we will try to convince you by the circumstances now known to us that the celebrity of birth does not confer any advantage. When war, famine, or any other calamity comes, then the insignificance of all the alleged advantages of noble birth is clearly revealed. Whether sickness or pestilence occurs, it does not know the difference between the rich and the poor, between the glorious and the inglorious, between the noble and the lowly; so it is with death and other upheavals: they befall everyone in the same way, and, what is most strange, especially the rich. The more careless the latter behave in such circumstances, the more easily they perish. Even fear has a stronger effect on the rich. Trembling more than others before the rulers, they are equally, and even much more, afraid of the people, since often the houses of the rich fall prey both to the fury of the mob and to the displeasure of the rulers. On the contrary, the poor remain safe from these disturbances. Therefore, if you wish to show that you are of noble birth, then, despising the nobility of the family, show the same nobility of spirit as that blessed, albeit poor, who said to Herod: "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18); as he who was before him, and who will be after him, who thus rebuked Ahab: "It is not I who trouble Israel, but you and your father's house" (1 Kings 18:18); which the prophets and all the apostles had. But such are not the souls of those who are devoted to wealth: like those who are under the power of innumerable bailiffs and executioners, they do not even dare to lift up their eyes, they do not dare to act freely for virtue. Greed for money, fame and other things, casting a harsh look at them, makes them their slaves and slaves. Truly, nothing deprives so much freedom as clinging to the things of life and addiction to everything brilliant. Such a one serves not one, not two, not three, but innumerable masters. And if you want to enumerate them, then let us cite as an example some famous courtier. Let him possess innumerable wealth, let him be invested with great power, let him have a glorious homeland, noble ancestors, and let him attract the eyes of all. Let us see if this nobleman is not more contemptible than all the slaves. Let us contrast it not merely with a slave, but with a slave belonging to a slave; for many servants have slaves. This slave of the slave has one master, what need is there if not a free one? But one, whom he is only trying to please. And let him know that his master is also subject to him; yet he obeys only one thing, and if he manages his estate well, he spends his life in peace. On the contrary, he has not one, not two masters, but many, and much more exacting. And first of all, he is disturbed by the thought of the tsar. It is a great difference to have a non-noble person or a king as ruler over oneself: the latter, listening to the slanders of many, shows his favor today to some, and tomorrow to others. And although he knows nothing about himself, in spite of this, he suspects everyone, including his associates, and subordinates, and friends, and enemies. But he, too, it will be said, fears his master. But is it the same thing to have one master and fear him, or to have many and fear them? Nay; If anyone examines the matter carefully, he will find that he has no master over him. How and how? He has no one who would deprive him of such a service and put himself in his place, and therefore has no rival. On the contrary, the nobles are only concerned with this in order to blacken before the king the one to whom he shows his favor and love. That is why they are all compelled to flatter their superior, equal, friends, because where envy and greed for glory prevail, there is no sincere friendship. Just as people who are engaged in the same art cannot love one another purely and sincerely, so those who have equal dignity also covet the same thing in the things of life. That is why there is a strong struggle between them. Do you see, then, a whole series of rulers and cruel lords? Do you want me to point out something else, even more burdensome, in their situation? Being inferior to the other, each tries to rise before him; and those who are exalted try to prevent others from being equal to them, or to surpass them.

5. But, oh miracle! I intended to point out the bishops; And my word carried me away to the point that I said more than I had intended: I have represented the masters as enemies, or, rather, I have made them both masters and enemies, because they are respected as masters, terrible as enemies, and malicious as enemies. And if someone is both a master and an enemy at the same time, then what can be imagined worse than this misfortune? The slave, although he is dependent on his master, still enjoys his protection and favor. On the contrary, they are both commanded and enmityed against; they are armed against each other, and are more exposed to dangers than in war, because they want to conceal their enmity, under the guise of friendship they nourish hostile feelings, and on the ruins of the happiness of others they often try to build their own. It is not so among us: if someone is unhappy, many suffer with him; and if someone is happy, then many rejoice with him, as the Apostle says: "Therefore, if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Cor. 12:26). In offering such exhortations, on one occasion he said: "Who is our hope, or joy, or crown of praise? Are you not also" (1 Thess. 2:19)? In another: "For now we live, while you stand in the Lord" (1 Thess. 3:8). In the third: "Out of great sorrow and distress of heart I wrote to you" (2 Cor. 2:4); or: "Who is weary, with whom am I not weary? Who is offended, for whom I am not inflamed" (2 Cor. 11:29)? Why, then, do we still whirl in whirlwinds and are overwhelmed by the waves of worldly cares, and do not hasten to a quiet refuge: why do we not strive for the things themselves, leaving empty names? Fame and power, wealth and nobility, and the like, are only names for them, but for us the thing itself; and vice versa, sorrow, death and dishonor, poverty, and the like, are only names for us, but for them the work itself. If you like, let us first of all cite as an example the glory so dear and desired to them. I am not saying that it is short-lived and that it soon disappears. No, imagine her at a time when she is in full splendor; do not hide the dress and embellishment of the adulterer, but expose her in all her adornment, and I will point out her ugliness. So, of course, you will point to the clothes, to the multitude of lictors, the voice of the herald, the obedience of the crowd, the silence of the mob, the blows to those who meet on the way, and finally the general attention. Do you not say that all this is brilliant? Let us consider, however, whether all this is not superfluous, and is it not only empty vanity? In fact, what better does a person become from this: is it in soul, or in body (for only man consists of such parts)? Does this make him taller, or stronger, or healthier, or faster? Or does he acquire the sharpest and most penetrating feelings? But no one will say this. In the same way, if we turn to the soul, we find that here too no benefit is gained. What then? Is it possible that he before whom one is so subservient becomes the most moderate, the humble, the most prudent? Not at all! Quite the opposite. It is not the same as with the body. The body just gains nothing from honors for its own benefit; but here, on the contrary, there is not only the misfortune that the soul does not receive any benefit, but also that it becomes more evil. From this she gives herself over to pride, vanity, madness, anger and other innumerable vices. But, you will say, she rejoices here, rejoices, admires. But this is the height of evil, an incurable disease. In fact, whoever is comforted by such a situation will not soon want to be freed from the bonds of evil; His contentment blocks the path to healing. It is this extreme misfortune that he, seeing the multiplication of his illnesses, not only does not grieve, but even rejoices. Joy is not always a good sign. A thief also rejoices when he steals something; and an adulterer who defiles his neighbor's marriage bed; and the covetous, who steals what is not his; and a murderer who destroys people. Therefore, we should not pay attention to whether a person rejoices, but whether he rejoices in good, and we must be careful not to find such joy as that of an adulterer or a thief. Why does he rejoice, tell me? Is it because, having won fame, he is able to be proud before others and attract their attention to him? But what can be more criminal than such a disposition and such mad love. If this is not evil, then do not accuse the vain, and do not heap on them innumerable reproaches. Stop cursing the proud and arrogant. But you find it impossible. Consequently, they also deserve innumerable censures, although they are surrounded by an innumerable retinue. This is what I intended to say about lawless nobles! And indeed, we find many of them who, because of the abuse of their power, are incomparably more criminal than robbers, murderers, adulterers, and grave-robbers. In fact, they steal more shamelessly than they do, and kill with greater cruelty, and indulge in incomparably more shameful pleasures, and, according to the strength of their power, destroy not walls, but the property and innumerable houses of others; they, carelessly indulging in passions, suffer under the yoke of the cruelest slavery; mercilessly tormenting slaves like themselves, they tremble at everyone who knows them better. Truly, he is only free, he is only a ruler, and more powerful than kings, who is not enslaved to the passions.

Amen.

DISCOURSE 59

"Woe to the world because of temptations, for stumbling blocks must come; but woe to the man through whom the offense comes" (Matt. 18:7)!

1. If it is necessary for temptations to come, - perhaps one of the opponents will say, - then why does Christ regret the world, when should He deliver it from temptations and give a helping hand? After all, this is the duty of a physician and an intercessor; and anyone can regret it. How should we respond to such shameless words? Can you find anything so equal to healing? Being God, Christ was made man for you, took the form of a servant, was subjected to all reproaches, and left nothing on His part that needed to be done. But since all these things have not benefited the ungrateful people, He is sorry for them, sorry that even after such healing they were not delivered from their illness, just as if someone who was sorry for a sick man for whom great care had been made, but who would not obey the doctor's commands, said, "Woe to this man because of his sickness, which he has intensified by his own negligence! But there is no use in regret; and here also serves as a cure, that Christ foretells the future and regrets the world. In fact, many often did not receive any benefit from advice, and were corrected by regret. That is why the Saviour especially said: "Woe to the world! - to excite people, to prepare them for exploits and to make them watch. At the same time, He reveals His love for them and meekness, in that He also pities those who oppose, not only being indignant, but also correcting them with His pity and prediction, in order to turn them to Himself. But how is this possible? - you will say. If temptations must come, then how can they be avoided? Temptations must come, but there is no need to perish from them. If, for example, a physician were to say (there is nothing to prevent the same example from being presented again) that such and such an illness must come, it does not follow that this disease must necessarily cause harm to a cautious man. The Saviour spoke these words, as I noted above, in order to awaken His disciples from slumber together with others. In order that they should not give themselves over to sleep, as if they were destined to lead a life of peace and tranquility, He foretells of a multitude of internal and external battles that await them. And Paul, pointing to this, said, "Attacks are without, fears within... in dangers among false brethren" (2 Cor. 7:5; 11:26). Also reasoning with the Ephesian shepherds in Miletus, he said: "Men shall arise from among yourselves, speaking perversely" (Acts 20:30). And Christ Himself said: "A man's enemies are his own household" (Matt. 10:36).

When Christ speaks of the necessity of temptations, He does not thereby destroy either free will or freedom of will, and does not subordinate our life to any necessity of action, but only predicts what must certainly happen. The Evangelist Luke expresses the same thing when he says: "It is impossible for stumblers not to come" (Luke 17:1). What are temptations? Obstacles on the straight path. So in the theater they call those who skillfully place obstacles and deftly turn over bodies. Thus, it is not the Saviour's prediction that is the cause of temptations; No; and temptations do not exist because the Saviour foretold about them; but therefore he predicted that they were bound to happen. If the people from whom the temptations come had decided not to do evil, then the temptations would not have come; and if they had not come, they would not have been foretold. But since people gave themselves over to evil and fell into an incurable disease, the temptations came, and the Savior predicts only what was to happen. And if they were corrected, you will say, and no one would introduce temptations, would not this prediction be false? Not at all; then it would not have existed. If all people could be corrected, then the Saviour would not have said: "Temptations must come." But since He foresaw that some would not want to reform, therefore He said that temptations would certainly come. But why, you ask, did the Lord not destroy them? Why destroy them? Is it for those who receive harm from them? But they are harmed not by temptations, but by their negligence. This is evident from the example of virtuous people, who not only do not suffer any harm from temptations, but also receive the greatest benefit. Such was Job, such was Joseph, such are all the righteous and the apostles. And if many perished, they perished because of their carelessness. If it were not so, and destruction depended on temptations, then all would have to perish, but if there are people who avoid temptations, then he who does not avoid them must blame himself. Temptations, as I have said, awaken people from slumber, make them prudent and discerning, and not only the one who guards himself from them, but also the fallen one is quickly restored; they teach him caution and make him elusive. Thus, if we are attentive, then we receive no small benefit from temptations: we learn to be constantly awake. If, even with so many enemies and temptations, we give ourselves over to sleep, what would happen to us when we lived in safety? Look, for example, at the first person. If he lived in paradise for a short time, perhaps less than a day, and enjoyed pleasures, and came to such a point of damage that he dreamed of being equal to God, considered the seducer to be a benefactor, and could not keep one commandment, then what would he not have done if he had led a life of trouble even afterwards?

2. But hearing these words from us, the adversaries again contradict us, saying, "Why then did God create him like this?" No, it was not God who made him so; otherwise He would not have punished him. If we also do not blame our servants for what we ourselves are guilty of, how much more can God of all things do this. Why then did man become so? - you ask. From himself and his carelessness. How is it: from oneself? Ask yourself. If evil evils are not of themselves, then do not punish your servant, do not reproach your wife if she sins in anything, do not beat your son, do not accuse a friend, do not hate an enemy who offends you: for they are all worthy of pity, and not punishment, if their faults are involuntary. But, you will say, I cannot reason like that. No, when you realize that they have not arbitrarily but necessarily become guilty, you can reason. Thus, if a slave, because of illness, does not carry out your commands, you not only do not blame him, but also willingly forgive him. In this way you yourself testify that some things depend on him, and others not on him. In the same way here: if the first man had been so wicked because he was created as such, then not only would you not have accused, but would have willingly forgiven him. If you forgive a servant because of illness, then surely you will not refuse forgiveness to him who was created by God inclined to evil, if only he was really created as such. It is easy for those who make such objections to shut their mouths in another way: truth abounds in proofs. Why, for example, do you never blame your servant for being ugly in face, short in stature, and not knowing how to fly? Because it depends on nature. Thus, that man cannot be blamed for that which depends on nature, no one will contradict it. Consequently, when you accuse someone, you show that his crime does not depend on nature, but on his own will. If, by not accusing others of crimes, we show that their crimes depend on nature, it is evident that if we blame others for anything, we make it known that their crime depends on freedom. Therefore, do not imagine perverse speculations and intricacies, which are weaker than a spider's web, but answer me again to the question: Did God create all men? Of course. Why are not everyone equally virtuous and vicious? Where do the kind, good, humble ones come from? Whence are the wicked and wicked? If this does not depend on the will, but on nature, then why are some virtuous and others vicious? If everyone is naturally evil, then no one could be good; but if everyone is good by nature, then no one can be evil. If all men have the same nature, then they must all be the same, either all good or all evil. But if we say that some are good by nature, and others are evil (which is unjust, as we have shown), then these qualities of them must be unchangeable, since their natural properties do not change. For example, see: we are all mortal, subject to passions, and no one can free himself from them, even if he has made a thousand efforts. Yet we see that many of the good are made evil, and of the evil are made good: some through negligence, others through great care; From which it is especially evident that to be good or evil does not depend on nature. What is given by nature is neither changed nor acquired through effort. Just as in order to see or hear we do not need to work, so in order to acquire virtue we would not need to make an effort, if it were given in nature itself. And why would God create the wicked, when He could have made all good? So, where does evil come from? Ask yourself; my business is only to show that it is neither of nature nor of God. So, you say, did it come of itself? By no means. Is it unborn? Be silent, O man! Flee from such madness, and do not give evil the same honor as God, and the highest honor at that. For if evil is unborn, it is powerful, and it can neither be averted nor destroyed: everyone knows that the unborn cannot perish.

3. Why are there so many good people, when evil has such power? How can the born be stronger than the unborn? You will say: God will one day destroy evil. But how will He destroy evil, if, like Him, it is beginningless, powerful, and eternal? - someone will say? Oh, the devil's malice! How much evil she has invented! What blasphemy she brought man to! Under what pious pretext did she invent a new impious teaching! Wishing to show that evil does not come from God, people introduced a new impious teaching, recognizing evil as unborn. So, where does evil come from? From will and unwillingness. But whence comes the very will and unwillingness? From ourselves. To ask such a question is the same as to ask: why does a man see and not see? If I were to answer you, "Because he opens and closes his eyes," you would ask me again, "Why does he open and close his eyes?" And then, when I told you that it depends on ourselves and on our will, you would again look for a new cause. Evil is nothing other than disobedience to God. Whence then, you will say, did this disobedience arise in man? But tell me: was it difficult for him to happen? I do not say what is difficult; I only ask, why did man want to disobey God? From carelessness. Having the power to obey and disobey God, he chose the latter. If you still doubt and are perplexed after this, then I will ask you a question that is not difficult or confusing, but simple and clear: has it not happened to you that sometimes you have acted badly, and sometimes well? For example, he conquered a passion and was subjected to it again, indulged in drunkenness and abstained from it, was angry and tamed anger, despised the poor and did not despise him, committed adultery and became chaste again? Tell me, then, whence come all this? Why? If you do not tell me, then I will tell you: it is because at first you tried (about virtue) and were zealous, and then you became weak and careless. To people who are desperate and completely given over to evil, insensitive and insane, who do not even want to hear about what can correct them, I will not speak of wisdom; and to those who act this way and that, I will say with pleasure. You have somehow stolen property that does not belong to you, and then, impelled by mercy, you have given to the poor also from your own goods: whence has this change come about in you? Is it not obvious that it depends on your will and disposition? This is so obvious that everyone will easily agree with it.

Therefore, I ask you to be careful and adhere to virtue, and then you will not ask such questions. If we want, evil will exist only by one name. Therefore, do not ask whence evil comes, and do not give yourself over to doubt; but when you learn that it comes from mere carelessness, depart from it.