О различных вопросах к Симплициану в двух книгах Книга первая (В которой разбираются два вопроса из послания апостола Павла к Римлянам)

You sent me, Father Simplician, truly the most disinterested and most pleasant gift of your questions: if I had not tried to answer them, I would have turned out to be not only disobedient, but also ungrateful. And what you proposed for resolution from the Apostle Paul, one way or another, has already been analyzed and written down by us. However, not content with the previous research and explanation, I tried to examine [now] more carefully and carefully the same apostolic words and the same sequence of sayings, so that it would not turn out that through carelessness I had missed something [before]; After all, you would not consider all this worthy of questioning if understanding this were easy and unhindered. Why was the law given? (§1) 1. So, the first question that you were pleased to propose to us for resolution begins from the place 1 where it is written: “What shall we say? Is the law really sin? It won’t happen!” - and [extends] right up to the place where [the apostle] says: “So the law is good for me who wants it” and so on; and even, it seems to me, to the words: “I am an unfortunate man! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 7:7-25). It seems to me that here the apostle in himself portrays a person under the law and speaks his words on his own behalf. And since a little earlier he said: “We have been freed from the law, in which we were kept as dead, in order to serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6), so that here it may seem that with such words he seems to be condemning the law, he immediately adds: “What shall we say? Is the law really sin? It won't happen! But I did not know sin except through the law, for I would not have understood desire if the law had not said: Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). Concupiscence brought about through the law (§2–3) 2. Here again bewilderment arises: after all, if the law is not sin, but the instigator of sin, then these words [of the apostle] condemn it no less. And therefore it is necessary to understand that the law was given not so that sin could be implanted through it, and not so that it could be eradicated, but only so that sin would be shown to them, in order to make the human soul guilty, by the very indication of sin, which feels as if safe because of its innocence. And since without the grace of God it cannot overcome sin, the law is designed to turn the soul so that, alarmed by its guilt, it seeks grace. So, the apostle does not say: “I committed sin only through the law”; but [says]: “I knew no sin except by the law” (Rom. 7:7). And again, he does not say: “For I would not have desired, if the law had not said: Thou shalt not covet”; but he says this: “I would not understand desire if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). From this it is clear that the law does not impose a desire, but makes it obvious. 3. Therefore it turned out that the law, since grace had not yet been received, could not resist the desire, and it even increased; after all, when the guilt of a crime was added, due to the fact that the desire began to do something contrary to the law, it became stronger [the desire], which is not prohibited by any law. Therefore [quite] consistently [the apostle] adds: “So sin, having received an opportunity, through the commandment produced in me every desire” (Rom. 7:8). After all, even before the law there was [a desire], but it was not all, since then there was no guilt in the crime. Therefore, in another place he says: “For where there is no law, there is no crime” (Rom. 4:15). How was sin dead without the law, and how did it come to life? (§4–5) 4. And what he adds: “For without the law sin is dead” (Rom. 7:8) - this is given here in the sense as if he had said: hidden, that is, considered dead. He will speak about this a little lower more clearly: “And I once lived without the law,” that is, I was not afraid of any death resulting from sin, since [sin] was not manifested, since there was no law: “When the commandment came, sin came to life,” that is, it manifested itself. “And I died,” that is, I knew that I had died; after all, being guilty of a crime, I am undoubtedly exposed to the threat of punishment by death. And when he says: “Sin came to life when the commandment came" (Rom. 7:9-10), - then in a similar way it clearly shows that sin once lived, that is, it was known, and this, as I believe, is the case of the crime of the first man, since he also received the commandment (Gen. 2:17). Indeed, in another place he says: “The woman was deceived and fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14); Rom.5:14) For only that which once lived can come to life. However, this became dead, that is, it became hidden, when people who were born mortal lived without the commandment of the law, following the desires of the flesh without any understanding, since there was no prohibition. That is why the apostle says: “I once lived without law.” And from here it is clear that he says not on his own behalf, but on behalf of a person in general: “I.” “When the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; and the commandment which was to life turned out to be death to me" (Rom. 7:9-10). After all, if a commandment is obeyed, it is, of course, life; but it turns into death when something contrary to the commandment is done, so that not only does sin occur, which also happened before the commandment, but it also becomes more abundant and destructive, for now he who knows [the commandment] and transgresses [it] sins. 5. “For sin,” says [the apostle further], “taking a pretext from the commandment, deceived me, and killed me with it” (Rom. 7:11). Sin, illegally using the law, when a desire arose from the prohibition, became more sweet, and thereby deceived. For sweetness is deceptive, followed by many sorrows and the most severe punishments. So, since people who have not yet received spiritual grace commit the forbidden with greater sweetness, sin deceives with false sweetness; and since guilt is also added to the crime, it kills. Who misuses the law? (§ 6) 6. “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12); for it commands what ought to be commanded, and forbids what ought to be forbidden. “Has then what is good become death to me? Let it not be” (Rom. 7:13). After all, the vice is in the bad user, and not in the commandment itself, which is good, since “the law is good if someone uses it lawfully” ( 1 Timothy 1:8) But he who does not submit to God in godly humility makes bad use, so that with the help of grace the law may be fulfilled. And therefore, he who uses the law unlawfully accepts it for no other reason than that his sin, which was hidden before the prohibition, begins to manifest itself as a result of the crime, and “excessively” (Rom. 7:13), since not only is sin committed, but the commandment is also transgressed. adds: “But sin, in order to appear as sin, caused me death through good, so that because of the commandment the sin or the sinner becomes excessive” (Rom. 7:13). This makes it clear in what sense he said above: “For without the law sin is dead” (Rom. 7:8), he said so not because without the law there was no sin, but because the latter was not obvious. It is also clear in what sense it is said: “Sin came to life” (Rom. 7:9): not in the sense that sin began to exist - after all, it existed before the law - but in the sense that it became obvious because it began to resist the law. [All this is clear] on the basis of what he says here: “But sin, in order to appear as sin, through good things caused me death” (Rom. 7:13), for he does not say: “in order to be sin,” but: “in order to appear as sin.” The law is fulfilled only by a spiritual person. Carnal people are so called in a double sense" (§ 7–9) 7. Then the apostle adds the reason why this is the case. “For we know,” he says, “that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal” (Rom. 7:14). With these words he quite clearly states that the law can only be fulfilled by those who are spiritual, and they can become such only with the help of grace. For the more similar someone becomes to the spiritual law, that is, the more he himself rises in the spiritual movement, the more he fulfills it, since the more he delights in it, no longer oppressed by its burden, but inspired by its light: “for the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and the law of the Lord is blameless, converting souls” (Ps. 18:8-9); and grace at the same time forgives sins and pours out the spirit of love, thanks to which righteousness is not only not painful, but even pleasant. And rationally, having said: “But I am carnal” (Rom. 7:14), he adds to this [the apostle’s explanation] how carnal. For in a certain sense those who are already under grace are called carnal, having already been redeemed by the blood of the Lord and regenerated by faith; those to whom the same apostle says: “And I, brothers, could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal; as babes in Christ, I fed you with milk and not with solid food” (1 Cor. 3:1-2). By saying this, he in any case shows that those who were infants in Christ and fed on milk were regenerated by grace, and yet he still calls them carnal. And he who is not yet under grace, but under the law, is carnal in the sense that he has not yet been regenerated from sin, “but is sold under sin”; since, as a reward for deadly lust, he takes possession of that sweetness that deceives him, so that he even delights in the fact that he acts contrary to the law; for something is more desirable the less permitted. And he cannot enjoy this sweetness as a kind of reward for his fortune, unless he is forced, as if by a bill of sale, to serve the desire. After all, he feels that he is a slave to the dominant desire, which is forbidden to him; realizes that this prohibition is fair for him, but still does [improper]. 8. “For I do not know,” says the apostle, “what I do” (Rom. 7:15), “I do not know” is not said here in the same sense, as if he does not know that he is sinning. For such a thing would contradict what was said: “But sin, in order to appear as sin, through a good thing caused me death” (Rom. 7:13); and also, above: “I did not know sin except through the law” (Rom. 7:7). For how something appeared that he did not know, or how did he know it? But it is said here in the same sense as the Lord will say to the wicked: “I do not know you” (Matthew 25:12). Of course, nothing is hidden from God, since the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to destroy the memory of them from the earth (Ps. 33:17). “I don’t approve of what I’m doing,” that is, I don’t approve. And he immediately confirms this, saying: “For I do not do what I want, but what I hate, that I do” (Rom. 7:15). So, in relation to what he says: “I hate”, he also says about the same thing: “I don’t know”; after all, about those to whom the Lord says: “I do not know you,” He is told: “You, O Lord, hate all who practice iniquity” (Ps. 5:7). 9. “If I do what I do not want, then I agree with the law that it is good” (Rom. 7:16); for the law does not want the same thing; because the law prohibits it. Therefore, I agree with the law: not in the sense that he does what he forbids, but in that he does not want what he does. For he is bound, not yet being freed by grace, although thanks to the law he already knows that he is doing wrong and does not want it. And what [the apostle] says, continuing: “Therefore it is no longer I who do this, but sin that dwells in me” (Rom. 7:17), he says this not because he does not agree to commit sin, although he agrees with the law in its condemnation, - after all, he still speaks on behalf of a person who is under the law, and not under grace; a person who, in fact, is drawn to commit evil by the dominant lust and seductive pleasure of forbidden sin, although in terms of the knowledge of the law he does not approve of this, but because of this he says: “It is not I who do this,” because he does it as a captive. After all, he commits this lust, the pressure of which he yields to. And in order not to give in, so that the human mind more firmly resists lust, this is a matter of grace, which the apostle intends to speak about later. Punishment for original sin (§10–11) 10. “For I know,” he says, “that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18). Knowing - he agrees with the law, but doing - he yields to sin. What if someone asks why he says that in his flesh there is no good dwelling at all, and therefore sin [dwells]? Why, if not because of the transmission of mortality and the continuity of [sinful] desire? The first is the punishment for the original. sin, the second is punishment for frequent sin; with the first we are born into this life, and the second we add while living. And these two things, namely, nature and custom, united, make lust the most powerful and invincible, which he calls sin, and says that the latter dwells in his flesh, that is, it has some dominion and, as it were, a kingdom. Hence the following words of the psalm: “I would rather be humiliated in the house. of the Lord than to dwell in the tents of sinners" (Ps. 83:11); that is, he who is humble, wherever he is, does not dwell where he dwells. Therefore, it is clear that dwelling should be understood here in terms of some kind of dominion. And if by grace what the apostle says in another place is accomplished in us: “So that sin does not reign in our mortal body to obey its lusts” (Rom. 6:12), then it will no longer be possible to strictly say in this case that sin dwells [in us]. 11. “Because desire,” he says, “is characteristic of me, but doing good is not” (Rom. 7:18). To those who misunderstand these words, it seems that [the apostle] seems to eliminate free decision with them. But how does he eliminate it if he says: “Desire is characteristic of me?” After all, it is clear that desire itself is in [our] power, since it is characteristic of us; but doing good is not in [our] power, and this is due to the fault of original sin. For echo is not the original nature of man, but punishment for a crime, as a result of which mortality itself appeared, like a certain secondary nature, from which the grace of the Creator frees us if we submit to it with faith. But now the words of a man are being spoken who is still under the law, and not under grace. For he who is not under grace does not do the “good that he wants,” but does the “evil that he does not want,” as a result of the dominant lust, strengthened not only by the bonds of mortality, but also by the weight of habit. And if he does what he does not want, then it is not himself who does it, but the sin that dwells in him, as was said and explained above. 12. “So, I find,” he says, “that the law is good for me, who wants to fulfill [it], but evil is characteristic of me” (Rom. 7:21), that is, I find that the law is good for me, since I want to do what is contained in the law, but evil is characteristic of me, due to the ease of doing it; for what he said above: “desire is characteristic of me,” he said in the sense of ease [of fulfillment]. After all, what is easier for a person under the law than to desire good and do evil? And he desires the first without any difficulty, although he does not do it with the same ease with which he desires; and the second, hated, he easily has, although he does not want it: like someone who has thrown himself down, he easily flies into the abyss, although he does not want it and hates it. I said this in relation to the word “properly”. So, a person who is under the law and has not yet been freed by grace bears witness to the law that it is good. Thus, he generally testifies that he blames himself for acting contrary to the law, and finds that the law is good for him, who wants to do what the latter commands, and is unable because of the lust that overcomes him. Thanks to this, he sees that he is bound by the guilt of a crime, [and is prompted] to seek the grace of the Deliverer. What is the law of sin in the members? (§ 13–14) 13. “For I take delight,” says [the apostle], “in the law of God according to the inner man”: in that law, of course, which says: “Thou shalt not covet.” “But I see,” he says, “in my members another law, warring against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members” (Rom. 7:22-23). He calls the law in his members the very burden of mortality, burdened with which we groan (2 Cor. 5:4). “For the corruptible body burdens the soul” (Wis. 9:15). Because of this, it also often happens, which involuntarily delights the unlawful. The apostle calls this oppressive and oppressive burden a law, since it is rightly prescribed and imposed as a punishment by the Divine sentence of Him who warned man, saying: “In the day that you eat, you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). This law opposes the law of the mind, which says: “Thou shalt not covet,” which man delights in according to the inner man; and until someone is under grace, this law is so strongly opposed that it subjects the person to the law of sin, that is, to himself. After all, when he says: “abiding in my members,” he shows that this is the same law about which he previously said: “I see another law in my members” (Rom. 7:23). 14. And he says all this so that it becomes obvious to the captive person that he should not think too much about his strength. That is why he denounces the Jews, who proudly boasted of supposedly [fulfilling] the works of the law, although lust carried them away to everything that was unlawful, while the law in which they boasted says: “Thou shalt not covet.” Therefore, this is how a defeated, condemned, captive person should speak with humility; finally, not a winner thanks to the law received, but rather a criminal; This is how he should cry out with humility: “Wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 7:24–25). For in this mortal life, a free decision does not serve to ensure that a person fulfills the truth whenever he wants, but so that in tearful and pious prayer he turns to Him, with whose help he can fulfill it. Explanation of places on the basis of which it may seem that the law is evil. The law does not rule over those who are under grace (§ 15) 15. Therefore, taking into account the whole sequence of the apostolic speech that we have analyzed, anyone who believes that the apostle considers the law evil, since he says: “The law came that transgression might abound” (Rom. 5:20); and: “The ministry of death in letters, depicted on stones” (2 Cor. 3:7); and: “The power of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:56); and: “You died to the law by the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, the One who rose from the dead”; and: “The sinful passions, which occur through the law, acted in our members to bear fruit in death; but now... we have been freed from the law, in which we were held as dead, so that we might serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:4-6) and other things that we find said by the apostle in this sense, let him note that it is said so, since the law increases the desire by prohibition and binds the guilty person with a crime, commanding what people, due to weakness, are not able to do, unless they piously turn to grace God's and therefore those whom he rules over are called those who are under him, and he rules over those whom he punishes; punishes all criminals. After all, those who have received the law transgress it, unless with the help of grace it becomes possible for them to [do] what it commands. And therefore the law does not rule over those who are already under grace, for they fulfill it with love, although they were condemned, [being] under the power of its fear. 3Manichaean error regarding the Old Testament law (§16) 16. For if everything said above makes one think that the apostle rejects the law, then what do we do with his words: “For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man?” (Rom 7:22). After all, when he says this, he undoubtedly praises the law. When they (namely those who think that the law is evil) hear this, they answer that here the apostle is talking about another law, that is, the law of Christ, and not the one given to the Jews. So, let us ask them, what law is the apostle talking about: “The law came that transgression might abound?” (Rom.5:20) They, of course, will answer that about the one that the Jews received. Then look, is this not the law about which it is said: “Having received an occasion, sin through the commandment produced in me every desire?” For what else does it mean: “He has produced in me every desire” (Rom. 7:8), if not what stands here: “so that the transgression may abound.” See also whether this saying does not fit here: “So that because of the commandment, sin or the sinner becomes excessive” (Rom. 7:13). After all, it means the same thing: “So that because of the commandment, sin or the sinner becomes excessive,” as: “So that the crime increases.” So, if we establish that the commandment is good, having accepted the reason from which sin produced every desire, so that it became excessive, then we immediately establish that the law that came so that transgression would increase was good, that is, so that sin would produce every desire and become excessive. Therefore let them listen to the same apostle saying: “What shall we say? Is the law really sin? It won’t happen!” (Rom 7:7). This, they say, is said about the law of Christ, that is, about the law of grace. Then let them answer, as they believe, about which law what follows is said: “But I did not know sin except through the law, for I would not understand desire if the law did not say: “Thou shalt not covet.” So, having received an opportunity, sin through the commandment produced in me every desire” (Rom. 7: 7-8). Now, the very connection of the words sufficiently shows what kind of law he was talking about: “Is the law really sin? It won’t happen!” About that, of course, by the commandment of which sin was given a reason to produce every desire; and therefore about the one who came so that the crime would increase; about the one they consider evil. But what could be clearer than what was said a little later: “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good?” (Rom.7:12). Again they say that this is not said about the law that was given to the Jews, but about the Gospel. For this blind vicissitude is so ineradicable among the Manichaeans. After all, they do not pay attention to what follows is extremely obvious and clear: “So, has goodness become death for me? It won't happen! But sin, in order to appear as sin, through a good thing caused me death, so that because of the commandment, the sin or the sinner becomes excessive” (Rom. 7:13), that is, through the holy, righteous and good commandment, which, however, came so that sin would increase, that is, so that it would become excessive. An explanation of the evidence from which it may appear that the law is not good (§ 17) 17. Then why is it said: “The ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7), if the law is good? Because “sin, in order to appear as sin, by means of good caused me death.” And do not be surprised at this, because it is also said about the Gospel sermon itself: “For we are the savor of Christ both to those who are being saved and to those who are perishing; to some we are the smell of life to life, and to others the smell of death to death” (2 Cor. 2:15-16). After all, the law is called the ministry of death in relation to the Jews, for whom it was also written on stone to indicate their hardness of heart; and not in relation to those who fulfill the law through love. “For the fulfillment of the law is love” (Rom. 13:10). After all, the very law that was depicted in stone letters says: “Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not covet” (Ex. 20:13–17), etc. And this law, as the apostle says, is fulfilled with the help of love. And he says about it this way: “For he who loves another has fulfilled the law. After all, the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not covet, and all the others, are contained in this word: love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-9), since the latter is also written in the same law. Why “the power of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:56), if the law is good? Because sin, through good, caused death, so that it became excessive, that is, it received great power from crime. Why did we “die to the law through the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4) if the law is good? Because we are dead to the prevailing law, that is, we are freed from the action by which the law punishes and condemns. For in most cases the law is so called because it dominates, terrifies, and punishes. So, the same commandment is both a law for those who fear and grace for those who love. Hence the following words in the Gospel: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). After all, the same law that was given through Moses to terrify, through Jesus Christ became grace and truth to be fulfilled. Therefore it is said: “You are dead to the law,” as if it were said: “you are dead to the punishment of the law, “by the body of Christ,” by which the sins that were the cause of legal punishment have been forgiven.” Why “the passions of sin, which come about through the law” (Rom. 7:5), if the law is good? Because here the apostle wants these same sinful passions, which have often already been mentioned, to be understood as an increase in desire due to prohibition and exposure to punishment due to crime; that is, because [the law] “by means of good caused me death, so that because of the commandment the sin or the sinner became excessive” (Rom. 7:13). Why are we “set free from the law, wherein we were held as dead, to serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6), if the law is good? Because the law is a letter for those who do not fulfill it due to the spirit of love, which refers to the New Testament. So, those who died to sin are freed from the letter, which held those who did not do what was written guilty. For what, if not a simple letter, is the law for those who have learned to read it, but cannot fulfill it? After all, it is not unknown to those for whom it was written, but since it is known only to the extent that they read what is written, and not to the extent to which they do what is pleasant, then for them it is nothing more than a letter. This letter is not a help to those who read, but a witness to those who sin. Therefore, [only] he is freed from the condemnation associated with it who is renewed in spirit, so as not to be bound by the letter to punishment, but to be united to the understanding by righteousness. This is where these words come from: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). For the law, only read, but not understood and not fulfilled, undoubtedly kills; and in this case it is called a letter. “But the Spirit gives life,” for the fulfillment of the law is “the love that has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5). 1. But now, I think, the time has come to move on to another question, which you proposed in such a way that the [subject to discussion] passage extends from what is written: “And not only this: but so it was also with Rebekah, when in one intercourse she conceived ... from Isaac our father. For while they were not yet born and had not done anything good or evil” (Rom. 9:10-11), and right up to the place where it is said: “If If the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and like Gomorrah" (Rom. 9:29). It is obvious that this passage is much more obscure [than the previous one]. But it is clear - for I know your attitude towards me - that you could not command me to reveal this without asking the Lord so that I could [do this]. The intention of the apostle. The grace of faith precedes good works (§2) 2. First of all, I will adhere to the intention (that is, the design) of the apostle, as I understand it; intention that permeates the entire message. And this intention is that no one boasted about the merits of the deeds. The Israelites dared to boast about them; They boasted that they kept the law given to them, and therefore received the grace of the gospel as a kind of reward for their merits, which consisted in keeping the law. Because of this, they did not want the same grace to be taught to the pagans, as if they, having not accepted the Jewish sacraments, were unworthy of it. The question that arose as a result is resolved in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 15). After all, they did not understand that since this very grace is the grace of the Gospel, it is not given for works: “Otherwise grace... is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6). And quite often in many places [St. The Apostle of Scripture confirms this, exalting the grace of faith above works; not to destroy works, but to show that works do not precede grace, but follow it; so that no one considers himself to have received grace because he did well; for, on the contrary, no one can do good without receiving grace through faith. And a person begins to receive grace when he begins to believe in God, being moved to faith by internal or external motivation. But the difference here is that at certain times or during the celebration of the sacraments, grace is poured out more abundantly and obviously. After all, the catechumens also believe, and Cornelius also believed in God, who through alms and prayers made himself worthy of sending an angel to him (Acts 10:1-4). But he could not have done this if he had not believed first; and would in no way have believed if he had not been called by certain impulses: either secret, through visions of the mind and spirit, or more obvious, perceived through the bodily senses. So, in some there abides such a grace of faith, which is not enough to gain the Kingdom of Heaven, as in the catechumens, as in Cornelius himself, before he, thanks to the sacrament, entered the body of the Church; and in some it is so great that they are already considered the body of Christ and the holy church of God. “For the church of God is holy,” says the apostle, “and this church is you” (1 Cor 3:17); and the Lord Himself says: “Unless someone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (John 3:5). After all, there are certain beginnings of faith, similar to conception. However, to achieve eternal life, one must not only be conceived, but also be born. And none of this [happens] without the grace of God’s mercy; since if there are some good works, then, as has already been said, they follow grace, and do not precede it. The purpose of the apostle in the example of Jacob and Esau. Good works are from grace, not grace from works (§3) 3. The Apostle, wanting to instill this, - after all, he also says in another place: “This is not from us, but the gift of God; not of works, lest any one become arrogant” (Eph. 2:8-9), - gives testimony about those who have not yet been born. After all, no one can say that Jacob pleased God with his deeds, not yet being born, so that by Divine will it was said about him: “And the elder will serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23). Therefore, [the apostle] says: “not only Isaac was promised when it was said: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son” (Gen. 18:10), - this son, of course, did not please God with any deeds, so that his birth would be promised, so that the seed of Abraham would be called in Isaac; that is, so that they might be numbered among the lot of the saints in Christ, who consider themselves sons of promise, not being proud of their merits, but considering it to be the grace of the calling that they are joint heirs with Christ, for when it was promised that they would be, those who did not yet exist did not deserve anything - (so, not only does the promise apply to Isaac), “but so it was with Rebekah, when in one intercourse she conceived it is from Isaac our father” (Rom.9:10). He says very carefully: “in one intercourse,” because twins were conceived; [says this] for the purpose of not attributing this in some way to parental merits, so that someone could say: because such a son was born, his father was disposed in such and such a way at the time when he sowed him in his mother’s womb, or his mother was disposed in such and such a way when she conceived him. After all, he sowed them both together at the same time, and at the same time she conceived them. In order to teach this, he says: “in one intercourse”; [and also] in order not to leave room for astrologers, or rather for those who are called compilers of horoscopes and, by [the position of the stars] at birth, guess the morals and properties of those born. For what can they say: why, with one [common] conception at one point in time, with the same arrangement of the sky and constellations, so that they cannot at all note something different for each, there was such a difference in these twins; and [everyone] will easily notice, if they want, that the answers that they sell to unfortunate people are not produced by the explanation of some art, but by an accidental guess. But in order to guide us about the matter we are talking about, this is mentioned to crush and destroy the pride of people who are ungrateful to the grace of God and who dare to boast about their merits. “For when they were not yet born, and had not done anything good or evil, not by works, but by him who called, it was said to her, that the older would serve the younger” (Rom 9:11–12). Therefore, grace belongs to the Caller, and for the one who receives grace, its consequence is good deeds, which do not generate grace, but are generated by it. For fire does not heat in order to burn, but because it burns; Likewise, a wheel does not roll well because it is round, but because it is round. In the same way, no one does good deeds to receive grace, [but does them] because he has received it. For how can anyone live righteously who is not [first] justified? In the same way, someone who is not sanctified cannot live holy, and in general, someone who is not [first] quickened cannot live. But it is grace that justifies, so that the justified may live righteously. So, first grace, and then good works, as [the apostle] says elsewhere: “But to him who does, the recompense is imputed not according to grace, but according to duty” (Rom. 4:4), like that immortality that follows good works, if only it is actually demanded by duty, as the same apostle says: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; But now there is laid up for me a crown for righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will reward me on that day” (2 Tim 4:7-8). After all, perhaps, since he said: “he will repay,” this is already being done out of duty. When he “went up on high and took captivity captive,” he did not repay, but “gave gifts to people” (Eph. 4:8). For why does the apostle himself assume that his due will be given to him, if not because he first received undeserved grace, justified by which he fought a good fight? After all, he was a blasphemer, a persecutor and an offender [of Christians], but he inherited mercy, as he himself testifies (1 Tim. 1:13), believing in Him who justifies not the godly, but the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), so that, having justified, he might make him godly. How is it just that Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected? (§4) 4. “Not from works,” says the apostle, “but from Him who Called, it was told to her that the elder will serve the younger.” So, what was said [earlier]: “For when they were not yet born and had not done anything good or evil,” serves so that one can say: “Not from works, but from Him who Calls.” Here the question arises in the soul, why did he say: “So that the purpose of God may be manifested in election” (Rom. 9:11-12). After all, how can there be a fair, or indeed any kind of election, where there is no difference? For if Jacob, who had not yet been born and had done nothing, was chosen without any merit, then he could not have been chosen at all, since there was no difference in accordance with which the election would take place. In the same way, if Esau was undeservedly rejected, since he was not yet born and did nothing, when it was said: “And the elder will serve the younger,” then how can his rejection be called fair? So, with the help of what distinction, what concept of impartiality, can we understand what follows: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated?” (Rom.9:13). It is clear that this was written by a prophet who prophesied much later, when they had already been born and died. However, this saying is mentioned in the same sentence where it is said: “And the elder will serve the younger,” that is, before they were born and did anything. So, where does this election come from, and what kind of election is it, if those who are not yet born and have done nothing have no trace of any merit? Or are there some [merits] related to the [difference of] natures? But who will think so [if they] are from one father, from one mother, from one intercourse, from one Creator? Or just as from the same earth the same Creator produced different kinds of animals and plants, so from the same pair of people and from the same combination He produced different offspring in twins: one that he loved, and the other that he hated? But there is no election until there is a basis for election. After all, if Jacob became good in order to please [God], then what did he please before he became good in order to become good? So, he was not chosen in order [later] to become good, but having become good, [thanks to this] he could be chosen. Does the election of Jacob take place according to Divine foreknowledge of the future faith? (§5) 5. But isn’t it because “in election” that God, who foresees everything, also saw the future faith in the unborn Jacob; so that, although no one is worthy of justification by his works, for he cannot do good works without being justified, yet since God justifies the Gentiles by faith (Gal. 3:8), and they believe only by free will, God, foreseeing this very future will to believe, by foreknowledge chose the unborn to justify him? So, if election is by foreknowledge, and God foresaw Jacob’s faith, how can you prove that He did not also choose him from works? If it is because [not from works] that they were not yet born and have not done anything good or evil, then in the same way none of them has yet believed. But foreknowledge knew who was to believe. Then foreknowledge could also see the one who would do [good] deeds: so that, just as [Jacob] is called chosen because of the future faith, which God foreknew, so someone else can be called chosen because of future deeds, which God no less knows in advance. How then does the apostle assert that it was not said from works: “The older will serve the younger?” If it is because [he says this] that they were not born, then it is said that not only not from works, but also not from faith, since those who were not yet born had neither one nor the other. So, the apostle does not want it to be decided that by foresight the younger one was chosen so that the older one would serve him; after all, wanting to show that it did not come from works, for this purpose he added the following words: “For while they were not yet born, they had not done anything good or evil” (Rom. 9:11), otherwise they could have told him: but God already knew which of them would do what. Therefore, the question is, on what basis was this election made? After all, if not from works, which those who were not yet born did not have, and not from faith, since there was none, then because of what? Election is by grace and purpose of God (§ 6) 6. Or should it be said that there was no election, since in the womb of the mother there was no difference: no faith, no works, no other merits? But it is said: “That the purpose of God may be manifested in election” (Rom. 9:11); That is why we ask, because it is said so. However, perhaps we should divide this sentence differently, namely, to understand it not in the sense that, as if for that purpose, “it was said not from works, but from the Caller: the elder will serve the younger, so that God’s intention will be manifested in election”; but rather, this example of those who have not yet been born and have done nothing is offered here so that no election can be conceived. “For when they were not yet born and did not do anything good or evil, so that (as a result of this) the purpose of God would take place in election” (Rom. 9:11-12), that is, they had not yet done anything good or evil, so that for the sake of such an action there would be some election of one who did well; therefore, since there was no election of one who did well, in which the purpose of God would remain, then “not from works, but from Him who calls”, that is, from The one who, calling to faith, justifies the ungodly by grace, “it was said to her that the elder will serve the younger.” Therefore, the intention of God does not reside in election, but election arose from intention: that is, the intention of justification abides not because God found good works in people and chose these works; would be the elect, and it would be incorrectly said: “Who accuses the elect of God?” (Rom.8:33). However, it is not election that precedes justification, but justification that precedes election. For no one is chosen except by separating himself from the one who is rejected. Therefore, what is said: “Because God chose us before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), I do not see how it can be said, if not in the sense of foreknowledge. And when the apostle here says: “It was not told to her by works, but by Him who called, that the elder would serve the younger,” he wants us to understand it this way: not by the choice of merits that will arise after justification by grace, but by the generosity of God’s gifts, so that no one would be exalted in works. “For by the grace of God we are saved; and this is not from us, but the gift of God, not from works, so that no one becomes arrogant” (Eph. 2:8-9). Is faith one of the gifts of grace? (§ 7) 7. However, they ask whether a person’s justification is deserved at least by [his] faith, or even the merits of faith do not precede the mercy of God, but faith itself belongs to the gifts of grace; after all, here too, when [the apostle] said: “Not from works,” he did not add: “but from faith,” it was told to her that the elder will serve the younger,” but says: “but from the One who calls.” For no one believes unless he is called. And the merciful God calls, granting it without any merit, even the merits of faith, since the merits of faith rather follow the calling than precede it. “For how could they believe in Him of whom they had not heard? And how would they hear without a preacher? "(Rom.10:14). Therefore, if the invocation of God’s mercy does not precede, then no one can believe, so that thanks to faith the beginning of justification will be laid and the ability to do good will be acquired. So, grace is before all merit, because “Christ... died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6). Therefore, from the Caller, and not from any merit of his deeds, the younger received that the elder would serve him; so that also what is written: “Jacob I have loved,” comes from God calling, and not from Jacob acting. Why is it right to reject Esau?” (§ 8) 8. But what then shall we say about Esau? By what atrocities did he deserve that he would serve the younger, and what is written: “And he hated Esau” (Rom. 9:13), if he was not yet born and had not done anything good or evil when it was said: “And the elder will serve the younger”? Or, just as this was said about Jacob without any merit of good deeds, so Esau became hated without any reasons for evil deeds? After all, if the Lord predestined him to serve the younger because he foreknew his future evil deeds, then he also predestined Jacob to be served by the elder, because he foreknew his future good deeds, and in this case, what was said is already false: “Not from works.” And if it is true that “not of works,” and the apostle proves this by saying this about those who have not yet been born and have done nothing; further, if not from faith, since there was no faith in those not yet born, then for what reason did Esau become hated even before he was born? After all, there is no bewilderment regarding the fact that God created what he loved. But if we say that He also created what He hated, then it looks stupid, despite the fact that another Scripture comes to mind, saying: “You did not create anything with hatred, for you do not hate anything that You created” (Wis. 11:25). After all, by what merit was the sun created by the sun? Or what has the moon done wrong, which is located so below him? Or what did she do to deserve that she was created so much brighter than the stars of heaven? But all this was created good, each in its own way. For God did not say: “I loved the sun, but I hated the moon,” or: “I loved the moon, but I hated the stars,” as He said: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.” But He loves all of the above, although He has ordered them into various degrees of perfection; for God saw that it was good when it was established by His word. And the fact that He hated Esau, unless this happened because of the latter’s injustice, is unjust. If we admit this (namely, because of injustice), then we will be forced to admit that Jacob was also loved because of [his] righteousness. And if this is true, then it is false that “not of works.” Or perhaps from the righteousness of faith? Then what is the use of you: “For while they were not yet born,” surely the righteousness of faith could not also be in him who was not yet born? Faith is the gift of a merciful God (§ 9) 9. So, the apostle sees that on the basis of such words he can penetrate into the soul of the reader or listener, and immediately adds: “What shall we say? Is it really not true with God? It won't happen! “And, as if instructing how to avoid this, he continues: “For He says to Moses: To whom I will be merciful, I will have mercy on him; and whoever I have compassion on, I will show mercy to him” (Rom. 9:14-15). It is not clear whether the apostle resolves the question with these words or, rather, confuses it even more tightly? For this is precisely what leads to bewilderment most of all: if He has mercy on those to whom He is merciful, and shows mercy to those whom He has pity, then why was there not this mercy [in relation to] Esau, so that he would become good thanks to this, as Jacob became good with the help of this mercy? Or it is said like this: “To whom I will be merciful, I will have mercy on him, and to whom I will have compassion, I will show mercy to him,” because to whom God will be merciful to call him, he will have mercy so that he will believe; and will he show mercy to whomever he takes pity, so that he believes, that is, he will make him merciful, so that he will also do good deeds? This convinces us that no one should boast or exalt himself even in the very deeds of mercy, [hoping] to please God with them as if they were his own: after all, He granted this very mercy to those on whom He took pity. So if anyone boasts that by believing he deserved this mercy, then let him know that He granted him to believe, Who, through the inspiration of faith, has mercy on the one to whom he is merciful, bestowing a calling on the hitherto unfaithful. After all, the faithful are already different from the wicked. [Therefore] the apostle says: “What have you that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor 4:7) Why was the gift of faith taken away from Esau?” (§ 10) 10. All this is true. But why was this mercy removed from Esau, why is he not called in such a way that faith would be invested in the one called, and by believing he would become merciful and do good deeds? Was it because he didn't want to? Then, if Jacob believed because he wanted to, it was not God who gave him faith, but he himself acquired it for himself through desire; which means he had something that he did not receive. Or, since no one can believe unless he wants to, and no one can will unless he is called, but no one can attribute to himself that he is called, God also offers faith through calling; After all, without a calling, no one can believe, although no one will believe against his will? For “how could they believe in Him of whom they had not heard? Or how would they have heard without a preacher? (Rom.10:14). So, no one believes unless he is called, but not everyone, being called, believes. “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), namely those who did not despise the one who called, but followed him in faith. Undoubtedly, they believed of their own free will. What then do the following words [further by the apostle] mean: “So [this depends] not on the one who wishes and not on the one who tries, but on the merciful God?” (Rom.9:16). Is it not because it is said that we cannot desire if we are not called, and our desire is worth nothing if God does not help us to fulfill it? Therefore, one must desire and try; It’s not for nothing that it is said: “And on earth there is peace among people of good will” (Luke 2:14), and: “In this way strive to gain” (1 Cor 9:24). However, “it depends not on the one who wishes and not on the one who tries, but on the merciful God” that we get what we want and arrive where we want. So, Esau did not want and did not try, but if he had wanted and tried, he would have achieved what he wanted with the help of God, who in calling would have given him both will and effort, if Esau had not turned out to be a reject, despising the call. For in one way God gives us desire itself, and in another way he gives us what we desire. After all, it pleases Him that the desire be both His and ours: His is in calling, ours is in following. What we desire is granted only by Him alone, namely the opportunity to do well and always live in goodness. However, Esau, not yet born, could not desire or not desire any of this. Then why, while in the womb, was he rejected? After all, we again come to difficulties that are very painful not only because of their darkness, but also because of our repetition so many times. Was it not by foreknowledge of the future will that Esau was rejected and Jacob was accepted? (§ 11) 11. After all, why was the unborn Esau rejected, if he could neither believe the Caller, nor neglect the calling, nor do anything good or evil? If because God foresaw his future evil will, then why should Jacob not be accepted according to God's foreknowledge because of his future good will? And if you once admit this, namely, that someone can be accepted or rejected because of what is not yet in him, since God foresaw that this would be, then it follows that he can be accepted because of the deeds that God foresaw in him as likely to happen in the future, although he has not yet done anything; then it will not help you in any way that they were not yet born when it was said: “And the elder will serve the younger,” and you will not be able to prove from here that it was said “not from works,” since no one has done anything yet. Good will in us is created by God’s action” (§ 12) 12. However, if you carefully consider these words: “So [it depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16), then it turns out that the apostle not only said this, that with the help of God we achieve what we desire, but also with the intention in accordance with which he says in another place: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For God works in us both to will and to work, according to good will" (Phil. 2:12-13). He quite clearly states here that good will itself comes from Divine influence. For if it is said this way: “[It depends] not on the one who wills and not on the one who strives, but on the merciful God,” - only because the will of man alone is not enough for us to live justly and righteously, if God’s mercy does not contribute to this, then he could say in another way: “So, this. [depends] not on the merciful God, but on the willing person,” since God’s mercy alone is not enough unless the consent of our will is added to it. The first statement is obvious: we desire in vain if God does not have mercy. As for the second, I don’t know if it can be said that God has mercy in vain if we do not wish. After all, if God has mercy, then we also desire. For it is part of the same mercy that we desire, since “God works in us both to desire and to act” of our own free will. And if we ask whether good will is a gift from God, then hardly anyone will dare to deny [that this is so]. So, since it is not good will that precedes calling, but [on the contrary] calling precedes good will, it is rightly attributed to God that we have good will, but it cannot be attributed to us that we are called. So, one should not believe that it is said like this: “[It depends] not on the one who wishes and not on the one who tries, but on the merciful God,” because without His help we cannot acquire what we desire; this is said rather in the sense that in the absence of His calling we do not desire at all. Does good will come from invocation? Convenient Summoning (§ 13) 13. But if this calling produces good will in such a way that everyone who is called follows it, then how will what is said be true: “Many are called, but few are chosen?” (Matthew 20:16, 22:14) If these words are true, and the called one does not necessarily obey the call, and this very disobedience is in his will, then it can quite rightly be said: “This means that [this depends] not on a merciful God, but on a willing and diligent person; since the mercy of the Caller is not enough unless the obedience of the one who is called follows.” Or perhaps those who, being called in this way, do not agree, could, if they were called otherwise, acquire the will to believe, so that this is also true: “Many are called, but few are chosen,” in the sense that although many are alike called, yet since not all are alike disposed, only those follow the calling who are found worthy to receive it; and these words are no less true: “So [it depends] not on the one who wills and not on the one who tries, but on the merciful God,” Who called in the way that was convenient for those who followed the calling? It is true that the calling also reached others, but since it was such that they could not be moved by it and were not able to accept it, they can rightly be called called, but not chosen, so that it is no longer true [the judgment]: “So [it depends] not on the merciful God, but on the willing and striving man,” since the result of God’s mercy cannot lie in human power, so that God has mercy in vain if man does not desire it; After all, if God wanted to have mercy on them, he could have called them in such a way as would be convenient for their [perception], so that they would be moved [by this], and would understand, and follow. Therefore, it is true: “Many are called, but few are chosen.” For those who are duly called are chosen; and those who did not agree with the calling and did not join it are not the chosen ones, since they did not follow [the calling], but they are called. In the same way, these words are true: “So, [it depends] not on the one who wishes and not on the one who tries, but on the merciful God,” because even if He calls many, He only has mercy on those whom He so calls, how convenient it is for them to be called to follow [the calling]. And if someone says: “So, [it depends] not on the merciful God, but on the willing and striving person,” then this is false, since God does not have mercy on anyone in vain; but whomever he has mercy on, he also calls, as it is convenient for him, so that he does not reject the Caller. Why wasn't Esau called in a way that suited him? (§ 14) 14. Here someone may say: “Then why was Esau not called so that he would be willing to obey?” For we see that everyone moves towards faith in different ways, although the same things appear or are offered to them. So, for example, Simeon believed in our Lord Jesus Christ when He was still an Infant, recognizing Him thanks to the revelation of the Spirit (Luke 2:25). Nathanael, in response to the only word he heard from Him: “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you,” replied: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel” (John 1:48–49). Much later, Peter, having confessed, was worthy to hear that he was blessed and that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven would be given to him (Matthew 16:16–19). When the miracle was performed in Cana of Galilee, which the Evangelist John calls the beginning of the signs of Jesus, and the water turned into wine, His disciples believed in Him (John 2:11). Frightened by His cross and death, even the disciples hesitated, but the thief believed when he saw one who was not outstanding in deeds, but equal in the commonality of the cross (Luke 23:40–42). Also, one of the disciples after His resurrection believed not so much in the living members of the body as in fresh wounds (John 20:27); and although many of those by whom He was crucified, seeing Him performing miracles, despised Him, they believed when His disciples began to preach and perform such great deeds in His name (Acts 2–4). So, if one moves towards faith in one way and another in another way, and the same thing, said in one way, encourages one to believe, but said in another way does not, then who will dare to say that God lacked a way of calling, with the help of which Esau would also have applied his mind and inclined his will to the faith in which Jacob was justified? And if such can be the obstinacy of the will, that the perversion of the mind has become insensitive to all methods of calling, then one wonders whether his very hardness of heart was not a Divine punishment, if God abandoned him, calling him not in the way that he could have been moved to faith? After all, who will say that even the Almighty did not have a way to convince him to believe? What is God-given hardness? (§ 15) 15. But why do we ask about this if the apostle himself adds: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: For this purpose I raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth”? (Rom.9:17) And the apostle adds this testimony to prove what was said above: “So [it depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). After all, it was as if they said to him: “Where did you get this?” all the earth." It is clear that with these words the apostle confirms what was said above: “[It depends] not on the one who wills, nor on the one who tries, but on the one who has mercy,” and in conclusion he says: “Therefore, he has mercy on whomever he wills; but on whomever he wills, he hardens” (Rom. 9:18), although neither of these things was said above. After all, although it was said: “[It depends] not on those who are willing, nor on those who try, but on those who are merciful,” however. no other was said: “(It depends) not on the one who desires and not on the one who rejects, but on God who hardens.” This makes it clear that the words below are: “So he has mercy on whomever he wants; and he hardens whomever he wants,” can be consistent with the above saying in such a way that the hardening [that comes] from God is His unwillingness to have mercy; so that it does not turn out that He does something as a result of which a person becomes worse, while in reality He only does not provide what makes him better. But if this is done without any distinction of merit, who will not utter the cry that the apostle opposes to himself? “You will say to me: “What else reproaches? For who can resist His will? (Rom 9:19) After all, God often reproaches people when they do not want to believe and live righteously, which is obvious from numerous passages of Scripture. Therefore, those who believe and do the will of God are called those who live without reproach (Luke 1:6), because Scripture does not reproach them. But the apostle says: “What else reproaches? For whoever resists His will”, if He “has mercy on whomever He wants; but he hardens whomever he wants”? And yet, let us take a closer look at the preceding words and try, if the Lord Himself helps us in this, to reconcile this statement with them. Resolution of Esau's Rejection (§ 16) 16. After all, it was said a little higher: “But what shall we say? Is it really not true with God? It won’t happen!” ( Rom 9:14 ) Let these words therefore remain firmly and unshakably in the mind, held in sober piety and established in faith, for truly there is no unrighteousness with God. Based on this, let everyone believe very firmly and firmly that if God “has mercy on whomever He wills; and whom he wants, he hardens,” that is, whom he wants, he has mercy, and whom he does not want, he does not have mercy, then this is the property of some hidden and immeasurable justice by human standards, which must be recognized in the very human affairs and earthly agreements. For if we did not find in them certain traces of the highest justice, as it were, imprinted, the intention of our weakness would never look and would not wish to penetrate the brightest and purest sanctuary and hiding place of spiritual commandments. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied” (Matthew 5:6). So, if we, in this drought of life and the state of mortality, were not strengthened from above by at least the subtlest breaths of justice, we would rather dry up than begin to thirst. Therefore, when human society enters into relationships with each other, giving and receiving something, and what is given and received is either what is due in the form of a debt, or what is not due; then who will not agree that one cannot reproach someone who collects what is owed for injustice, and certainly one cannot reproach someone who wants to forgive a debt owed to him? And it is not the debtors who decide this, but the one to whom they owe it. This image, or, as I said above, the trace is imprinted in human activities from the pinnacle of the highest Justice. For all people (since, as the apostle says, “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22), because from him the indignation of God extends to the entire human race) is a certain single mass of sin, indebted to the punishment of Divine and supreme Justice; therefore, whether the latter carries out this punishment or delivers from it, there is no injustice in either case. And the debtors proudly argue who should be punished and who should be forgiven, how those hired in the vineyard were unfairly indignant, why others were paid the same as them (Matthew 20:11). So, the apostle humbles this shamelessness of questioning like this: “And who are you, man, that you object to God?” (Rom 9:20). After all, when someone doesn’t like the fact that God reproaches sinners, he objects to God as if God were forcing someone to sin, when in reality He does not force anyone to sin, but only does not grant His mercy to justify some sinners, and therefore it is said that He hardens some sinners. This is said because He does not have mercy on them, and not because He forces them to sin. But He does not show mercy to those to whom mercy should not be shown, and He judges this according to a secret justice that is very far from human guesses, for “His judgments are unsearchable and His ways are unsearchable” (Rom. 11:33). And [God] rightly reproaches sinners as those whom He Himself did not force to sin. He also does this so that those whom He has mercy on have this calling and, when God is indignant at sinners, they would be contrite in heart and turn to His grace. Therefore, he reproaches both fairly and mercifully. All people are one mass of sin (§ 17) 17. But if it is outrageous that no one can resist His will, since whom He wishes He visits, and whom He wishes He leaves; whereas both the one whom He visits and the one whom He leaves are from the same mass of sinners; and although both owe punishment, He demands the debt from one, and releases it to the other. So, if this is outrageous, then “Who are you, O man, that you object to God?” (Rom.9:20) I believe that what is said here by man stands in the same sense as the following is said: “Are you not men, and do you not live according to man?” (1 Cor. 3:3) After all, here a similar name is used to designate [people] carnal and natural, to whom it is said: “I could not converse with you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal people”; and this: “For you were not yet able; and even now you still cannot, for even now you are carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1-3); and this: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 3:1-3). 2:14) So, to such people it is said here: “Who are you, O man, that you object to God? Will the product say to the one who made it: “Why did you make me like this? Does not the potter have power over the clay, to make from the same mixture one vessel for honor and another for reproach?” (Rom.9:20-21) Thus, perhaps, he sufficiently shows that he is addressing the natural man; after all, this is signified by the very clay from which the first man was molded; and since “all,” as I already mentioned, according to the same apostle, “die in Adam,” he says that there is [a certain common] mixture of all. And although one vessel is created for honor, and the other for reproach, it is necessary that the one that is created for honor should first be carnal and from there rise to spiritual age. After all, [the Corinthians] were already created for honor, they were already born in Christ, but he still addresses them as babes, and even still calls them carnal, saying: “I could not talk to you as spiritual, but as carnal. As babes in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, and not solid food; for you could not, and even now you still cannot; for even now you are carnal” (1 Corinthians) 3:1–2). So, although he says that they are carnal, he already calls them born in Christ, and babes in Him, and fed with milk. And when he says: “even now you still cannot,” he shows by this that, moving forward, they will be able to in the future; since in them, already spiritually reborn, there were the firstfruits of grace. So, those were already vessels created for honor to whom it was still rightly said: “Who are you, O man, that you object to God”? And if this is rightly said to such, then it is much more fair to those who either have not yet been so regenerated, or were even created for reproach. Let him only hold on to the unshakable faith that there is no unrighteousness with God; for whether He forgives or demands a duty, the one from whom he demands has no right to complain about His injustice, and the one to whom he forgives should not boast of his merits. After all, the first, if he did not owe, would not have to repay, and the second, if he did not receive, would have nothing. How did God, Who does not hate anything He created, hate Esau? The vessels of destruction serve to correct others (§ 18) 18. But here it is necessary for us, if the Lord helps, to see more clearly how what is written is true: “You do not hate anything that You have created” (Wis. 11:25); and [at the same time] another: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3). After all, if He hated Esau because he was a vessel created for reproach - and, moreover, one vessel for honor, and another for reproach is created by the same potter - then how [are the words true]: “You do not hate anything that You have created”? For He hates Esau, although He Himself created this vessel for reproach. We can unravel this knot if we think that God is the Organizer of every creation. Therefore, “every creation of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4); and every man is a creation insofar as he is a man, but not insofar as he is a sinner. So, God is the Creator of both the body and soul of man. Neither is evil, and God does not hate it; for he hates nothing that He has created. The soul is superior to the body, and God is superior to both soul and body, being the Cause and Creator of both; so that He hates nothing in man except sin. And human sin is disorder and vicissitude, that is, deviation from the superior Creator and turning to lower creatures. So, God does not hate the man Esau, but God hates the sinner Esau. In exactly the same way it is said about the Lord: “He came into His own, and His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11); while to these [his] He Himself says: “Because you do not listen, because you are not from God” (John 8:47). How are they “our own”, and how “are they not from God”? Isn’t it true that the first is said about people whom the Lord Himself created; and the second about sinners whom the Lord Himself convicted? So, alone and the same are both people and sinners, but people are by God’s creation, and sinners by their own will. Why did He love Jacob, was he not a sinner? However, [God] loved in him not the guilt that he removed, but the grace that he gave. After all, Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6), but not so that they would remain ungodly, but so that, having been justified from wickedness, they would turn, believing in Him who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). For God hates wickedness. So, in some He punishes wickedness with condemnation, and in others He removes it with justification, depending on how He finds it necessary to act according to His inscrutable judgments. And although from among the wicked, whom God does not justify, He makes vessels for reproach, He does not hate what He does in them: for insofar as they are wicked, they are worthy of damnation, and insofar as they are made into vessels, they are made for the purpose of some use, so that through the punishments determined by Him, the vessels created for honor will benefit. So, God does not hate them either because they are people or because they are vessels, that is, [he does not hate] neither what He did in creating, nor what He did in ordering: for He does not hate anything that He created. And having made them vessels of destruction, He did this for the purpose of correcting others. For he hates the wickedness in them, which He Himself did not create. After all, in the same way, a judge hates theft in a person, but does not hate the fact that [a criminal] is sent to hard labor: after all, the first thing is done by a thief, and the second by a judge. Likewise, God, making vessels of destruction from the mixture of the wicked, does not hate what he does, that is, the work of His disposition regarding the appropriate punishments for those who are perishing, thanks to which those whom He has mercy gain the possibility of salvation. This is what it was said to Pharaoh: “I have exalted you so that I may demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Rom. 9:17). This manifestation of the power of God and the proclamation of His name throughout the whole earth was for the benefit of those who were comfortable with such a calling, so that they would be afraid and correct their ways. Further, the apostle continues: “What if God, desiring to show wrath and demonstrate His power, with great patience spared the vessels of wrath that were ready for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), while keeping in mind the words: “Who are you, O man, that you contradict God?” (Rom.9:20). So, if we reconcile this verse with the previous words, the meaning will be this: If God, wanting to show wrath, spares the vessels of wrath, then who are you to argue with God? After all, not only “wishing to show wrath and reveal His power, [God] with much patience spared the vessels of wrath, ready for destruction”; but as a consequence of this, He acted in this way “to make known the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:22-23). For what good does it profit vessels prepared for destruction, that God patiently spared them in order to destroy them in an orderly manner, and used them as a means of saving others whom He decided to have mercy on? But, of course, the benefit here is for those for the sake of whose salvation He was the first to use in this way; so that, as it is written, “the righteous should wash his hands in the blood of the sinner” (Ps. 57:11), that is, under the influence of the fear of God, he would be cleansed from evil deeds when he sees the punishment of sinners. So, the fact that “desiring to show wrath, He spared the vessels of sin,” serves to instill in some a useful fear and at the same time “to make known the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared for glory” (Rom. 9:22–23). After all, this hardening of the wicked shows two things: firstly, what should be feared, so that everyone turns to God in piety; secondly, how great gratitude must be given to the mercy of God, who, by punishing some, shows that He has forgiven others. And if the punishment that He exacted from some was unjust, then He forgave nothing to others from whom He did not exact it. However, since this punishment is fair, and there is no unrighteousness with the punishing God, then who can properly give thanks to the One who released him? After all, if He wanted to collect this, no one could justly call himself not owing anything. Not all were called, but from all, both Jews and Gentiles (§ 19) 19. “As whom He called us,” the apostle further says, “not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles” (Rom. 9:24), that is, as vessels of mercy, which He prepared for glory; and not all Jews, but “from the Jews,” and not all Gentiles in general, but “from the Gentiles.” For from Adam came a single mass of sinners and wicked people, in which, due to the removal of the grace of God, both Jews and pagans belong to one mixture. After all, if the owner of the clay from the same mixture makes one vessel for honor, and another for reproach, and it is clear that from the Jews some vessels are created for honor, and others - for reproach, in the same way from the pagans, then one should think that they all belong to the same mixture. Then the apostle begins to pronounce the testimony of the prophet about each of the nations in reverse order. For first he said: “from the Jews”, then - “from the pagans”; however, first he gives testimony about the pagans, and then about the Jews. “For as [the Lord] says in Hosea: “I will call not my people my people, and not my beloved, beloved; and in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” there they will be called sons of the living God” (Rom. 9:25–26). One must think that this was said about the pagans, for they did not have one specific place for sacrifices, like the Jews in Jerusalem. However, the apostles were sent to the pagans, so that everyone would believe in his own place, and they would believe everywhere where they offered the sacrifice of praise to those to whom [the Lord] had given the power to become the sons of God (John 1:12). He says further: “And Isaiah proclaims about Israel.” Again, so that they would not think that all the Israelites went to destruction, he teaches that here, too, some vessels were created for honor, and others for reproach. “Even if,” he says, “the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, (only) the remnant would be saved.” This means that the rest of the crowd are vessels prepared for destruction. “For by completing and shortening the Lord will perfect the word on earth” (Rom. 9:27-28), that is, to save those who believe by grace by a brief statement of the faith, and not by countless rites, with which this multitude was slavishly burdened. Indeed, by grace the Lord, completing and shortening, completed the word for us on earth, saying: “My yoke is gentle, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30). This is also said [by the apostle] a little lower: “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith, which we preach; for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart they believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth they confess unto salvation” (Rom. 10:8-10). was worthy to hear: “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). For good deeds would have followed on his part if, having accepted grace, he had lived longer among people; but they did not precede him to receive this grace: nailed to the cross for robbery, he was transferred from the cross to heaven. He says [hereinafter the apostle]: “And as Isaiah foretold: if the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and like Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:29). What he says here: “He would not have left us any seed,” means the same as [the words quoted above]: “(only) the remnant will be saved.” And others, like vessels of sin, will perish, having received their deserved punishment; and the fact that not everyone will perish, as was the case in Sodom and Gomorrah, will be accomplished not by their merits, but by the grace of God, who left a seed from which another harvest will grow throughout the universe. He says the same thing a little lower: “So also at the present time, according to the election of grace, remnants have been preserved. But if by grace, then no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? Israel did not inherit what it sought; for election inherited, but the rest were blind” (Rom 11:5–7). The vessels of mercy inherited, the vessels of wrath were blind; however, they are all from the same mixture, as in the multitude of the pagans. One passage from the book of Jesus, son of Sirach (§ 20) 20. There is one passage of Scripture that is very necessary for [understanding] what we are talking about now, confirming with amazing evidence what we have considered; it is found in that book which some call the Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, and others call Ecclesiasticus. It is written there: “And all men were made of dust, and Adam was created from earth. In many ways the Lord separated them and changed their ways. He blessed and exalted some of them, sanctified others and brought them closer to Himself, and cursed and humiliated others and turned them to their discord. Like clay is in the potter's hand, so that he can mold and distribute it, all the ways of it according to his order; so man is in the hand of Him who created him, and He will reward him according to His judgment. Opposite to evil is good, and opposite to death is life, so opposite to a righteous man is a sinner. And so look at all the works of the Most High: two, two, one against the other” (Sir.33:10-16). First of all, God’s stewardship is taught here, for it is said: “In the abundance of stewardship the Lord has set them apart”; from what, if not from the bliss of paradise? “And he changed their ways” so that they now lived like mortals. Then a single mass was formed from all, which came from the root of sin and from the punishment of mortality, although God formed and created only good. For in all [people] the appearance and composition of the body are in such harmony of the members that the apostle takes from here a similarity that encourages the acquisition of love (1 Cor 12:12); in all there is also a vital spirit that vivifies the bodily members; and the whole nature of man, thanks to the dominance of the soul and the service of the body, is marked by amazing improvement. But since, due to the punishment for sin, carnal lust already rules, it, due to the ancestral guilt that penetrates into everything, has, as it were, mixed the entire human race into one integral mixture. However, it follows: “He blessed and exalted some of them, sanctified others and brought them closer to Himself, and cursed and humiliated others and turned them to their discord” (Sir 33:12). This is quite in accordance with the words of the apostle: “Has not the potter power over the clay, that out of the same mixture he may make one vessel for honor, and another for reproach?” (Rom 9:21). Therefore, here the same similarity is further given: “As clay is in the potter’s hand, [so that he can] mold and distribute it, all its ways according to his order, so is man in the hand of Him who created him” (Sir 33:13). And since the apostle says: “Is there really unrighteousness with God?” (Rom 9:14) - see what is added here: “And He will reward him according to His judgment” (Sir 33:14). But although just punishments are imposed on the condemned, even this is turned to the benefit of [others], so that thanks to this those who are shown mercy prosper; and therefore notice what he says at the end: “Opposite to evil is good, and opposite to death is life, so opposite to a righteous man is a sinner. And so look at all the deeds of the Most High: two, two, one against the other” (Sir 33:15), in the sense, of course, that in comparison with the worst, the best stands out and succeeds. However, since this is the best because of grace, as if saying: “A remnant will be saved” (Rom. 9:27), he goes on and says on behalf of these remnants: “And I have labored last, as one who gleans after the grape gatherers” (Sir. 33:15). How does one prove that it is not by one’s own merits, but by the mercy of God? [Look what] he says: “By the blessing of the Lord I also hoped, and, like a grape gatherer, I filled the winepress” (Sir. 33:16). For, although they labored last, yet since, as it is said, “the last will be first” (Matthew 20:16), hoping for the blessing of God, the fruitful people from the remnants of Israel filled the winepress from the abundance of the harvest that grew throughout the entire universe. The intention of the apostle. The powerlessness of man without the grace of God (§ 21) 21. So, the only desire of the apostle and all the justified, by whose example we are given to understand grace, is that “everyone who boasts should boast in the Lord” (2 Cor 10:17). For who will upset the works of the Lord, who “out of the same mixture” (Rom. 9:21) condemns one and justifies another? The free decision of the will means a lot, for, in any case, it exists, but what is it capable of in those sold to sin? (Rom. 7:14) “The flesh,” says [the apostle], “desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh, ... so that you do not do what you would like” (Gal. 5:17). We are commanded to live righteously, and a reward is offered - the possibility of a blessed life in eternity. However, who can live righteously and do good, if not justified by faith? It is commanded that we believe that, having accepted the gift The Holy Spirit, we can do good out of love. But who is capable of believing if he is not touched by a certain calling, that is, by a certain confirmation of things? Who can, by his own power, present to his mind such a vision that his will will be moved to faith? Who can contain in his soul what he does not like? And who has it in his power to either come across something that he might like, or to like it when he comes across it? Therefore, when we like something with the help of which we approach God, it inspires and inspires the grace of God, and is not prepared by our desire, diligence and merits of deeds; since God grants and allocates so that there is an inclination of the will, a zealous desire, so that there are deeds glowing with love. We are commanded to ask in order to receive, to seek in order to find, and to knock that it may be opened to us (Matthew 7:7). But isn’t our prayer itself sometimes so cool, or rather cold and almost empty; often so empty that we do not even notice this very emptiness with sorrow? For if we even grieve about this, then we are already praying. Therefore, what else is shown to us here, if not that we can ask, and seek, and knock only according to the gift of the One who commanded that we do this? “Therefore [it depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16), for we could neither desire nor strive if He did not move and motivate us. The election of grace is a mystery (§22) 22. And if there is some kind of election taking place here, and in this sense we must understand what is said: “By the election of grace the remnant are saved” (Rom. 11:5), then this is not an election among those who are justified to eternal life, but an election of those who are to be justified. And it is clear that this election is so hidden that it cannot be obvious at all to us, looking at the same mixture. If it is obvious to anyone, then I admit my weakness in this matter. For I do not know what should be considered in the election of people to saving grace, if some thought prompts me to experience this election: perhaps greater natural inclinations, or lesser sins, or both together; Let us also add, if you like, purity and benefit of views. Then everyone who will be as little caught and stained by sins as possible (for who can be completely without sins?), who will be naturally capable and educated in the liberal arts, will prove worthy of the election of grace. But if I admit this, will not He who “has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong, and the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” laugh at me because of this? ( 1 Cor 1:27 ) So, having looked at Him and been ashamed, I will ridicule many who are more pure than some sinners, and better speakers than some fishermen. Don’t we know many of our believers who walk the path of God are not at all comparable in natural abilities not only to some heretics, but even to comedians? In the same way, do we not see some people of both sexes living in marital purity without any reproach, and, however, being heretics or pagans, or so lukewarm in the true faith and the true Church that we are surprised at the sudden conversion of harlots and actors who surpass them not only in patience and abstinence, but also in faith, hope and love? Then it remains that the movements of the will are chosen. But the will itself, unless something happens that delights and motivates the spirit, can in no way move anywhere; and for something like this to happen is not in human power. What did Saul want if not to search for, drag, bind, kill Christians? What a furious will, what a crazy one, what a blind one! However, he, being thrown to the ground with one cry, because such a vision was granted to him, by which his mind and will were turned away from stubborn cruelty and directed towards faith, suddenly became from an amazing persecutor of the Gospel its amazing preacher (Acts 8:3, 9:1). However, what shall we say? Is it really untrue with God, who demands a debt from anyone He pleases, but forgives whomever He pleases? From the One who never demands what is not due and never gives what is not due? “Is it really not true with God? It won't happen! "(Rom 9:14) But why is it so for one and not so for another? “Who are you, man?” ( Rom 9:20 ) If you do not repay a debt, you have something to be grateful for; If you give, there is nothing to complain about. Let us simply believe, if we cannot comprehend, that the Creator and Orderer of all creation - both spiritual and physical - “arranged everything by number, weight and measure” (Wis. 11:21). But “His judgments are inscrutable and His ways incomprehensible” (Rom. 11:33). Let us say: “Hallelujah” and lift up a song; Let’s not say: “Why is this?” or: “What is this?” For everything was created for its time” (Sir 39:14–33). You might be interested in: