CONVERSATION 1

(The present discourses were delivered by the saint in Constantinople in the year 400 or 401.)

DISCOURSE I

"The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day in which he ascended, having given commandments by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen" (Acts 1:1,2). The meaning of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Why is the divinity of Christ not clearly spoken of in Acts? – Why baptism during the time of Chrysostom was not performed at Pentecost. – About those who postpone baptism. – Baptism should not be postponed. Many do not even know that this book exists, neither the book itself, nor the one who wrote and compiled it. That is why I have made up my mind to take up this work in particular, in order to teach those who do not know, and not to allow such a treasure to be hidden and remain in obscurity. This book can be of no less use to us than the Gospel itself: it is filled with such wisdom, such purity of dogmas, and such an abundance of miracles, especially those performed by the Holy Spirit. Let us not ignore it, but let us examine it thoroughly. Here one can see the fulfillment in practice of those prophecies which Christ proclaims in the Gospels, the truth shining in the events themselves, and the great change for the better in the disciples, brought about in them by the Holy Spirit. Christ said to His disciples: "Whosoever believeth on Me, the works which I do, he shall do also, and greater than these" (John 14:12), and predicted to them that "they will bring you before governors and kings," that they will be beaten "in judgment seats and in their synagogues" (Matt. 10:17,18), that they will be subjected to the most severe torments and triumph over everything, and that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached" in all the world (Matt. 24:14): all this, as well as even more, which He said to His disciples, is presented in this book as having been fulfilled with all exactness. Here you will also see how the apostles themselves, as it were, flowed around the earth and the sea on wings, how they, fearful and unwise, suddenly became different people, began to despise wealth, became insensitive to glory, inaccessible to anger or lust, and found themselves decidedly above all things; (you will see) that they had great unanimity, and that there was never, as before, envy among them, nor dispute about primacy, but, on the contrary, every perfect virtue dwelt in them, and especially love began to shine forth, of which (Christ) he commanded them many times, saying: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). One can also find here dogmas which, if it were not for this book, would not be so well known to anyone; and even that which constitutes the foundation of our salvation, both in relation to life and in relation to dogmas, would be obscure and unclear. But it is mainly here that the deeds of Paul, who labored more than anyone else, are described. This is because the compiler of the book was his disciple, Blessed Luke, whose virtue can be discerned both from many other things, and especially from the fact that he was inseparable from his teacher and constantly followed him. Thus, when Demas and Hermogenes left Paul, and one went to Galatia, and the other to Dalmatia, listen to what the Apostle says about him: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Timothy 4:10). And in the Epistle to the Corinthians he says of him: "In all the churches he is praised for the gospel" (2 Corinthians 8:18). Likewise, when he tells us that (Christ) "appeared to Cephas," then to the twelve, and says, "According to the gospel which ye also received" (1 Corinthians 15:1,5), he means the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, he who ascribes this creation to him will not sin; and when I say, to him, I mean Christ. But if anyone says, Why did not (Luke) describe everything, remaining with Paul to the end? – then I answer that this was enough for those who wanted to be attentive, that (the apostles) were always busy with the most necessary things, and that their main concern was not to write books, since they communicated much also by means of unwritten tradition. Thus, everything that is contained in this book is worthy of wonder, but especially the condescension of the apostles, which the Holy Spirit inspired in them, preparing them to serve the word about the economy of salvation. For this reason, having reported so much about Christ, they said little about His birth, but spoke more about His humanity, suffering, resurrection and ascension. Now they first had to prove that He had risen and ascended to heaven. Therefore, just as Christ Himself tried above all things to prove that He came from the Father, so Luke (especially proves) that He rose and ascended, and departed to the Father, and came from Him. If they did not believe this before, how much more now, when the resurrection and the ascension were added, the whole teaching (about Christ) seemed incredible to the Jews. That is why it gradually and little by little raises them to the highest. And in Athens, Paul even called Him just a man (Acts 17:31), without saying anything more, and he did the right thing. For if (the Jews) often attempted to stone Christ Himself, when He spoke of His equality with the Father, and called Him a blasphemer for this, they would hardly have received a word about it from the fishermen, and especially when the cross had already preceded it. 2. But why speak of the Jews, when the disciples themselves, heeding the higher dogmas, were then often confused and offended? That is why Christ said: "I have yet many things to say to you; but now ye cannot bear it" (John 16:12). If, however, they could not, in spite of the fact that they had treated Him for so long, had been participants in so many mysteries, and had seen so many miracles, then how could people, who had just lagged behind temples, idols, and sacrifices, cats and crocodiles (such was the pagan worship of God) and other defilements, immediately accept lofty speeches about dogmas? And the Jews themselves, whom the law daily teaches and inspires: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one," and besides Him there is none else (Deuteronomy 6:4), who saw Christ nailed to the tree of the cross, who even crucified Him and buried Him, but did not see Him resurrected, the Jews, hearing that He is God and that He is equal (to the Father), shouldn't they have retreated and departed as soon as possible? For this reason (the Apostles) gradually and little by little raise them to higher concepts, and, on the one hand, show great condescension, and on the other hand, they make use of the most abundant grace of the Spirit, and in the name (of Christ) they perform miracles even greater than those which He Himself has performed, in order to raise up those who lie in the valley and to certify the word of the resurrection. The present book contains in itself mainly this, namely the proofs of the resurrection, since it was already easy for the believer in the latter to accept everything else. This, then, is this, generally speaking, is chiefly the content and the whole purpose of this book. Let us now listen to its very introduction. "The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning" (v. 1). Why does (Luke) remind Theophilus of the Gospel? To show his accuracy, for at the beginning of that book he says: "It has been decided for me, after careful examination of all things from the beginning, to describe to you in order, venerable Theophilus" (Luke 1:3), and is not content with his testimony alone, but traces everything back to the apostles, saying: "Until the day in which he ascended, having given commandments by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen" (v. 2). For this reason, having made his word authentic there, he does not need a new certificate here, since he had already gained the confidence of Theophilus and by that work he showed him his accuracy and truth. And he who was worthy of the faith, and who was really believed, when he wrote what he heard, is all the more justified to believe, when he sets forth not what he received from others, but what he himself saw and heard. If, he says, you have received (my story) about Christ, how much more (will you accept the story) about the apostles. What then? Is his work (the Gospel) only (ordinary) history, and his word does not partake of the Spirit? Far from it. Why? Because what was delivered to him "by those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning" was of the Spirit. But why did he not say, "As those who were worthy of the Holy Spirit handed down to us," but, "Who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning"? Because this, that is, knowledge from self-seers, gives credibility (to the narration), otherwise to foolish people it would even seem pride and boasting. That is why John also said: "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34). And Christ also says to Nicodemus, when he was still rude: "We speak of what we know, and bear witness of what we have seen, but ye receive not Our testimony" (John 3:11). And again, proving that many things can be testified to on the basis of the data of sight, He said to His disciples: "Ye also shall bear witness, for ye are with Me from the beginning" (John 15:27). And the Apostles themselves often say: "We are witnesses, and the Holy Spirit, Whom God has given to them that obey Him" (Acts 2:32). And Peter afterwards, in order to assure of the resurrection, said: "They ate and drank with Him" (Acts 10:41). In general, (Jews and Gentiles) rather accepted the testimony of people who had dealt with (Christ), because they were still very far from knowing the Spirit. That is why John in his Gospel, speaking of blood and water, says that he himself saw it (John 19:35), presenting his vision to them as the most reliable testimony. Of course, the promptings of the Spirit are more certain than (evidence) of sight, but not with the unbelievers. And that Luke was a partaker of the Spirit is evident from many things: from the signs that are now performed, from the fact that at that time they were simple: people received the Holy Spirit, from the testimony of Paul, who says of him: "In all churches he is praised for the gospel" (2 Corinthians 13:18), and finally, from the fact that he was worthy of ordination, since Paul, having said these words, He added: "And moreover, he who was chosen from the churches to accompany us for this benevolence, which we serve to the glory of the Lord Himself, and according to your diligence" (v. 19), 3. And see how far he is from boasting. He does not say, "The first gospel which I preached," but "I wrote the first book," considering the name of the gospel too lofty for himself. The Apostle (Paul) glorifies it precisely for the gospel, saying: "In all the churches he is praised for the gospel"; but he himself humbly says: "The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning." He does not simply say, "Of all," but (of all) from beginning to end, "Until the day in which He ascended." But John explains that it was impossible to describe everything, and in order to reveal this, he says: "But if I were to write about it in detail, I think the world itself could not contain" (adds) "the books that have been written" (John 21:25). How, you say, does Luke speak of everything? But he did not say: all, but: "about everything", which also means that – in general and abbreviated; or in other words: he speaks about everything that is especially important and necessary. Further, he shows what exactly all this consists of; "what Jesus did and taught" – which indicates His miracles and teachings, as well as what He taught by His own deeds. Notice also how loving his apostolic soul was, if even for one man he labored so much that he wrote the whole Gospel: "That thou mayest know," he says, "the sure foundation of the doctrine in which he was instructed" (Luke 1:4), since he heard the words of Christ: "It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). But why did he not compile one book, while he sent it to Theophilus alone, but divided it into two parts? For clarity, and also to give the listener an opportunity to rest; moreover, these writings are different in their very content. But see how Christ gave credibility to His words by His works. He instructed in meekness and said: "Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11:29). He taught to be non-acquisitive and showed this by His very deeds: "The Son of Man," He said, "hath not where to lay His head" (Matt. 8:20). Again, He commanded us to love our enemies, and instructed us to do so, praying on the cross for the crucifiers. He said: "And whosoever will sue thee, and take thy shirt, give him also thy outer garment" (Matt. 5:40), and He Himself gave not only His garments, but also His blood. He commanded the disciples to do the same. That is why Paul also said: "In the image which ye are in us" (Phil. 3:17). In fact, there is nothing more useless than a teacher who is inquisitive only in words. This is characteristic not of a teacher, but of a hypocrite. That is why the apostles first taught by life, and then by words; and they did not even need words, because their deeds spoke loudly. Nor will he be mistaken who calls the very suffering of Christ an action: for through suffering He did a great and wonderful deed – He destroyed death and accomplished all the rest. "Until the day that He was taken up, having given commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom He had chosen" (v. 2). "By giving commandments by the Holy Spirit," that is, by speaking spiritual words to them, (in which there was) nothing human. Either these words should be understood in this way, or in such a way that He commanded them by the inspiration of the Spirit. Do you see how humiliation (Luke) is expressed about Christ? Thus Christ Himself said of Himself: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God" (Matt. 12:28), – since the Holy Spirit also worked in that temple. What did He command? "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). It is a great praise for the apostles that they were entrusted with such a task, that is, the salvation of the universe, that they were entrusted with words filled with the Spirit, as Luke points out when he says: "By the Holy Spirit," meaning (the words of Christ): "The words that I speak to you are spirit" (John 6:63). And he says this in order to arouse in the listener a desire to know the commandments, and to make the apostles trustworthy, since they will proclaim the words of the Spirit and the commandments of Christ. "Having given commands," he says, "ascended" (ανελήφθη). He did not say (Luke), He ascended (ανέβη), because he still speaks of Him as a man. Thus, Christ taught His disciples after the Resurrection, but no one has given us a detailed account of all that happened at that time. John and the writer of this book tell about this more than others, but no one has told everything clearly, because everyone was concerned about something else. We learned about this from the apostles, since they reported what they heard. "Whom he has chosen, to whom he also manifested himself alive" (v. 3). Having first spoken of the ascension, he now speaks of the resurrection. After He had said, "He was lifted up," so that you would not think that He was lifted up by others, He added, "By whom He also manifested Himself alive." For if He Himself did a greater deed, how much more could He have done less. 4. Do you see how imperceptibly (the narrator) instills these great dogmas? "Appearing unto them for forty days," v. 3. At that time, Christ was no longer constantly with the apostles – not as before the resurrection. Note, he did not say, "Forty days," but, "For forty days appearing unto them," since Christ appeared and was again hidden. Why is this so? In order to elevate the thoughts of the disciples and prevent them from treating Him as before. And it was not without reason that He did this, but because He was carefully concerned about the arrangement of two things: that people should believe in the resurrection, and that they should think of Him more highly than of the common man. Though these (two works) were contrary to each other, since many human things had to happen for the assurance of the resurrection, and on the contrary for the assurance of that He is higher than man, nevertheless, both happened at the proper time. Why did He not appear to everyone, but only to the apostles? Because to the people, who did not know the ineffable mystery, He would have seemed like a ghost. If the disciples themselves did not believe at first, were confused, and needed to be touched with their hands and to commune with the table, then what was naturally to be expected from the people? That is why the resurrection is irrefutable and is proved by miracles, so that it would be indubitable not only for the people of that time, but also for all subsequent generations. What happened to the first because they saw miracles, all those who followed had to come from faith. Hence we borrow proofs against the unbelievers also. In fact, if He is not resurrected, but remains dead. how did the apostles perform signs in His name? Or did they not perform signs? In this case, how did our (Christian) race come into being? This, of course, the unbelievers will no longer reject, and will not argue against what they see; wherefore, when they say that there were no signs, they dishonor themselves all the more. Indeed, it would be a great miracle if, without miracles, the whole universe were to run (to Christ), being caught by twelve poor and unlearned people. It was not by a great deal of wealth, nor by the wisdom of words, nor by anything else of the kind, that the fishermen were victorious, so that it must be admitted that there was Divine power in them, since it is improbable that human power could ever do so much. For this reason (Christ) Himself remained (on earth) after the resurrection for forty days, allowing Himself to be seen for a long time, so that (the disciples) would not consider what He saw to be a ghost. And even this He was not satisfied with, but added a meal, of which Luke goes on to say, "And he ate with them" (v. 4). The Apostles always considered this to be a proof of the resurrection, saying: "Who ate and drank with Him" (Acts 10:41). And what Christ did at His appearances is shown in the following words: "appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God" (v. 3). And since the apostles were grieved and terrified by what had already been accomplished, and yet they had to go forth to great feats, He, encouraging them with words about the future, "having gathered them together, He commanded them, Do not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from Me" (v. 4). At first, when they were still afraid and afraid, He led them into Galilee so that they could hear His words without fear. Then, when they had heard and spent forty days with Him, He commanded them, Do not depart from Jerusalem. Why is that? As soldiers intending to attack the enemy, no one will allow them to march before they have armed; just as horses are not allowed to run out into the lists before they have a charioteer, so (the Lord) did not allow them to go out to fight before the descent of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, so that a multitude (of enemies) may not easily overcome and captivate them. And not only for this reason (he commands not to depart from Jerusalem), but also because there were many who had to believe. Moreover, lest anyone should say that they, having left their acquaintances, went to boast among the foreigners, – for this purpose they present before the very people who killed (Christ) the proofs of His resurrection – before the very people who crucified and buried Him, in the very city in which this iniquitous deed was boldly committed, so that through this the mouths of all foreigners were stopped. In fact, if those who crucified Him themselves appear among those who believe, then, obviously, this will be a clear sign of the cross, and the iniquity of the deed (of the Jews), and a great proof of the resurrection. And so that the disciples do not say: how can we, when we are so few and so insignificant, be able to live among so many people who are wicked and breathe murder? – see how He delivers them from this fear by saying: "But wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from Me" (v. 4). When, you say, did they hear? Then, when He said, "It is better for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7). And again: "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16). 5. But why did (the Holy Spirit) not come when Christ was still (on earth), and not immediately after His departure, but while Christ ascended on the fortieth day, the Holy Spirit came, "at the coming of the day of Pentecost" (Acts 2:1)? And how, when the Spirit was not yet there, did Christ say: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)? This is to prepare the disciples and make them capable of receiving Him. For if Daniel was exhausted because he was to see an angel (Dan. 8:17), how much more would they, who had received so great a grace. Either in this sense these words must be understood, or in such a way that Christ spoke of the future as having already been accomplished, just as He said: "tread on serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19). But why did not the Holy Spirit come immediately then? The apostles had to be inflamed with the desire for this event, and then receive grace. Therefore, the Holy Spirit came when Christ departed. And if He had come at a time when (Christ) was still (on earth), there would not have been such an expectation in them. For the same reason, He came, and not immediately after the ascension of Christ, but eight or nine days later. In the same way, we turn especially to God when we are placed in some kind of need. That is why John especially sends his disciples to Christ when they should have needed Jesus, since he himself was already in prison. And on the other hand, it was necessary that first our nature should appear in heaven, and reconciliation should be fully accomplished, and then the Spirit should come, and (the disciples) should be filled with pure joy. If, after the coming of the Holy Spirit, Christ had departed, and the Holy Spirit had remained (on earth), then there would not have been so much consolation for them, since they were very attached to Christ – which is why He said, comforting them: "It is better for you that I should go" (John 16:7). For this reason He postpones for a few days (the sending of the Holy Spirit), so that they, having experienced a little sorrow and feeling, as I have said, need, may enjoy full and pure joy. And if the Spirit were less than Him, then this consolation would not be enough. And how could He say, "Better for you"? For this purpose it is granted to the Holy Spirit. the greater part of the teaching, lest they consider Him less. Notice how necessary it was to be in Jerusalem that Christ appointed the disciples by promising to give the Spirit there. So that they do not flee again after His ascension, – by this expectation, as if by some kind of bonds, He keeps them all there. And when he said, "But wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard from me," he added, "For John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost in a few days after this" (v. 5). Here, finally, He shows the difference between Himself and John, and no longer in a hidden way, as before. First He greatly obscured His speech, saying: "But the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11); but now he says much more clearly: "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." He no longer cites his testimony itself (Matt. 3:11,12), but only points to his face and thereby reminds us of what was said to them, and shows that they had already become higher than John, since they themselves had the baptism of the Spirit. And He did not say, "But I baptize you with the Holy Spirit," but, "Ye shall be baptized," teaching us humility. And what exactly He baptized was already evident from the testimony of John, who said: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Luke 3:16), which is why Christ mentioned him alone. Thus, the Gospels tell about what Christ did and said, and the Acts tell about what another Comforter said and did. Of course, the Holy Spirit. I have done many things before, just as Christ works now, as (acted) before; but before – through the temple, and now – through the apostles. Then He entered into the virgin womb and formed a temple, and now into the souls of the apostles; then (descended) in the form of a dove, and now in the form of fire. Why is that? There he showed meekness, and here severity, and reminding him of judgment in good time. When it was necessary to forgive sins, great meekness was needed; and as soon as we have received this gift, it is already a time of judgment and trial. But why does Christ say, "Ye shall be baptized," when there was no water in the upper room? Because the more important thing (in baptism) is the Spirit, through Whom the water also works. In the same way, Christ Himself is said to have been anointed, although He was never anointed with oil, but received the Holy Spirit. However, it can be found that they were baptized both with water and (baptized) at different times. With us, both (baptism, i.e., by water and the Spirit) are together, but then (was) separate. In the beginning they were baptized by John, and this is not surprising. For if prostitutes and publicans went to that baptism, then all the sooner (came) those who were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit after that (came). Then, lest they should say, "This is still only a promise," as He had spoken much about it before, and lest they should think that this action was not realizable, He deflects them from such a supposition by saying, "In a few days." When, exactly, he did not declare it, that they should always be awake; He said that it would be soon, so that they would not weaken, but did not add when, so that they would always be vigilant. And not only by this He assures them, that is, not only by the brevity of time, but also by the words, "What ye have heard from Me," v. 4. His words mean: Not only have I told you now, but I have already promised these things before, which I will surely fulfill. Why, then, do you wonder that He did not say the day of the end (of the world), when He did not wish to announce this day, which is so near? And this He did quite naturally, so that they would always be watchful, waiting, and careful. 6. It is impossible, indeed impossible, to be vouchsafed grace to one who is not awake. Do you not know what Elijah is saying to his disciple? "If thou seest that I shall be taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee" (2 Kings 2:10), that is, what thou askest shall be unto thee. And Christ always said to those who came to Him: Do you believe? – because if we do not become accustomed to what is given, then we will not strongly feel the beneficence. In the same way, grace did not immediately descend upon Paul, but three days passed beforehand, during which he remained blind, tormented by fear, and prepared. As those who dye the scarlet robe first prepare the matter to be dyed with certain other substances, so that the color does not fade, so here God first prepares the waking soul, and then pours out grace. That is why He did not send the Spirit immediately, but at Pentecost. But if anyone should say, Why do we not also baptize at this time? – then I will answer that grace is one and the same both at Pentecost and now; but the mind is now more exalted, because it is prepared by fasting. And the time of Pentecost also has a certain significance that is not incongruous with this. What exactly? Our fathers considered baptism to be a sufficient bridle for evil lust and a great lesson – to live chastely and during the very time of rejoicing. Therefore, as if partaking with Christ Himself and participating in His meal, let us do nothing simply, but remain in fasting, prayer, and great abstinence.

For this reason many immediately after receiving returned to "their vomit" (2 Peter 2:22), became worse and brought upon themselves the most grievous punishment.   They were freed from their former sins, but for this reason they especially angered the Judge, because, having been freed from such an illness, they did not reform, but endured what Christ threatened the paralytic with, saying: "Behold, you are healed; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you" (John 5:14), and that He predicted about the Jews, showing that they would suffer incurably for their ingratitude: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin" (John 15:22). Thus, sins committed after (baptism) become twice and four times heavier. Why? Because, having been vouchsafed honor, we are ungrateful and evil. That is why the font (of baptism) does not in the least ease the punishment for us. Note: whether anyone has had grave sins (before baptism), whether he has committed, for example, murder, or adultery, or anything else, even more grievous, – all this is absolved through the baptismal font. In fact, no, there is truly no sin or impiety that is not inferior to this gift and is not inferior to it, because it is divine grace. But if someone falls into adultery again and commits murder, then, although the former adultery is permitted and that murder is forgiven, and is no longer remembered, since "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), nevertheless, for these sins committed after baptism, we are subjected to the same punishment as if the former ones had been taken into account, and even much greater. This is no longer just a sin, but a double and triple sin. And what greater condemnation awaits for these sins, listen to what Paul says: "If he who rejects the law of Moses, in the presence of two or three witnesses, without mercy is punished with death, how much more grievous punishment do you think he will be guilty of who tramples on the Son of God, and does not count the blood of the covenant as holy, whereby he was sanctified, and offends the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:28,29). Perhaps I have now distracted many from being baptized? But I have said this not for this purpose, but so that those who have received (baptism) may remain in chastity and vigorously lead an honest life. But I'm afraid, someone will say? If you were afraid, you would accept it and keep it. But for this reason, you will say, I do not accept that I am afraid (not to preserve)? And so (without baptism) are you not afraid to depart? God, you say, is a lover of mankind? Therefore accept baptism, because He loves mankind and helps us. But you, when you should take care (of baptism), do not imagine this love for mankind; and when you want to put it aside, then you remember it, whereas this philanthropy takes place in the first case, and it will be manifested to us especially when we bring what is necessary on our part. Whoever trusts in God in all things, even if he sins, as is proper for man, after baptism, through repentance he will be vouchsafed love for mankind; and whoever, as if philosophizing about God's love for mankind, departs (from here) a stranger to grace, will be subjected to inevitable punishment. Why then do you do this against your own salvation? It is impossible, absolutely impossible, as I at least think, that a person who postpones (baptism), deceiving himself with such hopes, will do anything sublime and good. Why do you take on such fear and hide behind the uncertainty of the future? Why do you not exchange this fear for labor and effort to become great and worthy of wonder? Which is better – to be afraid, or to work? If someone were to sit you idle in a crumbling house and say, "Expect that the ceiling may fall on your head, for it is already rotten (it may or may not fall); but if you do not want this, then work and live in a safer building," then what would you prefer? Is it idleness combined with fear, or is this labor with the certainty of security? Do the same now. The unknown future is like a decayed house, always threatening to fall; and this work, combined with fatigue, promises security. 7. God forbid, then, that we should be subjected to such a great misfortune – to sin after the font. But even if something like this were to happen, let us not despair under such circumstances. God loves mankind and has provided us with many ways to receive forgiveness after (baptism). And just as those who sin after the font are punished for this very reason more than the catechumens, so also those who know; What is the medicine of repentance, and they do not want to use it, they will be subjected to the most grievous punishment, because the more God's love for mankind increases, the more the punishment is increased if we do not make proper use of it. You were filled with so many evils, you were without any hope of salvation, and suddenly you became a friend (of God) and were elevated to the highest honor, not for your feats, but by the gift of God. You have returned to your former shameful deeds, for which you would have deserved a heavy punishment; but the Lord did not turn away from you, but gave you innumerable means of salvation, through which (again) you can become His friend. This is how (it does)

Then is the time not of sacraments, but of testaments; and the time of the sacraments is a sound state of mind and chastity of the soul. Tell me: if no one dares to write a will in such a state, and if he does, he will thereby give an opportunity to refute it later, which is why the wills begin with these words: "I, while I am alive, being in full and sound sense, make the disposition of my property," then how is it possible for one who has lost consciousness to be rightly initiated into the sacraments? If the laws of the world do not permit a man who does not fully possess reason to make wills about the things of this world, even though he would dispose of his property here, then how can you, who are instructed (in teaching) about the heavenly kingdom and about those ineffable blessings, be able to know everything clearly, when you often lose your reason from illness? And how can you say those words to Christ, when you are buried with Him, when you are already departing? For both in deeds and in words it is necessary to show affection for Him. And you do the same, as if someone wanted to enlist among the soldiers when the war was already over, or as if a wrestler began to take off his clothes when those who were at the spectacle had already risen. You do not take a weapon in order to retreat immediately, but in order to gain victory over the enemy by taking it. Let no one consider it inopportune to say this, because now is not the forty days. That is why I regret that you observe time in such matters. After all, that eunuch (Acts 8:27), despite the fact that he was a barbarian, that he traveled and was in the middle of the highway, did not reason about time. The jailer (Acts 16:29) did the same, although he was among the prisoners, saw the teacher beaten and bound, and believed that he would still remain in prison. And now many, despite the fact that they do not live in prison and are not on the road, postpone (their baptism), and postpone until their last breath. 8. Therefore, if you still doubt that Christ is God, then stand outside (the church), do not listen to the divine words, and do not count yourself among the catechumens. But if you do not doubt and know this clearly, then why tarry? Why do you evade and delay? I am afraid, you say, lest you sin. And you are afraid of that which is more terrible, lest you go there with such a heavy burden? For it is not the same not to accept the grace offered and, having decided to live virtuously, to sin. Tell me: if they accuse you, why did you not approach (baptism), why did you not live virtuously, what will you say? There you can perhaps still refer to the heaviness of the commandments and virtues; but there is nothing of the kind here, here is grace that freely gives freedom. But are you afraid of sinning? Say this after baptism, then have this fear, in order to preserve the boldness that you have received, and not to avoid such a gift. Otherwise, before baptism you are pious, but after baptism you are frivolous. But you are waiting for the time of the Forty Days? For what? Does that time have anything special? The Apostles were not vouchsafed grace at Pascha, but at another time; nor was it the time of Pascha, when three thousand and five thousand were baptized, as well as Cornelius, the eunuch, and very many others. Therefore, let us not wait for time, lest, through slowness and delay, we be deprived of such great blessings and depart without them. How, you think, I grieve every time I hear that someone has departed from here without being initiated into the sacraments, and every time I imagine those intolerable torments and inevitable punishment! How again I am crushed when I see others who have reached their last breath, but even so do not come to their senses! That is why many things happen that are unworthy of this gift. One should rejoice, rejoice, rejoice, and adorn oneself with wreaths when someone is initiated into the sacraments; and (among us) the wife of a sick man, when she hears that the doctor has advised this, laments and weeps as for some misfortune; everywhere in the house there are wails and lamentations, as if for the condemned who are being taken to execution. Yes, in turn, the sick person himself is then especially sad; and if he recovers, he is even more crushed, as if a great evil had been done to him. Since he was not prepared for virtue, he is lazy and evades the following feats. Do you see what snares the devil arranges, what shame, what ridicule? Let us free ourselves from this ridicule! Let us live as Christ commanded! He did not give baptism so that we, having received it, would depart (into eternity), but so that, having lived, we might show fruits. How can you say: "Bear fruit" to him who is already departing, who is already cut off? Have you not heard that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Galatians 5:21)? How does the opposite happen? A wife stands in tears when she should have rejoiced; children weep when they should be merry; The sick man himself lies gloomy, in fear and confusion, when he should have triumphed: he is in great sorrow at the thought of the orphanhood of his children, the widowhood of his wife, the desolation of the house.

Therefore, I beseech you, let us leave everything, turn to ourselves and approach baptism with all zeal, so that, having shown great zeal in this life, we may also receive future boldness, which we may all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. [1] Here the Slavonic text: "with them and poisoned" (Acts 1:4) fully corresponds to the interpretation of Chrysostom, in contrast to the synodal one: "and having gathered them together". – i.N.

CONVERSATION 2

Against the Manichaeans. "Wherefore they came together, and asked him, saying, Is it not at this time, O Lord, that thou dost restore the kingdom of Israel?" (Acts 1:6). 1. The disciples, intending to ask (the Lord) something, approach Him all together, and they do this in order to incline Him to answer by their very numbers. They knew that His former plums – "of that day and hour no one knoweth" (Matt. 24:36) – were spoken by Him in order to divert the question from Himself – not out of ignorance, but out of unwillingness to answer. For this reason they come to Him again and ask; and they would not have asked if they had really been convinced (of His ignorance). Since they heard that they would receive the Holy Spirit, they wanted to know (that time) how they were already worthy of it and ready to be delivered (from troubles). They did not want to plunge themselves into danger, but to enjoy peace, since what had already happened to them was important, but on the contrary, they were in extreme danger. Wherefore, having said nothing to Him concerning the Spirit, they asked, "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom of Israel?" But, "Is it not at this time"? – so they wanted to know this day. That is why they approach with great reverence. And it seems to me that they did not understand quite clearly what this kingdom was, since they had not yet been taught by the Spirit. And they did not say, "When will it be?" –But what? "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" – as if it had already been destroyed. Thus they asked because they were still attached to sensible objects, though not to the same extent as before. They have not yet become better; however, Christ was already thought of above. And since they have been exalted, He also converses with them more exalted; He no longer tells them that "of that day" even the Son does not know (Mark 13:32) – but what? "It is not your business to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in His own power" (v. 7). You seek too much, he says, although they already knew what was much more important. And so that you may understand this exactly, see how many things I will enumerate. Tell me, what is more important than what was revealed to them? They learned that Christ is the Son of God, and that God has a Son of equal honor; they knew that there would be a resurrection; they knew that Christ ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. They also learned what is even more amazing than this, that the flesh sits in grief and that angels worship it. They learned that the Lord would again come to judge the whole world, and that then they too would sit as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel; they learned that the Jews were rejected, and that the Gentiles would enter the kingdom of God in their place. To know what it will be is a great thing; And to comprehend that someone or ever will reign is nothing great in this. Paul learned what "cannot be told to man" (2 Corinthians 12:4), he learned everything that preceded this world. What is more difficult to know: the beginning or the end? Obviously, the former. And this Moses learned, and by counting the years, he shows when (it was) and how long it was. Solomon also knew this, which is why he said: "I will not forget to number the things of the world" (Proverbs 8:21). And so, that (that time) was near, the apostles afterwards also learned about it, just as Paul says: "The Lord is near. be anxious for nothing" (Phil. 4:5-6); but at that time they did not yet know, although the signs were indicated to them. And Christ, as He said, "In a few days" (v. 5), but did not specify the exact time, desiring that they should watch, so He does now. On the other hand, they also do not ask about the end (of the world), but about the kingdom, which is why they said: "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" but then He answered them with greater severity, so that they would not think that their deliverance was near, and He exposed them to dangers, but now not so, but with greater meekness. And so that (His words) do not seem offensive to them and only an excuse – listen to how He immediately promises to grant them that which they would rejoice at – and Namely, He added: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even unto the uttermost part of the earth" (v. 8). Then, so that they would not question Him again, He immediately ascended. Therefore, just as there He darkened them with fear and by saying, "I do not know," so here He was exalted by the fact that after these words He ascended. They had a strong desire to know about this and would not depart (from Christ), and yet it was very necessary that they should not know. Tell me: what do the pagans no longer believe, that there will be an end, or that God was made man, came from the womb of the Virgin, and appeared to people with flesh? Isn't it the last? No doubt you will say so. But I am ashamed to constantly talk about it as if it were some kind of indifferent subject. And lest they, in turn, say, Why dost thou value this matter so highly, He says, "The Father hath placed it in His power." But the authority of the Father and His authority are one and the same, as is evident from what He says: "As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). If where He should act, He acts with the same authority as the Father, then where it is necessary to know, He does not know with the same authority? Raising the dead is obviously much more than knowing that day. If He does a most important thing with the authorities, then is it not much more likely to do another, less significant thing? 2. But to make it clear to you, I will explain with an example. Just as we, when we see that a child is crying and constantly asking us for some thing he does not need, we hide this thing far away, show our empty hands and say: "See, we do not have it," so did Christ with the Apostles. But that child, although we do not show (the thing we are asking for), continues to cry, knowing that he has been deceived. Then we leave him and go away, saying, "So-and-so is calling me," and we give him something else in return for what he asks, in order to distract him from the thing he has chosen, and we praise this thing of ours more than that, and having given it, we depart. Christ did the same. The disciples asked; He said He didn't have it, and the first time He even frightened them. When they began to ask again, He again said that He had not, but only now He did not frighten them, but, having shown what He had done, He also gave a plausible reason, namely, "The Father has put it in His power." What then? Do you not know the things that belong to the Father? Do you know Him Himself, but do you not know what belongs to Him? You yourself said: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Matthew 11:27). Moreover (it is said): "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10); and you don't know even that? Far from it. He did not say this so that we should think so; He shows Himself ignorant in order to distract the disciples from an inappropriate question. They were afraid to ask again, lest they hear, "Are you so incomprehensible?" (Mark 7:18)? – because now they feared Him much more than before. "But ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost shall come upon you." Just as there He did not answer what was asked, because the teacher's business is to teach not what the disciple wants to know, but what is useful for him, so now He predicts what they needed to know in order not to be afraid. They were still weak, and in order to inspire them with boldness, He encouraged their souls and covered their difficulties. Since He was soon to leave them, when He conversed with them, He did not say anything sorrowful directly; But how? To the words of sorrow he adds praise, as if to say: "Do not be afraid, for you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth." Formerly He said: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into the city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5), but now He wants them to preach "in all Judea and Samaria"; therefore, what he did not say then, he now added, saying: "And even to the ends of the earth." And after he had told them what was most terrible, that they should not question him again, "he was lifted up in their eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight" (v. 9). Do you see that they preached and fulfilled the gospel? Verily, He has granted them a great deed! Where, he says, you were afraid, in Jerusalem, there preach first, and then – "even to the ends of the earth." Then again the assurance of what was said: "In their eyes," says (the writer), "and the cloud took Him." They did not see when He was resurrected, but they saw when "the cloud took Him," for even here the sight could not comprehend everything. They saw the end of the resurrection, but they did not see the beginning; but the ascension saw the beginning, but did not see the end. It was superfluous to see the beginning of the resurrection, when the one who proclaimed it was present, and when the tomb showed that He was not there; and what followed the ascension had to be learned from the word. Since the eyes could not penetrate into the heights and show whether He had ascended exactly to heaven, or only as if to heaven, then look what is happening. That it was Jesus they knew from what He had conversed with them, since they could no longer discern Him by sight because of the distance; and that He was going to heaven had already been explained to them by the angels themselves. See how it is arranged that not everything is known from the Spirit, but also from sight. Why did "the cloud take Him"? And this is a sign that He ascended to heaven. Not fire, not a chariot of fire, as was the case with Elijah, but "a cloud took Him"; And this was a symbol of heaven. Thus the prophet says: "Thou makest the clouds Thy chariot" (Psalm 103:3), although this is said of the Father. Therefore, the expression: "the cloud took" means: on the symbol of the Divine power, since no other power is represented anywhere on the cloud. Listen again to what another prophet says: "The Lord will sit on a light cloud" (Isaiah 19:1). 3. This happened when the question concerned an important subject, when the disciples were very attentive to what was being said, when they were excited and did not doze. And on Mount (Sinai), when Moses entered into darkness (Exodus 24:15), the cloud was also for Christ's sake, and not for Moses' sake. (Christ) did not only say: I am departing, so that the disciples would not lament again; but at the same time said, "I send the Spirit." And that He went to heaven, they saw with their own eyes. Oh, what a vision they were vouchsafed! "And when they were looking up into heaven while he was ascending, suddenly two men in white robes stood before them, and said, Men of Galilee! Why do you stand and look up to heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (vv. 10, 11). They use the demonstrative word, "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (v. 11). Again a bright image! Certain angels, having put on human form, suddenly appeared and said: "Men of Galilee." For the very fact that they said, "Men of Galilee," they already seemed to the disciples worthy of faith. And if this were not their goal, why would they need to point out to their disciples their homeland, which they knew? And by their very appearance they attracted disciples to themselves and showed that they were from heaven. Why does not Christ Himself say this to the disciples, but the angels? He Himself had conversed with them about all things before, so that through the angels He only reminded them of what they had already heard. And they did not say, "Whom ye have seen ascended," but, "Whom ye have seen ascending into heaven," to show that His ascension is an ascension; but it is proper for the flesh to be exalted. That is why they say: "He who has ascended from you into heaven will come in the same way" – he will not be sent, but "will come". Where is the minority (of the Son)? "A cloud took Him." Beautiful, since He Himself ascended into the cloud, wherefore He who ascended is the same One Who also descended (Ephesians 4:10). But see how one thing is said in relation to their thoughts, and the other in accordance with the dignity of God. However, the minds of those who were watching were now exalted; The Lord granted them no small knowledge of the Second Coming. The words, "He will come in the same way," mean that He will come with a body, as they wanted to hear, and that He will come again to judgment in the same way, on a cloud. "Suddenly," it is said, "two men in white robes stood before them." Why is it said, "husband"? Because (the angels) took the perfect form of men, so that (the disciples) would not be afraid. "And they said, Men of Galilee! Why do you stand and look up to heaven?" With such words they show their affability, and do not allow them to wait for His return immediately. What is more important, they talk about, and they are silent about the less important. That He "will come in the same way," and that He is to be expected from heaven, this is said; and when they are silent about it. In this way they distracted the disciples from that spectacle and turned them to their speech, so that the disciples, no longer having the opportunity to see Christ, would not think that He had not ascended, but would stop in thought at their words. If the disciples had said before, "Where are you going?" (John 13:36), so much the more would be said now. "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom of Israel?" They knew His meekness so much that even after His sufferings they asked Him: "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore"? True, He had already said to them: "Take heed, do not be terrified, for all these things must be, but this is not yet the end," and Jerusalem will not yet be taken captive (Matt. 24:6); But now they are asking about the kingdom, not about the end. However, after the resurrection, He no longer stretches out a long word to them. They ask, thinking that they themselves will be in glory if this comes to pass; but He did not declare whether He would build (this kingdom) or not. Why did they need to know about it? Wherefore, being afraid, they no longer said, What is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matt. 24:3) but: "Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel"? They thought it had already been revealed; yet He showed in parables that it is not near; and when they asked Him, He did not answer the question, but the following: "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." See: He did not say that (the Spirit) would be sent, but, "He will come down," to show His equal honor. How then do you, Doukhobor, dare to call Him a creature? "And ye shall be witnesses unto Me." He had hinted at ascension, or rather, and now he was reminding them again of what they had heard before. It has already been shown that He ascended to heaven. "A cloud," it is said, "is darkness under His feet" (Psalm 96:2; 17:10); and this is the meaning of the words: "And the cloud took Him," that is, the Lord of heaven. As the king's chariot points to the king, so the king's chariot was sent to Him, so that the disciples would not say anything sorrowful and would not suffer the same thing as Elisha, who tore the robe when his teacher ascended. What then do (the angels) say? "This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way." And (it is said): "Two men stood before them." And so it should be, because "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be firm" (2 Corinthians 13:1). That's exactly what they say. "In white," it is said, "clothes." As before at the tomb (the women) had already seen an angel "in shining garments" (Luke 24:4), who announced to them what they were thinking about, so the witness of the ascension of Christ is an angel. However, this, as well as the resurrection, was repeatedly predicted by the prophets. 4. Angels are everywhere messengers, for example, at the birth of Christ, again at the (annunciation) of Mary, as well as at the resurrection; so also at the ascension; And at the Second Coming, the angels will appear as forerunners. Since they said: "This is Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven," then, in order not to perplex the disciples, they added: "He will come in the same way." The disciples were somewhat relieved when they heard that He would come again, and He would come in the same way, and would not be inaccessible. It is not without reason that the word "from you" is used, but it shows Christ's love for the disciples, their election, and that He will not forsake those whom He has chosen. Thus, Christ Himself testified to the resurrection, since after the nativity, or better, and before the nativity, the most amazing thing was that He raised Himself: "Destroy this," He said, "this temple, and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19); And the angels testify to the coming to come, saying, "He will come in the same way." Therefore, if anyone desires to see Christ, if anyone grieves that he has not seen Him, let him, having heard of His future coming, lead a perfect life, and then he will surely see Him, and will not be deceived in hope. He will come with greater glory, but also on a cloud, also with a body; and it is much more wonderful to see Him descending from heaven than ascending from the earth. That He would come, the angels said; but – for what purpose, this was not added. This is a confirmation of the resurrection, because if He ascended with a body, how much more did He rise with a body. Where are those who do not believe in the resurrection? Who are they, tell me? Pagans, or Christians? I don't know, or better, I know quite well. These are the pagans, who do not believe in the very creation of creation. It is their business not to admit that God creates anything out of nothing, and not to admit that He will resurrect what is buried. But they are ashamed that they do not acknowledge the power of God, and hence, in order to avoid reproach for this, they say: "Not because we say this, but because there is no need of a body." It is truly opportune to say: "The ignorant speaketh foolishness" (Isaiah 32:6). Aren't you ashamed when you don't admit that God creates out of nothing? But if He creates from something that exists, how does He differ from people? But where does evil come from, they say? Is it because you do not know where evil comes from, that you must introduce another evil – in the knowledge of evil? There are two inconsistencies here: the first is that you dare to say so; for if you do not acknowledge that God created things out of nothing, how much more will you not know where evil comes from; and the second is that, by saying this, you introduce evil that is unborn. Think how bad it is to wish to find the source of evil, but not knowing it, to bring in another one! Seek whence evil comes, and do not blaspheme God. But how, you say, do I blaspheme? What are you saying? Do you not blaspheme when you introduce unborn evil, when you admit that it is equal to God, that it has the same power that it is unborn? See what Paul says: "His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, are visible from the foundation of the world, through the contemplation of the creatures" (Romans 1:20); but the devil, on the contrary, said that both are of matter, so that we would no longer know God from anywhere. Which is more difficult, tell me: is it to make evil by nature beautiful (if only it exists: I speak in accordance with your opinion, because nothing can be done that is by nature evil, which promotes good), or to create from nothing? What is easier, I am talking about quality, to introduce a non-existent quality, or to turn the existing into its opposite? What is easier – to build a house that does not exist, or to rebuild a ruined house again? Obviously, the former. But this is (in your opinion) impossible. Therefore, just as this is impossible, so it is impossible to transform anything into its opposite. 5. Tell me: which is more difficult, to prepare the world, or to make the dirt produce the effects of the world? Which of the two is more agreeable, tell me (we subject God to our reasoning, but it is not us, no, but you): should we arrange the eyes, or should we make the blind man, while remaining blind, see, be sharper than the one who sees, take advantage of blindness in order to see, and deafness in order to hear? I think it is the former. Tell me, then, what is more difficult, you leave to God, and what is easier, you do not? But what do I say about this? And the souls themselves, in their opinion, come from the essence of God. But see how much (in their teaching) is impious and senseless. First, in order to show that evil is from God, they introduce another evil, more impious than this: they say that evil is contemporary with God, and that God is not in the least older than it, thus daring to ascribe to evil so great an advantage. Secondly, it is said that evil is immortal, because the unborn does not perish. Do you see what blasphemy? From this it follows either that nothing came from God, or that there is no God. Thirdly, by this, as I have already said, they contradict themselves and raise up the greater wrath of God against themselves. Fourthly, to a substance which cannot exist by itself (υλη αστατος) they ascribe such great power. Fifthly, it is said that the cause of God's goodness was evil, and that without it the Good One would not be Good. Sixthly, they block for us the path to the knowledge of God. Seventh, God is brought down into people, into plants and trees. For if our soul is from the essence of God, and during transmigration it passes into pumpkins, melons, and onions, then, consequently, the essence of God will also be in pumpkins. If we say that the Holy Spirit formed the temple in the Virgin, they laugh; if we say that He dwelt in a spiritual temple, they laugh again; and they themselves are not ashamed to bring down the essence of God into pumpkins, melons, flies, caterpillars, and donkeys, inventing some new form of idolatry. "But not the onion (you say) in God, but God in the bulb – let not the onion be God." Why do you not allow God to transmigrate into bodies? "Low," you say. In this case, even lower is that (what you say). "No, not low." Is that so? At least with us, if it were, it is truly low. Do you see the crowd of wickedness? But why do they not want the body to be resurrected? What will they say? That the body is evil? How, tell me, do you know God? Whence hast thou knowledge of things? How can a philosopher be a philosopher if the body does not help him in the least? Damage your senses and learn something you need to know. What would be more senseless than the soul if it had damaged feelings from the very beginning? If injury to one member alone, that is, to the brain, is completely detrimental to it, then what will it be good for, if others are also damaged? Show me a soul without a body. Do you not hear what the physicians say: the illness that befalls the soul is completely darkened? How long will you not hang yourself? Tell me: is the body made of matter? Ok. Therefore, it would be necessary to hate him. Why do you nourish it, why do you warm it? Therefore you should have killed yourself; he would have to free himself from prison. Moreover, God cannot conquer matter (υλη) unless He is mixed with it; It cannot command it until it is with it and spreads throughout its entire composition. What impotence! And the king does all things, giving commands; and God cannot command evil? In general, if matter did not partake of some good, it could not exist. For evil, by its nature, cannot exist unless it is united with some good; therefore, if it had not been mixed with good before, it would have perished long ago, such is the property of evil.

Let there be a city inhabited by evil people: can it exist? And let these people be evil not only to the good, but also to themselves: obviously, (such a city) cannot exist. Truly, "calling themselves wise, they have become fools" (Romans 1:22). If the body is evil, then everything that is visible without distinction – water, earth, sun, and air – is also evil, because air is also a body, although it is neither solid nor solid. Therefore, it is opportune to say: "The transgressors have told me their reasoning" (Psalm 118:85). But let us not hearken unto them; on the contrary, let us shield our ears from them. There is, indeed there is a resurrection of the body. it is the tree to which Christ was bound when he was scourged. "With Him," said the Apostles (of Christ), "they ate and drank" (Acts 10:41). Let us believe in the resurrection and act worthy of it, so that we may also be vouchsafed future blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom the Father, with the Holy Spirit. By the Spirit, glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 3

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath journey" (Acts 1:12). The office of the bishop. – His work and dignity. 1. "Then they returned." When – "then"? When they heard (the words of the angels). The disciples would not have endured (separation from the Lord) at all, if they had not been promised that He would come another time. And it seems to me that this happened on the Sabbath: otherwise the writer would not have marked the distance in this way, would not have said: "From the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath journey," if they had not passed through the space of the journey appointed for that day on the Sabbath day. "And when they came, they went up into the upper room, where they dwelt" (v. 13). This means that they remained in Jerusalem after the resurrection. "Peter," it is said, "and James, John." Not only John and his brother are already mentioned, but also Andrew and Peter: "Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James." It was not without reason that he mentioned the disciples by name: since one of them became a traitor, another renounced, and a third did not believe, he shows that, except for one traitor, all were intact. "They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with some of the women" (v. 14). Well done! Prayer is a powerful weapon in the midst of temptations. This, on the one hand, they had already been sufficiently taught by the Teacher Himself, and on the other hand, they were also disposed by the present temptation: for this reason they ascend to the upper room, because they were greatly afraid of the Jews. "With women," says (the writer), since (in the Gospel) he said that they followed Christ. "And Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." But how does (John) say that then "the disciple took her unto himself" (John 19:27)? After Christ gathered the disciples again, she was with them again. "With His brethren," says of those who had not believed Christ before. "And in those days Peter stood in the midst of the disciples, and said" (v. 15). Peter is always the first to speak, partly because of the vivacity of his character, and partly because Christ entrusted him with His flock, and he was the first in the countenance. "(And there was a congregation of about a hundred and twenty men): Men, brethren! It was necessary to fulfill that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures" (v. 16). Why did he not only ask Christ in his own person to give him someone instead of Judas? Or why don't the apostles (all together) make a choice for themselves? Peter is now better than he was before: this is how the first question can be answered. As to why they ask for the replenishment of their congregation, not simply, but by revelation, I will point out two reasons: first, that they were engaged in other work; and the other was that this was the greatest proof that Christ was with them. He, even in his absence (visibly), chose himself as accurately as when he was with them: and this was no small consolation for them. But see how Peter does everything by common consent, and does not dispose of anything arbitrarily and as a ruler. And he did not simply say, "In the place of Judas we elect so-and-so"; But in order to reassure the disciples about what has happened, see how he begins his speech. This event, indeed, caused them no small bewilderment; And there is nothing surprising in this: if even now many talk about him, then what should they naturally have said then? "Men," he says, "brethren." If the Lord called them brethren, then it was all the more fitting for Peter to be addressed in such a way, which is why he exclaims this in the presence of all. Such is the dignity of the church and its angelic state! No one was then separated from the others, neither man nor woman. And it is desirable for me that the churches be like this now. At that time, no one cared about anything mundane, no one worried about home. That is how useful temptations are! Such is the blessing of misfortunes! "It was necessary to fulfill what the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures." He constantly comforts them with prophecy. In every case, Christ acts in the same way. In the same way, Peter shows that there is nothing strange in this event, but that it has already been foretold. "It behooved," he says, "to be fulfilled that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures by the mouth of David." He does not say, "David said," but, "The Spirit is through him." Notice at the very beginning of the book what kind of teaching he uses. You see, it was not in vain that I said at the beginning of this work that this book (depicts) the dispensation (πολιτεία) of the Spirit. "The Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David"; See how he assimilates the prophet and exposes his name, knowing that it will be profitable for them that this saying belongs to David, and not to another prophet. "Of Judas, the Former Leader." Note here also the wisdom of this man: he does not revile or dishonor (Judas), does not say that he was a villain and the most terrible evildoer, but simply explains what happened. He does not even call him a traitor, but tries, as far as it was possible for him, to lay the blame on others. However, he does not strongly accuse them either: "former," so to speak, "the leader of those who took Jesus." And before he pointed out the place where this saying of David is located, he reminds us of the fate that befell Judas, in order to confirm through the present and in the future, and to show that (Judas) had already received punishment. "He was numbered among us, and received the lot of this ministry; but hath acquired the land with an unrighteous reward" (v. 17, 18). He depicts the temper (of Judas) and imperceptibly reveals (his) guilt worthy of punishment. He does not say, "The Jews (gained)," but, "He acquired the land with an unrighteous reward." And since people with weak souls look not so much at the future as at the present, he tells about the punishment that befell him in the present life. "And when he fell down." He did well to stop his speech not on the crime of Judas, but on the punishment that befell him. "His belly was split, and all his intestines fell out." This served as a consolation for them. "And this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the land in their native tongue is called Akeldama, that is, the land of blood" (v. 19). 2. The Jews gave this name to the village, not for the sake of the village, but for the sake of Judah; and Peter carried him to the village itself and brought the enemies themselves as witnesses. Both by saying, "called," and by adding, "in their native dialect," he really wants to express this. Then, having first pointed out the event, he decently quotes a prophecy and says: "And in the book of Psalms it is written, Let his court be desolate, and let there be no one who dwells in it; and let another take his dignity" (v. 20; Psalm 68:26). This is (said) about the village and about the house. "And let another take his dignity," i.e., the authorities, the priesthood. Consequently, it is not according to my thought that this is done, but according to the will of Him Who foretold it. Lest it seem as if he was undertaking too great a deed, such as Christ did, he brought the prophet as a witness. "Therefore it is necessary," he says, "that one of those who have been with us all the time" (v. 21). Why does he consult with them? So that this matter would not become a subject of dispute, so that there would be no strife between them. For if this happened to the apostles themselves, how much more would it happen to those people. This he always avoids; That is why I said at the very beginning: "Men, brethren," it is necessary to choose from among us. He leaves this matter to the judgment of the majority, and through this he makes those who are elected venerable, and he turns aside the enmity of others, since such cases always give rise to great evil. And this, that it is necessary to do this, (to choose), to this he brings the prophet as a witness; And from what persons it is necessary (to make a choice), this he himself explains, saying: "One of those who have been with us all the time." If he had said, "It is necessary that these men be able," he would have insulted the rest; and now he left the matter to time, saying not simply, "We were," but, "All the time that the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us, from the baptism of John to the day in which he ascended from us, he was with us a witness of his resurrection" (vv. 21, 22). What is this thing for? So that the (apostolic) face does not remain incomplete. What then? Couldn't Peter himself have been elected? Very possible. But he does not do this, so as not to appear partial; and on the other hand, he has not yet received the Holy Spirit. "And they appointed two: Joseph, who was called Barsabbas, who was called Justus, and Matthias" (v. 23). It was not Peter himself who ordained them, but all of them; and he gave an opinion, showing, however, that it did not belong to him, but had already been (proclaimed) in prophecy from ancient times, so that he was only an interpreter, and not a teacher. "Joseph, who is called Barsabbas, who is called Justus." The writer put both names, perhaps because (Joseph) had namesakes, since there were many namesake among the apostles, for example: James Zebedee and James Alpheus, Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot, Judas James and Judas Iscariot. On the other hand, this name could have been given to him as a result of a change in life, or, perhaps, at his will. "And they set two: Joseph, who is called Barsabbas, who is called Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed, and said, Thou, O Lord, knower of the hearts of all, shew one of these two, whom thou hast chosen to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell away to go to his own place" (vv. 23-25). They decently mention the crime of Judas, and thereby show that they are looking for a witness not in order to increase the number (of the apostles), but in order to prevent him from decreasing. "And they cast lots for them," because the Holy Spirit was not yet with them, "and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered among the eleven apostles" (v. 26). "Then," it is said, "they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath journey" (v. 12). Thus says (the writer), wishing to show that they are not undertaking a long journey, so as not to be exposed to any danger, since they were still trembling and afraid. "And when they came, they went up into the upper room" (v. 13). They did not dare to appear in the city, nor did they go up to the upper room in vain, but so that it would not be easy to take them by surprise. "They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication" (v. 14). Do you see how they watched, "continued in prayer," and moreover, "with one accord," as if they were one soul? In these words lies the testimony of both. Joseph, perhaps, was no longer alive; therefore it is not mentioned (here). It is impossible that this man, who first believed (in Christ), should not be a believer now that the brethren also believed. For this reason, of course, it is nowhere seen that he ever looked upon Christ as a (simple) man, while the Mother said: "Thy father and I sought Thee with great sorrow" (Luke 2:48). Therefore he knew Him before all others; and Christ said to his brothers: "The world cannot hate, but it hates Me" (John 7:7). Look also at the modesty of James: he accepted the bishopric in Jerusalem, and yet, in the present case, he says nothing. Notice also the deep humility of the other disciples: they yield the throne to him and no longer argue among themselves, so that that Church was as it were in heaven; there was nothing worldly in it; it shone not with walls or marble, but with the jealousy of the persons who composed it. "And there was a congregation of about a hundred and twenty men," it is said, there was them. Among them, probably, were seventy disciples, whom Christ Himself had chosen, as well as others from among the most zealous in the faith, for example, Joseph and Matthias; there were also many women who followed Him and were always together. 3. Such is the solicitude of a mentor! He was the first to appoint a teacher. He did not say, "We are enough," so he was devoid of all vanity, and strove only for one goal, although he did not have the same significance as everyone else. However, this was quite natural because of the virtue of this man, and also because at that time superiority was not an honor, but a concern for subordinates. Hence it came about that even those who were elected were not proud, because they were called to danger; and those who were not chosen did not grieve, because they did not consider it a disgrace to themselves. But now it is no longer so, but quite the opposite. See, there were a hundred and twenty of them, and out of all this multitude he demands (that they choose) one, and (demands) justly. He is the first to dispose in this matter, since everyone is entrusted to him. For Christ said to him: "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:32). "He was numbered," he says, "among us"; and therefore it is necessary to appoint another, so that he may become a witness in the place of Judas. And see how he imitates his Teacher: everywhere he argues on the basis of the Scriptures and says nothing about Christ, that He often predicted this. Nor does he point to those passages of Scripture where the betrayal of Judas is mentioned, e.g.; "the mouth of the sinner and the mouth of the flatterer have been opened against me" (Psalm 108:2); but he cites only the passage where his punishment is mentioned, since now it was only useful for them to learn about this. Here again the Lord's love for mankind is especially visible. "He was numbered," he says, "among us, and received the lot of this ministry." Everywhere he calls it the lot, and thereby shows that everything here is the work of God's grace and the work of election, and at the same time reminds them of ancient times, expressing the idea that God made him His lot just as He made the Levites. Then, continuing to speak of him, he remarks that the reward for his betrayal has become a solemn herald of his punishment. "But he has gained," he says, "the land with an unrighteous reward." Notice how this event took place according to God's dispensation. "Unrighteous." There are many untruths; but there has never been anything more unrighteous than this unrighteousness; this is primarily an unrighteous deed. And this became known not only to contemporaries, but also to all who lived after that. The Jews unwittingly, without knowing it, gave the name (to the village), just as Caiaphas had predicted, without knowing it. God moved them to call him in Hebrew: Akeldama. From this it was already possible to foresee the calamities that would befall the Jews. Further, he shows that the prophecy has already been partially fulfilled, which says: "It would have been better for this man not to have been born" (Matt. 26:24). The same can be applied to the Jews, because if the former leader (suffered such a fate), then with even greater justice (should have experienced it) these people. But (Peter) does not yet say anything of the sort. Then, to show that (this field) is justly called Akeldama, he quotes the prophet's saying: "Let his court be desolate." And what, in fact, can be more desolate than a village turned into a cemetery? And this village, of course, can be called his village. Whoever has paid the next payment for it should justly be considered the lord of this great desolation, even if others have bought it. This desolation, if one delves into the matter attentively, is already the beginning of Jewish desolation. It is known that the Jews destroyed themselves by starvation and killed many, and that their city turned into a cemetery for strangers, for soldiers: they were not allowed to bury (the dead), because they were considered unworthy even of burial. "Therefore it is necessary," he says, "that one of those who were with us." Look, he wants them to be obvious witnesses. Although the Holy Spirit had come to them, for all this, extreme care was directed to this matter. "Therefore it is necessary that one of those who was with us," he says, "all the time that the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us." This shows that they lived with Him, and not just were with Him as His disciples. Indeed, from the very beginning, many followed him. See how (John) points to this when he says: "one of the two who heard from John about Jesus, and followed Him" (John 1:40). "All the time," he says, "when the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us, beginning with the baptism of John." Well done; for what was before this, no one knew by teaching, but learned from the Holy Spirit, "until that day," he says, "in which he ascended from us, was with us a witness of his resurrection" (v. 22). He did not say: "a witness" of the rest, but: "a witness" of the "resurrection" alone, because he (the witness) was more certain, who could say that He was the one who was risen, Who ate, drank, was crucified. There was no need for a witness either for what was before, or for what came after, or for miracles, the question was precisely the resurrection, since it was clearly and universally recognized, and the resurrection took place secretly, and only they knew it. And they do not say, "Angels have told us," but, "We have seen, Whence is it clear?" From the fact that we work miracles. Therefore, it was then that they should have been especially reliable. "And they set up," says (the writer), "two." Why not more? In order not to increase despondency among them, and not to spread this matter to many. And it is not without reason that he places (Matthias) after (Joseph), but by this he shows that he who enjoys respect among men is often less in the sight of God. And all pray together in this way: "Thou, O Lord, Knower of the Heart of all, show me" (v. 24). You, they say, not us. The Knower of the Heart is also called upon at the right time: it was fitting that He should make the election, and not strangers. So they were sure that one should certainly be chosen. And they did not say, 'Choose; but, "Show," they say, "the chosen one, whom Thou hast chosen," they knew that with God all things were ordained beforehand. "Show one of these two, whom thou hast chosen to accept the lot of this ministry and apostleship" (v. 24, 25), because there was another ministry. "And they cast lots for them" (v. 26). They did not yet consider themselves worthy of making their own choice; therefore they want to know by means of some sign. 4. On the other hand, if where there was neither prayer nor worthy people, the lot had such great power because it was the result of a just decision towards Jonah, then it was much more so here, where it was necessary to complete the countenance, to restore the order (apostolic). And the other (Joseph) was not grieved (because he was not chosen): otherwise the apostles would have said so, since they did not hide their shortcomings. For even of the chief apostles they did not fail to remark that they were sometimes dissatisfied; And this is not once, but twice, and even more often. Let us imitate them, for my word does not yet apply to all, but only to those who seek power. If you believe that the choice is made by God, then do not be indignant: otherwise you will be dissatisfied with Him, you will be irritated against Him, because He has chosen. If, in spite of His election, you dare to be grieved, then you act as Cain did. He should have approved (the sentence of God), but he was grieved because of the preference given to his brother's sacrifice; indignant when he should have been touched. But, however, this is not the point, but the fact that God knows how best to arrange things. It often happens that in character, for example, you are more modest, but do not correspond to the goal. Again, your life is irreproachable and you have a noble character, but this is not only what is needed in the Church. And moreover, one is suitable for one thing, and the other for another. Do you not see how much is said about this in the Holy Scriptures? But I will tell you why this matter has become an object of harassment: the reason is that we seek it, not as a duty to govern others and care for the brethren, but as an honor and a quiet life. And if you knew that a bishop should belong to everyone and bear the burdens of all, that others are forgiven when they are angry, but never him, that others, if they sin, are willingly excused, but he is not, you would not seek this leadership, you would not strive for it. The bishop is subject to the judgment of everyone, to the judgment of all, both the wise and the foolish; every day, every night, he is exhausted in cares; He has many ill-wishers, many envious people. Do not speak to me of those who please in everything, who want to sleep, who go to this work as to rest – I am not talking about them, but about those who watch over your souls, who prefer the salvation of their subordinates to their own. Tell me: if he who has ten children, who are subject to him and always live with him, is forced to take care of them unceasingly, then what should he be like who has so many persons who are not subject to him, who do not live with him, but freely dispose of themselves? For that, you will say, he enjoys honor. By what honor? The last beggars revile him in the square. So why don't you silence them? Ok; But this is not the bishop's business. And again, do not give to everyone, both those who spend their time in idleness and those who work, a thousand reproaches from all sides; no one is afraid to accuse and slander him. They are afraid to condemn (worldly) rulers; but these (bishops) do not, because the fear of God has no power in such people. And what can be said about concern for the word and for teaching? About the difficulty of ordinations? Or perhaps I am very weak, pitiful, and insignificant, or it is really as I say. The soul of a priest is no different from a ship tossed about by the waves; On all sides it is wounded by friends, enemies, friends, and strangers. Does not the king govern the world, while the bishop governs only the city? But the care of the latter is as much greater as the rising and raging sea differs from the water of the river, which is moved only by the wind. Why would this be so? Because there are many helpers there, and everything is done according to the law and by decree; but here there is nothing of the sort, and it is impossible to order at will. But if you act strongly, you will be called cruel; and if not too much, cold. It is necessary to combine both, so as not to be neglected, and not to deserve hatred. On the other hand, the matters themselves are especially difficult here. How many (the bishop) is forced to grieve, willingly or unwillingly! How many are forced to act harshly, whether he wants it or not! I speak in no other way, but exactly as I think and feel. I do not think that there are many among the priests who are being saved; on the contrary, there are many more who are perishing, and precisely because this work requires a great soul. A bishop has many needs that compel him to leave his home; He needs thousands of eyes on all sides. Do you not see how much he needs to have? He must be instructive, patient, and hold fast to "the true word according to doctrine, that it may be strong and instruct in sound doctrine" (Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9, etc.). And how difficult it is! And then, when others sin, the guilt falls on him. Without saying anything else, I will only say that if only one person departs (from this life) without initiation into the sacraments, will this not overthrow all his salvation? For the destruction of even one soul is such a loss that no word can express. If her salvation has such a price, that the Son of God also became a man for this purpose and endured so much, then think what punishment her destruction will entail! If the one through whom another perishes is worthy of death in the present life, then it is much more so there. Do not say to me: a presbyter or a deacon has sinned, – the guilt of all of them falls on the head of those who ordained them. I will also point out something else: if one of the bad people happens to be received into the clergy, there is perplexity: what decision should be made regarding his former sins? There are two abysses here: he should not be left unpunished, and the rest should not be tempted. Is it necessary, then, to vomit it up? But at present there is no reason. Or leave him unpunished? Yes, you will, because the one who ordained it is to blame. So what is it? Is it not necessary, at least, to ordain him and elevate him to another degree? But then it will be clear to everyone that he is some kind of bad person, and, consequently, temptation will again arise from here. Or elevate him to the highest degree? But this is much worse. 5. And so, if everyone aspired to the episcopacy as a duty to care for others, then no one would soon dare to accept it. Otherwise we are chasing after him as surely as we are after worldly offices. In order to be in glory, in order to attain honor among men, we perish in the sight of God. And what is the use of honor? How clearly it has been proved to be nothing! When you strongly desire the priesthood, then oppose hell, oppose the account that should be given there, oppose the rest of life, oppose the degree of punishment. If you sin simply as a man, you will not tolerate anything of the kind; but if you sin as a priest, you are lost. Think how much he endured, how much wisdom he took, how much good Moses showed in himself; and yet, because he had committed only sin, he suffered severe punishment. And rightly so, because it was combined with harm to others. Thus, he was punished with special severity, not only because his sin was obvious, but also because it was the sin of a priest. And yet we are not subjected to the same punishment for open sins and for secret sins. Sin is one and the same, but the harm from it is not the same, or rather, the sin is not the same, because it is not the same – to sin secretly and imperceptibly, and to sin openly. And a bishop cannot sin secretly. It is already good if he is free from reproaches, when he does not sin; and there is nothing to say about when he sins. Whether he is angry, whether he laughs, whether he wants to rest himself by sleeping, there are many mockers, many who are offended, many legislators, many who remember the former (bishops) and blaspheme the present; and this is not done because they want to praise those – no, – they remember the former bishops and presbyters only in order to hurt them. War, they say, is pleasant for those who have not experienced it. The same is proper to say now; or better, we say so until we have entered upon the podvig; and as soon as we enter, we are not even known to the people. We no longer have a struggle against those who oppress the poor; we do not take the trouble to fight for our flock, but, like those shepherds mentioned in Ezekiel (34:2), we only slaughter and eat. Who among us shows the same concern for the flock of Christ as Jacob had for the flocks of Laban? Who can boast of anything that could be equal to enduring the cold of the night? Do not call me all-night vigils on a par with this great solicitude. No, now everything is completely different. District governors and local governors do not enjoy such great honor as the rulers of the Church. Will he enter the royal palace – who will take the first place? Whether it be with women, or in noble houses, no one else has greater honor before him. Everything is lost, everything is ruined! I say this not to shame you, but to keep you from this passion. With what conscience will you be, if you have coveted (this rank) either by yourself or through someone else? With what eyes will you look at the one who was your accomplice? What excuse will you have? Whoever (accepted this dignity) against his will, under compulsion, against his will, has some other justification; Though he is for the most part denied forgiveness, yet he has some excuse. Think what Simon was subjected to? What is the need, that you do not give silver, but, in exchange for silver, flatter and use all sorts of intrigues and tricks? "Thy silver shall perish" (Acts 8:20), he was told; and it will also be said to these people, Let your covetousness be with you unto destruction, because you have thought to acquire the gift of God through the machinations of men. But there is no one like that? Oh, if only it hadn't! For I do not wish that my words should apply to you; And now I had to say it only in the course of my speech. And when I speak against covetousness, my words do not apply to you either, or even to any of you. May God grant that we prepare medicines in vain. And the wishes of doctors are exactly the same: not what else they want, but that, after their considerable work, the medicines should be thrown away for nothing. We want the same thing, that is, that our words be spoken simply, in the air, so that they remain only words. I am ready to endure everything so as not to be forced to talk about it. However, if you like, we will be silent; only let our silence be safe: I do not think that anyone, however vain, would want to speak unnecessarily, and only to show himself. We will leave it to you to teach; Learning by works is a more important teaching. And the best physicians, notwithstanding that the sickness of the sick bring them profits, desire that their friends should be in good health; so I want you all to be healthy. I do not want to be praised and you to be condemned. I would like, if possible, to show by my very eyes the love that I have for you: then no one would reproach me with anything, even if my word were too harsh. What is said between friends is easily tolerated, even if there is something offensive in it, because "sincere are the reproaches of him that loves, and false are the kisses of him that hates" (Proverbs 27:6). For me there is nothing dearer than you, – not even this light is dearer. A thousand times I would like to lose my sight myself, if only through this it were possible to convert your souls, so your salvation is more pleasant to me than the light itself. And what profit does the rays of the sun profit me, when sorrow for you brings deep darkness to my eyes? Light is good when it appears in a time of joy; and for a sorrowful soul it seems even burdensome. And that I am not lying – God forbid that I should ever be convinced of this by experience! But, however, if it should happen that any of you sins, come to me while I am sleeping: let me perish, if I do not resemble the paralytics, if I do not resemble the ecstatic; then, in the words of the prophet, "the light of my eyes is not with me" (Psalm 37:11). What hope is there for you when you don't show success? And if you deserve praise, what kind of sorrow is possible? I think I'm flying (for joy) when I hear something good about you. "Complete my joy" (Phil. 2:2). This is the only thing I ask of you, because I wish you success: And I will argue with everyone about the fact that I love you, that I have become related to you, that you are everything to me – father, mother, brothers, and children. Do not think, then, that I am saying anything out of dislike for you; No, (I say) for your correction. "A brother," says the Scriptures, "is helped by a brother as a mighty city" (Proverbs 18:19). Therefore, do not disregard my words. For I do not refuse to listen to you; No, I would like you to correct me, I would like to learn from you. After all, we are all brothers, and we have one Teacher; but even among the brethren it is necessary that one should give orders, and the rest should obey. So do not despise my words, but let us do everything for the glory of God, for to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

CONVERSATION 4

"At the coming of the day of Pentecost, they were all with one accord together. And suddenly there was a noise from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were" (Acts 2:1-2). Why did the Holy Spirit descend on Pentecost? – The Holy Spirit. descended on the worshippers. – On Ap. Petra. – Comparison of the Apostles with the Philosophers. 1. What is this Pentecost? This is the time when it was necessary to cut the harvest with a sickle, when it was necessary to gather the fruit. Have you seen the image? Look, in turn, at the truth itself. When it was necessary to use the sickle of the word, when it was necessary to gather the harvest, then the Spirit flies like a sophisticated sickle. Listen, indeed, to what Christ says: "Lift up your eyes, and see how they are white, and are ripe for harvest" (John 4:35); and again: "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Luke 10:2). Thus, Christ Himself was the first to lay the sickle; He lifted up to heaven the firstfruits of our nature; therefore they call it the harvest. "At the coming," it is said, "the day of Pentecost," that is, not before Pentecost, but near Pentecost itself, so to speak. It was fitting that this also should take place during the feast, so that those who were present at the cross of Christ would see this event as well. "And suddenly there was a noise from heaven." Why did this event not take place without any sensible manifestations? Because, if the Jews also said, "They were drunk with sweet wine," then what would they not have said if nothing of the kind had happened? And not just a noise, but "from the sky". And by his suddenness he stirred up his disciples. "And he filled the whole house." This shows the great swiftness of the Spirit. Note, All were gathered together, that those present might believe, and the disciples might be worthy. And not only this (says Luke), but he adds what is much more striking: "And there appeared to them cloven tongues as of fire" (v. 3). It is beautifully added everywhere: "as if," so that you do not think anything sensual about the Spirit: "as if fiery," it is said, and "as if from a rushing strong wind." It was not the wind that usually spreads in the air. When John needed to recognize the Holy Spirit, He descended on the head of Christ in the form of a dove; and now, when all the people were to be converted, He appears in the form of fire. "And they rested on each of them," i.e., stopped, rested: to sit down means to be affirmed, to remain in place. What then? Did the Holy Spirit descend on the twelve disciples alone, and not on the rest? No, – He came down on all one hundred and twenty people. Peter not without reason cited the testimony of the prophet, saying: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall be admonished by dreams" (v. 17). And note, it was so that he might not only smite them, but also fill them with grace; therefore (it is said): "By the Holy Spirit and by fire" (Matt. 3:11). "And they were filled," he adds, "with all the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (v. 4). Before any other sign they receive this, because it was extraordinary, and there was no need of another sign. "And they rested," it is said, "on each of them," and therefore also on him who was not chosen; therefore he no longer grieves that he is not chosen like Matthias. It is said, "And all were fulfilled." Not only did they receive the grace of the Spirit, but they were filled. "And they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." I would not have said "all," although there were also apostles, if the rest had not participated. On the other hand, having previously spoken of them separately and by name, he would not have spoken of them now along with the others. If, where it was only necessary to say that the apostles were here, he mentions them separately, how much more would he mention them here. But notice, please see how the Spirit comes just when they're in prayer, when they're in love. And the words, "as if of fire," reminded them of another vision, for He appeared like fire in the bush. "As the Spirit gave them utterance"; Their words were indeed prophecies (αποφθέγματα). It is said, "And there were Jews in Jerusalem, a pious people" (v. 5). That they were reverent is evidenced by the fact that they lived there. How? Belonging to so many peoples and leaving their homeland, their homes, their relatives, they lived here. "And there were Jews in Jerusalem, pious men, of every nation under heaven. When this uproar was made, the people gathered together, and were thrown into confusion" (v. 5, 6). Since this event happened in the house, those who were outside the house naturally came running. "The people, and they were troubled." What does it mean, "in confusion"? I was embarrassed, surprised. Then (the writer), explaining why they were surprised, adds: "For every one heard them speaking in his own language." So the people gathered together, "saying among themselves, 'Are not all these who speak Galileans?' (vv. 6-7) Immediately they turned their eyes to the apostles. "Why," they say, "we each hear our own dialect in which we were born. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene, and those who came from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, do we hear them speaking in our tongues about the great works of God? And they were all amazed, and perplexed, they said to one another, What does this mean? (vv. 8-12). Do you see how they rush from east to west? "And others, mocking, said, They (γλεύκους) are drunk with sweet wine" (v. 13). 2. What madness! What great malice! Now was not the time for new wine (γλεύκους), because it was Pentecost. And what is worse still, while everyone acknowledges (the miracle), both the Romans and the strangers, and perhaps even those who crucified (the Lord), they say after all this, "they are drunk with sweet wine." But let us return to what has been said above. "And he filled the whole house." The stormy breath was like a font of water; and fire is a sign of abundance and power. This never happened to the prophets; so it was only now, with the apostles; but it is different with the prophets. For example, Ezekiel is given a scroll of a book, and he eats what he should have said: "And it was," he says, "in my mouth sweet as honey" (Ezekiel 3:3). Or again: the hand of God touches the tongue of another prophet (Jeremiah 1:9). And here the Holy Spirit Himself (does everything) and is thus equal to the Father and the Son. Again and in another place (the prophet) says: "Weeping, and groaning, and woe" (Ezekiel 2:10). The prophets naturally (grace was given) in the form of a book, they still needed images; moreover, they had to deal with only one people, with their own people, and the apostles with the whole universe, with people whom they had never known. Elisha receives grace through mercy; another, like David, by means of oil; Moses is summoned by means of the burning bush; But here it is not so, and the fire itself "rested" on the apostles. Why didn't the fire fill the houses? Because it would strike them with terror. However, from the words (of the writer) it is clear that this was so; Only pay attention not to these words: "And there appeared to them cloven tongues," but to others: "As of fire." Such a multitude of fires can engulf a huge forest in flames. And it is beautifully said, "divided"; for they were from the same root, so that you may know that this is the power sent by the Comforter. But look: the apostles also first showed themselves worthy, and then they were vouchsafed the Spirit. So it is with David: as he did while he was still with the flocks, so he behaved in the same way after the victory and after the triumph, in order to show his simple faith. Look again at Moses: he (at first) despises the royal chambers, and after forty years he receives the government of the people; or Samuel, who was brought up in the temple; or Elisha, who had forsaken everything; or Ezekiel again. And that this was indeed the case (with the apostles) is clear from what follows: they left everything that they had. Therefore, they receive the Holy Ghost when they have discovered their virtue. They also learned human weakness from what they experienced; learned that they had not performed these feats in vain. In the same way, Saul first had a testimony of himself that he was good, and only then did he receive the Holy Ghost. But no one, not even the greatest of the prophets, Moses, received as much as the apostles. Moses, when it was necessary for others to become spiritual, underwent a diminution himself; But here it is not so. On the contrary, just as the fire, no matter how many lamps one wants to light from it, does not diminish in the least, so it happened then with the apostles. By means of fire not only the abundance of grace was shown, but everyone received the (inexhaustible) source of the Spirit, just as Christ Himself said that those who believe in Him will have a fountain of water flowing into eternal life (John 4:14). And this is very natural, because they did not go to talk to Pharaoh, but to fight with the devil. And, what is more surprising: when they were sent, they did not contradict in the least, and did not say that they were ill-spoken and tongue-tied, as Moses taught them, and did not say that they were too young, in which Jeremiah made them wise. Though they had heard many terrible things, and much more than they (the prophets), yet they were afraid to contradict them. From this it can be seen that these were angels of light and ministers of higher works. No one appears to the prophets from heaven, because they still care about what is on earth; but after man has ascended on high, the Holy Spirit also comes down from on high, "as of a rushing," it is said, "a mighty wind." This shows that nothing will be able to resist them, but that they will scatter their opponents like dust. "And he filled the whole house." The house served as a symbol of peace. "The people gathered together, and were troubled." Do you see the piety of these people – how is it that they do not immediately pronounce sentence, but are perplexed? And those foolish ones pronounce judgment, saying, "They are drunk with sweet wine." Since according to the law they were allowed to appear in the temple three times a year, pious people from all nations lived here. Notice from the present case how the writer does not flatter them: he did not say that they gave their vote, but what? "The people gathered together, and were troubled." This is natural; they thought that the present event threatened them with destruction for what they had dared to do against Christ. On the other hand, their conscience also shook their souls, for the murder was still in their hands, so to speak, and everything frightened them. "Are not all these who speak Galileans?" So they recognized it. And they were so amazed by this noise that people from most of the universe gathered here. Meanwhile, for the apostles themselves, this served as a reinforcement; they did not know what it meant to speak Parthian, and now they learned from these people. And the writer mentions the peoples hostile to them – the Cretans, the Arabs, the Egyptians, the Persians – in order to show that they would overcome them all. 3. Since the Jews were in captivity at that time, it is probable that many of the Gentiles came here with them; and on the other hand, the rumor of the dogmas had already spread among the peoples at that time, and therefore many of them were present here, in remembrance of what they had heard. Thus, the testimony from all sides was indisputable – on the part of citizens, on the part of foreigners, on the part of strangers. "We hear them with our tongues, speaking of the great works of God." They did not just speak, but said something wonderful; and therefore these people were rightly perplexed, since there had never been anything like it. Notice the prudence of these people: they were amazed and perplexed, saying: "To one another, what does this mean? And others, mocking, said, They are drunk with sweet wine" (v. 12, 13). What shamelessness if they laughed about it! And what, however, is surprising here, if they say of the Lord Himself, when He cast out demons, that "He hath Beelzebub in Himself" (Mark 3:22)? Where insolence prevails, there is only one thing to worry about saying something; not about saying anything reasonable, but just to say something. "They're drunk on sweet wine." True, it is so, because people surrounded by so many dangers, trembling for life itself, which is in such sorrow, dare to say such things! And behold, since this was incredible, in order to deceive the hearers and show that (the apostles) were really drunk, they attribute everything to the quality (of the drink) and say: "They were drunk with sweet wine." "And Peter stood with the eleven, and lifted up his voice, and cried unto them." There you see his solicitude, and here his courage. Let them be amazed, let them be amazed; But at the same time not to give a voice among such a multitude of people? If even when you speak among your own people, you are confused, then how much more so when you speak between enemies, between people who breathe murder. And that (the apostles) were not drunk, this was immediately made evident from their voices, because they did not fall into a frenzy like the possessed, and were not deprived of the freedom to control themselves. But what does "with eleven" mean? That is, they defended themselves with a common voice: Peter ministered through the mouth of all, and the other eleven (disciples) stood before him, confirming his words with their testimony. "He lifted up his voice," i.e., he spoke with great boldness. And he does this in order that they may know the grace of the Spirit. In fact, before he could not bear the question of an insignificant servant, but now, in the midst of the crowd of the people, when everyone breathes murder, he speaks with such boldness! This was an unmistakable testimony to the resurrection, because he acts with such boldness among people who laughed and mocked at such a great event. Think how much insolence, how much impiety, how much shamelessness is needed to consider the extraordinary gift of tongues as the work of drunkenness! But all this did not in the least embarrass the apostles and did not take away their courage, although they heard these ridicules. With the coming of the Spirit, they have already changed and have become above all things carnal – because where the Holy Spirit appears, there also the perishable become golden. Look, for example, I beg you, at Peter and recognize in him that man – fearful, foolish, just as Christ said: "Do you not yet understand?" (Matt. 15:16), a man who, after his wondrous confession, was called Satan (Matt. 16:23). Pay attention also to the unanimity of the apostles: they yield to him to speak to the people, because it was not necessary to speak to everyone. "He lifted up his voice," it is said, "and began to speak to them with great boldness. This is what it means to become a spiritual man! Let us also make ourselves worthy of the highest grace, and then everything will be easy for us. Just as a fiery man, having fallen into the stubble, will not suffer any harm, but on the contrary, he himself will cause harm, because he himself does not suffer in the least, and the stalks that attach themselves to him destroy themselves, so it was now. Or better: just as a man who has fire in his hand boldly enters into battle with the one who carries hay, so the apostles came out against these people with great courage. And, in fact, what harm did this large crowd do them? Tell me: did they not struggle with poverty and hunger? Have you not fought with dishonor and bad reputation? After all, they were considered deceivers. Were they not subjected to ridicule and abuse from those present? After all, both fell upon them: some laughed at them, and others cursed at them. Were they not subject to the fury and fury of entire cities, to rebellions and malice? Were they not threatened by fire, and iron, and beasts? Did they not have to fight with innumerable enemies on all sides? Were they not in such a state as if they had seen these disasters in a dream or in a picture? And what happened? Have they not exhausted the fury of their enemies? Have you not put them in difficulty? Were not these people most obsessed with both anger and fear? Were they not anxious, fearful, and trembling? In fact, listen to what they say: "You want to bring the blood of that man upon us" (Acts 5:28). And, what is surprising, the apostles, completely unarmed, took up arms against the armed, against the leaders who had authority over them; Inexperienced, unskilled in words, and utterly simple, they confronted and waged a struggle with the artificers, the deceivers, the crowd of sophists, rhetoricians, and philosophers, who had rotted away in the academies and in the school of the Peripatetics. And he who had previously exercised only near the lakes, conquered them as accurately as if he were fighting with dumb fishes; Yes, he defeated everyone as a true fisherman defeats dumb fishes. And Plato, who had been so delirious, fell silent; but this one speaks, and not only to his own people, but also to the Parthians, to the Medes, to the Elamites, and in India, and everywhere on earth, even to the ends of the universe. Where is the pride of Greece now? Where is the glory of Athens? Where is the ravings of philosophers? A Galilean, a Bethsaidite, a commoner, defeated them all. Tell me, are you not ashamed at the mere name of the country that was the homeland of your conqueror? And if you hear his name, and learn that his name was Cephas, you will be even more ashamed. It is precisely this that has ruined you, that you consider it humiliating for yourself, that you find all glory in eloquence, and consider the lack of art in the gift of speech a disgrace. You did not follow the path you should have taken; but you have left the royal path – convenient and smooth, and have followed the uneven, steep and difficult path. That is why you have not reached the kingdom of heaven. 4. But why, you say, did Christ not act through Plato or Pythagoras? Because the soul of Peter was much more capable of wisdom than the soul of those people. Those were real children, who were carried away everywhere by empty glory; but Peter was a man of wisdom and capable of receiving grace. And if you laugh when you hear this, there is nothing surprising in it. For the Jews also laughed at that time and said that the apostles were drunk with new wine. But later, when they suffered those grievous and most cruel disasters, when they saw that the city was perishing, that the fire was spreading and the walls were falling to the ground, when they saw those various furies that no one can depict in words, then they no longer laughed. In the same way, you will not laugh when the time of judgment comes, when the fire of hell is kindled. But why am I talking about the future? Do you want me to show you what Peter is like and what Plato is like? Let us examine their manners for the time being, if you will, and see what both of them did. The latter has spent all his time in studying useless and empty subjects. Indeed, what is the use of knowing that the soul of a philosopher becomes a fly? Truly (Platonov's soul) is a fly; it did not turn into a fly, but the fly entered the soul that dwelt in Plato. What idle talk this is! Where could it have occurred to me to talk such nonsense? He was a man full of mockery and envious of everyone. It was as if he were trying not to produce anything useful from himself or from others; Thus from another he borrowed the transmigration of souls, and he himself introduced the doctrine of civil society, in which he prescribed the most abominable rules. Let the wives be common, he said, let the naked maidens fight before the eyes of their lovers, let the fathers and the children who are born be common. Is this not above all madness? But such is Plato with his teaching. Here it is not nature that makes the fathers common, but the wisdom of Peter. As for the teaching (of Plato), it even destroyed (the common fathers), because it produced nothing else than that the real father was almost unknown, and the real father was recognized as the father. Plato plunged the soul into a kind of intoxication and filth. Let everyone, he says, use women without any fear. Therefore I will not examine the teachings of the poets, lest it be said that I am engaged in fables; but I will speak of other fables, which are much more ridiculous than these. Have the poets ever said any such absurdity? And he who was revered as the head of the philosophers even cloths women in weapons, helmets and greaves, and asserts that the human race is in no way different from dogs. As among dogs, he says, both female and male have the same share in affairs, let the women also take part in everything, and let everything be turned upside down. The devil has always tried to prove through these people that our race has no advantage over dumb animals. In fact, some of them have gone so far as to assert that there are rational animals among dumb animals. And see how variously the devil raged in their souls. The chief among them said that our soul passes into flies, dogs, and animals; and their successors, ashamed of this, fell into another abomination, ascribed to animals all rational knowledge, and constantly proved that the creatures created for us were worthily superior to us. And not only do they say this, but also that animals have foreknowledge and piety. The raven, they say, knows God, as does the crow; and they have the gifts of prophecy and foretell the future; there is, they say, justice among animals, there is society, there are laws, and the dog among them, according to Plato, is envious. Perhaps you do not believe my words? This is natural, because you have been brought up in sound dogmas: whoever is nourished by this food cannot believe that there is a person who eats impurities with pleasure. And yet, when you tell them that all this is fables and complete madness, they answer: you do not understand. And we will never want to understand such a ridiculous teaching of yours. Yes, very funny! For it does not require a deep mind to comprehend what all this impiety and confusion mean. Is it not like a crow, madmen, you say, as boys do? Truly, you are real children, just like those! But Peter said nothing of the sort; on the contrary, he gave a voice which, like an abundant light shining in some dark place, dispelled the darkness of the universe. And how meek, how modest is his disposition! How he stood above all empty glory! How he had only one heaven in mind, and how he was a stranger to boasting, even though he raised the dead! If one of these foolish people were to do something of the kind, even if it were only illusory, would he not immediately demand for himself an altar and a temple, would he not want to be among the gods? After all, even now, when there is nothing like that, they always dream about it. What, in fact, do Athena and Apollo and Hera mean to them? These are the births of spirits. They also have a king who wanted to die in order to be considered equal to God. But the apostles do not (act) in this way, but quite the opposite. Listen to what they say when they heal a lame man: "Men of Israel! Why are you amazed at this, or why do you look at us, as if by our own power or piety we had done that He walks?" (Acts 3:12); And in another place: "And we are men like unto you" (14:15). But there is great boasting, great pride; everything is only for honors from people and nothing for anyone. And when something happens for the sake of glory, then everything is low: let a man have everything, but do not possess it (the contempt of glory), he is completely alien to wisdom and is possessed by the strongest and most abominable passion. Contempt for glory can teach all good things and banish from the soul every destructive passion. Therefore, I urge you also to show great zeal to uproot this passion; otherwise there is no possibility of pleasing God and gaining favor before this vigilant eye. And so, let us strive in every way to obtain heavenly help, so that we may not experience present sorrows, and be vouchsafed future blessings, according to the grace and love of humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.