We do not say this about everyone, and we do not simply direct our speech against old age - I have not forgotten to such an extent - but against young souls who disgrace old age; It is not of the elders that we speak with sorrow, but of those who dishonor their gray hair. An old man is a king, if he wishes to be one, and even a king is more clothed in scarlet, if he commands the passions, if he brings his passions down to the ranks of armor-bearers. But if he is carried away and deposed from the throne, if he becomes a slave to covetousness, vanity, ostentation, gluttony, drunkenness, anger and voluptuousness, if he anoints his hair with oil and clearly dishonors his age with his whims, then what punishment is he not worthy of? However, do not be so you, young men; and it is unforgivable for you when you sin. Why? As an old man can find himself in youth, as those who are in old age are youths, and vice versa; And just as there white hair does not save anyone, so here black hair is not an obstacle. If the old man is dishonored by the deeds of which I have spoken, how much more is the young man; and they cannot be forgiven for a young man. A young man may receive an excuse when he is called to manage affairs and proves inexperienced, when he has need of time and experience, but not when he should show chastity and courage, or when he should abstain from covetousness. There are cases in which a young man is condemned more than an elder. This one has need of more care for himself, because old age weakens his strength; but he, having the strength, if he will, to satisfy his needs, can he receive forgiveness when he does not want it, when he kidnaps more than an elder, when he holds grudges, despises (others), does not care (for them) more than an elder, speaks many things untimely, offends, curses, gets drunk? If he thinks that he cannot be condemned for violating chastity, then here, too, see how much means he has (for its preservation), if he will. Although lust is aroused in him more strongly than in an elder, there are many things that he can do more easily than an old man, and tame this beast. What is it? Works, reading, all-night vigils, fasts.

But, (you will say) why do you say this to us, not to monks? Are you telling me this? Rather, say to Paul, who says, "watching" in all patience and prayer (Col. 4:2), who says, "Do not turn the care of the flesh into lusts" (Romans 13:14); and he wrote this not only to the monks, but to all those living in the cities. A layman should not differ in any way from a monk, except only cohabitation with his wife; he has permission for this, but not for everything else, but in everything he must act in the same way as the monk. And the beatitudes of Christ are spoken not only to monks; otherwise, everything in the universe would perish, and we could reproach God for cruelty. If the Beatitudes are spoken only for monks, and it is impossible for a layman to attain them, and yet (God) has permitted marriage, then He Himself has destroyed all; If in married life it is impossible to fulfill what is characteristic of monks, then everything has become distorted and perished, the circle of virtues has become narrow. How will "marriage be honorable among all" (Hebrews 13:4), if it serves us as such an obstacle to virtue? What should be said? Perhaps it is very possible for those who have wives to be virtuous, if they wish. How? If they, having wives, will be "as if they had none," if they do not rejoice in gains, if they enjoy the world as if they do not enjoy it (1 Cor. 7:29-31). But if some have found in marriage an obstacle (to virtue), then let them know that it is not marriage that serves as an obstacle, but the will that abuses marriage, just as it is not wine that produces drunkenness, but an evil will and its immoderate use. Make use of marriage in moderation, and you will be the first in the kingdom of heaven and will be worthy of all the blessings which we may all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 8

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed for the service of men, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, who is able to condescend to the ignorant and the erring, because he himself is burdened with infirmity, and therefore he must offer sins for the people as well as for himself" (Hebrews 5:1-3).

1. Now Blessed Paul intends to show that this (new) testament is much better than the old. He does this by developing thoughts from afar. Since (in the New Testament) there was nothing material or figurative, such as the temple, nor the holy of holies, nor the priest clothed in such adornments, nor the lawful rites, but all that was higher and most perfect, there was nothing corporeal, but everything spiritual, and the spiritual does not have such a strong effect on the weakest people as the bodily, therefore (the Apostle) offers all this teaching. And look at his wisdom: he begins with the first priest, constantly calling him a bishop, and in him he first of all shows the difference (between the New and Old Testaments). To do this, he first defines what a priest is, shows what are the qualities of a priest and what are the signs of the priesthood; and since there was a perplexity in the fact that (Christ) was not of noble birth, did not come from a priestly tribe, and was not a priest on earth, and therefore some could say: What kind of priest is He? - this (the Apostle) does now the same as in the Epistle to the Romans. There, revealing the incomprehensible truth that faith accomplishes what the lawful labor and the podvig of life could not accomplish, and wishing to prove that what seemed impossible was fulfilled and justified, he pointed to the patriarch (Abraham) and turned his entire speech to that time (Rom. 4). In the same way, here too he points out another path to the priesthood, presenting as an example those who have received it before. Just as in his discourse on punishment he presents not only hell, but also what happened to the forefathers, so here also he first confirms the truth with real objects. Although it would be necessary to prove earthly things to the heavenly ones, but since the listeners were weak, he does the opposite. At the same time, he imagines in advance what is common (between Christ and the priest), and then shows in what He has an advantage, since in comparison the advantage is seen when it is seen what is the similarity and what is the superiority; and if this is not the case, then there can be no comparison. "For every high priest chosen from among men"; this is common to Christ (with the priest). "Appointed for men to serve God," and this is common. "To offer gifts and sacrifices" for the people; and this (common), although not completely. But the rest is no longer the same. "He who is able to bear with the ignorant and the erring, because he himself is burdened with infirmity, and therefore he must offer sins for the people as well as for himself." Further, he adds something else, namely, that (the priest receives the priesthood) from another, and does not appropriate it to himself; and this is common: "And no one accepts this honor of himself, but he who is called of God, even as Aaron was" (Hebrews 5:4). Here he warns against the other (error) and shows that (Christ) was sent from God. Christ Himself often said the same thing in a conversation with the Jews: "I came from God, and I came," and: "I did not come from Myself" (John 8:42). Here, it seems to me, he also alludes to the Jewish priests as untrue priests, who arrogated to themselves and violated the law of the priesthood. "Even so Christ did not arrogate to Himself the glory of being a high priest" (Hebrews 5:5). When, you say, was He ordained? Aaron was ordained repeatedly, namely, when the rod was vegetating and when the fire descended, which destroyed those who wanted to appropriate the priesthood to themselves; but here such people not only do not tolerate anything of the kind, but, on the contrary, enjoy a good reputation. Whence then (the priesthood of Christ)? This he proves by prophecy, (the Priesthood of Christ) has nothing sensual in it, nothing visible; wherefore he proves it by prophecy, and in the time to come, "But He who said," he says, "To him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Was this said to the son? Yes, he says, this is said to the Son. But does this contribute to the resolution of the issue? And very much, because this is the preparation for ordination from God. "As in the other [place] he says: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:6). To whom is this told? Who is in the order of Melchizedek? No one else but He, because all others were under the law, all kept the Sabbath, all were circumcised: no one else, he says, can be pointed out. "In the days of His flesh, with a mighty cry and with tears, He offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death; and he was heard because of [his] reverence; though He be the Son, yet through suffering He learned obedience" (Hebrews 5:7-8). Do you see what is explained here by nothing else than the care and abundance of love (of Christ)? What does it really mean, "with a mighty cry"? The Gospel nowhere says that (Christ) wept while praying, nor that He uttered a cry. Do you see that this means His condescension? Therefore (the Apostle) did not find it sufficient to say that He prayed, but also "with a mighty cry." "And he was heard," he says, "because of [His] reverence." "Though He be the Son, yet through His sufferings He learned obedience, and having been perfected, He became for all those who obey Him the author of eternal salvation, being called by God High Priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:8:9-10). Let it be: "with a cry", but for what: "with a strong one"? "And with tears he brought," he says, "and was heard for [his] reverence." Let the heretics be ashamed who deny the reality of the flesh (of Christ). What does (the Apostle) say? The Son of God "and was heard because of [His] reverence." What can be said about the prophets? And what is the sequence in the words, "And he was heard for [His] reverence," and the following: "Though He be the Son, yet through suffering He learned obedience"? Who can say this about God? Who is so insane? What madman can say that? "And he was heard," he says, "because of [His] reverence." "Though He be the Son, yet through suffering He learned obedience." What kind of obedience did He learn? Having previously rendered obedience even unto death, as the Son to the Father, how did He learn obedience afterwards?

2. Do you see that this is said about the flesh? And why, tell me, did He pray to the Father for deliverance from death, was sorrowful, and said: "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:39)? For the resurrection He never prayed to the Father, but on the contrary says on His own behalf: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19); and again, "No man takes it away from me, but I give it myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to receive it again" (John 10:18). What does that mean? Why did He pray? And in another place He says: "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death; and they shall deliver him up to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified; and on the third day he shall rise again" (Matthew 20:18-19); but does not say, "The Father will raise me up." Why did He pray for this? But for whom did He pray? About those who believe in Him. The meaning of the words (of the Apostle) is as follows: He is soon heard. Since (the hearers) did not have a proper understanding of Him, he says that He was "heard," just as He Himself said to comfort His disciples: "If you had loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I said, I go to the Father; for My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Why did He not glorify Himself, Who exhausted Himself and gave Himself up (to death)? For He gave "Himself," says the Scriptures, "for our sins" (Gal. 1:4); and again: "He who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6). What does this mean? It is evident that He had His flesh in mind when He speaks of Himself in a humiliated manner. So here also (the Apostle) says: "He was heard for [His] reverence," wishing to show that this was more His merit than the work of God's grace. Such, he says, was His reverence, that for this also God honored Him. "Habit," he says, "obedience." Here again he shows what is the benefit of suffering. "And having been perfected, he became for all those who obey him the author of eternal salvation." If He, being the Son, benefited from suffering by learning obedience, how much more can we. Do you see how much (the Apostle) speaks about obedience, so that they may be submissive? It seems to me that they have often been disobedient, and have not followed what they have been told; He hints at this by saying, "Unable to listen." "By suffering," he says, he constantly learned to obey God. "And having been accomplished," i.e. by means of suffering. This is what perfection consists in, this is what perfection should be attained through! And not only was He Himself saved, but for others it abundantly served for salvation. "And having been accomplished," he says, "he became for all those who obey him the author of eternal salvation, being called by God High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of this we ought to say a great deal; but it is difficult to interpret, because you have become unable to hear" (Heb. 5:9-11). Intending to speak about the difference of the priesthood, he rebukes them beforehand, suggesting that such a condescending way of speaking is milk, that in their infancy he is more occupied with the humiliated teaching of the flesh and speaks of Him as of some kind of righteous man. And behold, he did not keep silent about it at all, nor did he say everything; He did the first in order to elevate their minds, to persuade them to strive for perfection and not to remain ignorant of high dogmas, and the second in order not to burden their minds. "Of this," he says, "we ought to speak much; but it is difficult to interpret, because you have become incapable of listening." "It is difficult to interpret" because they do not listen. Whoever deals with people who are inattentive and do not understand what is being taught, cannot fully explain the teachings to them. Perhaps some of you standing here are troubled and consider it a misfortune that (the apostle) found in the Jews an obstacle to teach the most perfect teaching. Though here, too, I think, with the exception of a few, there are many of the same, so that the same may be said of you, yet I will speak for a few. Did he, then, keep silent, or did he explain it afterwards, as he did in his ambassadors to the Romans? There he stopped the mouths of those who reproached and said: "And who are you, man, that you argue with God?" (Romans 9:20), then offered permission. So here, too, it seems to me, he did not completely keep silent and did not say everything in order to arouse zeal in his listeners. Having reminded them that there is something great in his words, see how he combines reproof with praise. This is what the wise Paul always did, mixing the unpleasant with the useful. For example, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "You walked well: who stopped you" (Gal. 5:7)? and again: "Have you suffered so much in vain" (Gal. 4:3); and again: "I am confident in you in the Lord" (Gal. 5:10). He says the same to them (the Jews): "We hope that you are in a better [condition] and hold fast to salvation" (Hebrews 6:9). In this way he achieves two ends: he does not strain (the mind) too much, and he does not allow them to fall (in spirit). This is how it should be: if the examples of others can encourage the listener and arouse emulation in him, then when one finds an example in himself, when he is commanded to compete with himself, then the feasibility of teaching is revealed much more. Therefore he inspires this also, does not allow them to fall (in spirit) from strong reproof, and does not speak to them as if they had always been unkind, but expresses that they were once good. "For [judging by] the time, it behooved you to be teachers" (Hebrews 5:12). Here he shows that they have believed for a long time, and therefore inspires that they should instruct others also. Notice how often he begins to speak of the high priest and constantly postpones it; listen precisely to how he began: "Therefore, having a great High Priest, who has passed through the heavens"; and without saying how – "great" – he goes on to say: "Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed for the service of God"; and again, "Neither did Christ arrogate to Himself the glory of being a high priest." Then, having said, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," he again postpones the discourse of this and says: "He, in the days of His flesh, with a mighty cry and with tears, offered prayers and supplications."

3. Since he has deviated (from the main subject) so many times, he says, as if justifying himself: the reason for this is in you. Alas, what an incongruity. Those who were to teach others remained not only disciples, but also the last of the disciples. "For [judging by] time," he says, "you ought to be teachers; but you must again be taught the first principles of the word of God." "The first principles of the word of God" he here calls the teaching about humanity (Christ). Just as in the external sciences the writings must first of all be studied, so in the word of God the teaching about mankind must first be learned. Do you see for what reason Paul speaks of the humiliated? This is what he did with the Athenians when he conversed with them: "Forsaking the times of ignorance," he said, "God now commands all men everywhere to repent, for He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness, by means of the Man He has ordained, giving a testimony to all, raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31). Therefore, if he says anything about lofty things, he speaks briefly; but the despised is scattered in many places of the epistle. In this way the lofty is also revealed, because the very degraded can in no way be attributed to the divinity. In the same way, here, observing accuracy, he sets forth what is degraded in relation to humanity; and the reason is that his listeners could not perceive what was perfect. This he especially expressed in his Epistle to the Corinthians, when he said: "For if there be envy, contention, and dissension among you, are you not carnal" (1 Corinthians 3:3)? And look at his great wisdom, how he always turns according to the prevailing diseases. There weakness arose for the most part from ignorance and still more from vices, and here not only from vices, but also from constant sorrows; therefore he also uses expressions that can show this difference - there he said: "You are still carnal" (1 Cor. 3:3), and here, where there were more sorrows, he says: "Unable to listen." They could not receive them, because they were carnal; And these could, by saying, "Because you have become incapable of listening," he expresses that they were once healthy, strong, and burned with zeal, and testifies that they were later subjected to such an illness. "And you need milk, not solid food." Everywhere he calls the humiliated doctrine milk, both here and there. "In time," he says, "you were to be teachers"; as if he were saying: therefore, because you have become especially weak and weak, you must be especially strong - "in time". And he calls despised teaching milk because it befits the weakest; but for the most perfect it is unnecessary and it is harmful for them to dwell on it for a long time. Therefore, now we should not bring in what was under the law, and we should not consider (Christ) equal (to the priest), because He also is the high priest, because He also offered a sacrifice and prayed with crying and tears. And see how inconvenient this seems to us; but they were nourished at that time and did not seem at all inconvenient to them. Thus, the word of God is the true food that nourishes the soul. And that the word (of God) is food is evident from the following. "I will send," said (the Lord), "a famine upon the earth, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but a thirst for hearing the words of the Lord" (Amos 8:11). "I have nourished you with milk, and not with [solid] food" (1 Cor. 3:2). He did not say: he fed (but: gave him water), suggesting that this is not food; He expressed himself as if about little children who cannot eat bread, for whom it is not drink, but food serves them instead of drink. The same is true here. He did not say, "You have need," but, "You need milk, not solid food," i.e., you wanted, you brought yourself to such a state, to such a need. "Everyone who is nourished with milk is ignorant of the word of righteousness, because he is a babe" (Hebrews 5:13). What does it mean, "in the word of righteousness"? Here, it seems to me, he hints at the way of life. In the same way, Christ said: "Unless your righteousness surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" (Matthew 5:20). Thus he also says: "ignorant of the word of righteousness," i.e. inexperienced in the highest wisdom, unable to lead a higher and perfect life. Or here he calls Christ the truth and the lofty teaching about Him. Having said, "Unable to hear," he did not add why this was so, but left it to them to understand for themselves, not wishing to make his words burdensome. In the Epistle to the Galatians he expressed his surprise and bewilderment (Gal. 1:6), which could have served much more to console them, when it also happened to them, as if beyond his expectation - this is where the perplexity consists. Do you see that there is another infancy and another perfection (besides bodily perfection)? Let us try to be perfect by this perfection; It is possible to attain this perfection both in childhood and in adolescence, because it is not a matter of nature, but of virtue. "But solid food is proper to the perfect, whose senses are accustomed by habit to distinguish between good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14). What does that mean? Did they not have refined feelings and did not know what is good and what is evil? He does not speak of life in the words: "To the discernment of good and evil" – it is possible and easy for every man to know this – but of right and high dogmas, as well as wrong and low teachings. A child does not know how to distinguish between bad and good food, often takes dirt in his mouth, takes harmful food and does everything without reasoning. But this is not perfection. Such are those who listen to everything without distinction and incline their ears to absurd teachings without reasoning. And he denounces them as people who are constantly wavering and giving themselves over to one thing or another. He hints at this at the end of the epistle, when he says: "Do not be carried away by divers and strange teachings" (Heb. 13:9). This is what it means: "to distinguish between good and evil." The larynx eats food, and the soul understands the teachings.

4. So let us also learn. If you hear that (a heretic) is neither a pagan nor a Jew, do not immediately consider him a Christian, but learn everything else: for both the Manichaeans and all the heretics took upon themselves this mask, in order thus to deceive the simplest people. If we have the senses of the soul, accustomed by habit to distinguish between good and evil, then we will be able to distinguish them. And how do our senses become accustomed? By unceasing listening, by exercising in the Scriptures. If we expound their error, if you listen today and tomorrow, and learn that they are not good, then you will learn everything, you will know everything; If you don't understand today, you will understand tomorrow. "In whom," he says, "the senses are accustomed by habit." Do you see that we must exercise our ears by hearing the divine (Scriptures), so as not to be carried away by strange novelties? "Accustomed," he says, "by habit," i.e., to be experienced. One (the heretic) says that there is no resurrection, another does not expect anything in the future, a third says that there is another God, a fourth that (Christ) has a beginning from Mary. See how all at once fell into error from immoderation, adding some and subtracting others (from the right teaching). Thus, the first of all heresies, Marcion's, invented another God, who does not exist: here is the addition! The next one, Savellieva, asserts that the Son and the Father and the Spirit are one person. Then Markellova and Fotinova preach the same thing. Further, Paul of Samosata, preaches that He received His beginning from Mary. Then comes the Manichaean, later heresy. And after them - Apieva. There are others. But we have accepted the faith simply, so that we have no need to cling to innumerable heresies and enter into research, but we consider everything that they think to add to it, or subtract from it, to be wrong. Just as legislators do not force a thousand measures to be taken, but command to adhere to that which is indicated, so it is in relation to dogmas. But no one wants to listen to the Scriptures. If we had listened to them, not only would we not have fallen into error, but we would have restrained others who erred and delivered them from danger. Thus, a strong warrior can not only defend himself, but also protect the one who stands next to him, and save him from the attacks of enemies. And now some do not even know what the Scriptures are, while the Holy Spirit took so many measures that they would be preserved. Turn to antiquity, and you will see the ineffable love of God. (God) inspired the blessed Moses, sculpted tablets, kept him forty days on the mountain, and as many others to give the law; then he sent prophets, who suffered innumerable calamities; when the war came, in which all were taken captive or destroyed, and the books were burned, then He again inspired another wonderful man, i.e. Ezra, to set them forth from the remnants. After that, He arranged for them to be translated by the seventy (interpreters), who translated them. Christ came and received them; the apostles spread them everywhere, after the signs and wonders performed by Christ. What's next? After such actions, the apostles also wrote, as Paul says: "It is written for the instruction of us who have reached the last ages" (1 Cor. 10:11); and Christ said: "Ye err not knowing the Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29); and again Paul says: "By patience and consolation from the Scriptures they kept hope" (Romans 15:4); and again: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable" (2 Tim. 3:16); and again: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly" (Col. 3:16). Also the prophet (said): "And in His law he meditates day and night" (Psalm 1:2); and in another place: "All thy conversation is in the law of the Most High" (Sir. 10:20); and again: "How sweet are Thy words to my throat! Better than honey to my lips," He did not say, "To my ears," but, "To my throat, Thy words! better than honey to my lips" (Psalm 118:103). Also Moses (said): "And speak of them, sitting in thy house, and going by the way, and lying down, and rising" (Deut. 6:7). And Paul in his Epistle to Timothy says: "Take care of this, abide in this" (1 Tim. 4:15). And many (sayings) could be cited on this subject. Even though there are people who don't even know that the Scriptures exist. That is why we have nothing sensible, nothing useful. When anyone wants to learn the art of war, he considers it necessary to study the laws of war; likewise, when someone wants to learn the art of the helmsman or the builder, or any other, he finds it necessary to study everything related to this art; and here it is not seen that anyone has done anything of the kind, whereas this science requires vigilant study. That this is a science that requires study, about this, listen to what the prophet says: "Come, children, hear me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord" (Psalm 33:12). Consequently, the fear of God really needs to be studied. And then he says: "Who loves life?" (Psalm 33:13). Here he speaks of the (future) life. And again: "Restrain your tongue from evil, and your mouth from deceitful words. Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace, and follow it" (Psalm 33:14-15). Do you know which prophet, or writer of Genesis, or apostle, or evangelist said this? I do not think (that anyone knows) except a few; and of these again, if we bring testimony from another place, we can say the same. Here I will quote the same thing, only expressed in different words; "Wash yourselves, be cleansed; remove your evil deeds from my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek righteousness" (Isaiah 1:16-17), "keep your tongue from evil, and your mouth from deceitful words. Turn away from evil and do good." Do you see that virtue requires study? He says: "I will teach you the fear of the Lord"; And this one: "Learn to do good."

Do you know, then, where these (sayings) are? I don't think (so that anyone knows), except for a few. Meanwhile, in each week this is read to you two or three times. The reader, having come out, first says whose book it is, which prophet, or apostle, or evangelist, and then pronounces his saying, so that you may notice them better and know not only the content, but also the reason for what is written and who said it. But all in vain, all in vain. All your diligence is directed to the affairs of life; but there is no concern for the spiritual. That is why those (worldly affairs) do not go according to your will and meet with many obstacles. Christ said: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). Everything else, he says, will be given in the form of an increase. But we have perverted the order, we seek the earth and earthly goods, as if these (heavenly goods) would be given to us in the form of an increase. That is why we do not receive either. Let us come to our senses someday, and begin to strive for future blessings; then all the rest will be added. It is impossible that he who seeks divine blessings should not also receive human ones: such is the definition of truth itself, which has said this! Therefore, let us not act otherwise, but let us keep the commandment of Christ, so that we may not be deprived of everything; But God Himself is able to bring about in us contrition and make us better, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, and worship, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

БЕСЕДА 9

"Посему, оставив начатки учения Христова, поспешим к совершенству; и не станем снова полагать основание обращению от мертвых дел и вере в Бога, учению о крещениях, о возложении рук, о воскресении мертвых и о суде вечном. И это сделаем, если Бог позволит" (Евр. 6:1-3).

1. Слышите ли, как Павел укоряет евреев за то, что они желали всегда учиться одному и тому же? И справедливо. "Ибо, [судя] по времени", - говорит, - "вам надлежало быть учителями; но вас снова нужно учить первым началам слова Божия" (Евр. 5:12). Боюсь, чтобы и о вас не пришлось сказать того же: тогда как, судя по времени, вам надлежало быть учителями, вы даже звания учеников не удерживаете, но, постоянно слушая одно и то же и об одном и том же, находитесь в таком состоянии, как будто бы ничего не слышали; кто спросит вас (о слышанном), никто из вас не в состоянии отвечать, кроме весьма немногих, которые наперечет. А отсюда происходит немалый вред. Невнимательность учащихся часто не дозволяет учителю, хотя бы он и хотел, перейти к дальнейшему, коснуться предметов более таинственных и высоких. Как при изучении грамматики, если дитя, постоянно слыша о буквах, не удерживает их в памяти, то необходимо бывает непрерывно повторять ему одно и то же, и учащий не перестает (говорить о них) до тех пор, пока (ученик) не усвоит их себе в точности, - весьма ведь было бы неблагоразумно, пока он не усвоил хорошо прежнего, переходить с ним к дальнейшему, - так точно и в церкви: если вы, несмотря на то, что мы постоянно говорим вам одно и то же, нисколько более не научаетесь, то мы никогда не перестанем говорить вам об одном и том же. Если бы наше слово произносилось для славы и из честолюбия, то мы могли бы переходить от предмета к предмету и постоянно простираться вперед, нисколько не заботясь о вас, а только о рукоплесканиях ваших; но так как мы заботимся не об этом, но все старания свои направляем к вашей пользе, то мы не перестанем говорить вам об одном и том же до тех пор, пока вы не приложите этого к своей жизни. Многое можно было бы сказать об языческом суеверии, о манихеях и маркионитах, и при помощи благодати Божией поражать их; но подобные беседы теперь несвоевременны.

Не о всех я говорю это; я знаю многих, которые приходят сюда с пользою, и которые справедливо могли бы обвинять неслушающих за то, что последние задерживают их своим невежеством и невнимательностью. Впрочем, и первые от этого не терпят вреда, потому что и знающим полезно часто слышать об одном и том же: что мы знаем, то еще лучше усвоим, если часто будем слышать. Например, мы знаем, что смиренномудрие есть добродетель, и что Христос часто говорил о нем; но если мы выслушаем самые слова Его и будем размышлять о них, то они более подействуют на нас, хотя бы мы слышали их тысячу раз. Итак, благовременно и нам сказать теперь вам: "оставив начатки учения Христова, поспешим к совершенству". А что значить: "начатки учения", (апостол) сам объясняет далее: "не станем", - говорит, - "снова полагать основание обращению от мертвых дел и вере в Бога, учению о крещениях, о возложении рук, о воскресении мертвых и о суде вечном". Если же это - начало, то что иное наше учение, как не покаяние от мертвых дел и получаемая от Духа вера в воскресение мертвых и вечный суд? Что же значить: "основание"? Он называет основанием не что иное, как то, если нет праведной жизни. Как приступающему к изучению грамоты нужно наперед узнать буквы, так и христианин прежде всего должен твердо узнать эти истины и нисколько не сомневаться в них. А кто не имеет познания о них, тот еще не имеет основания, потому что надобно быть твердым (в познанном), стоять и стоять неподвижно. Если бы кто, уже оглашенный и крещенный, лет через десять после того, имел нужду снова учиться вере, учиться тому, например, что нужно веровать в воскресение мертвых; то такой человек не имеет ещё основания и ищет ещё начала христианства. А что вера есть основание, прочее же - здание, об этом, послушай, как говорит сам (апостол): "Я, по данной мне от Бога благодати, как мудрый строитель, положил основание, а другой строит на [нем]; но каждый смотри, как строит. Строит ли кто на этом основании из золота, серебра, драгоценных камней, дерева, сена, соломы…" (1 Кор.3:10,12). Потому он и говорит: "не станем снова полагать основание обращению от мертвых дел".

2. Что значит: "поспешим к совершенству"? Будем достигать, говорит, самой вершины, т.е. будем вести жизнь добродетельную. Как в азбуке все зависит от буквы а, и как от основания зависит все здание, так и чистота жизни от полноты веры. Без неё (полной веры) невозможно быть христианином, как не может быть здание без основания, и как без знания букв невозможно знать грамоты. Но как (в этих предметах), если кто будет заниматься одними буквами, или кто будет оставаться при основании, не стараясь возводить самое здание, то никогда не будет иметь дальнейших успехов, так и у нас: если мы будем всегда оставаться при начале веры, то никогда не достигнем до её совершенства. Не думай, будто вера унижается тем, что она называется началом, - в ней заключается вся сила. Когда (апостол) говорит: "Всякий, питаемый молоком, несведущ в слове правды, потому что он младенец" (Евр. 5:13), то он не веру называет молоком, но сомнение в её истинах; оно есть знак ума слабого, нуждающегося во многих доказательствах, самые же истины - здравы. Совершенным мы называем того, кто при вере проводить и жизнь правую. Если же кто, хотя имеет веру, но ведет дурную жизнь, и в самих истинах веры еще сомневается, оскорбляя этим учение, - такого мы справедливо можем назвать младенцем, едва вступившим в начало, так что и мы, хотя бы тысячу лет пребывали в вере, еще младенцы, если остаемся не твердыми в ней, если не ведём сообразной с нею жизни, если только еще полагаем основание. А их (евреев апостол) укоряет не только за жизнь, но и за нечто другое, именно - за то, что они колебались и имели нужду полагать основание покаяться от мертвых дел. Кто переходит от одного к другому, одно оставляет, а другое принимает, тому нужно отказаться от прежнего и оставить расположение к нему, потом и переходить к новому; если же он станет опять держаться первого, то как может достигнуть второго? Что же, скажете, не о законе ли это? Мы отказались от него, и не к нему ли опять возвращаемся? Но это не есть изменение; ведь и теперь мы имеем закон. "Итак, мы уничтожаем закон верою? Никак; но закон утверждаем" (Рим. 3:31). Я говорю о дурных делах; кто намеревается обратиться к добродетели, тот наперед должен отказаться от пороков, и тогда уже вступить (в жизнь добродетельную). Покаяние не могло соделать (верующих) чистыми; потому они тотчас же крестились, чтобы, чего они не могли сделать сами собою, того достигнуть благодатью Христовою. Следовательно, покаяние недостаточно для очищения, а нужно принять крещение. Ко крещению же надобно приступать, отказавшись наперед от грехов своих и осудив их. Что значит: "учению о крещениях"? Крещений не много, а одно: почему же он сказал во множественном числе? Потому что выше сказал: "не станем снова полагать основание обращению от мертвых дел". Если бы они имели нужду, чтобы он снова крестил их, снова оглашал, и снова с начала преподавал крещенным, что должно и чего не должно делать, то они всегда оставались бы неисправимыми. "О возложении рук". Так они получали Духа (Святаго): "и, когда Павел", - сказано, - "возложил на них руки, нисшел на них Дух Святый" (Деян. 19:6). "О воскресении мертвых". Это происходит при крещении и утверждается в исповедании (веры). "И о суде вечном". Почему об этом говорит он? Потому, что они, вероятно, или колебались после того, как уверовали, или худо и нерадиво жили. Поэтому он и говорил: бодрствуйте. Таким образом он сказал эти слова, желая исправить их от такого нерадения и сделать более внимательными. Нельзя говорит: если мы теперь живем нерадиво, то снова окрестимся, снова примем оглашение и опять получим Духа; или так: если мы теперь отпали от веры, то снова чрез крещение сможем омыть грехи и получить то же, чего удостоились прежде. Прельщаетесь, говорит он, если так разсуждаете. "Ибо невозможно - однажды просвещенных, и вкусивших дара небесного, и соделавшихся причастниками Духа Святаго, и вкусивших благого глагола Божия и сил будущего века, и отпадших, опять обновлять покаянием, когда они снова распинают в себе Сына Божия и ругаются [Ему]" (Евр. 6:4-6). Смотри, как он начинает речь обличительно и решительно: "невозможно", - говорит, т.е., и не надейся на невозможное. Не сказал: неприлично, неполезно, непозволительно, но: "невозможно", так что для вас, которые однажды вполне были просвещены, не остается ничего, кроме отчаяния.