4. What do you say, man? Do you call him a deceiver because of his bread and clothing? But he will sell it at once, you say.

Aren't you ashamed? Who do you call a deceiver? If you don't want to give anything, then at least don't blaspheme the person. But, you say, he has the means and pretends. It is to serve to condemn you, not him; he knows that he is dealing with hard-hearted people, rather with beasts than with people, and that no matter how many pitiful words he utters, he will not touch anyone, and therefore he is forced to assume an even more pitiful appearance in order to bow down your soul. When we see someone approaching us in neat clothes, we say: he is a deceiver, he is approaching in such a way as to show that he is one of the nobles; and when we see someone in the opposite kind of clothing, we reproach him also. What should they do? Oh, cruelty! Oh, insensibility! Why, you say, do they expose their mutilated limbs? For you. If we were compassionate, they would not need to resort to such means; if they could touch at first sight, they would not contrive in this way. What wretched man would want to cry out like that, to take on a disgusting appearance, to weep together with his naked wife in front of everyone, to sprinkle ashes on himself with children? What could be worse than such an extreme? But even for this, we not only do not show them compassion, but also condemn them. How, then, can we be indignant that God does not heed our prayers? How can we grumble that He does not grant our petitions? Is this not terrible, beloved? But, you say, I often served. Don't you eat every day? Do you push children away, even though they often ask you? Oh, shamelessness! You call the beggar shameless. When you yourself steal what is not yours, you do not consider yourself shameless; And he who asks for bread is shameless? Do you not know how strong the need of the stomach is? Do you not do everything for him? Do you not leave spiritual things for him? Heaven and the kingdom of heaven have been promised to Thee; And you, submitting to the violence of his (stomach), do you not endure everything and do not despise that (promised)? This is true shamelessness! Do you not see the crippled elders? But, oh, backbiting! "This one, you say, lends so many gold pieces, and that one so much, and meanwhile they beg (alms). You tell fables and fairy tales of little children, which they always hear from their nurses; I don't think, I don't believe, it can't be. So-and-so gives money on interest, and begs for alms in his own wealth? For what, tell me? What can be more shameful than begging? It is better to die than to beg. But how long will we be hard-hearted? How, do they really all lend money on interest? Are they all deceivers? Is there really not a single beggar? There are, you say, and many. Why do you not help them, if you know their lives for sure? No, this is a pretext and an excuse. "Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. "5:42; Onion. 6:30); "Let not thy hand be stretched out to receive, and clasped in giving" (Sir. 5:35). We are not appointed to be judges of the lives of others; otherwise we will not give alms to anyone. When you pray to God, do you not say: "Remember not the sins of my youth and my transgressions" (Psalm 24:7)? So it is with a beggar, even if he be a great sinner, think the same and do not remember his sins. Now is the time of love for mankind, and not of strict judgment, of mercy, and not of condemnation. He is hungry: if you will, give it to him; but if thou wilt not, refuse, without examining why he is poor and miserable. Why do you not give to him yourself, and do you reject those who want to give? For when someone hears from you that this (beggar) is a deceiver, and that one is a hypocrite, a usurer, he will not give to either one, thinking that they are all like that. It is known how easily we believe in the bad, and how difficult it is for the good. We must not only be merciful, but as our "Father" is "heavenly" (Matthew 5:48). He feeds fornicators, adulterers, deceivers, and all kinds of evildoers. In the present world, it is necessary to be of this kind of many; He clothes everyone, and no one has ever starved to death, except of his own free will.

In the same way, we should be merciful. If anyone asks you and is in need, help him. But now we have reached such madness that we do this not only to the beggars who walk in the alleys, but also to monastics: they say he is a deceiver!

When someone begins to say that he belongs to the clergy, or calls himself a priest, then investigate, inquire, because it is not safe to communicate with such a person without research, there is a great danger here. And when someone asks for food, do not investigate; Here you do not so much give as you receive. Remember, if you will, how Abraham showed hospitality to all who came. If he had made inquiries about those who came to him, he would not have received angels; perhaps, not considering them angels, he would have refused them with others; but since he received everyone, he also received angels. Does God give you a reward for the life of those who receive from you? No, for your goodwill, for your mercy, for your great humanity, for your kindness. If there be one, then you too will receive all the blessings that may we all be vouchsafed to receive, through the grace and love of humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] These words are not found in this passage of the Gospel, they are found elsewhere, e.g. John 8:58, 10:1, 10:7, 12:24, etc.

CONVERSATION 12

"For Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, he who met Abraham and blessed him, returning after the defeat of the kings, to whom Abraham also set apart the tithe from all things, - first, by the sign [name] king of righteousness, and then king of Salem, that is, king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being likened to the Son of God, abides as a priest forever" (Heb. 7:1-3).

1. Paul, wishing to show the difference between the New and Old Testaments, points out this difference in many places, and speaks of it at the very beginning, and then, teaching his hearers, prepares them. At the very beginning he pointed this out when he said that "God, who spoke many times and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets," and to us through the Son. Then, having spoken of the Son who He was and what He had done, having exhorted them to obey Him so as not to suffer the same fate as the Jews, having explained that He was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, having repeatedly expressed a desire to reveal this difference, and having already prepared many things for it, rebuking them for their weaknesses, and then encouraging and confirming them not to lose heart, (the Apostle) finally proceeds to explain the very difference before the encouraged listeners: For a man who is discouraged cannot easily accept what he hears. And in order that you may be convinced (of the justice of this), listen to the Scriptures, which say: "They did not listen to Moses because of cowardice" (Exodus 6:9). Therefore, having dispelled their despondency beforehand with many, both formidable and meek, suggestions, then he proceeds to reveal this difference. What does he say? "For Melchizedek, king of Salem, is a priest of the Most High God." And this is what is surprising: in the type itself he reveals a great difference between them: he always, as I have said, proves to the prototype the truth that has passed through the present, through the weakness of the hearers. "For," he says, "Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, he who met Abraham and blessed him, returning after the defeat of the kings, to whom Abraham set apart even the tithe from all things." Having briefly described the whole event, he considers it from the mysterious side, and first of all begins with the name: "First," he says, "by the sign of [the name] the king of righteousness." True: sedek means truth, and Melkhi means king; therefore, Melchizedek is the king of righteousness. Do you see the accuracy in the expressions themselves? Who is this king of righteousness, if not our Lord Jesus Christ? "Then also the king of Salem," from the name of the city, "that is, the king of peace," because Salem has such a meaning. This again applies to Christ, because He made us righteous and made us peaceful in heaven and on earth. Which of men is the king of truth and peace? No one; such is only our Lord Jesus Christ. Then (the Apostle) presents another peculiarity: "without a father," he says, "without a mother, without a genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." As it seems to have been contradicted by the words, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," for Melchizedek was dead, and was not a priest for ever, see how he explains it. So that no one would object: Who can say this about a person? He says: I do not mean this in the proper sense, i.e., we do not know whom Melchizedek had as his father and whom he had as his mother, nor when he was born and when he died. But what is it, you will say (what we do not know)? Is it therefore that we do not know that he did not die, or did not have parents? Thou shalt speak justly; he died and had parents. Why is he without a father, without a mother? Why "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? Why? Because it is not mentioned in the Scriptures. What does this mean? That as he is "without a father," since there is no genealogy of him, so Christ is in reality.

2. Here the beginninglessness and infinity (of the Son) are revealed. Just as we do not know the beginning of days or the end of life (Melchizedek) because it is not written, so we do not know this about Jesus, not because it is not written, but because He really does not have it. The first is a type, and therefore it is only not written about it; and the latter is the truth, and therefore He really does not have it. Just as in relation to names the former has only the name: "the king of truth" and "the world", and the latter has the matter itself, so here only the names refer to the former, and to the latter the very deed. How, then, is He said to have a beginning? And here the Son is called beginningless, not in the sense that He has no culprit, for this is impossible: He has a Father: otherwise how would He be the Son? - but in the fact that He has neither a beginning nor an end to His being. "Becoming like the Son of God." What is this similarity? In the fact that we know neither the beginning nor the end of both; but the first because it is not written, and the second because he does not have them. Here is the similarity. If they had a resemblance in all things, they would not be one type and the other truth, but both would be types. The same can be seen in the paintings; and there is some similarity in them, there is also dissimilarity (with the original); in a simple outline there is a certain resemblance in appearance, and when paints are superimposed, then the difference is clearly revealed; There are similarities and dissimilarities. "See," says (the Apostle), "how great is he, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of his best booty" (Hebrews 7:4). Hitherto he had revealed the type; now he confidently presents (Christ) as the most excellent of all that was true among the Jews. If such is the prototype of Christ, if he is so much higher not only than the priests, but also the forefather of the priests himself, then what can be said about the Truth? Do you see with what power He proves His superiority? "See," he says, "how great is he to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of his best elect[1]." Prey is called the chosen. It cannot be said that he gave it as a participant in the war, because it is said: "He met Abraham and blessed him when he returned after the defeat of the kings"; it is evident that he remained at home, and that (Abraham) gave him the beginnings of what he himself had acquired. "Those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes according to the law from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these also came from the loins of Abraham" (Hebrews 7:5). Such, he says, is the advantage of the priesthood, that men who are equal in origin and have one and the same progenitor, are made much higher than others; therefore they receive tithes from them. And if there is someone who takes a tithe from them, will they not stand along with the laity, and he along with the priests? Moreover, (Melchizedek) was not equal to them in birth, but came from a different family; therefore (Abraham) would not have given tithes to a foreigner, if he had not seen in him a high honor. Alas, what happened! Here (the apostle) expressed more than in the Epistle to the Romans, when he discussed faith. There he says that Abraham is the forefather of both our and the Jewish state; but here he speaks of him in a completely different way, and proves that the uncircumcised is much higher than he. How does he prove? By the fact that Levi himself gave tithes? "Abraham," he says, "gave." How, you say, does this relate to us? It is especially true of you, because you will certainly not prove that the Levites are higher than Abraham. "He who is not of their generation, but has received tithes from Abraham." And not only did he say this, but he added: "And he blessed him who had the promises" (Hebrews 7:6). Since this has always been considered important by the Jews, he proves the superiority of the one over the other, and in relation to the general judgment of all: "Without any reproach, the lesser is blessed by the greater" (Hebrews 7:7), i.e. everyone knows that the lesser is blessed by the greater. Therefore the type of Christ was higher than this one who had the promises. "And here mortal men take tithes, and there he who bears witness that he lives" (Hebrews 7:8). And lest they say: why do you turn to ancient times? - What does Abraham have to do with our priests? - Speak about what concerns us, - for this (the Apostle) continues: "And, so to speak." He expresses himself beautifully, without expressing his thoughts clearly, so as not to amaze his listeners. "Levi himself, who receives tithes, in [the person of] Abraham gave tithes" (Hebrews 7:9). How? "For he was still in his father's loins when Melchizedek met him" (Hebrews 7:10), i.e. Levi was in him, and before he was born, he gave tithes through him. And behold, he did not say, Levites, but Levi, with the intention of proving his superiority by this. Do you see what a difference there is between Abraham and Melchizedek, the type of our high priest? Here you can see the advantage of power, not of necessity. He gave a tithe that he owed to the priest; and this one blessed, which is characteristic of the highest. This advantage passes on to descendants. Amazingly victoriously (the apostle) refuted everything Jewish; wherefore he said before, "Ye have become incapable of hearing" (Hebrews 5:11), that he wanted to offer these truths, so that they might not turn away the ear. Such is the wisdom of Paul: he prepares in advance, and then proceeds to what he intends to say. The human race is not quickly convinced and requires many cares, even more than plants. There is a property of bodies and earth, which yields to the hands of farmers; but here is free will, which allows frequent changes and chooses one thing or another, because it is susceptible to evil.

3. Therefore we must constantly watch ourselves, so as not to slumber: "He will not give it," says (the Psalmist), "to shake thy foot," and again: "He who keeps Israel does not slumber nor sleep" (Psalm 120:3,4). He did not say, "Do not be troubled," but, "He will not give"; therefore it depends on us, and not on anyone else; if we want to stand upright and motionless, we will not be dismayed; it was he who expressed this in the words quoted. What then? Is it possible that nothing (depends) on God? Everything is from God, but not in such a way that our freedom is violated. If everything is from God, then why, you say, should we be blamed? But that's why I added: not so that our freedom is violated. Everything here depends on us and on Him; we should choose the good beforehand, and when we have chosen, then He also gives His help.

He does not anticipate our desire, lest our freedom be violated; but when we choose, then He gives us great help. Why, then, if it depends on us, does Paul say: "Therefore [mercy depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy" (Romans 9:16)? In the first place, he cites this not as his own thought, but as a consequence of the previous and previously revealed subject, after he had said: "It is written: ... whom I will have mercy on; whom I have pity, I will have pity" (Romans 9:13, 15), he added: "[mercy depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy." Will you still say after this: why should you accuse? Secondly, and even then it can be said that to whom the greater part belongs, to him he attributes everything; our work is to choose and will, and the work of God is to bring to fulfillment and complete. Since the greater part belongs to God, (the apostle) attributes everything to Him, expressing himself according to human custom. And this is what we do, for example, when we see a house well built, and we say: "All this is the work of the architect, although not everything belongs to him, but also to the workmen, and to the master who supplied the material, and to many others; but since the greater part of the matter depended on him, we say that all this was his business. Exactly, it's the same here. In like manner, of a people where they are many, we say: there are all; but where there is a little, we say: there is none. Thus Paul here says: "Not from him who wills, nor from him who strives, but from God who has mercy." With these words he teaches two very important lessons: first, that we should not be puffed up by the good works we do; the second, so that, while doing good works, we attribute their fulfillment to God. No matter how much you work, no matter how hard you try, do not consider a good deed your own, because if you did not receive help from above, then everything would be in vain. If you succeed in your labors, it will obviously be with help from above, however, when you yourself work, when you reveal a desire. Not that he showed that we labor in vain, but that we labor in vain in such a case, if we consider everything to be our own, if we do not attribute the greater part to God. God has not been pleased to keep everything to Himself, lest it should seem that He crowns us in vain, nor has He given us all things, lest we should fall into pride. If, even by doing a lesser part, we are so much exalted, what would happen if we were the authors of everything? God has done much to destroy our pride. "And His hand shall still be stretched out," says (the prophet) (Isaiah 5:25). How many passions has He allowed to take possession of us in order to destroy our arrogance? How many beasts have you surrounded us with? Truly, when someone says, "What is this?" What is this thing for? - then he speaks contrary to the will of God. (God) has placed you in the midst of such horrors, and you are not humble; but if you receive even a little success in something, you immediately exalt yourself with arrogance to the very heavens.

4. For this reason there are very rapid changes and falls, and yet we are not taught by them; hence frequent and unexpected deaths, and yet we live as if we were immortal, as if we never had to die; we steal what is not ours, we give ourselves over to covetousness, as if we would never give an account; we erect buildings as if we will remain here forever. Neither the word of God, which is proclaimed to us every day, nor the events themselves enlighten us. There is not a day, not even an hour, in which the funeral is not visible, and all in vain, nothing touches our insensibility. From the misfortunes of others we cannot, or rather, do not want to become better; only when we ourselves suffer, then we are broken, and as soon as God withdraws His hand, we again raise our own hand. No one thinks of things above, no one despises earthly things, no one looks up to heaven; As pigs look down, bending down to their bellies and wallowing in the mud, so many of the people remain insensible, defiling themselves with the most abominable filth. For it is better to be soiled with abominable filth than with sins, for he who is soiled with filth may soon be washed and become like one who has never fallen into this impurity, but he who falls into the pit of sin receives a defilement which is not washed away by water, but requires a long time, sincere repentance, tears, sobs, weeping much greater and stronger than is the case with those who are closest to the heart. Dirt adheres to us from without, so we quickly cleanse it; And the impurity of sin is born within, so it is difficult for us to destroy it and cleanse ourselves. "For out of the heart," says (the Lord), "proceed evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury" (Matthew 15:19). That is why the prophet says: "Create in me a pure heart, O God" (Psalm 50:12); and another: "Wash away the evil from your heart, O Jerusalem" (Jer. 4:14). Do you see that the accomplishment of a good deed depends both on us and on God? And again: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

Let us try to be pure to the best of our ability; let us cleanse ourselves from sins. And how can you cleanse yourself? This is what the prophet teaches when he says: "Wash yourselves, cleanse yourselves; remove your evil deeds from my eyes; cease to do evil" (Isaiah 1:16). What does it mean, "from my eyes"? Others seem to be blameless, but only before men, but before God they are graves painted over. Therefore (God) says: Purify yourselves so that I may see (you clean). "Learn to do good, seek righteousness, save the oppressed, defend the fatherless, intercede for the widow. Then come, and let us reason, saith the Lord. If your sins be as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as white as wool" (Isaiah 1:17-18). Do you see that first we need to cleanse ourselves, and then God cleanses us? He first said, "Wash yourselves, be cleansed"; And then he added: "As white as a wave." Thus, none of the people, even if they have reached the extreme degree of evil, should despair; Though you, he says, acquire the habit and even enter into the nature of evil itself, do not be afraid. For this purpose He takes as an example paints, which are not easily deduced, but enter almost into the very essence of things, and says that He will turn them into the opposite state. He did not simply say, "I will wash myself," but, "I will be as white as snow" and "I will be white as wool," in order to give us good hope. Therefore the power of repentance is great if it makes us pure as snow and white as a wave, even though sin has previously stained our souls. Therefore, let us try to make ourselves clean; (God) commands us nothing difficult: "Defend," He says, "the fatherless, intercede for the widow." Do you see how often and how much God speaks about alms and the protection of the oppressed? Let us do these good works, and by the grace of God we will attain future blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[1] To the Synod. The translation here is "prey".