CONVERSATION 3

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from a mountain called the Mount of Olives, 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 traveled on the Sabbath day through the space of the journey determined for that 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 temptation. 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 to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and to 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," he says of those who did not believe in 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 people): Men, brethren! It was necessary to fulfill that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures" (v. 16). Why did he not ask Christ only 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 it 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 so 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 cared about home. That is how useful temptations are! What a blessing it is to have misfortunes! "That which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures had to be fulfilled." 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 was necessary," he says, "to be fulfilled that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures through 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 he 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 language 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, "named," and by adding, "in their native dialect," he really wants to express it. 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; Ps. 68:26). This is (said) about the village and about the house. "And let another take his dignity," i.e., the rulership, 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 that 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 He 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), 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 set two: Joseph, who is called Barsabbas, who is 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 appointed two: Joseph, who was called Barsabbas, who was 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 the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath day's journey" (v. 12). Thus says (the writer), wishing to show that they do not undertake 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 with 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 have 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 were 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. After all, 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 it 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 partially come true, 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 were 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 reliable who could say that He 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, "The 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 had to be especially reliable. "And they appointed," 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: "You, 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 everything was predetermined. "Show one of these two, whom you have chosen to accept the lot of this ministry and apostleship" (vv. 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 also 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 ought to 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 your character is noble, 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 persecution: 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 all things, who want to sleep, who go to this work as to rest—it is not 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 compelled to take care of them continually, 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 doesn't he silence them? Ok; But this is not the bishop's business. And again, do not give to everyone, both those who (spend 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 universe, while the bishop rules 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 teachable, patient, and hold fast to "the true word, which agrees with the doctrine, that it may be strong and instruct in sound doctrine" (Tim. 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 the other perishes is worthy of death in the present life, then much more is it there. Do not say to me: a presbyter or a deacon has sinned, for 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 a 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. Because of being in glory, in order to attain honor among men, we perish in the eyes 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 gets angry, laughs, or wants to rest himself by sleeping, there are many scoffers, 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 a ruler in 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? "Let thy money be unto destruction" (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; Teaching by works is a more important doctrine. 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 who loves, and false are the kisses of him who hates" (Proverbs 27:6). Nothing is dearer to me 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 are sinning, come to me while I am sleeping: let me perish if I am not like the paralytic, if I am not like 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.