Беседа 1

Acts 1:1–2. I wrote the first book to you, Theophilus, about everything that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day on which He ascended, giving commands by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He chose. The meaning of the book of the Acts of the Apostles. – Why is the deity of Christ not clearly stated in Acts? – Why baptism during Chrysostom was not performed on Pentecost. - About those who postpone baptism. – Baptism should not be postponed. 1. Many do not even know that this book exists - (they do not know) neither the book itself, nor the person who wrote and compiled it. That is why, in particular, I decided to take up this work, both to teach those who do not know, and to prevent such a treasure from hiding and remaining in the unknown. This book can bring us no less benefit than the Gospel itself: it is so filled with wisdom, such purity of dogmas and such an abundance of miracles, especially those performed by the Holy Spirit. Let us not ignore it, but let us examine it carefully. Here one can see the fulfillment in practice of those prophecies that Christ proclaims in the Gospels, the truth shining in the events themselves, and the great change for the better in the disciples brought about in them by the Holy Spirit. Christ told the disciples: everyone “who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will also do, and greater works than these will he do” (John 14:12), and predicted to them that “they will lead you to rulers and kings,” that they will be beaten “in the courts and in their synagogues” (Matthew 10:17–18), that they will undergo the most severe torments and will triumph over all, and that “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached” throughout the whole world (Matthew 24:14): all this, as well as even more, that He said when addressing the disciples, appears in this book to be fulfilled with all accuracy. Here you will also see how the apostles themselves, as if on wings, flowed around the earth and sea, how they, fearful and unwise, suddenly became different people, began to despise wealth, became insensitive to glory, inaccessible to either anger or lust, and found themselves decidedly above everything; (you will see) that they had great like-mindedness, and that between them there was never, as before, either envy or a dispute about primacy, but, on the contrary, every perfect virtue took root in them, and in particular love began to shine, about which (Christ) commanded them a lot with the words: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). You can also find here dogmas that, if it were not for this book, would not be so well known to anyone; and what constitutes the basis of our salvation, both in relation to life and in relation to dogmas, would be dark and unclear. But primarily the actions of Paul, who labored more than anyone else, are described here. This is because the compiler of the book was his student, Blessed Luke, whose virtue can be seen both from many other things, and especially from the fact that he was inseparably with his teacher and constantly followed him. So, when Demas and Hermogenes left Paul, and one went to Galatia, and the other to Dalmatia, listen to what the apostle says about him: “Luke alone is with me” (2 Tim. 4:10). And in the letter to the Corinthians he says about him: “in all churches he is praised for the gospel” (2 Cor. 8:18). Also, when he says that (Christ) “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,” and says: according to the gospel, “which you also received” (1 Cor. 15:1, 5), he means the gospel of Luke. Therefore, the one who attributes this creation to him will not sin; and when I say: to him, I mean Christ. If someone says: why didn’t Luke describe everything, remaining with Paul to the end? - then I will answer that this was enough for those who wanted to be attentive, that (the apostles) were always busy with the most necessary matters, and that their main concern was not to write books, since they communicated a lot through unwritten tradition. Thus, everything that is contained in this book is worthy of surprise, but especially the condescension of the apostles, which the Holy Spirit inspired in them, preparing them to serve the word about the economy of salvation. That is why, having reported so much about Christ, they said little about His birth, but spoke more about His humanity, suffering, resurrection and ascension. Now they first of all needed to verify that He had risen and ascended into heaven. Therefore, just as Christ Himself tried most of all to prove that He came from the Father, so Luke (in particular proves) that He was resurrected and ascended, and departed to the Father, and came from Him. If they did not believe this before, then even more so now, when the resurrection and ascension were added, the whole teaching (about Christ) seemed incredible to the Jews. That is why he gradually and little by little raises them to the highest. And in Athens, Paul even called Him just a man (Acts 17:31), without saying anything more, and he did the right thing. After all, if (the Jews) often attempted to stone Christ himself when He spoke about His equality with the Father, and called Him a blasphemer for this, then they would hardly have accepted the word about this from the fishermen, and especially when the cross had already preceded. 2. But why talk about the Jews, when the disciples themselves, listening to the highest dogmas, were then often confused and tempted? That is why Christ said: “I still have much to say to you; but now you cannot contain it” (John 16:12). If they could not, despite the fact that they treated Him for so long, were participants in so many mysteries and saw so many miracles, then how could people, who had just fallen behind the temples, idols and sacrifices, from cats and crocodiles (this was exactly the pagan worship of God) and from other defilements, immediately accept lofty speeches about dogmas? And the Jews themselves, who are daily taught and inspired by the law: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,” and besides Him there is no other (Deut. 6:4), who saw Christ nailed to the tree of the cross, who even crucified and buried Him, but did not see Him risen - the Jews, hearing that He is God and that He is equal (to the Father), should not they most likely retreat and leave? That is why (the apostles) gradually and little by little raise them to higher concepts and, on the one hand, show great condescension, and on the other, they take advantage of the abundant grace of the Spirit and the name (of Christ) and work miracles even greater than those that He Himself created, in order to, through both, raise up those who are lying down and confirm the word of the resurrection. This book contains primarily this, namely the evidence of the resurrection, since it was easy for someone who believed in the latter to accept everything else. So, this is, generally speaking, the main content and the whole purpose of this book. Let us now listen to her very introduction. “I wrote the first book to you, Theophilus, about everything that Jesus did and taught from the beginning” (Acts 1:1.). Why does (Luke) remind Theophilus of the Gospel? To show his accuracy, since at the beginning of that book he says: “I was determined, after carefully examining everything first, to describe to you in order, most venerable Theophilus” (Luke 1:3), and is not content with his mere testimony, but traces everything back to the apostles, saying: “until the day on which He ascended, having given commandments by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:2.). That is why, having made his word reliable there, he does not need a new certificate here, since he had already gained confidence in himself (Theophilus) and with that work showed him his accuracy and truth. And whoever was worthy of faith and who was truly believed when he wrote what he heard, it is all the more fair to believe him when he states not what he received from others, but what he himself saw and heard. If, he says, you accepted (my story) about Christ, then much more (will you accept the story) about the apostles. So what? Is his work (the Gospel) only (ordinary) history, and his word does not partake of the Spirit? Not at all. Why? Because what was conveyed to him “by those who from the very beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” (Luke 1:2.) was from the Spirit. But why didn’t he say: “as they who were worthy of the Holy Spirit handed them on to us,” but: “who were from the very beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word”? Because this, that is, knowledge from self-witnesses, most of all gives credibility (to the story), otherwise for unreasonable people it would even seem like pride and boasting. That is why John said this: “And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). Yes, and Christ also says to Nicodemus, when he was still rude: “We speak of what we know, and testify of what we have seen, but you do not accept Our testimony” (John 3:11). And again, proving that many things can be testified based on the data of sight, He told the disciples: “You also will testify, because you were with Me from the beginning” (John 15:27). And the apostles themselves often say this: we are witnesses and the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him (Acts 2:32). And Peter later, in order to assure him of the resurrection, said: “They ate and drank with Him” (Acts 10:41). In general (Jews and pagans) were more likely to accept the testimony of people who converted (to Christ) - because they were still very far from knowing the Spirit. Therefore, John in his Gospel, speaking about blood and water, says that he himself saw it (John 19:35), presenting to them his vision as the most reliable evidence. Of course, the inspirations of the Spirit are more certain than sight, but not among the unbelievers. And that Luke was involved in the Spirit is clear from many things: from the signs that are now being performed, from the fact that at that time even ordinary people received the Holy Spirit, from the testimony of Paul, who says about him: “in all the churches he is praised for the gospel” (2 Cor. 8:18), finally from the fact that he was awarded ordination, since Paul, having said these words, added: “and moreover, chosen from the churches to accompany us for this charity, which we serve for the glory of the Lord Himself and in accordance with your zeal" (2 Cor. 8:19), 3. And look how far he is from boasting. He does not say: the first gospel that I preached, but “I wrote the first book,” considering the name of the gospel too high for himself. The Apostle (Paul) glorifies it precisely for the gospel, saying: “in all churches he is praised for the gospel”; but he himself humbly says: “I wrote the first book for you, Theophilus, about everything that Jesus did and taught from the beginning.” He doesn’t just say: about everyone, but (about everything) from beginning to end: “until that day,” he says, “in which He ascended.” But John explains that it was impossible to describe everything, and in order to reveal this, he says: “but if we were to write about this in detail, then, I think, the world itself could not contain,” he adds, “the books that would be written” (John 21:25). How do you say Luke talks about everything? But he did not say: everything, but: “about everything,” and this also means that - in general and in abbreviated form; or in other words: he talks about everything that is especially important and necessary. The following shows exactly what this all consists of; “what Jesus did and taught” - which indicates His miracles and teaching, as well as what He taught by deed itself. Notice also how humane his apostolic soul is, if even for one person he worked so hard that he wrote a whole gospel: “so that you might know,” he says, “the solid foundation of the teaching in which you were instructed” (Luke 1:4), since he heard the words of Christ: “It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14). But why did he compose more than one book, while he sent it to Theophilus alone, but divided it into two parts? For the sake of clarity, but also to give the listener a chance to rest; Moreover, these writings are different in their very content. But look how Christ gave credibility to His words by His deeds. He instructed in meekness and said: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29). He taught to be non-covetous and showed this by his very actions: “The Son of Man,” He said, “has no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). Again, he commanded to love enemies, and taught this, praying on the cross for the crucifiers. He said: “And whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outer garment too” (Matthew 5:40), and He Himself gave not only His clothes, but also blood. This is what He commanded the disciples to do. That’s why Paul said: “according to the image you have in us” (Phil. 3:17). Indeed, there is nothing more useless than a teacher who speaks only in words. This is not characteristic of a teacher, but of a hypocrite. Therefore the apostles first taught by life, and then by words; Yes, they didn’t even need words, because their deeds spoke loudly. Nor will anyone be mistaken who calls the very suffering of Christ an action: after all, through suffering He did a great and wonderful thing - He destroyed death and accomplished everything else. “Until that day on which He ascended, giving commands by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:2). “Giving commands by the Holy Spirit,” that is, speaking to them spiritual words, (in which there was) nothing human. Either this is how these words must be understood, or this is how He commanded them by the inspiration of the Spirit. Do you see how even more humiliatingly (Luke) expresses himself about Christ? So Christ Himself said about Himself: “If by the Spirit of God I cast out demons” (Matthew 12:28), since the Holy Spirit also acted in that church. What did He command? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20). The great praise for the apostles is that they were entrusted with such a work, that is, the salvation of the universe, that they were entrusted with words filled with the Spirit, as Luke indicates when he says: “By the Holy Spirit,” meaning (the words of Christ): “the words that I speak to you are spirit” (John 6:63). And he says this in order to arouse in the listener a desire to learn the commandments, and to make the apostles trustworthy, since they will proclaim the words of the Spirit and the commandments of Christ. “Having given commands,” he says, “he ascended” 1. He did not say (Luke): he ascended 2 because he still speaks of Him as a man. So, Christ taught his disciples even after the resurrection, but no one told us in detail everything that happened at that time. John and the writer of this book tell more about this than others, but no one told everything clearly, because everyone was concerned about something else. We learned about this from the apostles, since they reported what they heard. “Whom He chose, to whom He also showed Himself alive” (Acts 1:2–3.). Having first spoken about the ascension, he now speaks about the resurrection. After he said: “he ascended,” so that you would not think that He was ascended by others, he added: “to whom He showed Himself alive.” After all, if He Himself did a greater deed, then all the more could He do a lesser one. 4. Do you see how imperceptibly (the narrator) adds these great dogmas? “For forty days he appeared to them” (Acts 1:3.). At that time, Christ was no longer constantly with the apostles - not as before the resurrection. Notice, he didn’t say: fourty days: but: “appearing to them for forty days,” since Christ appeared and again hid. Why is this so? To elevate the thoughts of the disciples and prevent them from treating Him the same way. And not without reason He did this, but because He was carefully concerned about the arrangement of two things - that they would believe the resurrection, and that, finally, they would think of Him higher than a mere man. Although these (two things) were opposite to one another - since, for assurance of the resurrection, many human things had to happen, and for conviction (that He is higher than man) - on the contrary - nevertheless, both of them happened at the right time. Why did He not appear to everyone, but only to the apostles? Because to the people who did not know the ineffable mystery, He would have seemed like a ghost. If the disciples themselves did not believe at first, were confused and needed the touch of a hand and the fellowship of a meal, then what should one naturally expect from the people? That is why the resurrection is irrefutable and is proven by miracles, so that it would be undoubted not only for the people of that time, but also for all subsequent generations. What happened to the first because they saw miracles, to all who followed had to happen from faith. Therefore, from here we borrow evidence against the infidels. In fact, if He was not resurrected, but remains dead, then how did the apostles perform signs in His name? Or did they not perform signs? In this case, how did our (Christian) race come into being? The infidels, of course, will no longer reject this, and will not argue against what they see; and therefore, when they say that there were no signs, they dishonor themselves even more. Indeed, it would be the greatest miracle if, without miracles, the whole universe fled (to Christ), being caught by twelve poor and ignorant people. It was not by the abundance of wealth, not by the wisdom of words, not by anything else similar that the fishermen won, so one must admit, involuntarily, that they had Divine power, since it is incredible that human power could ever do so much. That is why Christ Himself remained (on earth) after the resurrection for forty days, allowing Himself to be seen for a long time, so that (the disciples) would not consider what was visible to be a ghost. And He was not satisfied with this, but also added a meal, which Luke further says: “And he ate with them” 3 (Acts 1:4). The apostles themselves always considered this to be evidence of the resurrection, saying: “those who ate and drank with Him” (Acts 10:41). And what Christ did during His appearances is shown in the following words: “appearing to them and speaking about the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). And since the apostles were saddened and frightened by what had already happened, and meanwhile they had to set out for great deeds, He, encouraging them with words about the future, “gathering them together, He commanded them: do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for what was promised from the Father, which you have heard from Me” (Acts 1:4). At first, when they were still afraid and afraid, He took them out to Galilee so that they could listen to His words without fear. Then, when they had listened and spent forty days with Him, “he commanded them: do not leave Jerusalem.” Why is this so? Just like warriors intending to attack the enemy, no one will be allowed to move before they arm themselves; just as the horses would not be allowed to run out onto the lists before they had a driver, so (the Lord) did not allow them to go out to fight before the descent of the Holy Spirit, so that the multitude (of enemies) would not easily overcome and capture them. And not only for this reason (he commands not to leave Jerusalem), but also because many there believed. Moreover, lest anyone say that they, having left those they knew, went to boast to foreigners, - for this, before the very people who killed (Christ), they present evidence of His resurrection - before the very same people who crucified and buried Him, in the very city in which this lawless deed was boldly committed, so that through this the lips of all foreigners were stopped. In fact, if those who crucified Him themselves appear among those who believed, then, obviously, this will be a clear sign of both the cross and the lawlessness of the act (of the Jews), and a great proof of the resurrection. And so that the disciples do not say: how can we, when there are so few of us and we are so insignificant, be able to live among such a multitude of people who are wicked and breathing murder? - see how He delivers them from this fear with the words: “But wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from Me” (Acts 1:4). When do you say they heard? Then, when He said: “It is better for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you” (John 16:7). And again: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever” (John 14:16). 5. But why did (the Holy Spirit) come not while Christ was still (on earth), and not immediately after His departure, but, while Christ ascended on the fortieth day, the Holy Spirit came “at the coming of the day of Pentecost” (Acts 2:1)? And how, when the Spirit did not yet exist, did Christ say: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22)? This is to prepare disciples and enable them to receive Him. After all, if Daniel became exhausted because he had to see an angel (Dan. 8:17), then how much more would they (were) they, who had to receive such great grace. Either in this sense these words must be understood, or in the way that Christ spoke about the future as if it had already happened, just as he said: tread “on serpents and scorpions and on all the power of the enemy” (Luke 10:19). But why didn’t the Holy Spirit come immediately then? The apostles had to be inflamed with desire for this event, and then receive grace. Therefore, the Holy Spirit came when Christ departed. And if He had come at a time when (Christ) was still (on earth), they would not have had such expectation. For the same reason, He did not come immediately after the Ascension of Christ, but eight or nine days later. So we especially turn to God when we find ourselves in some kind of need. Therefore, John then especially sent his disciples to Christ when they should have needed Jesus, since he himself was already in prison. On the other hand, it was necessary that first our nature should appear in heaven, and reconciliation would be completely accomplished, and then the Spirit would come, and (the disciples) would be filled with pure joy. If, after the coming of the Holy Spirit, Christ had departed, and the Holy Spirit had remained (on earth), then there would not have been so much consolation for them, since they were very attached to Christ - which is why He said, comforting them: “It is better for you that I go” (John 16:7). That’s why He postpones (the sending of the Holy Spirit) for a few days, so that they, having experienced a little sadness and felt, as I said, need, would enjoy complete and pure joy. And if the Spirit were less than Him, then this consolation would not be enough. And how could He say: “It’s better for you”? For this purpose, most of the teaching was given to the Holy Spirit, so that He would not be considered lesser. Notice what a necessity - to be in Jerusalem - Christ made the disciples by promising to give the Spirit there. So that they do not scatter again after His Ascension, with this expectation, as if by some bonds, He holds them all there. Having said: “But wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from Me,” he added: “For John baptized with water, and a few days after this you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). Here, finally, He shows the difference between Himself and John, and no longer covertly, as before. Previously, He greatly obscured His speech, saying: “But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11); but now he says much more clearly: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” He no longer cites his testimony itself (Matthew 3:11-12), but only points to his face and thereby reminds of what was said to them, and shows that they had already become higher than John, since they themselves had to baptize with the Spirit. And he did not say: I baptize you with the Holy Spirit, but: “you will be baptized,” teaching us humility. And what exactly He baptized was already obvious from the testimony of John, who said: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Luke 3:16), which is why Christ mentioned him alone. So, the Gospels tell of what Christ did and said, and the Acts tell of what the other Comforter said and did. Of course, the Holy Spirit did many things before, just as Christ acts now, as he (acted) before; but first - through the church, and now - through the apostles. Then He entered the virgin womb and formed (in it) a church, and now - into the souls of the apostles; then (descended) in the form of a dove, and now in the form of fire. Why is this so? There he showed meekness, and here he showed severity, reminding him in good time of judgment. When sins had to be forgiven, great meekness was needed; and as soon as we received this gift, it is already time for judgment and testing. But why does Christ say: “you will be baptized” when there was no water in the upper room? Because the most important thing (in baptism) is the Spirit, through whom the water also acts. Likewise, Christ himself is said to have been anointed, although He was never anointed with oil, but received the Holy Spirit. However, one can find that they were baptized with water and (baptized) at different times. With us, both (baptism, i.e., with water and the Spirit) happen together, but then (it was) separately. In the beginning they were baptized by John, and this is not surprising. After all, if harlots and tax collectors went to that baptism, then all the sooner (came) those who after that should have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then, so that they do not say: “this is still only a promise,” since He had spoken a lot about this before, and so that they do not think that this action is not feasible, He rejects them from such an assumption with the words: “in a few days.” When exactly, he did not announce this so that they would always be awake; He said that it would be soon so that they would not weaken, however, he did not add when exactly, so that they would always be vigilant. And not only by this does he assure them, that is, not only by the brevity of time, but also by the words: “what ye have heard from Me” (Acts 1:4). His words mean: not only have I told you now, but I have already promised this before, which I will certainly fulfill. So, why are you surprised that He did not say the day of death (of the world), when He did not want to announce this day, so close? And this He did quite naturally - so that they would always watch, expect and care. 6. It is impossible, truly impossible, for one who is not awake to receive grace. Don't you know what Elijah says to his disciple? “If you see me taken from you, it will be so for you” (2 Kings 2:10), that is, you will have what you ask for. And Christ always said to those who came to Him: Do you believe? - because if we do not get comfortable with what is given, we will not strongly feel the benefit. So grace did not immediately descend on Paul, but three days passed in advance, during which he remained blind, languished in fear and prepared. Just as those who dye crimson first prepare the material intended for dyeing with some other substances so that the color does not fade, so here God first prepares the waking soul, and then he pours out grace. That is why He did not send the Spirit immediately, but at Pentecost. If anyone begins to say: why don’t we baptize at this time? - then I will answer that grace both at Pentecost and now is the same; but the mind is now more elevated, because it is prepared by fasting. And the time of Pentecost also has some significance, not incongruously with this. Which one exactly? Our fathers considered baptism a sufficient curb for evil lust and a great lesson - to live chastely and in the midst of joy. Therefore, as if eating with Christ himself and participating in His table, let us not do anything simply, but let us remain in fasting, prayer and great abstinence. If someone who wants to receive a worldly leadership prepares for himself everything necessary for life and, in order to achieve any dignity, spends money, spares no time, endures countless labors, then what do we deserve when we approach the kingdom of heaven with such carelessness, do not care about it before we receive it, and are careless when we receive it? And that is why we are careless after receiving it, because we were not vigilant before receiving it. That is why many immediately after receiving them returned to “their own vomit” (2 Peter 2:22), became worse and brought upon themselves the most severe punishment. They were freed from their previous sins, but that is why they especially angered the Judge because, having freed themselves from such an illness, they did not recover, but suffered what Christ threatened the paralytic with, saying: “Behold, you have recovered; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you” (John 5:14), and what He predicted about the Jews, showing that they would suffer beyond healing for their ingratitude: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin” (John 15:22). Thus, sins committed after (baptism) become twice and four times more serious. Why? Because having been honored, we are ungrateful and evil. That is why the baptismal font does not make the punishment any easier for us. Note: whether someone had serious sins (before baptism), whether, for example, they committed murder, or adultery, or did something else, even more serious, - all this is forgiven through the baptismal font. In fact, no, truly there is no sin and wickedness that would not be inferior to this gift and would not be lower than it, because it is divine grace. But if someone again falls into adultery and commits murder, then, although the previous adultery is permitted and that murder is forgiven and is no longer remembered, since “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29), nevertheless, for these sins committed after baptism, we are subject to the same punishment as if the previous ones were taken into account, and even much more. This is no longer just a sin, but a double and triple sin. And what greater condemnation (expects) for these sins - listen to what Paul says: “If he who rejects the law of Moses, in the presence of two or three witnesses, is punished without mercy with death, then how much more severe punishment do you think will be guilty of the one who tramples on the Son of God and does not consider as holy the Blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and offends the Spirit of grace?” ( Heb. 10:28–29 ). Perhaps I have now distracted many from receiving baptism? But I said this not for this purpose, but so that those who received (baptism) would remain in chastity and actively lead an honest life. But I'm afraid, will anyone say? If you were afraid, you would accept it and keep it. But that’s why, you say, I don’t accept it, because I’m afraid (of not saving)? And so (without baptism) you’re not afraid to leave? God, would you say, is humane? That is why accept baptism, because He loves mankind and helps us. But you, when you need to take care (of baptism), do not imagine this love for mankind; and when you want to put it aside, then you remember about it, while this love of humanity takes place in the first case, and it will be manifested to us especially when we, on our part, bring in what follows. He who has relied on God in everything, even if he sins, as is typical for man, after baptism, through repentance he will be rewarded with love for mankind; and whoever, as if philosophizing about God’s love for mankind, departs (from here) alien to grace will be subject to inevitable punishment. Why are you doing this against your salvation? It is impossible, absolutely impossible, as I at least think, for a person who puts off (baptism), deluding himself with such hopes, to do anything sublime and good. Why do you take on such fear and hide behind the uncertainty of the future? Why don’t you change this fear into work and effort in order to become great and worthy of wonder? What is better - to be afraid or to work? If someone sat you down with nothing to do in a collapsing house and said: “Expect that the ceiling may fall on your head, since it has already rotted (maybe it will fall, maybe it won’t fall); if you don’t want this, then work and live in a safer building,” then what would you prefer? Is it idleness combined with fear, or is this labor combined with confidence in safety? Do the same now. The unknown future is like some decayed house, always threatening to fall; and this labor, combined with fatigue, promises safety. 7. So, God forbid that we should be subjected to such a great misfortune - to sin after the font. But even if something like this happened, then even under such circumstances we will not despair. God is philanthropic and has provided us with many ways to receive forgiveness after (baptism). And just as those who sin after the font are, for this very reason, punished more than the catechumens, so are those who know; that there is a medicine of repentance and do not want to use it, they will be subjected to the most severe punishment, because the more God’s love for mankind increases, the more the punishment intensifies if we do not use it properly. What are you saying, man? You were filled with so many evils, you were without any hope of salvation, and suddenly you became a friend (of God) and were elevated to the highest honor, not for your own exploits, but by the gift of God. You have again returned to your former shameful deeds, for which you would deserve severe punishment; but the Lord did not turn away from you, but gave countless means of salvation, through which (again) you can become His friend. This is what God does, and you don’t want to work hard at the same time? How, finally, will you be worthy of forgiveness? And will not the pagans justly laugh at you as at some drone living in vain and in vain? If your wisdom, they will say, has power, then explain what this multitude of uninitiated means? The sacraments are beautiful and desirable, but let no one accept baptism when he is already separated from his soul. Then it is not the time of sacraments, but of testaments; and the time of the sacraments is a sound state of mind and chastity of the soul. Tell me: if no one dares to write a will while in such a state, and if he does write it, this will give him the opportunity to later refute it - why wills begin with these words: “I, while alive, being in full and sound mind, make a disposition for my property” - then how is it possible for someone who has lost consciousness to be properly initiated into the sacraments? If worldly laws do not allow a person who is not fully in control of his mind to make wills about everyday things - they do not allow him, despite the fact that he would dispose of his property here, then how will you, being instructed (in the teaching) about the heavenly kingdom and about those ineffable blessings, be able to clearly know everything when you often lose your mind from illness? And how will you tell Christ, burying yourself with Him, those words when you are already leaving? After all, both in deeds and in words one must show affection towards Him. And you do the same, as if someone wanted to enroll as a warrior when the war was already over, or as if a fighter began to take off his dress when those who were at the spectacle had already stood up. You take a weapon not in order to immediately retreat, but so that, having taken it, you can gain victory over the enemy. Let no one consider speaking about this untimely because it is not Pentecost now. This is what I lament that you observe time in such matters. After all, that eunuch (Acts 8:27), despite the fact that he was a barbarian, that he was traveling and was in the middle of the highway, did not talk about time. This is exactly what the prison guard did (Acts 16:29), although he was among the prisoners, he saw the teacher beaten and tied up, and believed that he would still remain in prison. And now many, despite the fact that they do not live in prison and are not on the road, put off (their baptism), and put it off until their last breath. 8. So, if you still doubt that Christ is God, then stand outside (the church), do not listen to divine words and do not count yourself among the catechumens. If you have no doubt and clearly know this, then why are you delaying? Why are you avoiding and postponing? I'm afraid, you say, lest I sin. Aren’t you afraid of what’s worse - lest you go there with such a heavy burden? After all, it is not all the same - not to accept the grace offered and, having decided to live virtuously, to sin. Tell me: if they start accusing you, why didn’t you start (baptism), why didn’t you live virtuously - what will you say? There you can still, perhaps, refer to the severity of the commandments and virtues; but there is nothing like that here, here is grace that freely gives freedom. But are you afraid that you might sin? Say this after baptism, then have this fear - in order to preserve the boldness that you have received, and not in order to shy away from such a gift. Otherwise, before baptism you are pious, but after baptism you are frivolous. But are you waiting for the time of Lent? For what? Is there anything special about that time? The apostles were not rewarded with grace at Easter, but at another time; it was also not Easter time when three thousand and five thousand were baptized, as well as Cornelius, the eunuch and very many others. So, let us not bide our time, lest through slowness and delay we lose such great benefits and depart without them. How, just think, I grieve every time I hear that someone has left here without being initiated into the sacraments, and every time I imagine those unbearable torments and inevitable punishment! How again I lament when I see others who have reached their last breath, but still do not come to their senses! That is why many things happen that are unworthy of this gift. One should have fun, rejoice, rejoice and be decorated with wreaths when someone is initiated into the sacraments; and (with us) the wife of a patient, when she hears that the doctor has advised this, laments and cries as if about some misfortune; Everywhere in the house there are screams and lamentations, as if for condemned people being taken away for execution. Yes, in turn, the patient himself then becomes especially sad; and if he recovers, he is even more distressed, as if a great evil had been done to him. Since he was not prepared for virtue, he becomes lazy and avoids the subsequent exploits. Do you see what kind of intrigues the devil sets up, what kind of shame (subjects him) to what kind of ridicule? Let us free ourselves from this ridicule! Let us live as Christ commanded! He did not give baptism so that we, having accepted it, would depart (to eternity), but so that, having lived, we would show the fruits. How do you say: “bear fruit” to someone who is already leaving, who is already cut off? Have you not heard that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace” (Gal.5:22)? How does the opposite happen? The wife stands in tears when she should be rejoicing; children cry when they should be having fun; the patient himself lies gloomy, in fear and confusion, when he should be triumphant: he is in great sadness at the thought of the orphanhood of his children, the widowhood of his wife, the desolation of the house. Is this, tell me, how they begin the sacraments? Is this how one partakes of the sacred meal? Can this be demolished? If the king sends a decree to release prisoners from prison, then there will be joy and joy; and when God sends the Holy Spirit from heaven and forgives not monetary arrears, but all sins in general, then do you all cry and lament? What kind of incongruity is this? I’m not even talking about the fact that water was poured out on the dead, and the shrine was thrown to the ground; but it’s not us who are to blame for this, but reckless people. Therefore, I beg you, let us leave everything, turn to ourselves and with all zeal begin to be baptized, so that, having shown great zeal in this life, we may also receive future boldness, which we all may be worthy of through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Constantinople in 400 or 401. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Here the Slavic text: “with them also poisonous” (Acts 1:4) fully corresponds to the interpretation of Chrysostom, in contrast to the synodal: “and having gathered them together.” – I.N. You might be interested in: