Беседа 3

Acts 1:12. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath's journey away. The position of bishop. – His work and dignity. 1. “Then... we returned.” When – “then”? When they listened (to 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 indicated the distance in this way, would not have said: “from the mountain called Olivet, which is located near Jerusalem, within the distance of the Sabbath journey,” if not on the Sabbath day they covered the distance of the journey designated for that day. “And when they came, they went up into the upper room, where they remained” (Acts 1:13). This means that they remained in Jerusalem after the resurrection. “Peter,” it says, “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 Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1:13). It is not without reason that he mentioned the disciples by name: since one of them became a traitor, another denied, the third did not believe, he shows that, except for one traitor, everyone was safe. “They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with some of the women” (Acts 1:14). Wonderful! Prayer is a powerful weapon among temptations. On the one hand, they had already been sufficiently taught this by the Teacher himself, and on the other hand, they were also tempted by real temptation: that is why they ascended to the upper room because they were greatly afraid of the Jews. “With... wives,” says (the writer), since (in the Gospel) he said that they followed Christ. "And Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." But how does (John) say that then “the disciple... took her to him” (John 19:27)? After Christ gathered the disciples again, she was again with them. “With His brothers,” he speaks of those who previously did not believe in Christ. “And in those days Peter stood in the midst of the disciples and spoke” (Acts 1:15). Peter is always the first to speak, partly because of the liveliness of his character, and partly because Christ entrusted His flock to him and he was the first in the ranks (of the apostles). “(There was a meeting of about one hundred and twenty people): men and brethren! What the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scripture had to be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). Why didn’t he ask Christ on his own behalf to give him someone instead of Judas? Or why don’t the apostles (all together) make a choice on their own? Peter has now become better than he was before: this is how you can answer the first question. As for why, not simply, but by means of revelation, they ask to replenish their collection, I will point out two reasons for this: the first is that they were busy with something else; and the other is that this served as the greatest proof that Christ was with them. Even while he was absent (apparently), He Himself chose just as precisely as when He was with them: and this served as an important consolation for them. But look how Peter does everything with general consent and does not dispose of anything arbitrarily and as a boss. And he didn’t just say: “in Judas’s place we elect so-and-so”; but in order to reassure the disciples regarding what has happened, look at how he begins his speech. This event, indeed, caused them no little bewilderment; and this is not surprising: if many people talk about it now, then what naturally should have been said to them then? “Men,” he says, “brethren.” If the Lord called them brethren, then all the more fitting was such an appeal to Peter, which is why he exclaims like that in the presence of everyone. This is the dignity of the church and its angelic state! No one was separated from others then, neither man nor woman. And I would like the churches to be like this even now. No one then cared about anything in everyday life, no one cared about the house. That's how useful temptations are! What a blessing - adversity! “What the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scripture must be fulfilled.” Constantly consoles them with prophecy. This is what Christ does in every case. In exactly the same way, Peter shows that there is nothing strange in this event, but that it had already been predicted. “It was necessary,” he says, “to be fulfilled what the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David in Scripture.” He does not say: David said, but: the Spirit 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 of the 7th Spirit. “The Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David”; See how they assimilate the prophet and display his name, knowing that it will be useful for them that this saying belongs to David, and not to another prophet. "About Judas, the former leader". Notice here the wisdom of this man: he does not blaspheme or dishonor (Judas), does not say that he was a villain and the most terrible villain, but simply explains what happened. He doesn’t even call him a traitor, but tries, as much as possible for him, to place the blame on others. However, he doesn’t really blame those either: “who was,” he says, “the leader of those who took Jesus.” And before he indicated the place where this saying of David is located, he recalls the fate that befell Judas, in order through the present to certify in the future and to show that (Judas) has already received punishment. “He was numbered among us and received the lot of this ministry; but he acquired the land with unjust wages” (Acts 1:17–18). Depicts the character (of Judas) and discreetly reveals (his) guilt worthy of punishment. He does not say: “the Jews (acquired)”, but: “he acquired the land with unrighteous bribes.” And since people with weak souls look not so much at the future as at the present, he talks about the punishment that befell him in this life. "And when he fell". He did an excellent job, stopping his speech not on the crime of Judas, but on the punishment that befell him. “His belly was split open and all his entrails fell out.” This was a consolation for them. “And this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that that land in their native dialect was called Akeldama, that is, the land of blood” (Acts 1:19). 2. The Jews gave such a 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. And by what he said: “named”, and by what he added: “in their native dialect” - he really wants to express this. Then, having first pointed out the event, he decently cites the prophecy and says: “in the book of Psalms it is written: let his court be desolate, and let there be no one living in it; and let another take his dignity” (Acts 1:20; Ps.69:26). This (speaks) about the village and the house. “And let another receive his dignity,” i.e., the authorities, the priesthood. Consequently, this is not happening according to my thought, but according to the will of the One who predicted it. So that it would not seem that he was taking on too great a task, such as Christ did, he brought a prophet as a witness. “Therefore it is necessary,” he says, “to have one of those who were with us all the time” (Acts 1:21). Why does he consult with them? So that this matter does not become a subject of dispute, so that discord does not arise between them. After all, if this happened to themselves (the apostles), then all the sooner (it could have happened) to those people. This he always avoids; That’s why he said at the very beginning: “Men and brethren,” you need to choose from among us. He submits this matter to the judgment of the majority, and through this he makes those elected venerable, and rejects hostility from others, since such cases always give rise to great evil. And so, that it is necessary to do this (choose), he brings the prophet as a witness; and from which persons it is necessary (to make a choice), he explains this himself, saying: “one of those who were with us all the time.” If he had said: these must be capable people, he would have insulted the others; and now he left the matter to time, saying not simply: “were present,” but: “all the time that the Lord Jesus remained and spoke with us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He ascended from us, He was a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). What is this for? So that the (apostolic) face does not remain incomplete. So what? Couldn’t Peter himself have been chosen? It's very possible. But he does not do this, so as not to seem biased; and on the other hand, he has not yet received the Holy Spirit. “And they appointed two: Joseph, who was called Barsaba, who was called Justus, and Matthias” (Acts 1:23). It was not Peter himself who placed them, but everyone; and he submitted his 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 mentor. "Joseph, called Barsaba, who was called Just." The writer put both names, perhaps because (Joseph) had names of the same name, since there were many names of the same names among the apostles, for example: James Zebedee and James Alphaeus, Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot, Judas Jacob and Judas Iscariot. On the other hand, this name could have been given to him as a result of a change in life, and, perhaps, at his request. “And they appointed two: Joseph, called Barsaba, who was called Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said: Thou, O Lord, knowest the hearts of all, show of these two one whom Thou hast chosen to receive the lot of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas fell away, to go to his own place” (Acts 1:23-25). They properly 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 it from decreasing. “And they cast lots for them,” since the Holy Spirit was not yet with them, “and the lot fell to Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles” (Acts 1:26). “Then,” it is said, “they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olives, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath’s journey away” (Acts 1:12). This is what (the writer) says, wanting to show that they were not taking 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” (Acts 1:13). They did not dare to appear in the city and it was not in vain that they ascended the upper room, but so that it would not be easy to take them by surprise. “They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1:14). Do you see how they were awake, “abiding in prayer,” and, moreover, “abiding with one accord,” as if with one soul? These words contain evidence of both. Joseph may no longer be 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 his brothers also believed. That is why, of course, it is nowhere to be seen that he ever looked at Christ as a (simple) man, while the Mother said: “Your father and I sought You with great sorrow” (Luke 2:48). So he knew Him before everyone else; and Christ said to the brothers: “The world cannot hate, but it hates Me” (John 7:7). Look at the modesty of Jacob: he accepted the bishopric in Jerusalem, and yet in the present case he does not say anything. Note also the deep humility of the other disciples: they yielded the throne to him and no longer argued among themselves, so that that Church was as if in heaven; there was nothing worldly about her; it shone not with walls or marble, but with the jealousy of the faces that composed it. “There was a meeting of about one hundred and twenty people,” it was said, there were them. Including, probably, there were seventy disciples whom Christ Himself chose, as well as others from among the most zealous in faith, for example. Joseph and Matthias; there were also many wives who followed Him and were always together. 3. Such is the thoughtfulness of a mentor! He was the first to appoint a teacher. He didn’t say: “we are enough,” so he was alien to any vanity, and strived only for one goal, although it did not have the same meaning as everyone else. However, this was completely natural due to the virtue of this man, and also because at that time the authorities were not about honor, but about caring for their subordinates. From here it happened that those who were elected were not proud, because they were called upon in danger; and those who were not chosen did not grieve, because they did not consider this a dishonor for themselves. But now this is no longer the case, but quite the opposite. Look: there were one hundred and twenty of them, and out of all this multitude he demands (that they choose) one - and (demands) fairly. He is the first to give orders in this matter, since everything is entrusted to him. After all, Christ said to him: “And you, having once turned, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32). “He was numbered with us,” he says, “; and therefore it is necessary to appoint another to become a witness in the place of Judas. And look how he imitates his Teacher: he argues everywhere on the basis of Scripture and says nothing at all about Christ, which He often predicted. It also does not point to those places of Scripture where the betrayal of Judas is mentioned, for example; “The mouth of the sinner and the lips of the flattering are opened against me” ** (Ps. 109:2); but he cites only the place where his punishment is mentioned, since now only this was useful for them to know. Here again the Lord’s love for mankind is especially evident. “He was numbered with us,” he says, “and received the lot of this ministry.” Everywhere he calls it a lot and thereby shows that everything here is a matter of God’s grace and a matter of election, and at the same time reminds them of ancient times, expressing the idea that God made it His lot just like the Levites. Then, continuing to talk about him, he notes that the reward for his betrayal has become a solemn messenger of his punishment. “But he acquired,” he says, “the land with an unrighteous bribe.” Notice how this event took place according to God’s dispensation. "Unrighteous". There are many lies; but there has never been anything more unrighteous than this untruth; This is primarily an unjust matter. And this became known not only to his contemporaries, but also to everyone who lived after that. The Jews unwittingly, without knowing it, gave the name (to the village), just as Caiaphas predicted without knowing it. God prompted them to call it in Hebrew: Akeldama. From here it was already possible to foresee the disasters that would befall the Jews. It further shows that the prediction has already partially come true, which says: “It would have been better for this man not to have been born” (Matthew 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 like that. Then, to show that (this field) is rightly called Akeldama, he cites the saying of the prophet: “let his court be empty.” And what, in fact, could be more deserted than a village turned into a cemetery? And this village can naturally be called his village. Whoever paid the next price for it should rightly be considered the master of this great desolation, even if others bought it. This desolation, if you look closely into the matter, is already the beginning of the Jewish desolation. It is known that the Jews starved themselves to death 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. “So it is necessary,” he says, “to have one of those who were with us.” Look, he wants these to be obvious witnesses. Although the Holy Spirit had come to them, for all that, extreme care was directed to this matter. “So it is necessary that one of those who were with us,” he says, “all the time that the Lord Jesus stayed and spoke with us.” This shows that they lived with Him, and were not just with Him, like His disciples. Indeed, from the very beginning many followed him. Look how (John) points to this when he says: “one of the two who heard from John about Jesus and followed Him” (John 1:40). “At all times,” he says, “when the Lord Jesus remained and spoke with us, beginning from the baptism of John.” Wonderful; since what happened before this, no one knew about it through teaching, but they learned from the Holy Spirit “until that day,” he says, “in which He ascended from us, and was with us a witness of His resurrection” (Acts 1:22). He did not say: “witness” of the rest, but: “witness” of the “resurrection” alone, because he (the witness) was more reliable who could say that He was resurrected, Who ate, drank, and was crucified. There was no need for a witness either for what happened before, or for what happened after, or for miracles; the question was precisely the resurrection, since this was clearly and recognized by everyone, but the resurrection took place secretly and was known only to them alone. And they do not say: the angels told us, but: we saw. How is this clear? From the fact that we create miracles. Therefore, it was then that they especially should have been reliable. “And they installed,” says (the writer), “two.” Why not more? So as 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 whoever is respected by people is often lesser before God. And everyone prays together in this way: “You, Lord, know the hearts of all, show us” (Acts 1:24). You, they say, not us. It is timely that they call upon the Knower of the Heart: it was necessary for Him to make the election, and not strangers. So they were sure that one certainly had to be chosen. And they did not say: choose; but: “show,” they say, the chosen one, “whom You have chosen,” they knew that with God everything was determined in advance. “Show me of these two one whom You have chosen to receive the lot of this ministry and Apostleship” (Acts 1:24-25) - because there was another ministry. “And they cast lots for them” (Acts 1:26). They did not yet consider themselves worthy of making their own choice; That's why they want to find out through 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 fair decision in relation to Jonah, then it is much more here, where it was necessary to replenish the face, restore the rank (apostolic). And the other (Joseph) was not sad (that he was not chosen): otherwise the apostles would have spoken about it, since they did not hide their shortcomings. Indeed, even about the most supreme apostles, they did not fail to notice that sometimes they were dissatisfied; and this not once, but twice, and even more often. Let us also imitate them. My word does not apply to everyone else, 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 chose. If, despite His election, you dare to be upset, then you are doing the same as Cain. He should have approved (the verdict of God), but because preference was given to his brother’s sacrifice, he was saddened; was indignant when he should have been touched. But, however, this is not what we are talking about, but the fact that God knows how best to arrange things. It often happens that by character, for example, you are more modest, but do not correspond to the goal. Again, your life is impeccable and your character is noble, but this is not only what is needed in the Church. And besides, one is suitable for one, and the other for another. Don't you see how much the Holy Scripture says about this? But I will tell you why this matter has become the subject of harassment: the reason is that we are pursuing it, not as a duty to rule others and take care of our brothers, but as an honor and a peaceful life. And if you knew that a bishop should belong to everyone and bear the burdens of everyone, that others, when they are angry, are forgiven, but never him, that others, if they sin, are willingly forgiven, 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, the judgment of all - both the wise and the foolish; every day, every night he is exhausted with worries; he has many ill-wishers, many envious people. Don’t tell me about those who please in everything, who want to sleep, who go to this work as if they were resting - we are not talking about them, but about those who watch over your souls, who prefer the salvation of their subordinates to their own. Tell me: if one who has ten children who are subordinate to him and always live with him, is forced to constantly take care of them, then what should be the one who has so many persons who are not subordinate to him, who do not live with him, but who freely dispose of themselves? For that, you might say, he enjoys honor. What honor? The very last beggars revile him in the square. So why doesn't he silence them? Fine; but this is not the bishop’s business. And again, do not give everyone, both those who (spend time) in idleness and those who work, thousands of reproaches from all sides; no one is afraid to accuse and slander him. They are afraid to condemn (worldly) leaders; but these (bishops) do not, because the fear of God has no power in such people. What can we say about caring for the word and teaching? About the difficulties with ordinations? Or, perhaps, I am already extremely weak, pitiful and insignificant, or the situation really is as I say. The soul of a priest is no different from a ship tossed by waves; from all sides she is hurt by friends, by enemies, by her own people, by strangers. Doesn't a king rule the whole world, while a bishop rules only one city? But the latter's worries are as much greater as the heaving and raging sea differs from river water, set in motion only by the wind. Why would this be so? Because there are many assistants there, and everything is done according to the law and by decree; but there is nothing like that here, and you cannot order at your own discretion. But if you act strongly, you will be considered 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 affairs themselves are especially difficult here. How many (the bishop) is forced to upset, willingly or unwillingly! As many people are forced to act harshly, whether they wanted it or not! I’m not saying otherwise, but exactly as I think and feel. I don’t think that among the priests there were many who were being saved; on the contrary, there are many more people who perish, and precisely because this work requires a great soul. The bishop has many needs that force him to leave his home; he needs thousands of eyes from all sides. Don't you see how much he needs to have? He must be a teacher, patient, and hold fast to “the word that is true, according to doctrine, so that he may be able to teach in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9). How difficult it is! And then, when others sin, the blame falls on him. Without talking about anything else, I will only say that if only one person departs (from this life) without initiation into the sacraments, will this not overthrow his entire salvation? After all, the death of even one soul constitutes such a loss that no word can express. If her salvation has such a price that the Son of God became a man for this and endured so much, then think what kind of punishment her death will entail! If the one through whom another perishes is worthy of death in this life, then much more is there. Don’t tell me: the presbyter or the deacon sinned; the guilt of all of them falls on the head of those who ordained him. I’ll point out something else: if one of the bad people happens to be accepted into the clergy, there is bewilderment: what decision needs to be made regarding his previous sins? There are two abysses here: he should not be left unpunished, and the rest should not be tempted. So should it be vomited out? But at present there is no reason. Or leave him without punishment? Yes, you will say, because the one who ordained is to blame. So what? Shouldn't we at least ordain him and raise him to another degree? But then it will be clear to everyone that he is some kind of bad person, and, therefore, temptation will arise from here again. Or elevate it to the highest level? But this is much worse. 5. So, if everyone strived for the bishopric, as a duty to take care of others, then no one would soon decide to accept it. Otherwise we chase after it just as much as after worldly positions. Because we are in glory, in order to achieve honor among people, we perish in the eyes of God. And what is the use of honor? How clearly it has been proven that she is nothing! When you strongly desire the priesthood, then contrast Gehenna, contrast the account that needs to be given there, contrast the rest of life, contrast the degree of punishment. If you sin simply as a man, you will not tolerate anything like that; if you sin while being a priest, you are lost. Think how much Moses endured, how much wisdom he taught, how much goodness Moses showed in himself; and, however, for what he did only sin, he suffered severe punishment. And rightly so, because it was associated with harm to others. So, he was punished with particular severity, not only because his sin was obvious, but also because it was the sin of a priest. But we are not subject to the same punishment for open sins and for secret sins. The sin is the same, but the harm from it is not the same, or better said, the sin is not the same, because it is not the same - to sin secretly and unnoticed, and to sin openly. But 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, whether he laughs, whether he wants to rest himself with sleep, there are many mockers, many who are tempted, many legislators, many who remember the former (bishops) and condemn the present; and they do this not because they want to praise those - no, they remember former bishops and presbyters only in order to hurt this one. War is pleasant, they say, for those who have not experienced it. It’s decent to say this now; or better, we say so until we embark on a feat; and as soon as we enter, we are not even known to the people. Now we no longer have a fight against those who oppress the poor; we do not take the trouble to fight for our flock, but, like those shepherds mentioned in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 34:2-3), we only kill and eat. Which of us shows the same concern for the flock of Christ that 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 care. No, everything is completely different now. The heads of districts and local rulers do not enjoy such great honor as the ruler in the Church. Will he enter the royal palace - who will have first place? Whether among women or in noble houses, no one else has greater honor than him. Everything is lost, everything is ruined! I say this not to shame you, but to keep you from this passion. What kind of conscience will you have if you sought (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 rank) involuntarily, under duress, against desire, still has some justification; although he is for the most part denied forgiveness, he still has some apology. Think about what Simon was subjected to? What is the need that you do not give silver, but in exchange for silver, you flatter and use all sorts of intrigues and tricks? “Let your silver perish” (Acts 8:20), he was told; and these people will also be told: let your harassment be with you to destruction, because you decided to acquire the gift of God through human intrigues. But there are no such people? Oh, if only it weren’t! After all, I do not at all want my words to apply to you; and now only in the course of speech I had to say this. Yes, when I speak against covetousness, my words also do not apply to you, or even to any of you. God grant that we prepare medicine in vain. And the desires of doctors are exactly the same: they want nothing else, namely, that, after their considerable work, the medicines should be thrown away for nothing. We also want the same thing, that is, for our words to be spoken simply, out into the air, so that they remain only words. I am ready to endure everything, just not to be forced to talk about it. However, if you like, we will remain silent; just let our silence be safe: I don’t think that anyone, no matter how vain he may be, would want to speak without any need and only to show off. We will leave it to you to teach; teaching by works is the more important teaching. And the best doctors, despite the fact that the illness of the sick brings them income, want their friends to be healthy; I also want you all to be healthy. I don’t want to be praised and you to be judged. I would like, if possible, to show with my very eyes the love that I have for you: then no one would reproach me for anything, even if my word was too harsh. What is said between friends is easily tolerated, even if there is something offensive, because “the reproaches of one who loves are sincere, and the kisses of one who hates deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6). For me there is nothing more expensive than you, not even this light. Thousands of times I would like to lose my sight myself, if only through this it was possible to convert your souls - so your salvation is more pleasant to me than the light itself. And what good is the rays of the sun to me, when grief because of you brings deep darkness to my eyes? Light is good when it appears during joy; and for a sorrowful soul it even seems painful. And that I’m not lying—God forbid that you should ever be convinced of this by experience! But, however, if it happened that one of you sins, come to me sleeping: may I perish if I do not resemble the paralytic, if I do not resemble the frenzied; then, according to the prophet, “the light of my eyes, even that I have not” (Ps. 37:11). What hope is there for you when you are not performing well? And if you deserve praise, what sorrow is possible? I think I'll fly (with 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 close to you, that you are everything to me - father, mother, brothers, and children. So don’t think that I say anything out of hostility towards you; no, (I say) for your correction. “A brother,” says Scripture, “who receives help from a brother is like a strong city” (Prov. 18:19). So, do not neglect my words. After all, I don’t 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 Mentor; but even among brothers it is necessary that one gives orders, and the rest obey. So do not neglect my words, but let us do everything for the glory of God, since to Him be glory 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” Translation by P. Yungerov – Editorial office of “The ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: