Глава IV. Религия

Believers – Beliefs and superstitions – Pagans and Jews – Heretics The society of the 4th century was one of the most deeply divided societies that has ever existed; but one should not think that the countless groups of which it consisted lived separately, without intercourse with each other. Between all of them there were many adjacent boundaries; they touched each other on all sides and entered into communication in very different ways. As between Christians and pagans, so between Christians and Jews, and even between different Christian sects, relations were not always brutally hostile. The heads of the parties, in the heat of some very heated battle, sometimes exchanged services and showed each other mutual respect. In Rome, Symmachus allowed the bishops to recommend some of their favorites, and in need he himself asked for the testimony of Pope Damasus. Ambrose, his opponent during the case of the altar of Victoria, observed a certain moderation of form in his polemics, which were essentially so bitter. In the same way, in Antioch and Constantinople, the rhetoricians Libanius or Themistius did not completely break off relations with the enemies of their cult. It is much more natural in the middle classes or lower strata of society, among those small artisans, small merchants and artisans who usually made up the majority of St. Chrysostom, ordinary everyday needs could cause a lot of compromises: lack of education led to the same result. Already in the era of persecution, when faith was in all its strength, when the majority of Christians who believed in the gospel in full maturity, if they did not always equally well understand the foundations of their faith, then, in any case, were drawn to Christianity with the same strength and sincerity - even then the first teachers of the church - Tertullian and St. Cyprian, - should have inspired many warnings. Need made itself felt stronger already in the 4th century, in cities such as Antioch, where Christianity, having survived several generations, became hereditary and common. The words that Tertullian was so fond of repeating that “Christians are made and not born” were not true here. A Christian was born, and relaxation entered into most families. This is the appearance of St. Chrysostom noted in very precise terms: “the duties of religion have become formalities, performed only out of the habit of conscience. Everything here is nothing more than a skill. Let us then remember what a strange mixture of sects reigned then in these eastern metropolises, how many ideas, coming from the most diverse sources, were wafting there from time immemorial. We have seen that in Antioch the pagans, although less numerous than Christian society taken as a whole, still constituted a significant part of the population. The Jews were also very numerous, and there were a lot of heretics. We are not talking about the schism that divided the faithful into Meletian and Paulinian, since its cause was not a difference in teachings, but a question of personalities. We are not even talking about the Apollinarians, who are generally very close to Orthodoxy. But the Arians, especially those represented by the extreme left party, that is, the Anomean party, still retained their influence. It was also necessary to take into account the Marcionites and Manichaeans, who, although they claimed to be close to Christianity, were in reality completely alien to it 16. 81st letter from Bl. Theodoret shows us what power the Gnostics still had in the Syrian villages in his time. The presence of the same groups was felt in Constantinople. It is only necessary to add here the Novatians, who enjoyed quite a lot of respect, thanks to the popularity of their bishop Sisinnius, a man of a bright and rather free mind, bold in character and a joker, who enjoyed a somewhat exaggerated reputation for a remarkable mind, judging by some of his actions, so condescendingly conveyed by Socrates in his history (VI). It should also be noted that the Arians were more numerous and influential there than in Antioch, and sufficient proof of this is the curious anecdote preserved by the same historian about the processions of the cross, which Chrysostom established in response to the processions organized by the Arians in order to gather in their assemblies outside the city walls, since they were forbidden to do them in the city, and their very churches were handed over to the Orthodox. Now it is easy to understand how many different influences all these so different sects, entirely governed by an active and passionate minority, must have exerted on one another, while in each of them the fickle, indifferent and selfish mass was exposed to all influences, involved in all movements and subject to all kinds of weaknesses. It is difficult to imagine what a significant proportion of Christians then had insufficient knowledge of their religion. Whether because they converted solely out of obedience to official pressure, or because they succumbed to laziness and routine, having been born into Christian families, the faithful had only a superficial and crude understanding of the foundations of their faith and read very little of St. Scripture. For rich and educated people, accustomed to the refined style of the great classical writers, as usual, the disgust that for so long even the bl. himself served as an obstacle. Jerome was inspired by the rudeness of the ancient Jewish genius or the extreme simplicity of the word of the Gospel. And bl. Jerome sufficiently expressed his joy to those who, like Pammachius, were inclined to attentive and systematic reading of the new and old Testaments, or to those who, like the glorious women whom he inclined to asceticism, were engaged in reading the psalms in the original. St. Chrysostom, for his part, ridicules those who kept expensive manuscripts in their libraries without opening them, and cared only about the beauty of the letters or the dignity of the parchment. But only in passing does he throw a few arrows at these maniacs; he turns much more willingly to insignificant people and to the poor. These latter referred to the fact that they have their own craft and their own family and that they do not have enough leisure to read. We have already often seen that the failure to perform certain rituals, however difficult, was justified by citing the fact that these latter were supposedly assigned only to monks; This justification seemed most suitable in the case when it came to evading the reading of St. Scriptures. Under the pretext that the Scriptures are difficult to understand and that time for reflection is necessary for a better understanding of them, they were completely neglected. St. John vehemently condemns this pretext, particularly in his commentary on the fourth Gospel. The Old Testament was especially poorly known, and was regarded with some suspicion by some persons who were more or less influenced by Marcionite teachings. They did not know the number of prophets, the names of Amos, Obadiah, etc. But even the New Testament was known very little. So many did not know the number of letters of St. ap. Paul 17. Historical books, in this age fascinated by theology, were valued much lower than dogmatic books, and this was noticed even in Antioch, where the special school of Diodorus of Tarsus in particular fought against this tendency. Likewise, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, so highly valued by St. Chrysostom and interpreted by him before his Constantinople listeners, was very little known. There, they usually said, there are only details of insignificant facts, and this book was valued almost as little as the letter to Philemon. But St. John, on the contrary - and this constitutes one of his most original features - was very disposed to these historical stories; he regretted that they were not more numerous and accurate, since he would have liked to know hour by hour, apparently, the most unimportant facts from the life of the apostles and especially from the life of the Divine Teacher. Noting the fact that believers read and knew little about St. Scripture, we should not forget one of their most important excuses, namely the high cost of manuscripts. But this justification was still not enough, since the Church took care that the readings of St. The writings in the meetings were frequent and lengthy, and St. Chrysostom says that a believer who regularly attended the meeting listened to almost all of Scripture in a year. But, if they read the sacred books very little, they had great respect for them, of a completely superstitious nature. If sometimes they were going to open them, they carefully washed their hands before taking them; women and children wore small gospels around their necks, like St. John compared it to the phylacteries of the Pharisees. They also placed the gospel on the foreheads of the sick to cure fever. All these customs, although inspired by a sense of piety, according to St. John, did not matter much. What he pleaded for, what he never ceased to preach with his marvelous eloquence, was a thorough knowledge of the inspired Scriptures and meditation on the truths contained therein. “Test the Scriptures,” he repeated with St. evangelist and offered to the surprisingly faithful the pious eunuch of the queen of Candace. He not only demanded that the faithful come to the assembly to listen to the day's readings and listen to the word of the bishop; but he wanted the text that was the basis of the conversation to be read even earlier, and for this purpose he announced it in advance. He wanted that, upon returning home, the father of the family would retell to his household everything that he had best retained from the preacher’s interpretations. Thus, each hearth could become similar to the blessed hearth of Philemon. As can be seen from here, at St. John there were no fearful fears, which sometimes had force in the new discipline of the Church; he was far from prohibiting, or at least not advising, the reading of sacred books for fear of heresy or freethinking; he demanded, on the contrary, that everyone, rich and poor, people of low intelligence and scientists, should try to refresh their spirit and heart at the very source of truth and faith. "Reading St. The Scriptures are the cure for all evils.” – “Far from the sun, the shadow enlarges the body, close to it, it reduces it. Therefore, one must place oneself in the full light of Scripture in order to fully understand the futility of human affairs.” “Scripture prevents the sight of the sensible and gives meaning and vision to the invisible.” It is interesting to note here the difficulty of some of the newest commentators, in view of the precise indications that St. Chrysostom makes regarding this important subject. The historian Selye tries, for example, to change the meaning of the clearest texts, or considers himself almost forced to find a justification for them. But St. Chrysostom did not think that these guilt-diminishing circumstances would be needed, although already in his time St. Scripture, in order to expose the preacher to sophistical objections. We have already had occasion to quote a text from the prophet Haggai, into which an insert was made in order to give it a meaning favorable to wealth. Many more such examples could easily be given. In the same way, at that time there was a lot of talk about the words of Jesus Christ to the cursed fig tree, about the miracle over demons and pigs, and St. Chrysostom defended them not always with equally happy arguments. For example, when they proved that the prophecy about the destruction of the church was not fulfilled, since ruins still remained, he responded that one must have a little patience when, finally, the ruins themselves perish, etc. But in order to convince these tireless talkers, he did not want to resort to timid measures of caution. On the contrary, he saw healing in the abundant outpouring of religious teaching. Christianity of the 4th century was confident in its strength; it had a consciousness of its superiority and was not afraid of the light, but called on it. It itself was light. Advice constantly repeated by St. Chrysostom, in the hope that among Christian families, just as in monastic cells, the custom of reading the Gospel and psalms would appear, however, they had only mediocre success. And he himself was very clearly aware of this. It is clear that his eyes were always open to the results of his own preaching and that, in accordance with this, he directed his tactics. That is why he himself felt that he was being poorly listened to, even during the very interpretation of St. Scriptures from the pulpit. At first, in his first Antiochian homilies, he complained that he had to devote too much time to moral teaching and was forced to neglect theology. Soon he was able to combine both, however, giving the predominance of morality. He achieved this especially by taking the exposition of the sacred books as the subject of his conversations. According to the testimony of Patriarch Photius, he fully explained the Old and New Testaments, and this can be believed, since what has come down to us from his constant interpretation is, in any case, already very significant. Particularly important are the series of conversations in which he explained the book of Genesis, the gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistles of St. Pavel. St. Chrysostom applies here the method of the Antiochian school, which differed significantly from the method of Alexandria, consecrated by Origen. This method, which he learned from Diodorus of Tarsus and which his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia carried out so rigoristically that it was condemned by the Church, is a historical method, the opposite of allegory. In the metropolis, which played such a large role in the era of the origin of Christianity, where even the very name “Christian” was first uttered, the importance of history was always well understood. How touching and at the same time original is St. Chrysostom for his time, when he shows the interest represented by the book of the Acts of the Apostles or unusually vividly feels the artless charm of the Epistle to Philemon! How gifted and truly profound is his explanation, although somewhat bold in its way, when he reveals the circumstances of the Gospel parable, and from an insignificant word, from the slightest detail, restores history, reveals the former life of an episodic person, and from here then extracts all sorts of instructive and touching remarks! This is of a different kind of interest than the incomprehensible secrets of allegory or mystical reflections on the numbers one hundred and sixty! In particular, he has no equal when he applies this interpretation to the Gospel. How deeply he explains the story of the evil rich man and Lazarus, or even better, the healing of the paralytic! This is a completely completed art of a moralist, not exclusively inquisitive, but always practical and, nevertheless, as deep as the purely speculative chroniclers. Now compare with this exegesis the interpretation of Bl. Jerome, who, having settled in Bethlehem and being passionately carried away by all the memories preserved by Palestine, sometimes felt very well the beauties of sacred history. The latter's interpretation is more confusing and less scientific, despite its claims to be scientific. The difference is felt even more when we read published between the works of St. Chrysostom, the speeches of his rival, Severian of Gavalsky, who, however, enjoyed such great oratorical success that he, together with Antiochus of Ascalon, earned money with his eloquence. These speeches are not completely without talent, but how they are cluttered with mystical allegories or extensive scientific explanations that are worth the most insignificant medieval set of words! When following the method of the Syrian school, a rather great difficulty arose: how to explain certain passages, very numerous especially in the Old Testament, which seemed directly offensive to the common sense and even the moral sense of contemporaries? This is what serves to justify the fact that the Church very often recognized the use of allegory as legitimate. St. John sometimes uses allegory in such cases, but very rarely. Usually his theory is much simpler and more reasonable: he admits that God lowers his voice in order to be heard by man, and condescends to him. He refers to this with a term that can be quite accurately translated as condescension. It was this simple and thorough explanation that Villemin meant when he said that “St. Chrysostom explained to St. Scripture with that liveliness of imagination and that allegorical taste that the Orientals like.” Without a doubt, there is some allegory in the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, since he could not completely renounce his time, but, in any case, the essential character of his interpretation is the rejection of allegory as the main method. Only St. John could not withstand this exegesis in principle; he did not create a strict and exclusive system, since he did not have a systematic mind. That is why the suspicion of the Church did not touch him. while Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned 18. It is easy to explain that Christians, so little accustomed to their religion and holy books, as were the majority of the listeners of St. Chrysostom, were susceptible to many superstitious thoughts and customs. But even knowing this in advance, still, when reading St. Chrysostom, one has to be surprised at the power that superstition had over the minds. Before entering into a review of the beliefs or customs that superstition has introduced, it is appropriate to make a distinction between them. To be fair, it must be said that some originated, at least in part, from Christianity itself, where at all times they occupied a prominent place, although in other eras a more enlightened understanding of religion extremely weakened their significance. Others, on the contrary, were of pagan or rather Jewish origin. In the first row of superstitious opinions, common to many, should be placed an exaggerated view of the power of the devil and his interference in human life. The influence of Marcionite and Manichaean teachings greatly contributed to the establishment of this opinion, and this is very clearly seen from the homilies of St. Chrysostom. In fact, while other St. Fathers we find almost nothing except general polemics against heretical teachings, St. Chrysostom, thanks to a lot of details, gives us the opportunity to see the significant influence that heresies have on the Orthodox themselves. He took great care to turn the faithful away from the interpretations that Marcion’s disciples offered on the text of St. Paul: “Our struggle is against flesh and blood,” or to the text of St. Matthew, that you cannot serve two masters - God and mammon. It is easy to see that many of the faithful were inclined to believe with them that the power of the devil is almost equal to the power of the Divine, and were strongly drawn towards dualism. Thus, great misfortunes were easily attributed to these evil forces. Great catastrophes were attributed to them, and during the Antiochian uprising in 387, both pagans and Christians agreed in a common illusion. Livanius just like St. Chrysostom thought that the devil breathed into some unfortunate people the spirit of indignation. This widespread belief sometimes had extraordinary manifestations and was expressed in barbaric magical actions. This was one unparalleled superstition, namely the belief in the transformation into demons of all those who died a violent death. It was said - and this does not seem at all impossible in the customs of the 4th century, although, of course, popular rumor must have exaggerated the number of undoubtedly exceptional facts - that magicians cut up small children in order to then use their souls, which had turned into demons, in their spells. They tried to see proof that they were successful in this in the testimony of the demons themselves, whose voice, through the lips of those seized by a seizure of the possessed, often shouted: “I am the soul of so-and-so!” St. Chrysostom was forced, with the help of texts and reasoning, to prove the absurdity of this prejudice. He does not deny that words of this kind were actually heard; He does not at all deny that they are actually uttered by demons, but he sees here a devilish trick aimed at deceiving and tempting the faithful. He finds out that the souls of the righteous cannot wander here after death. “The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God” (Wisdom 31), and the souls of children are the souls of the righteous, since they are innocent. Among all those celebrated by St. John, there is perhaps no superstition that would give a more unfavorable idea of ​​the coarseness of beliefs and the general weakness of minds in this era. St. Chrysostom believed in the possibility of demonic possession and, like the entire church, he recognized spells and miraculous healings of the possessed. He gave several discourses on this subject. Two of his works are particularly interesting in this regard: a series of discourses on demons and, even more so, the Consolation of Stagirius. Homilies on demons 19 are fundamentally devoted to the teaching of those who, being completely Christian, were influenced by dualistic teachings, in the form of Marcionism and Manichaeism. St. Chrysostom tries to fully define the real role of the demon. Undoubtedly, this latter participates in temptation, but it depends on the person to yield to it or resist. And here St. John had an opportunity to develop, as he often did, his theory of free will. Evil is not inevitable, and Providence does not share the governance of the world with the forces of darkness. A person subject to temptation is free, however, in his own destiny. True, there remains some inaccuracy in the presentation of these ideas, but still in St. John everywhere felt the desire to weaken the role of Satan as much as possible, although the Holy Scripture itself forced him to assimilate a certain meaning to him. Yes, St. John makes it clear that if the devil, in the form of a serpent, inclined Eve to sin, then St. Scripture does not tell us that he "approached Cain and inspired him to kill his brother." However, he feels forced to add a few lines below that we do not know whether he actually breathed some evil thoughts into him. The story of young Stagirius, which we have already mentioned many times, is one of the most interesting and characteristic; it is filled with instructive details about the mores of the time. Born into a high family, Stagirius, against the will of his father and with the complicity of his mother, goes to the monastery. He was a young man of poor health, ill-balanced mind and partly, it seems, a victim of hereditary influences. And so, one day in the desert, where he sought to find peace and had until that time been a completely exemplary monk, he was broken by a cruel attack. While he was standing in prayer with other monks, a seizure threw him to the ground, tormented by writhing in his hands, with wandering eyes, with a mouth full of foam, spewing incoherent words and trembling with his whole body - apparently, all signs of epilepsy. Then a prolonged fainting spell and a terrible loss of strength exhausted him to such an extent that the seizure resumed at night. The patient was seized by hallucinations, and it seemed to him that he was being pursued by a mad boar, all drenched in blood and ready to tear him to pieces. From that time on, Stagirius was no longer cured: he constantly remained a victim of gloomy melancholy, interrupted by the return of the same attacks, and he was incessantly haunted by the tyrannical desire for suicide. In vain did he resort to ordinary healing and turn to a holy man, “who in relation to many others showed the power of his virtue” - the holy man could not do anything for him. He was no happier near the tombs of St. martyrs, although he visited them often, choosing the most famous ones, from whom, as they were assured, the most terrible of all demoniacs calmed down, “those whose fury drove them to devouring human flesh.” It seems that even after the death of St. Chrysostom, Stagirius - if only St. speaks about him. Neil, lived without the slightest relief from his misfortune. A significant part of the treatise addressed to St. Chrysostom to his friend, after he learned of his misfortunes, - (almost the entire second and third book) - are filled with examples of misfortunes even more terrible than his own: some examples - and the majority of them - are borrowed from St. Scriptures, other modern facts, namely, St. John points out the case of certain Demophilus and Aristoxenus, who were stricken with incurable diseases. The rest is full of interesting features. Neither the sacred remains, nor the pious intercession of the hermits could free Stagirius from possession, and St. Chrysostom wants to fight only with the melancholy into which Stagirius has fallen since that time - with those thoughts of indignation and even suicide that so often visit him. In fact, the patient looks at himself as a victim of cruel injustice. How! While he lived in the world, no misfortune struck him, and it was only after he devoted himself to religious life that he was possessed by a demon. What a reward for his sacrifice! Even more, from the lazy and careless person he had been in the monastery at first, he now became an exemplary monk. He takes the severity of fasting to the extreme, taking only a little bread and water for two whole days, and, not content with working courageously all day, he spends the whole night without sleep. And yet, he cannot achieve any relief from his suffering! Instinct, poorly understood, but nevertheless active, inspired some of these complaints: he was surprised that, while he remained incurable, others, stricken with the same suffering, recovered quite quickly. What were these advantages? “These were people who indulged in all the pleasures of the flesh, and integrity of feeling and sound mind returned to them so much that they could marry, have numerous children and enjoy all the pleasures of life, for the evil spirit never took possession of them again.” Stagirius does not realize that healing is hampered precisely by those rigors that are too heavy for a degenerate and nervous temperament, that prosperity and the usual way of social life little by little alleviated the misfortune of others. Dejected by illness, he did not want to see refuge in anything other than death, even if arbitrary. St. Chrysostom doubts true healing no more than he does. In his eyes, Stagirius is on a good road. If he did not find healing, then at least he went far in improving his soul. The advice he offers is well intended, but we cannot, at present, repeat it without making reservations. What is most remarkable and how Chrysostom rises above his time is that he, as in his conversations about demons, tries to give the evil spirit its place. Sometimes he leaves almost nothing to his lot except physical illness. Stagirius himself is responsible for the sadness and melancholy; he himself is the culprit and could have healed them himself. “The demon is not the culprit of this dark sadness, but sadness comes with the help of the devil and inspires you with all these evil thoughts.” “Let Stagirius continue his ascetic deeds, let him work and try to convince himself that he is not an exception and is not the only one exposed to temptation. For this purpose, let him go to look at the prisoners and visit the hospital for the incurable.” Villemin emphatically noted and praised these last two pieces of advice, which are, of course, worth it in themselves. They are inspired by tender feeling and deep intention, but when applied in particular to Stagyrius, it can be argued that they were a mistake. It would have been appropriate for Seneca to give them to Serenius, who, apparently, was sick only in soul and had no need for anything other than properly regulated activity and tranquility. And in fact, Seneca gives him some, although no doubt less exalted, but similar advice. Stagyrius, on the contrary, was an epileptic. The sight of cancer sufferers and lepers could further darken and weaken him. Perhaps Stagirius was more capable of healing his father, whom Stagirius was so afraid of and about whom St. speaks so badly. Chrysostom This father, of course, was a man very little worthy of approval: he abandoned his wife and son to live with a concubine who gave him other children. He retained all the prejudices of a worldly person against monasticism, but this time justice was on the side of these prejudices. One could fear the terrible anger to which he would indulge if he were to learn of the state to which his son had reached. In order to encourage Stagirius, St. Chrysostom was forced to tell him that such a despicable man, instead of being annoyed, would, without a doubt, be delighted to learn that his son, acting against his will, had reached such a misfortune. He would only see deserved punishment here. The same wise caution of St. Chrysostom reveals this when speaking about miracles. He never ceases to teach that miracles are lower than works, and loves to repeat the words of Jesus Christ (Luke 10:20) to the seventy disciples who rejoiced at the power given to them by His name over demons: “Rejoice not in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but in this, that your names are written in heaven.” Love is a true miracle. In one place he even expressed that if we had the love of the apostles Peter and Paul, we would not be inferior to them, although they would have the superiority of working miracles over us. “Tell me, if someone gave you a choice - either to raise the dead in the name of Christ, or to die for His name - which would you prefer? Wouldn't you prefer martyrdom? Meanwhile, the first would be a miracle, and the second a matter. If someone offered you a choice: either turn grass into gold, or trample underfoot all wealth like grass, would you not choose the second advantage? And, of course, you would be right, for the first would, without a doubt, deceive all people. When they would see. that grass turns into gold, they would all want to have the same power, and the love of wealth would only increase. And if, on the contrary, everyone despised gold as straw, then after some time evil would disappear from the world. What truly affirms our life – miracles or good behavior? Of course, the last one!” – Quite often he is inclined to draw an absolute distinction between the era of the emergence of Christianity and the modern one. There was once a need for miracles: but they are no longer necessary now that deeds themselves speak of the truth of faith. From now on he admits only one remaining miracle, superior to all others - the universal spread of Christianity and its final triumph. This, of course, does not mean that he absolutely refuses to allow a miracle in the 4th century - it is clear that he could not help but allow it. He not only believes in the healing of the demoniac from holy relics or through the intercession of ascetics, but also speaks of healings obtained through anointing with consecrated oil taken from the lamps burning in the church. In particular, he refers to the miracles that occurred under Emperor Julian. He often mentions two striking new examples - the supernatural obstacles that prevented the attempt to restore the church and the transfer of the relics of St. Babyla, Daphnian martyr. He also talks about the miraculous circumstances that occurred during the imp. Valens, during the execution of Theodora. He also believes that the spirit of prophecy has not completely disappeared from the Church, but at times still breathes, at least among those great blessed ascetics whose ancestor, St. Anthony was a true prophet who accurately predicted the final defeat of Arianism. Proof of this can be found in the “book containing the story of his life,” i.e., probably, in his biography written by St. Afanasy. In general, St. Chrysostom possessed the true evangelical spirit, the pure tradition of Christ the Savior, believing in a miracle, but not exaggerating its importance, and seeing with regret that so many were impressed only by it. It may be interesting to note that St. Chrysostom does not admit that Jesus Christ performed miracles in His childhood: he understands the danger of allowing those ridiculous childish things that the “gospel of childhood” tells. He also felt how difficult it was, once a miracle was allowed, to distinguish between true miracles and false ones! when all sects immediately bring them to their advantage. And that is why he sometimes said that he would prefer divination to a miracle in the proper sense, because to a certain extent demons can imitate miracles and give their forgeries a deceptive verisimilitude, whereas, when they try to predict, the divinations are refuted by the event. It is with regret that we must place among the manifestations of superstition the customs of traveling, which became common in the 4th century, with regret because there is no more tender feeling than that which attracts us to visit places glorified by the life and death of those at whom we are reverently amazed. But at the same time, this is a feeling that must be skillfully moderated and well directed, otherwise there is no way to avoid deplorable extremes. We have seen how the Antiochian faithful, then under the leadership of St. John, then under the leadership of St. Flavian, crowded into those chapels that surrounded the city. This was an excellent habit, very capable of reviving faith and satisfying the imagination. Later, in Constantinople, St. John often performed amazing processions of the cross, consisting of an enthusiastic crowd, in order to transfer some relics. Even the empress herself was present. Here they sang psalms in Latin, Syriac, Greek and Gothic. It can be said that then one should only praise those who, carried away by the pious feeling that prompted the bl. Jerome stayed to live in Bethlehem and was planning to visit Palestine. It is known in what curious picture the bl. Jerome Jerusalem of the 4th century, crowded with many travelers of all kinds of nationalities and sects. Due to their extreme proximity, the Syrians were especially numerous there, and when St. Chrysostom happens to speak, for example, about the devastated place of Sodom and Gomorrah and describe (as they loved to do at that time) the devastated country on the shores of the Dead Sea - he turns to those of his listeners who visited these countries and refers to their testimony. “The whole world,” he says, “flocks to look at the tomb, where the Divine body is no longer there, goes to visit the places where Jesus Christ was born, was crucified and buried.” An almost equally strong current carried the faithful to Egypt, to the famous deserts where St. Anthony the Great and his successors hermit and monastic life. St. Chrysostom could still call on a fairly large number of his compatriots to testify when he described the miracles of the almost supernatural existence of the great Egyptian monks. It is also interesting to state the fact that Christian Rome attracted everyone to itself with extraordinary power. It is not at all surprising that he called together Westerners from everywhere, and that the Spaniard, like the poet Prudentius, could not contain his enthusiasm, celebrating, together with the Romans, the annual feast of the apostles Peter and Paul 20. What is more remarkable is that until Syria itself, Jerusalem could not completely drown out the desire for Rome. The remoteness, no doubt, prevented most of those who were not called there by their own affairs from coming to Rome. But they ardently regretted this, and St. Chrysostom was the interpreter of these regrets several times. Often, when he speaks about the Apostle Paul (and it is known that the panegyric to the Apostle of Languages ​​is repeated in almost all of his conversations), he glorifies the advantage of the Romans, the owners of the glorious tomb of St. Apostle. When reading it, one involuntarily remembers that hymn in honor of St. Lawrence, which Prudentius wrote before completing the Roman journey, and where he expressed in such beautiful verses the happiness of those who constantly lived near the glorious tombs. Words of St. Chrysostom is no less enthusiastic; the Greek, who was later to find strong support with Pope Innocent, loved Rome with almost the same filial feeling as the Latin. The latter could satisfy his desire; The Greek was consoled by the memory that the Apostle Paul first lived and preached in Antioch itself. But what lowered the price of these travels, in which, however, such a pure and touching faith was revealed, was the eternal and often fruitless (as the history of Stagiria showed us) search for a miraculous healing; it was the same thing, presented everywhere, a spectacle of unfortunate demoniacs. At the same time, from the glorious moment of finding St. Helen of the Cross of the Lord, various sacred remains appeared in many places, many of which were devoid of any plausibility. Is it possible to believe that there were people who saw in Arabia the “dung of Job”, which is mentioned by St. Chrysostom in the 5th conversation to the Antiochians. Is it also plausible that the remains of Noah’s Ark were shown in Armenia? “We would never have come to the end if we wanted to show here all the superstitions that darkened the Christian teaching in the minds of the majority.” But however deplorable this naive trust may be, it can be said that many of these abuses were inevitable. Most of them were tolerated and even shared by the most exalted minds of that time. Most of all, St. insulted and outraged. Chrysostom believed in the stability of pagan and Jewish beliefs in a society that had adopted Christianity, and he strongly hoped for the eradication of this evil. In the constant contact that the faithful had with the Jews and Greeks, then in the ancient traditions, rooted in the very bosom of families belonging to Christianity for several generations, there was an inexhaustible source of this evil, all the more widespread and serious because both Judaism and paganism considered it possible at that time to continue the struggle against Christianity only with the help of superstitions. In one place St. John gives a fairly complete list of most pagan uneradicated customs. These were: belief in omens and predictions, observance of certain days considered unlucky while others were looked upon as happy, and, finally, amulets and magical effects. Regarding the words of the prophet Isaiah, “the land will be filled with their sorceries,” he shows us that beliefs in predictions were extremely numerous. There were Christians to whom one could almost directly ascribe a superstitious character, as Theophrastus described it. Naturally, among the catechumens this evil was most sensitive, and at the end of the second kathytic conversation of St. Chrysostom describes it in great detail. He laughs at those who believe that they are threatened with evil if, when leaving home, they meet a lame or crooked person, and he even points out a much stranger example. Due to some strange superstition, they imagined that if they met an honest girl, then the day would be useless, and vice versa, if they met a harlot, then it would be happy and fruitful. Of all the days of the year, the most dangerous temptations were presented to the faithful on January 1st, the first annual calendar 21. They believed that if they spent the first day of the new year in joy and pleasure, then they could be assured that they would spend the whole year the same way. They began to feast at dawn; “men and women filled glasses and bowls.” The doors of the houses were decorated with garlands and flowers. The preparations in particular were excellent in the square. “Agora looked like a luxurious and magnificently dressed woman who proudly showed off her beautiful jewelry.” All the shops, in fact, put out their best goods, because it was a day of new things. There were public entertainments, dances and shows. In the evening, the brilliantly illuminated city of 22 was full of drunkards singing shameful songs and obscene jokes. St. Chrysostom, in the first days of his sermon, devoted one conversation entirely to exposing these customs, most of which obviously bore traces of their pagan origin. If it seemed implausible that this feast could not be held, then he at least wanted the poor to be invited to them. Thus, as directly as possible, he rejected the prejudice that he intended to eradicate, because the presence of a beggar at the table on the first day of the year (just as at those wedding feasts, regarding which we had already heard the same advice from him) was considered the most bad omen. Amulets sometimes had a Christian character: such were the gospels already mentioned by us, which were usually worn hung around the neck. But others were completely pagan: such were the medals with the image of Alexander the Great, which were credited with enormous power. St. Chrysostom insisted that they be replaced with crosses. Sorcery was in very wide use. Due to the influence that, under the influence of Neoplatonism, they had on the pagans, and on the other hand, due to the fact that among Christians themselves there was a strong disposition to recognize famous miracles even among their opponents - many did not hesitate to resort to sorcerers. They believed in the omnipotence of well-known spells, and women especially often resorted to sorceresses. They begged them in case of infertility, and St. Chrysostom had great difficulty convincing them that prayer was more valid than pagan formulas. Among these sorceresses, some were even Christians and used the name of Jesus Christ in their witchcraft; These he denounced extremely strongly. He speaks only in hints and covertly about some of these kinds of actions used by grandmothers in their difficult obstetric care. However, men, like women, had the same weaknesses; they complained that there were no more miracles; As a result, they invested magic with their confidence, resorted to talismans of all kinds and recognized the effect of formulas, sometimes very strange. Thus, the names of rivers acquired special power. Abuses of this kind were so serious that St. Chrysostom was forced to threaten severe disciplinary measures. “If I find out again that anyone is using talismans or spells, I will not spare him; I told you this and I repeat it again.” They referred to the fact that in the end they always turned to God and asked for His intervention; They were justified by the fact that the old sorceresses who were called upon were Christians. But one must think that this not only did not soften St. Chrysostom, and even especially irritated. “Your customs are pagan,” he repeated, using expressions that gave a completely clear idea of ​​the depth of evil. Persuading the sick to abandon the means in which they had such confidence, he told them that if they resist such a dangerous temptation, they will be fully rewarded, for this resistance is one of the rarest and most praiseworthy: it is so praiseworthy and rare that it will be counted towards them as a merit of martyrdom. “This will bring you the crown of martyrdom!” However, illness was not the only time people succumbed to temptation. In all unforeseen disasters they turned to fortune tellers for advice; The same was done in case of theft. It is very curious that Chrysostom does not deny that sorcerers can give good advice, “for they are inspired by the devil, and the one who armed the thief knows where the thief hides his prey.” But it is preferable to lose your money than to resort to such reprehensible means, and for such prudence the faithful will be rewarded as for giving alms. And immediately this thought of alms, constantly presenting itself to the mind of St. Chrysostom, who always inspired him with some new idea, dictates new sublime advice to him. “You are being robbed, - in this case, not only do not seek to get your money back with the help of these pagan wizards, but do alms with what you have left. Then God will protect you, and from now on you will not be in any danger.” The most absurd, perhaps, were those superstitions whose innocent cause was children. To protect these latter, they resorted to all kinds of talismans. For example, they tied a thread of red yarn onto their hands and acquired a miraculous power that should not have been ascribed to anything other than the cross. There was an even more absurd custom: they carefully collected dirt from the floor of the baths, and the nurses and maids, dipping their finger into it, marked the child’s forehead with it, assuring him that this would protect him from the evil eye, envy and hatred. Whether it was necessary to give him a name, everyone knew what was considered necessary to make a choice. “They lit lamps, each of them was given one of the names about which there were hesitations, they observed which lamp burned longer, and the name given to him became the name of the child; at the same time, from the duration of the experience a prediction about the duration of his life was extracted.” St. Chrysostom took the opportunity to reproach parents on this issue to advise giving their sons and daughters the names of saints and ascetics. He pointed them to the example of the patriarchs, who chose names for their children that contained predictions and mysterious meanings. However, he tells us that this custom was already beginning to be introduced in Antioch, where the deep love, wonder and adoration nourished by the faithful for St. Meletia, often forced the latter to choose the name of their beloved bishop. The latest superstitions that we have just noted seemed childish, more funny than dangerous. But mental skills, culminating in such frequent use of magical actions, could already entail quite serious consequences of a different kind. They led to a complete distortion of the meaning of the most essential Christian rituals. Thus, in the eyes of the majority of the faithful, still completely imbued with idolatrous ideas and pagan feelings and believing in the reality of formulas, prayer seemed in some way a spell, a refrain of a sorceress, powerful according to its inherent power, and not according to the pious intentions of the one praying. Many of the imperfect Christians were ready to prefer the Christian God, as the strongest God, whose hand defeats his enemies. The efforts that St. had to make are truly amazing. Chrysostom throughout his life was against this prejudice, which overthrows all true religion. He knew that the Church was often humiliated by the sacrilegious prayers of people who tried to make Providence a participant in their malice and hatred. There were people who prayed with cruel ardor against their enemies - the pagans, to whom they wanted to prove the ruthless superiority of their faith. “Avenge me, Lord,” they said in the depths of their hearts, “so that they can see that I also have God.” And such cases were frequent. Preaching for the first time about this subject, perhaps St. Chrysostom did not fully suspect how fair the lesson was, since in one speech delivered a little later, he told his listeners: “When I inspired you not to pray against your enemies and proved that to do this means to anger God and go against His laws, for He said: “Pray for your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), - then I saw that many of you beat your chests, wept and raised your hands to heaven, so that ask for forgiveness for what you have done.” In sublime expressions, St. John explains to them the rudeness and absurdity of such superstition. "How! You ask God for forgiveness of your sins and pray that He will be merciless towards the sins of others! What would you say if a person who came to you to ask for mercy, seeing his enemy, at the moment of kneeling before you, stood up and began to beat him? The three youths in the cave did not pray against Nebuchadnezzar, but you say: “Strike my enemy; return to him on his son the evil he did to me.” Don't you recognize your own words here? Are you laughing? you see how funny this outburst of anger seems to you after it has passed.” True, the Church sometimes unintentionally contributed to the establishment of this view when, at the beginning of the century and then in the era of Julian, she called for Divine vengeance on her persecutors and somewhat cruelly rejoiced at their punishment. Those who read Lactantius’s treatise “On the Death of the Persecutors” and saw there the image of the Divine drawn with such passion, presented in the spirit of the Old Testament as jealous and vengeful, then read the criticisms of St. Gregory of Nazianzus on his old fellow student, who became an apostate emperor, - no doubt, they did not leave the reading with a feeling of perfect Christian love. But let's not count St. Chrysostom is responsible for those extremes that neither Lactantius, who is often not a completely authoritative interpreter of the teaching, nor St. avoided. Gregory, whose soul was so ardent and impetuous. But St. Chrysostom, even when he spoke of Julian with the double disgust of a Christian and a citizen of Antioch, was truly an apostle of mercy and love. Astrology has had a great influence on minds. The role that the Magi once played in the gospel story, and the appearance of the star seemed to be a sufficient justification for its adherents. This reference to the story of the Magi, made by some superstitious Christians, was in use much earlier than Chrysostom. They turned to astrologers for advice, and for many, astrological fables took a unique form. There was a belief in the succession of the same celestial rotations, producing a similar series of revolutions on earth. St. John denounced these superstitions with extreme energy, since they presupposed a belief in fatalism, and he, among all St. fathers was a zealous defender of free will and personal responsibility. In Constantinople, a new city, the influence of the Jews was not, generally speaking, very sensitive, although there were quite a significant number of them here. True, St. Chrysostom tells us that some Christians did not stop celebrating the Sabbath with them. But their influence was much more significant in Antioch, where they had an ancient and very populous colony. The believers wavered there between two very rarely compatible feelings: on the one hand, contempt and ardent hatred against the people who were deaf to the voice of the prophets and who shed the blood of the God-Man, and, on the other hand, involuntary respect, an irresistible attraction to the same people, the first custodian of the Holy Spirit. legends and truths. In the city where the gospel was first spread, as soon as it left Jerusalem, the movement of Christianity from Judea was known to everyone, not only as a historical fact reported in books, but through an inexhaustible and living memory. Many secretly respected the Jews and thought that their customs were “honest to this day.” When the time of their holidays arrived, such Christians flocked to the synagogues, and women were in the first rows. Easter especially gave a reason to fall into this sin: Christians could not decide to celebrate it differently than those for whom it was originally established; That’s why they started and stopped fasting together with the Jews. But this meant demeaning church teaching and the recent Nicene decrees. In this case, Christians seemed to be confessing to that tradition from which Christianity had already renounced. Let us add that, according to St. Chrysostom, Jewish holidays were then accompanied by rather seductive amusements. Yes, St. John claims that the Jews indulged in debauchery, replacing fasting with this; They danced like drunks with their bare feet in public places; they called up theatrical personnel, libertines and actresses, and brought them into their synagogues, so that these latter became nothing more than houses of indecency. In addition to the synagogues of Antioch itself, there was a synagogue, perhaps even more often visited, in the suburbs of Daphne 23. The faithful found here the advantage that it was easier for them to remain incognito, deceiving the vigilance of the bishop. At the same time, some of them believed in the obligatory observance of the Sabbath. In case of illness, they also resorted to the magic of the Jews, which enjoyed no less respect than pagan charms. According to the Jews, people who slept the night near the abyss of Matrona received special hope for healing. There was a belief that the oath taken in the synagogue had more power than any other. Against the custom of using an oath, in particular in litigation, as well as against the habit of simple deity, St. Chrysostom went on a real long campaign, in the year 387, that is, in the year of indignation 24. All his conversations end with very heated exhortations on this subject, and here his unusually prudent and skillful tactics are revealed - to fragment his task and expose the vices not all at once, but each one, and not before leaving the subject until he has achieved real progress. Contemporaries of St. Chrysostom not only insulted the Divine name with oaths and deities, but even went to the synagogue to take the oath. Here is one very interesting case. St. Chrysostom once met a man in the city who was dragging a woman into the synagogue by force; this man had a dispute with her and wanted to force her to testify in favor of his cause. The Christian woman protested and refused to take the oath before the Jews; the man, of course, also a Christian, wanted to force her to do this. St. Chrysostom becomes a mediator between them. Without a doubt, more than once in Antioch his beneficial influence was manifested in this way, but he usually does not tell us about this; here, in the interests of his listeners, he goes against his usual modesty. So, he managed to convince this bad Christian with the gospel texts, especially the text from Matt. 5:34 that it is forbidden to swear, and that even less can anyone be forced to swear. But what surprised him most was that the man chose the synagogue for the oath, and he asked the latter about his motives for this. “They assured me,” he answered, that the oath taken in this place was more terrible than all others. At first giving in to indignation, St. Chrysostom ended up finding this extremely funny and crazy and began to laugh. From his such deep amazement it is possible to conclude that such a fact was generally more exceptional than it seems. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that sometimes the Jews, thanks to their cunning and stubbornness, managed to convince ignorant Christians that an older tradition gave them certain advantages; so the Jews “terrified and frightened them, like little children.” In the same year that he undertook his polemic against the Anomeans, St. Chrysostom, with the approach of the Jewish holidays, took a break from this first campaign to begin a series of homilies against the Jews. Having proved, despite the Anomean arrogance, the incomprehensibility of the Divine Being, he took the opportunity to fight, for his part, with Jewish pride and clearly explain to the faithful the difference between the Old and New Testaments. He showed such passion in carrying out this task that it is not unreasonable to take into account the oratorical exaggeration when reading these conversations. St. John is merciless towards his opponents. We have already seen that he accuses them of immorality; He reproaches them no less for their stubbornness, calling them dogs and appending to them the words of St. Matthew. (15:26). The synagogue is nothing more than “a haven for robbers, idlers and even demons.” The souls of the Jews are worse than demons. Once, when he was delivering the fourth conversation, where he discussed the destruction of the church, he spoke for so long and with such animation that he concluded it with a hoarse voice, as we learn about from the introduction to the fifth conversation. To reflect the influence of the Jews on Christians, he gives his typical advice: he wants to convince his listeners that each of them is responsible not only for his own salvation, but also for the salvation of his neighbor. St. Chrysostom has always been an apostle of mutual responsibility. He wanted Christians to watch each other, admonish each other and, strictly observing secrecy, in order to avoid temptation, report the culprit only to the priest and bishop. This advice is constantly repeated in his conversations against the Jews, especially in the first and seventh. St. Chrysostom does not hide, however, that it is quite difficult to exercise this vigilance. Christians went to the synagogue secretly and took precautions so that neither a friend, nor a neighbor, nor a slave could report this matter to the church authorities. Now, these weaknesses and compromises, some of which were so shameful, must have been quite rare, and one cannot think that they were as general as some of the expressions of the speaker and the strength of the tone maintained by him throughout this series of conversations initially allowed us to assume. In the following years, St. Chrysostom, without ever discussing this subject in the same detail, often returned again to the Jewish question, and, although he always confirmed the information given earlier, however, apparently he was no longer so cruel to the unfortunate Jews and recognized some merits in them. He even happened to present them as an example to Christians. Thus, he thoroughly reproached the Jews for purely formal rituals, but admitted that there was still something commendable in their accuracy in observing customs, even if these latter were extremely numerous; further, this precision was very respectable in them and was a contrast to the negligence too often manifested among Christians. (We see this from the conversations at the beginning of the “Acts of the Apostles”, and these last ones after the “Words against the Jews” are the most important for studying the opinion of St. Chrysostom about the Jews. In particular, we should point out the first and fourth conversations, where he explains the tactics of the Apostle Paul in relation to his ancient co-religionists). In essence, what most armed St. Chrysostom’s opposition to the Jews was their tenacity with which they raised objections to Christians, which were not always equally strong, but often presented significant difficulties. Such were their ancient mockery of the crucifixion, of the Blessed Virgin; they outraged St. John was forced to say that the Jews were exposed for the edification of the human race, like “corpses on the gallows.” Unusually proud of their origin, they boasted of their ancestor Abraham, and Christians bowed before their claim, forgetting that the genealogy of Jesus Christ exposed the vanity of all nobility. “And now, as once in ancient times, they are being destroyed by their own intractable pride.” But the Jews were not inclined to give in to despair, and the inhabitants of Antioch clearly saw this under Julian, whose side the Jews energetically took. They then had contact with the Greeks, and, if before that time, St. Chrysostom, they still remain calm, it is only because they are afraid of emperors. What happened later in Constantinople, during the unrest caused by the strife of St. John with Eudoxia - we don’t know, but there were Jews who rejoiced at the return of St. bishop after his first exile. Both Jewish and pagan teachings were in agreement against the belief in the most essential dogma of Christianity - the dogma of the resurrection. Pagan prejudices were particularly active in this sense, although some objections were based on misunderstandings of the Bible. Once, during Paul's sermon in the Areopagus, many, even among the faithful, could not help laughing at the thought that this body, which was apparently being destroyed by fire and worms, would retain its essence intact. The immortality of the soul and the incorruptibility of immaterial existence seemed quite reasonable to almost the whole world, but that the body should come to life, while it was seen to decay, seemed contradictory to experience itself. With complete justice, St. Chrysostom constantly insisted on the need for the resurrection of bodies, and, in the heat of polemics, on the contrary, presented Platonic immortality as ridiculous. To those who doubted even the immortality of the soul - (and it is curious that at that time there were quite a few people who, while admitting the existence of God, denied a future life) - he answered quite easily, pointing out the need for satisfaction to be given to the good after death and retribution to the evil. Regarding this point, there was almost unanimous agreement in all sects, and there were very few dissenters. To those in particular who found it difficult to admit the resurrection of the body, he objected with a classic comparison with a seed: he cited as proof the transformations that the body undergoes already at the change of different ages - he also reminded that creation itself is no less, but even more mysterious. He then looked for evidence in St. Scripture, found the main thing in the resurrection of Christ the Savior, the prototype and symbol of the resurrection of believers, and, going back even to the Old Testament, pointed to the ascension of Enoch and the story of St. Jonah. These stories, contrary to his own custom, explained in a figurative sense, seemed to him very significant. He almost disdained to respond to childish cavils, quite similar to those that Voltaire sometimes too easily came up with, for example, to the hypothesis of a body devoured by animals, fish, etc., which was liked by the crowd, but had no value before reason. He did not take the trouble to answer that this was no more significant than the decay and decomposition of the body from worms. But what especially needed to be insisted on was the dogma of the eternity of torment, which St. John discussed it a lot in order to preserve it in all its integrity. His listeners liked to imagine God as very meek and merciful. We ourselves, they said, are often lenient towards great criminals; how can God be more severe than man? “Why will those who sinned in this short life be punished forever?” But,” objected St. Chrysostom, why is a criminal who commits murder in no more than a minute condemned to the mines for life? Let it be so, - in turn, answered the listeners, who could never be taken by surprise, - our human justice is imperfect. God will not act this way. Then St. John told them: “No, you will not have the right to complain: weren’t you given a warning?” He especially insisted that true justice calls equally for the punishment of the evil, as well as for the reward of the good; if one thing is lacking, there must equally be a deficiency in the other. And who could believe that these monks, whose supernatural feats every person marvels at, would not be rewarded? Pressed against the wall, his objectors dared to admit the impossible dream that was dear to them: “yes, there will be a kingdom of the highest bliss, but there will be no hell. - How! exclaimed St. John, fornicators and adulterers will reign along with the blessed? The Apostle Paul will be with Nero, the devil with Paul!” True, not everyone went so far as to deny the existence of hell; the majority limited themselves to the assertion that Gehenna, about which the bishops talk so much, will not be as terrible as they want to convince them; and they thought that it would be relatively pleasant, and most importantly, temporary. (No doubt many of these opinions were derived more or less directly from the famous ideas of Origen). This St. Chrysostom does not allow this; he even objects to this very vehemently. Others, according to a strange assumption, which is also proof of the crudeness of the beliefs of that time, understood Christianity so lowly that they imagined that the mere name of a Christian would be a sure defense. Yes, there is Gehenna, but only for Jews and Gentiles; Christians, even if they lived badly, have a sure guarantee of being among the chosen ones. Bl. had to fight against this kind of opponents. Augustine. St. could hardly restrain himself. Chrysostom, seeing such cowardly and seductive illusions, seeing so many people demanding benefits from true religion and not wanting to bear its burdens. He courageously proclaimed the doctrine in all its severity, never condoning anything or allowing false softening. He knew, however, how many of his listeners trembled at this very thought of hell, into what languor he plunged them every time he dealt with this terrible subject; knew that they would stop his mouth. “Oh, I know you don’t like to hear me talk about Gehenna!” - and, nevertheless, he continued them without making a concession. But his soul was so loving that he knew how, at least, to condescend with touching sympathy for the weakness of his beloved. How surprising is his next exclamation! “Yes, these thoughts are terrible and torture the heart. Do I not know this in myself, and do I not experience it in the same way as you? My heart is confused and trembling, just like yours, and the more clearly I perceive that Gehenna truly exists, the more I tremble and am tormented by fear! But one must have the courage to talk about this, out of fear that both of them will not fall straight into this so terrible Gehenna.” When a preacher enters into such close unity with his listeners, then these sweet words: “my brothers” are not an empty sound in his mouth. And how rarely, even in the 4th century, did anyone do this with such simplicity, sincerity and with such deep emotional emotion! It was, however, curious to know where this Gehenna was, which, at least occasionally, people liked to think about in order to imagine it, as we have seen, to be partly forgiving and merciful, and at the same time to illuminate the images that the preacher did not hesitate to present: images of a consuming fire, a gnawing worm and eternal darkness. St. Chrysostom, who did not really like idle curiosity, rarely took the trouble to satisfy it. “What is the importance for you,” he said, “to know where Gehenna is? It is enough for you to convince yourself that it exists. However, he tells us that it seemed plausible to many that she would be in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and if he mentions this opinion, it is only to reject it. As for me,” he adds, “I believe that it will be located “outside this whole world,” just as the dungeons and mines where convicts are sent are located far from cities. But instead of looking for the place of Gehenna, or describing the torment in it, he sometimes preferred to depict the spectacle of the final judgment, and thus evoke thoughts that were equally terrifying, but perhaps more effective on a truly Christian conscience. He especially used his favorite comparison: he tried to depict the appearance of the Highest Judge, describing the then, so brilliant, celebrations of the emperor’s entry into large cities, although he immediately declared that the comparison was unsatisfactory, and that no analogy was possible here. Even more often he described the bliss of the righteous, the miracles and splendor of the heavenly city. If his soul was strong enough to threaten when required, then, overflowing with love, it preferred to dwell on comforting visions and inspire words of hope. Then his flock watched with delight the abundant details into which he was fascinated, according to the words of the holy apostle. Paul or St. John the Evangelist, his inexhaustible imagination. Such were the often superstitious views of this strange society, which had not yet completely renounced its pagan and Jewish principles. Ancient Greek and Roman paganism turned out to be quite capable of penetrating all existing religions and quite flexible in order to come to terms with them. Little by little, paganism was cluttered with a mass of strange superstitions, and, despite temporary resistance, it peacefully allowed them into its fold. And many of the Christians, although in their cult they recognized only one God, however, according to the mass of opinions and rituals, they became guilty of naive and often almost unconscious idolatry. Let us now see how St. Chrysostom, so severe in relation to any impure admixture of beliefs, looked at the relations in which the faithful were forced to enter into with pagans and Jews in everyday life. About the Jews, from this point of view. he says very little. Without a doubt, he strongly wished, as much as possible, that all contact with the cursed people would be interrupted. He had a completely reasonable reason for this, that the Jews showed almost no hope of conversion. Examples of conversion to Christ were extremely rare on their part; on the contrary, every day it turned out that with their tenacity, their pride and the charm of antiquity, they had a disastrous influence on the faith of Christians. The best thing to do was to stay away from them. As for the pagans, the Hellenes, as St. always calls them. Chrysostom, - here the situation was different, and in relation to them it was necessary to behave completely differently. About the pagans of St. Chrysostom made rather contradictory judgments. Either, in the fervor of his faith, he treats them with extreme contempt and does not recognize anything good in them, then, yielding to his natural nobility, or perhaps out of a desire to shame Christians, on the contrary, he assimilates very respectable virtues to them. These differences appear both when he talks about ancient paganism and about the great philosophical eras that preceded the triumph of faith, and when, on the contrary, he talks about the last pagans, his contemporaries. He happened to describe in especially harsh terms the terrible state of the world before the advent of Christianity - it was sheer inhumanity and bestiality. Everyone was in an internecine war, fathers killed their children, mothers were no better; there was no natural or written law, and disorder reigned everywhere. Suffice it to recall the classic tragedies of Phaedrus, Oedipus and Orestes. We celebrate this place all the more willingly because the mention of classical poets in St. Chrysostom is very rare; We don’t find their names anywhere in him; he even simply calls Homer himself “the poet of the Greeks.” However, we will also find in him something completely opposite. He says that God, before revelation, was known from nature and conscience, and regarding the verse of the Apostle Paul: “Glory to everyone who does good, to Jew first and to Greek” - he gives complete justice to the virtuous pagans who lived before Jesus Christ. John sometimes expounds a theory that is partly similar to Lessing’s theory of the education of the human race. This theory was his answer to the pagans when the latter asked him why Christ was so slow to come. He explains that the state of the world had to improve progressively. God first gave the Jews Moses, as a teacher of their first childhood, a “grammarist,” so that he could teach them the basics and, as a reward for virtue, promised them temporary benefits, just as they promise sweets to children. First, therefore, it was necessary to prepare the way. This kind of variability can also be seen in his view of philosophers. He is usually very harsh towards them and speaks about them with almost Tertullian arrogance. He loves to compare the great Greek thinkers, Plato or Pythagoras, as well as generals and educated statesmen - Themistocles or Pericles - with the apostles and disciples of Christ the Savior, and to humiliate them before these fishermen. The first philosophers - Thales and others - were absurd materialists. There is almost no one except Plato and Pythagoras who has even a glimmer of truth. But even here they owe to revelation the little that they have that is good, and St. Chrysostom admits that they received this through Egypt, that is, he admits that the particles of truth discovered by them come from Moses. Further, their system, taken as a whole, is replete with errors. With the passionate severity of St. Chrysostom shames Plato for his “Republic”, precisely for his communication with his wives. St. John mocks this, saying that he only managed to sell himself as a slave during his journey to Sicily, while the Apostle Paul converted the entire universe. As for Pythagoras, he accuses him of empty superstitions and, by the way, tells quite funny legends, since he did not always choose his weapon quite successfully against the Hellenes. It is especially strange to see how he, so noble and ready to understand good everywhere and under every form, and, indeed, who has given much evidence of the breadth of his mind, debunks Socrates using very weak methods, contrary to the truth, claims that Socrates drank the infusion of hemlock only out of violence, while the martyrs themselves sought to be executed, and finally proves that death from hemlock is generally pleasant and is nothing more than a dream. Only once does he make an exception for Epictetus, involuntarily expressing a few words of surprise about him. However, when he so accidentally honors the philosopher with condescension, he hastens to immediately add that all his virtues are devalued by vanity. John contrasts the self-confidence that distinguishes these supposed wise men with the pride of their thoughts with the humility of the apostles. He doesn’t want to, as bl. often does. Jerome, to raise these latter to the same height of knowledge and eloquence as the philosophers. This claim was then easily discovered by Christians in their disputes with the pagans, and it happened that skillful and educated pagan objectors quite strongly refuted them. St. Chrysostom was once present at a similar kind of dispute, where the advantage, in his opinion, was not on the side of the Christian. And he advised avoiding this unwise tactic. About modern pagans St. John did not always make the same judgment. At certain moments he never ceases to repeat that there are extremely respectable people among the Hellenes; there, for example, you can see those who despise money, which Christians chase with such insane greed; there are also many people who have more confidence in the word of a Greek than in the word of a Christian. But, on the other hand, it seems to him that, first of all, these virtues are fundamentally spoiled by empty vanity; on the other hand, he often takes back almost entirely everything that has just been said. Then he proclaims that most pagans lead the most disgusting lives, and that if they do not convert, it is only because they do not have the courage to sacrifice their vices. “We hear many pagans often say that if they do not convert to our faith, it is due to the inability to renounce drunkenness and fornication,” and, as if forgetting these often spoken words, he answers those who object that just as there are good Christians, there are also pagans who lead a philosophical life. “It is necessary,” he adds, to be able to speak frankly!” Further St. John proves that even if we admit the existence of such people in paganism, we do not at all honor the latter, because they are good, due to nature or temperament. – Finally, he argues that many show only the appearance of virtue, and when they are not seen, they indulge in all kinds of passions. It is clear that all these words are not free from bias, and even St. Chrysostom makes it clear, interrupting this argument in the middle for fear of being carried away by “unfair cavils 26” and ends by limiting himself to admitting that the virtuous pagan is nothing more than an exception. When he treated paganism with such mercilessness, he seemed to lose sight of the fact that he himself designated the most perfect Christian life, that is, monastic life, with that glorious word “philosophy” - “philosophy”, which, however, did not have Christian origin. It seemed that the moment was already close when the last pagans would disappear, and triumphant Christianity without a rival would dominate everywhere. St. Chrysostom was aware of this quite clearly. Julian's reaction aroused extremely deep fears. It is enough to see with what indignation St. John and especially St. Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of her to make sure that she did not seem to be without any hope of success. But after that, it seemed that everything was over. The last pagans, no doubt, mocked Christians and always had traditional objections in their language: that it is inexplicable why Christ delayed so long to come; that Christianity encourages sin by promising remission of sins 27 or, quite the opposite, that eternity of torment presupposes a cruel Deity. They said that the commandments of the Gospel were never, even during the time of the apostles, carried out literally, and that some of the promises of St. The scriptures were not fulfilled. But their strongest objection was the licentiousness that had entered Christian life, and the temptation of the offensive contrast between teaching and practice. For the purpose of converting them, St. Chrysostom repeated that the faithful should do only one thing: live well. “You reasonably think that if the brothers who share your faith are tempted by your vices, then the infidels are even more so. They find a thousand pretexts to accuse us, seeing how a healthy person, who could earn his own food, asks for alms and needs others. That is why they say that we are abusing our religion and call us sellers of Christ.” Whoever seduces the pagans in this way is responsible for their persistence in error and will suffer punishment for this. Do you know why the pagans refuse to believe us? Because they expect us to prove our faith with deeds, not words, and when they see that we are building magnificent houses, acquiring baths and gardens, buying up fields, they do not want to believe that earthly life is nothing more for us than preparation for eternal life... You are thus betraying the mission given to you by Christ. You are no longer the salt of the earth, and you will be punished for becoming unsalting salt.” A Hellen who lives badly is not as guilty! as a Christian who lives badly, because their religion is entirely perishable, and ours is entirely Divine, worthy of respect even in the eyes of those who refused to recognize it; for if, after reproaching us for our weaknesses, as a severe insult, they throw the word “Christian” in our faces! - this means that they have as high an opinion of our teaching as they despise us ourselves. The Hellenes are not as moved by miracles as by deeds: deceivers were often recognized as miracle workers, but condemnation does not apply to pure life. While the gospel had not yet made any decisive progress, miracles were useful. Now we need to make the Christian life itself seem miraculous. Nothing makes such an impression on the pagans as virtue; nothing offends more than vice. And they are right when they recognize our commands as nonsense, seeing that the stingy preaches against stinginess, and the one who has the behavior of loving his enemies rages against his neighbor like a wild beast. When they see one of us trembling before death, how can they believe in immortality? “It is not enough,” as some dare to argue, “to contrast them with the glorious examples of the first believers. After all, they are watching us. Prove to us, they say, faith through works, and since we are mercilessly at enmity with each other, they call us a plague on the human race. Indeed, according to St. Chrysostom, the pagans are now completely powerless to defend their religion to the same extent as their teaching. They fully admit their inadequacy. “They have long abandoned their beliefs and are surprised at ours.” Transformed paganism, in the form in which it appears among them, is much like Christianity. Everyone believes in the existence of the Supreme God, in the immortality of the soul, in the future judgment. St. Chrysostom subordinates all these beliefs to the influence of Christianity, which he exalts very highly; and he is quite right, since in his time this influence was indeed powerful. In his eyes, the pagans could have only two reasons for persisting in their error: this attraction to vices and the spectacle of the bad example set by Christians. With a view to converting them, he gives excellent advice inspired by love and a deep knowledge of the human heart. He wants the pagans not to be treated harshly. “Do not consider the Hellene pitiful, do not be unfair. Be irreconcilable only in dogma, and if you are asked about this, then bluntly expose all their vile superstition. If you are not called, do not call first. Make friends with the Greek, spare him, and do not offend his prejudices at first. Then, little by little, try to influence him and then perhaps you will achieve his conversion. Although the advice given by St. Chrysostom on the issue of the conversion of the pagans was filled with gentleness, however, he was not truly tolerant in the modern sense of the word. However, he was a man of his time, and shared its ideas, although sometimes he tempered their application with his love. He was full of meekness towards the pagans in particular, and one of the charges brought against him at the Council of Oak was that he had given his protection to some of them against the Christians. But he persecuted them not without cruelty, like a sect. Here, contrary to the tendency that we have stated several times, we must learn that with age and experience his ideas became even less liberal. When he wrote his treatise On the Priesthood, he seemed almost to admit, in principle, perfect tolerance. On the contrary, judging by some evidence during his episcopacy, he even petitioned the state authorities in order to provide support to one Asian bishop who asked for her assistance against the pagans. During his exile we also see that he showed rather little moderation towards the last pagans of Phenicia. Phenicia was one of the strongest fortresses of idolatry, and St. Chrysostom took care of her all the more because she was in the neighborhood of his beloved Syria. He used all means to convert her and then presented a beautiful and touching spectacle. At that moment, when he was waging such a terrible struggle for the sake of his own self-defense, when, it seemed, he should have had neither time nor strength left to think about any other matter, during a long and painful journey into exile, then in Cucuza itself, suffering from a stomach illness caused by the harsh exploits of his youth, depressed by fate on all sides - he consoled himself with the thought that, perhaps, there was no time, thanks to his worries, Phenicia will become Christian. In order to spread the gospel there, a mission was organized, the main seat of which was Antioch. Selfless friend of St. John, the priest Constance, was her soul, and John himself was constantly busy finding helpers for him. But the task was difficult, the resistance was energetic and often even cruel, and St. Chrysostom died before they were finally defeated. According to the general tendency of human nature, St. Chrysostom was even more severe towards heretics than towards Jews or pagans 28 . He treated them in the spirit of the message of St. Paul to Titus: “deny the heretic after the second and third admonition.” In his opinion, heresy always comes from a shameful source, since it always arises from pride and envy. Heresy is not only a delusion, it presupposes a depravity of heart. Analyzing the treatise of St. Chrysostom’s “On Virginity,” we have already seen how he tried to reduce all heretical virtues to zero. Only once did he admit that there were people there who led very holy lives; in general, he considered heretics to be hypocrites. If the Marcionites, Manichaeans, Anomeans and Kavars (and these were the most numerous and dangerous heretics of his time) are meek, it is only because they pretend to be so. These are the people who “with sweet words deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:18). St. Chrysostom, without hesitation, thought that with full right it was possible to direct the intervention of the law against them, and by this he quite clearly shows to what extent the idea of ​​​​tolerance had fallen even among the most liberal people of that time. Then they only thought that heretics should not be subjected to corporal punishment and, in particular, to beat them to death - and this opinion, in essence, remained the opinion of many bishops and teachers of the Church. That is why, for example, the condemnation of Priscillian by Maxim aroused the disapproval of almost the entire Western episcopate. But from here it was still too far to allow the sects to freely discover their cult. People who pursued the idea of ​​greater leniency seemed not even Orthodox and were extremely rare. They relied on two texts from St. Scriptures, primarily on the words of St. Paul: “it is proper for heresies to be,” and then (and especially) to the parable of the tares and wheat. St. Chrysostom in the first text tried to give the word “appropriate” a unique meaning. As for the famous parable, this is how he explained it in a place that deserves to be quoted verbatim. “Be afraid,” says I. Christ, “that the tares and wheat will be uprooted at once. He said this in order to prohibit war and murder; because one should not kill a heretic; to do so would mean to introduce an indelible war into the world... But he does not forbid constraining these same heretics, stopping their mouths, depriving them of freedom to preach, dispersing their meetings. It only prohibits murder." This is how the beautiful words of the prophet were understood then: God does not want the sinner to die, but wants him to turn and live. Let the heretic live, they usually reasoned, but in such a way that his conversion is possible. This toleration, therefore, did not go very far; with such an understanding, it could not even satisfy the purpose for which it was proposed. St. John wanted to avoid strife, but is it enough to avoid it just by not punishing heretics with the death penalty? Isn’t discord also a consequence of those repressive measures that still remain permitted? He saw this clearly in Constantinople, where some of the measures he took caused quite strong disturbances. The Arians, who had reigned for so long as masters and had tainted their reign with extraordinary excesses, were treated harshly from the moment power passed to the thoroughly Orthodox Emperor Theodosius. They were forced to hold their meetings outside the city walls and for this purpose, they gathered in some city squares, from where they came out in procession, singing their hymns. This confused St. Chrysostom, who saw here a kind of challenge and was afraid that the heretics would inevitably carry away some believers. In response to the Aryan processions, he established Orthodox religious processions in the same places and at the same hours, with the singing of psalms and the carrying of silver crosses decorated with wax candles. The task of organizing them was entrusted to the eunuch of the Empress Eudoxia, Brizon, a man very devoted to the archbishop. Brizon walked at the head of religious processions. The meeting of both sides was inevitable, and discord was inevitable. Indeed, a clash soon occurred: both sides exchanged stones. Brizon was wounded, but from that time on Arian processions were banned. Sacraments and rituals: baptism, confession, communion, repentance, fasting, prayer, zeal for the church Although, strictly speaking, we are not writing a study of theology or church history, it is nevertheless necessary to find out how the most significant religious practices were understood at that time. To introduce the correct performance of rituals, consistent in all points with discipline, was indeed a matter of care for the bishops. Sacred ceremonies were powerful means through which they hoped to transform society and stop relaxation, which threatened serious danger. Let us see how successful they were in this, and examine whether the flock, guilty of polluting their beliefs with superstitions of various origins, were also guilty of assimilating a crude meaning to the sacraments and distorting customs. The first and most important of the sacraments, baptism, the door and seal of Christianity, was subjected to the gravest of abuses. Many delayed the acceptance of this sacrament as soon as possible, and, in anticipation of it, spent their lives devoted to all sorts of passions, thinking that all crimes would be blotted out by the renewing sacred rite at the moment of death; and quite often many were waiting for this moment. Throughout the entire expanse of the then Christian world, the complaints of the bishops were identical and unanimous. Bl. Augustine in Africa and St. Chrysostom in Syria and Constantinople, disgraced the behavior of those parents who instilled in their children the intention of postponing baptism “until youth had passed” and themselves set an example for them of such slowness. Let us remember that the predecessor of St. John, Nektarios, was not yet baptized when it was decided to confer the episcopal rank on him. The famous Probus, whom all the bishops praised with praise that was perhaps far from entirely deserved, also did not show any particular haste to accept baptism. The number of catechumens was always extremely large and, to the chagrin of the Church, what should have been only a transitional and preparatory period turned into a lifelong and legal position. Too often one has heard that baptism blots out all sins, and therefore it was considered prudent not to resort too hastily to healing: who knows that during their life they will not commit some great crime for which repentance will not be enough? If you directly and immediately from the sacrament appear before the judgment seat of God, if you die in the white clothes of the person being baptized, then you can be at peace and not be afraid of anything. Thus, until the last moment of life, many were afraid to decide to be baptized; The parents of children who were on their last legs consulted with the doctor about how long it was possible to delay baptism, and called the priest no sooner than the dying man, no longer able to speak, gave a sign with his head that he needed to be able to understand. In relation to baptism they did what is now done in relation to the consecration of oil 29 . St. Chrysostom fought with his usual strength against this evil. “Just as,” he said, “you show less honor to God than to people, you look at the sacrament of baptism with less seriousness than at the base matter of a will. You know well that a will is invalid if it is not drawn up under the proper conditions, if it is not signed by the testator himself, and, moreover, at a time when he was still “alive, in good memory and in good health.” As for baptism, here you are waiting for the doctor to force you, whispering in your ear that it is necessary! If you don’t believe, then why do you come to church, and if you believe, then why do you remain a catechumen? “So you go,” he said with particular force, “just contrary to God’s will, and it turns out as a result of your abuses that the sacrament established for the blotting out of sins serves only to strengthen and aggravate them. St. John also endeavored to present to his hearers arguments which might affect their own interests, and one of them deserves to be noted. “Do not think that someone who dies baptized after a bad life will be equal to someone who lived well. Imagine two soldiers; one thief, another valiant; imagine that the emperor, in his condescension, forgives the first, but the second is so different that he himself, in turn, becomes emperor. Without a doubt, the first will not be punished, but he will have reason to envy the second. Not everyone is equal in the imperial palaces, and the lictor is not on the same level as the prefect. This will definitely be the case in heaven. Without a doubt, there will be many mansions in the Father’s house.” But this did not affect the majority of Antiochians or Constantinople; they thought that the smallest honor and the slightest dignity in the army of heavenly Jerusalem was enough. In the end, it was enough if eternal life was meant, without fear of torment and Gehenna. St. Chrysostom often denounced ambition, but there are people who have no ambition and know how to be content with little even in relation to the other world. On such too moderate people, St. John could not make an impact. But as soon as a catastrophe, or the threat of a catastrophe, struck these fickle minds, as soon as some sudden blow suddenly led them to the thought of an unforeseen and always inevitable death, the people, no longer deluded by sophisms, crowded into the baptistery, and everyone seemed repentant and changed. The spectacle of these great general uplifts of spirit was presented every time the scourge of the East, so frequent in the 4th century, made itself felt, that is, when an earthquake occurred. One example remained forever in the memory of everyone: this terrible earthquake, which almost completely destroyed Nicomedia, after which this majestic metropolis no longer rose. Antioch, which was later destined to be almost destroyed by a similar earthquake, in the era of St. Chrysostom was not subjected to such terrible devastation. But less significant vibrations of the earth often disturbed her and even more often threatened her; Likewise, Constantinople did not get rid of them. And each time, the same scenes of horror, loss and too short-lived repentance were renewed. So in the year 400, when St. Chrysostom explained the “Acts of the Apostles” to his listeners; he mentioned the earthquake that marked the previous year. “Didn’t everyone rush to baptism then? Does this mean that all adulterers, all debauchees and unknown people have renounced their vices and, apparently, have become more pious than everyone else? Three days later everything was forgotten. The people ceased to fear the wrath of God, who showed condescension; the vices again gained their power, and those who, apparently, decided to put on the white robe of the baptized, again endangered their great decision. All this; however, on the other hand, it also found its justification, and if baptism was slowed down in this way, if; Apparently, they fled this mysterious renewal, which should be the subject of the most ardent desire of every Christian - this was not done exclusively for those only too little respectable motives that we have just indicated. This was done partly because there was a more serious and reverent view of repentance than now. Of course, this was no longer the case at the time when repentance began to be applied in all its strength. Therefore, we should not talk here only about relaxation. It must also be said that the Church, going out on the road of indulgences and concessions, only adhered to the only reasonable side. A society consisting exclusively of saints, striving to drive out all the lost sheep, such as was imagined by irreconcilable sects such as, for example, the Novatian sect, was even more obvious in the 4th century than in the 3rd - one of the most impossible dreams. In Syria, as in Rome, the bishops were inclined to be lenient. The second book of the Apostolic Constitutions proves this as well as the conversations of St. Chrysostom. In these latter, for example, there is never any talk of three or four successive degrees of repentance, the strict application of which presupposed a very exacting discipline. It is possible to believe that, except in exceptional cases, the perpetrators quite easily achieved communion with the Church. Despite this, it seems that the ancient severity was not completely forgotten: how else to explain such a widespread custom of baptism as a last resort, in extremis, except by the fact that the memory of the severity of repentance was still alive and that even the practice itself was to some extent preserved. Not only did the trials imposed on penitents become shorter and less terrible, but the very confession of sin no longer seemed so terrible. Throughout the East, more and more attention was being given to ensuring that grave sins did not receive public disclosure. In Constantinople, Archbishop Nektarios, this cautious man, the enemy of any rude detection, took advantage of the temptation that occurred one day in order to abolish in the year 390 the position of the priest specially appointed to receive confessions 30. His example was followed with the readiness that always appears when it comes to any relaxation in discipline. There have been attempts to think that St. Chrysostom opposed this, but this opinion is wrong. St. Chrysostom was constantly haunted by the decline of morals, even more than the decline of discipline. Without a doubt, no one expressed greater praise for repentance than he: he praises it even when he explains biblical examples and contrasts the unrepentance of Cain with the repentant confession of Lamech; and then, when he condemns the cowardly pickiness of those who wanted to pass in silence the errors of David, and shows them that this would mean destroying his amazing repentance. 31 But, as an insightful psychologist, as an excellent moralist, St. John showed the great difficulties of public repentance. In essence, he thought that the latter was not a completely evangelical custom, for it results in an inevitable temptation, of which Jesus Christ is the irreconcilable and obvious enemy. Without a doubt, it is a wonderful example of the victory over human respect and has a great impact on the community of the faithful. But let's think about the future and weigh what its consequences will be for the repentant one? Not only will he find himself an outcast from society, but also, feeling despised and rejected, he will be unable to work on his own restoration. His example might save one of his brothers, but he himself would run the risk of being lost forever. “You know what bitter torment we experience when our sins are announced, and what strength of soul is needed for a person who is accused by everyone and has so many witnesses to his crimes, so as not to fall completely.” St. Chrysostom brings great caution to the matter of repentance. He was always very prudent and cautious, despite his ardent soul, and passionately wanted everyone to watch over their neighbor, as necessary, reporting the guilty to the priest, but on the condition that all this was done privately and secretly, according to the excellent Gospel saying. He loves to repeat to believers that what he requires of them is not too difficult - it is only necessary that they confess their sin before the priest, the servant of God, the witness whose lips are closed. Often even he goes further and tells them that they need to confess to God alone. These passages have been frequently quoted by Protestant critics, and some of them, indeed, seem quite characteristic. So, the practice of repentance was going through something of a crisis at that time, and it remains obvious that St. Chrysostom followed the general tendency of his age towards a very sensitive softening of the ancient discipline. However, as in everything else, he was never an apostle of the letter, but always an apostle of the spirit; rituals and formality always seemed to him less important than repentance and conversion. In his opinion, true repentance consists in a fiery search for virtues opposite to former vices. If you kidnapped, give alms; committed adultery, abstain on certain days from legal intercourse with your wife. St. Chrysostom is one of the saints. fathers who glorified the Eucharist in the highest degree of majesty, and Bossuet was quite right in expressing this thought. Believe, he said, that at the moment of the consecration of bread and wine, heaven opens and angels descend from it. And the legend says that he actually saw how they surrounded the altar. That is why he tried so hard to impress upon his listeners how perfect the purity of the soul must be for someone who wants to be a communicant of the holy sacraments: it must be purer than the holy of holies of the Jewish church. St. John also uses another comparison, which can have a strong effect on listeners who passionately loved public games. He mentions that, at the Olympic Games, the herald, having announced the names of the competitors, asks the spectators if anyone has anything to say against them. When approaching the sacred meal, one must be much more impeccable. But he complains that great abuses have taken place in this regard. Then routine and formalism permeated everywhere, and the sacrament of communion suffered from this as much as the sacrament of baptism. Thus, it was considered obligatory to take communion on Easter, and if one had to miss the great holiday without communion, then the faithful experienced the greatest and very superstitious fear. Meanwhile, they took communion without caring about the appropriate state of mind. “People contaminated with thousands of vices become communicants of the holy mysteries!” The priests cannot know all these blasphemers, but let these latter not forget that God sees them and often punishes them, striking them with illnesses and sudden disasters. St. Chrysostom betrays such to Satan, as the apostle did. Paul with the Corinthian incest. But, except for the days of Easter, they did not receive communion at all. In this era, the question of frequent communion was already raised, and St. Chrysostom gives this often controversial issue the most reasonable solution. The main thing is to have a pure soul. If the soul is pure, let them take communion as often as they want; if not, let them not receive communion even on Easter. And he tries to show that from this point of view, Easter is exactly the same holiday as all the others, and that it has no advantage at all over Pentecost, Saturday, Sunday and annual holidays in honor of the martyrs. Without a doubt, there were persons who often received communion, but the majority fully deserved the reproaches of St. Chrysostom. Sometimes they put forward against him the strange argument that the anchorites, in their solitude, do not receive communion even once a year, being removed from any priest or bishop. One of the most important customs was fasting. We have already seen that fasting gave rise to one great abuse, due to the confusion of Jewish fasting with Christian fasting, but this was not the only abuse. Fasting, like other customs, and perhaps even more than others, was given its own independent inner strength. It was seen as sufficient atonement for sins, even if it was not accompanied by any moral progress. And, setting out to assimilate its excessive meaning and magical power, they lost sight of the real foundations of its usefulness. St. Chrysostom often repeated the panegyric of Lent and offered his listeners, on the one hand, the example of the Ninevites, so often praised in Christian literature of the 4th century, and on the other, the example of Jesus Christ in the desert. He loved the sacred period of Pentecost with a very special love, especially because it was primarily the period of preaching, the period when he ascended to the pulpit almost every day, and the church was filled with a crowd, more numerous and more piously disposed than usual. He is filled with joy, and this joy is expressed in beautiful poetic images when he announces the arrival of this immaterial spring of souls 32 and expresses touching regret when he sees its end. He gave an excellent image of the self-gathering of the Antiochians during Pentecost; He called on the faithful, when it came, to remember for a long time the abstinence from vices that it entails, and to cry about its end as they cry about the departure of a beloved guest. He wanted to give a lofty idea of ​​abstinence and to suggest that fasting has one meaning, outside of which it is absolutely powerless: fasting should serve to curb the flesh and result in the correction of vices and moral improvement. Without this it is invalid. One should not think that fasting alone, without good deeds, can provide salvation. With that wonderful freedom of mind that constitutes his peculiarity, with that broad understanding of St. Gospel, with which he knew how to explain the deepest and truly moral meaning of the instructions, without fear of temptation, St. John decides to present the image of the true Jesus Christ, always alien to arrogant virtue and never a formalist. He recalls that His opponents, the Pharisees, reproached Him for eating and drinking wine, as well as for communicating with tax collectors and sinners. “Behold a man of poison and drink!” Opponents went so far as to accuse St. John even in contempt and abolition of fasting. “No, I don’t blaspheme him,” he answered, “I’m far from it, I value him highly, but I grieve seeing you neglecting all other commands and thinking that fasting alone is enough to achieve salvation, while in the host of virtues it occupies only the last place.” His indignation and hatred were especially aroused by those who, truly being Pharisees, not only exaggerated the effectiveness of fasting, but also showed vanity while performing it. To teach them, he energetically interpreted a verse from St. Matthew: “Whenever you fast, do not wake up lamenting like a hypocrite.” But one should not think that everyone observed the fast in the same way in order to gain salvation and acquire a reputation for holiness. First of all, there were real hypocrites who secretly used the most sophisticated table. If this came to the attention of the priest, the latter would address them with hot reproaches, but they already had an excuse ready: “I,” they said, “don’t want to seduce anyone, and my too weak health does not allow me to fast. I pretend to be in the spirit of piety.” Many others, more sincere, did not even consider it necessary to pretend. For such, the approach of Pentecost was a terror, and as soon as they finished the Pentecost of one year, they were already afraid of its approach the following year. With obscene joy they welcomed the end of the Easter fast and immediately gave feasts where they shamelessly made up for recent deprivations. Often, however, during the forty holy days, they did not observe discipline, and St. Chrysostom easily recognized this, since superstitious fear forced such persons to stay away from the church when they stopped fasting. Without seeing them during the conversation, St. Chrysostom knew what this meant, and, having almost no hope of getting them to observe perfect abstinence, he found it best to show himself to them generous and tolerant: come now, he told them, and do not let one sin serve as a reason for another. Before these bad fasters, he praised the power of fasting, just as he tried to belittle its importance before superstitious people. He presented it as an excellent cure against devilish attacks, although at least the unfortunate Stagirius could doubt the power of this medicine. St. John also reminded that great examples of fasting came from above, that now even the emperor himself observed it. Finally, his instructions were extremely moderate: he fully allowed the excuse of poor health, and with that prudent prudence that has become the rule in the Church, he allowed in this case to replace fasting with alms, zeal for preaching, reconciliation with one’s enemies, in a word, good deeds. “Yes,” he says, and these words summarize his entire theory of fasting, “since the main goal of fasting is the taming of passions, then what importance is it that you take a different path to achieve the same goal!” As with fasting, we have already shown some very criminal superstitions that prayer gave rise to. St. Chrysostom, who had the most sublime idea of ​​prayer, and in this case, as in all other church customs, was afraid mainly that prayer would not be given a power independent of the mood of the person praying. He was forced to remind the majority of his faithful that prayer has power only when it comes from a right and pure heart; you must first of all fulfill your duty and do good deeds: “a pure soul and the discovery of good deeds” - this is true prayer. Fearing the extremes of ritualism, he even says that, in essence, prayer serves more to elevate the soul than to gain favor. If you forget this, if you behave badly, he says, explaining the words of St. Isaiah, then I will turn my eyes away from you. With the lively imagination characteristic of a Greek and an Oriental, plastic and at times almost Homeric, he makes a witty comparison in order to show that not all prayers have the same success. There are different types of kivar players: some are booed, others are applauded. In exactly the same way, the prayers of virtuous Christians are heard, the prayers of sinners are rejected by Divine attention. Instructions of St. Chrysostom seems very strict regarding prayer at first glance: he not only wants the prayer to be pure and ardent, but also demands that it be repeated very often. One should pray before dinner, after it, and at certain hours established by the Church. Since prayer is the only strong means of preserving oneself from temptation, and these latter present themselves every minute, then prayer, in turn, must be continuous. But there was no shortage of objections from the listeners; in particular, they resorted to one thing that has already been noted so often by us that one should supposedly posit a difference between monastic and secular life. How can a person with a family and business pray three times a day? St. Chrysostom responds to this in such a way that his demands, which were indeed very difficult to implement when taken literally, became quite easily fulfilled. There is no need to go to church and, in the strict sense, to pray; Inner and short, but fervent prayer is enough and there is no need at all to move your lips and raise your hands. Especially intensely St. Chrysostom insists that night prayers should be added to daytime prayers. He loves to explain Psalm 118 and repeat the words of the psalmist, “I arose at midnight.” Fully aware that performing such a prayer is one of the most difficult customs to observe, he tries to convince the faithful with a magnificent description of the night sky, luminous and serene, the contemplation of which elevates and purifies the soul. No matter how few in number there were those who could be moved by this poetic eloquence, however, according to Tilmon, it seems quite surprising even if there were at least a few of them. “This custom,” he says, “is so far from our inertia that we can hardly understand how it could be seriously proposed to the public consciousness.” The belief in the almost magical effect of prayer was so strong that the one praying was very likely to feel annoyed when he saw that his prayer was not heard. Unholy despair stood in touch with too superstitious hope. St. Chrysostom loved to point out the only healing remedy - patience, trying to justify it with a biblical example. Isaac's twenty years of prayer are often mentioned in his exhortations, and indeed it would be difficult to find a better example. It was also appropriate to repeat that if a prayer was not heard, it was undoubtedly because it was performed without the proper disposition. “One must ask only for what God can agree to, and one must ask with zeal and faith 33.” Then, according to St. Chrysostom can be sure of satisfaction. Prayer must necessarily be modest and free from vanity. Despite the gospel curse, the Pharisees left numerous and incorrigible offspring. A hypocrite, or at least a saint, prone to harsh external revelations, was often encountered in Constantinople and Antioch. “Lock yourself in your room,” said Chrysostom, and pray behind closed doors.” But then, they objected to him, there is no need to go to church. “Don’t take this literally, you just need to avoid making yourself the subject of attention. Equally guilty is the one who, out of desire for vanity, locks himself in his house.” With such a remark he clearly shows us that this last type of vanity was far from unknown. “There are also those who, hiding, force attention to themselves, raising their voices, shouting like jesters, and with their whole appearance revealing a claim to ridiculous piety.” Until now we have talked only about personal and private prayer, but St. Chrysostom recognizes no less importance for public prayer. She, he says, has special power and is more faithful to action. This explains the concern with which St. ap. Paul asked for prayers for himself. God is like a king who refuses mercy to the condemned when one petitioner intercedes for him, and sometimes condescends to the prayers of an entire city. This is why the people are always united with the prayers said by the priest and are invited to take part in them. What does St. especially struggle with? John, calling for common prayer, strives to place the burden of it on one priest. The priest prayed, many thought, and isn’t that enough to satisfy God? But St. Chrysostom reminded them that the Church is nothing more than one body, and that absolutely all the faithful must take part in the expression of gratitude or prayers offered by it to God 34. A private form of public prayer, which was especially extolled by St. John, there was the singing of psalms. St. Chrysostom is one of those who most contributed to the introduction of the correct use of them, first with advice and preaching in Antioch, and then (and even more) with actual measures that he could take in Constantinople, thanks to his episcopal authority. In his explanation of the 41st Psalm, he defined in beautiful terms the origin and benefit of the psalms. “Seeing the hardness of man’s heart and his laziness, God wanted to mix the charm of singing into the prophecy, for nothing so elevates the soul, inspires it, distracts it from the earth, frees it from the body, nothing gives it such an opportunity to philosophize and laugh at all this carnal life, like singing and measured Divine melody.” Note the influence of singing on children, workers, shipbuilders and spinners. “Since our soul has an innate and very strong disposition to enjoy this kind of pleasure, so that demons would not corrupt it by introducing voluptuous songs, God invented psalms. One must teach one's wife and children to sing these sacred songs when they are spinning or working, or starting or finishing dinner. Let them imitate the ap. Paul and Silas in prison (Acts 16:25). A psalm is a fragrant sponge with which the table is cleansed.” At the same time, he advises internal psalmody, in the field, in the workshop and in the courtroom. Without a doubt, people of low rank and the poor do not understand all the psalms. But at least let them memorize the choruses in church: this will be a means for them to replace the books they cannot get. It can be said that in this so complete and interesting passage, St. Chrysostom not only explains the benefits of singing psalms, but also that he secretly develops the very theory of Christian poetry, as it was realized in the 4th century and as it is presented by St. Ambrose, Prudence or St. Gregory of Nazianzus. All the reasons that he gives in favor of the psalms show at the same time the usefulness and necessity of modern religious poetry; prove that this poetry was not at all a matter of art, but had deep roots in the needs of Christian society. St. Chrysostom mentions Psalm 140 as one of his most beloved and famous. “Everyone knows it by heart and sings it at any age, but usually they do not quite clearly understand its meaning.” This psalm was chosen for evening prayer, and, indeed, it was repeated every evening in Antioch. That's why St. Chrysostom explains it with special care and in absolutely exceptional detail. On the contrary, we have lost his interpretation of Psalm 63, which was read in the morning. Apart from these psalms designated for special use, all the others were rather little known; The usual excuse was that knowledge of them was the business of monks. In Constantinople, as it is said, St. Chrysostom tried to make the singing of psalms regular and obligatory. We have already seen that he decided to sing them in those religious processions that took place during the transfer of relics, as well as in the processions established by him to counter the Arians. With this intention, he also gathered at night all those whose work prevented them from praying during the day. These night services even became one of the main reasons for the hatred that his episcopal rule aroused in the Byzantine clergy. The dissolute priests did not forgive him for so unceremoniously disturbing their sleep. At this time, he again amazingly analyzed the moral effect of the psalms, which he tried to spread with such fervor. “The Prophet speaks, and we answer him, singing together. There is no longer any difference between slave and free, between rich and poor, prince and subordinate! The inequality of positions is destroyed, one choir is formed from all, and the earth imitates the sky.” But, as always, St. Chrysostom had to work hard to convince him of this. General prayer required zeal for the church and attention, and then the flock was far from possessing both qualities perfectly. Usually those present were not very numerous and, what is remarkable, for the most part they were people of low position. The rich went only occasionally and, if they decided to do so, they felt proud, as if they were showing God great honor. Masses of people gathered only on the occasion of major holidays, at the onset of Easter or Pentecost. In these days, custom and habit attracted everyone to church, but there was not a trace of true piety in this - “this is a matter of habit, not piety.” In addition, the suddenness of one of those great catastrophes, during which the catechumens rushed en masse to the baptistery, called an unexpected stream of careless people to the church. This happened after the earthquake that shook Antioch, when St. Chrysostom preached his beautiful homilies about Lazarus. The indignation, during which we, in a number of his conversations, almost day after day, can trace the mood of the nervous and changeable crowd, also offers a very characteristic example. In a word, we see that the church becomes full or empty, and the congregation becomes more numerous or deserted, depending on whether the community is depressed by despair, or whether hope begins to be revived in it. On those holidays, when the crowd, following custom and habit, flooded the basilicas, it was especially difficult to capture their attention. But even in ordinary times, with a small number of selected listeners, it was impossible to always use it completely. The bishop often had occasion to be dissatisfied; and then, when he pronounced, apparently, too long a teaching - no matter how great the love for eloquent words was at that time - and then, when prayer and service were performed. The position of deacon, obliged to go around the close ranks and monitor order, was not only a sinecure. One could exclaim in a loud voice the sacred cry of “Let’s get up!” as much as one wanted, but the confusion and distraction did not stop. Those present talked incessantly, even during the most solemn moments of the ceremony. “What a shame! - said St. Chrysostom, when you are present at the reading of a government charter, you do not dare to whisper a word or make the slightest movement: you know that for the most insignificant imprudence you will be accused of lese majeste. But you are not afraid of being subjected to a worse crime and falling into a graver danger by neglecting respect for the Divine word.” The church became a meeting place, like all those places that the ancient cities offered in great abundance to the idle people, accustomed to living outside the home and little sensitive to the quiet joys of the home. They went to church in the same way as they went to the square, or stopped at the shops of doctors and barbers, where incessant gatherings took place. Those who entered the church went directly to their relatives and friends in order to find out news from them. They did not forget their business here, they made appointments with those with whom they were going to conclude a trade deal, and discussed the conditions. In very hot weather it was possible to hide here more comfortably than in the square. News hunters, very numerous in these eastern cities, where people are so curious and so susceptible to all kinds of gossip, vied with each other to tell political news and rumors coming from the court. Once upon a time, wrote St. John, thinking about that house of Philemon, which he so often cited as an example - the houses were churches; now, alas! - churches have become houses and even worse than houses: there you can hear the noise and bustle of a tavern. Naturally, the most talkative of all were the women, ready to laugh at the slightest pretext. St. Chrysostom called them to duty with the words of the Apostle: “let the wife learn in silence.” But men, like women, without respect for the sanctity of the place, jostled in order to take the first places and better hear the preacher’s apparently somewhat weak voice. This led to seductive quarrels that occurred even during the distribution of the Eucharist. How far all this was from the time when, at the moment of the sermon, St. Paul in a modest upper room (coenaculum) on the very top floor of the house - the fall of Eutyches, one of the listeners sitting on the windowsill, did not interrupt the meeting, and St. Paul continued to expound the divine word! Those standing nearby in the church quarreled with each other, and the constant intervention of the deacon was needed to establish peace and order between these adult children. Everything was a pretext for the most empty absent-mindedness. Once, for example, St. Chrysostom sees that everyone’s eyes have turned away from him; he hears a slight chatter going on in the assembly, an infallible indicator of inattention, and sees that everyone's eyes are watching with curiosity some unexpected spectacle. The reason was that at this time the lamps were lit. And in order to again attract the scattered minds, the speaker had to raise his tone and, in a sudden burst of improvisation, use one of those similes that so delighted the imagination of the Syrians. “After all, I also light lamps, and I arouse sparks of truth in you...!” etc. There have been worse abuses than this childish absent-mindedness. It is known that pagan temples sometimes became rendezvous places for lovers, and that in Rome some scandalous anecdotes were told in which the clergyman, and sometimes even the priest, partly played the role of procurer. In particular, the churches of Isis enjoyed a rather bad reputation. Christian bishops and priests were never guilty of such obscenities, but they soon noticed that the morals that disgraced the pagan temples sought, although in a softened form, to penetrate into Christian churches. If now intrigues were no longer unraveled here, as under the benevolent gaze of Isis, then sometimes their beginnings took place here. The women who came to the meeting competed in coquetry, dressed in their best clothes and richest jewelry, being filled with an ambitious desire to outshine each other. The men looked for adventures here, took measures for this, and in the middle of the church they used all the tricks that, thanks to the experienced tactics once recommended by Ovid, they had for the theater and circus. St. Chrysostom even dares to say that “if someone wants to captivate a woman, then no place seems more suitable for this than the basilica.” But, of course, the Church took its own precautions. In the 4th century basilica a special place was reserved for each class that made up the community of believers. Catechumens and penitents did not mix with those who had already received baptism and took part in St. Eucharist. Each floor stood separately. In the churches of Antioch, a wooden partition separated half the women from half the men. St. Chrysostom found this precaution too insufficient and at the same time regretted its necessity. “A wall would be needed between you and the women, but since you don’t want a wall, our fathers at least built this partition. For I heard from old people that in the beginning it did not exist. Then they knew that in Christ Jesus there is no more difference of sex (Gal. 3:28), and in the time of the apostles men and women stood together.” Now, he adds, women have become like harlots, and men have become like wild horses. In Constantinople, better precautions were taken than in Syria: here women were in the choir; such, at least, was the location of the famous Church of Anastasia or the Resurrection, so dear to St. Gregory of Nazianzus and the no less beloved St. Chrysostom. Finally, the people showed too much haste in leaving the church and sought to quickly shake off the compulsion that first the sermon, and then the service, which at that time was indeed quite long, imposed on them. As for the sermon, St. Chrysostom, although not without resistance, still made some concessions here, namely, he allowed those who found it too long to leave when they felt tired. But he forbade leaving before the prayers ended. There were some prayers that the priest said almost alone, since no one considered it necessary to be present. Meanwhile, St. Chrysostom not only wanted to keep the faithful until the priest finished them completely, but he wanted even more, namely, for the flock to remain in the church for some time after the service, for the purpose of concentration and reflection. St. Chrysostom, without a doubt, struggled with a more serious evil than lack of zeal for the church or inattention and lack of respect for the holy place. He, of course, was perfectly aware of what he was doing, constantly renewing the strongest reproaches on this matter. Without zeal for the church, and in particular for teaching, it was almost impossible to hope for the improvement of a very ignorant crowd, which had to be subjected to incessant teaching, severe vigilance and discipline, in order to have any hope of eradicating its passions. Chatting, laughing, talking among the church itself, all this indecent and careless behavior, was an obvious indicator of deep evils; these vices clearly revealed licentiousness, coldness and routine, that is, exactly everything with which St. John had a mission to fight, and that, to the extent possible, he wanted to correct. The clergy, its organization and morals - Official statement of the cause of charity - Virgins and widows - Evangelization of villages The entire review of the beliefs and rituals of that time showed us that the common desire that St. Chrysostom noted more clearly than anyone else that in the 4th century there was a desire to assign to the class of priests and bishops, that is, to the clergy in general, a huge part of those positions and responsibilities that in the initial period were common to all believers. The distinction between clergy and laity became more and more sharp. It seemed that these latter wanted to transfer into the hands of the former, along with many of their rights, their very significant responsibilities. The clergy was entrusted with the responsibility of distributing alms, the clergy was responsible for maintaining the sick and widows, they even wanted to convey prayer to the clergy. And it is therefore very important to find out how the clergy was organized at that time and what means it took, as far as possible, in order to correct the evil caused by the inertia of the laity. Depending on whether the church dignitaries had a lofty or base view of their duties, their work seemed either extremely difficult or easy, and in the latter case their life seemed most enviable and joyful. Bl. Augustine once energetically said: “in our time there is nothing easier, more pleasant and more desirable than the bishopric, priesthood or deaconry, if these positions are carried out frivolously and trying only to please others. But in such a case, before God there is nothing more pathetic, sad and worthy of condemnation. But on the contrary, in our time there is nothing more difficult, depressing and dangerous, and at the same time better in the eyes of God, as bishopric, priesthood or deaconry, if you fulfill the duties of this sacred service according to the commands of the heavenly Sovereign.” The same thing was constantly repeated by St. Chrysostom especially proved this in his beautiful treatise “On the Priesthood,” his most harmonious and most carefully finished creation, which is full of sublime and noble thoughts and, in addition, abounds in very characteristic features of morals. The case of a conscientious and strict priest became especially difficult mainly for the following reason. Instead of finding support in sympathy and love, he soon noticed that, in accordance with his virtues, they felt either envy or fear towards him. No doubt his strength of character, charity, and sanctity of life endeared him to complete and reliable favor, but the number of such zealous friends was small. The majority, always indifferent and changeable, were ready to show him their hostility at the slightest pretext. When reading some pages of the treatise “On the Priesthood,” written in the first years of St. John in Antioch, it strongly seems that he had already foreseen and branded in advance those pitiful intrigues under the burden of which he was once destined to fall. Yes, long before his proclamation as a bishop, he had a very high understanding of this holy rank, and at the same time sufficient experience, and therefore knew that if he was ever called to undergo this ministry, he would need to be wary of everything. He felt enough courage, steadfastness and selflessness to consider himself doomed to inevitable persecution. As soon as he entered the church bishopric, he could see all the insidious plans that were daily drawn up in secret. The priest was watched every minute, he was waylaid and slandered by all those who wanted to take his place; in addition, he was subject to slander and women's gossip. If it seemed that he lived in contentment, or he was seen in clothes that were not too shabby, or, finally, his table could be subject to some kind of condemnation, the slightest indiscretion was inflated into a crime. Even those who were at first friendly and loyal to him were the first to later reproach him for his imaginary luxury. The development that church jurisdiction received from day to day naturally also gave room for many displeasures. From all sides they cried out for its necessity, but when it appeared, they were ready to immediately blame it and complain about it. Finally, as a result of pride and vanity, so common to all Greeks and Syrians, everyone wanted the priest to be exclusively occupied with him alone, and was jealous of his shepherd for everyone whom he apparently showed preference. There was nothing more difficult than to avoid any detection of favor or partiality. Thus, there was a custom of the bishop visiting the sick; but completely healthy people demanded the same visits. Not out of motives of piety, but out of pride, they ensured that he, at least from time to time, showed himself to everyone, and these competitors lay in wait for his slightest trips. In particular, if he could be accused of being inclined to visit the rich too often, the poor depressed him with the most terrible reproaches. The bishop, in a way, became the patron saint of the whole city; only now it was a patron who went to meet his clients halfway and appeared to them himself, instead of receiving their morning greetings in his atrium. How great and terrible, therefore, were the duties of a bishop! Of course, he was no lower than a monk. He was the father of a family, and to what extent his family was together and extensive, and not accustomed to obedience! He rules no more than one city, but meanwhile he has more concerns than the emperor himself, since he almost cannot act except by persuasion and rarely by power. How will he accomplish this if his task is looked upon as a pleasure, and the square does not think of abandoning its vulgar complaints, constantly raised against him? Does this mean that everything in these complaints was unfair? Alas, no, and St. Chrysostom realized this better than anyone else. But, as was his wont, he simultaneously struggled with two opposing abuses. On the one hand, it was necessary to limit the pride, ambition and vices of bad priests, on the other, to curb the disobedience of the faithful. This is the last thing that St. does. John in the texts just mentioned. But he was also clearly aware that this disobedience too often had its very legitimate grounds; knew this so well that he formally posed and discussed the question: what behavior should the flock adhere to if, unfortunately, it encounters a bad shepherd. Then, he says, showing a tolerance sufficient to prove that such cases were frequent (even if the evidence was few), then a distinction must be made between errors in the matter of faith and errors against morality. As for morals, here everyone has the right to judge and consciously speak out, remembering, however, that even a vicious priest will give only good advice: to such an extent is the power of truth irresistible. As for faith, one must be especially afraid of judging rashly and remember one’s incompetence. Depraved or few Orthodox priests of St. Chrysostom met too often on his own path. While writing his treatise “On the Priesthood,” St. John, not yet having the bitter experience acquired later, already saw quite clearly that if the Church could complain about the general relaxation of the faithful, then most of the evil that depresses her should be attributed to the bad choice of shepherds. And in his third book, he did not fail to note this grave evil and reveal its causes. One of these reasons could undoubtedly be that, due to the increase in the number of bishops, with the growth of Christianity, a larger number of bishops was required and, in view of this, the level of their greatness decreased. Nevertheless, in this fruitful era there was no shortage of worthy chosen ones, and St. It seemed to Chrysostom that it was more likely then, in the first times of Christianity, that the poverty of the flock could lead to an unsuccessful choice. Thus, when he explains the image of the bishop as presented in the first letter to Timothy, he admits that this ideal is not very lofty, and is even inclined to recognize it as rather low. And in fact, the ideal presented by him in turn in the treatise and, one might say, exactly fulfilled by himself, is incomparably higher and embraces a much larger number of difficult requirements. But, to the credit of the 4th century, it must be said that at that time it was possible to find people who were not at all afraid of this great severity of life and such heavy responsibility. The evil, then, came from the manner in which the election was carried out, and both the candidates themselves and the faithful were to blame for this. Bishopric, as Bl. tells us. Augustine, it became an enviable position. The influence it gave surpassed even that provided by public magistrates, and was bound to inevitably captivate ambitious people. Exemption from municipal duties, the vast wealth that each diocese possessed, the luxurious life that the bishop of Rome or Byzantium and, on a smaller scale, the bishops of smaller cities could lead - all this should have attracted friends of luxury, as well as stingy and greedy people. And when ambitious and miserly people sought rank, they could have many chances, by the power of their cunning and hypocrisy, to gain an advantage over modest and pious people. The people, who took quite a large part in the election, and the clergy themselves could be carried away by the most lowly considerations. The history of many episcopal sees of that time would show that there is no exaggeration in the condemnations of St. Chrysostom, when he claims that during the election, wealth or nobility of origin was taken into account as much as the virtue of the chosen one. Powerful connections, intrigue, age - all this could favor one or another candidate. Some were even preferred only because of the fear that if their claims were rejected, they would either be carried away by heresy or take revenge in some other way. No doubt, in too hasty elections the people have sometimes had a very lucky hand and followed a very just instinct; in this regard, the most characteristic example is the election of St. Ambrose of Milan. But, on the other hand, how many mistakes and recklessness happened here, how many seductive scenes, strife and even murders! Events similar to those that took place in Rome during the rivalry between Damasus and Ursinus, rightly branded by the impartial Ammianus, according to St. Chrysostom also occurred in the East. However, the people were not alone in being responsible for this, and St. John had no desire at all to deprive him of these rights. He insisted that the body of the faithful should retain their participation in the government of the church, that the bishop should have more work, but not more honor. Great responsibility also fell on bishops who agreed to ordain an unworthy chosen one, after they had first patronized him and supported his candidacy by all means. This is why many lost sheep managed to infiltrate the clergy. The hypocrites, who at first showed only the severity and holiness of life, immediately upon election showed all the darkness of their souls. There are many similar examples among modern saints. John of the bishops with whom he entered into relations. We are not talking about those who, like Nectarius, his predecessor in the see of Constantinople, being vain prelates, lovers of pleasure and nobles, had at least the merit of honesty and moderation. But what can we say about Antiochus, who earned money with his eloquence, about Severian of Haval, always ready for some new intrigue, about Theophilus of Alexandria, who spent alms intended for the poor on meaningless buildings, and did not stop in his struggle with opponents either at any lie or at any violence? What, finally, can we say about Akakios of Beria, who, on the most insignificant pretext, became the irreconcilable enemy of St. Chrysostom and said that he would “cook him his own dish 35.” Is there any example more striking than that of the Simonic bishops deposed by St. John during his journey to Asia? These bishops, with shameless naivety, which says a lot about the morals of that time, admitted that they paid for their election; They expressed that they wanted the bishopric in order to avoid municipal duties, and in their cynicism they went so far as to ask for their expenses to be returned to them after their deposition. To see how these intriguers were sometimes able to convince their sheep of self-denial, one should think about the story of Gerontius, an old cleric of the Milan church, expelled from it by St. Ambrose. Gerontius was named bishop of Nicomedia because he acquired a reputation in the city as a skillful and helpful physician, and the faithful energetically defended him against all attacks. “But it is true that people truly worthy of the episcopate, no matter what their modesty, rarely managed to evade it. St. himself Chrysostom provides proof of this: in his youth, at the cost of one pious evasiveness, he managed to avoid this burden. But his unexpected naming of Constantinople, perhaps the only good act of Eutropius (and especially important that it was the work of such an unworthy ruler), shows that true merit in the fourth century, as rich in virtues as in vices, was almost always crowned by the conferment of orders and had at least its hour of triumph over ambitious intrigue, although, perhaps, later short-term success was redeemed undeserved fall. One of the most striking phenomena in the history of the Church of the 4th century, which also amazed St. Chrysostom, there seems to be a sudden and amazing enrichment of the Church. This does not mean that before Constantine the Great it was very poor; on the contrary, even then she already had significant possessions. But since the triumph, voluntary donations coming from sovereigns or private individuals increased her legacy every day. The words of Pretextatus are known, who said that Bishop. Damasus, in terms of the influence he enjoyed and the wealth he had, was not only equal to the first state nobleman, but even surpassed him. “I would become a Christian if you made me bishop of Rome,” he added with mockery. The Church of Antioch and especially the Church of Constantinople were no less rich than the Roman Church. St. Chrysostom often admits that their possessions are immeasurable, but does not offer exact figures. He gives, however, an approximate number, at least for Antioch. In the 85th conversation on the Gospel of Matthew, part of which we have already cited, he claims that the Church almost had the income of one Antiochian nobleman, although not one of the richest. Church wealth did not consist exclusively of money, but included numerous real estates, fields, houses, carts, mules and their drivers. The Church rented out part of its property. In a word, the lifestyle that a bishop could lead was completely similar to the lifestyle of a nobleman, since the wealth of both was the same. This state of affairs inevitably entailed grave abuses. Undoubtedly, in reality there were those bishops whom Ammianus provides us with, constantly traveling to all directions of the empire, under the pretext of going to councils, at the expense of the government they were ruining. This would not be subject to any doubt even if we had only one indicated testimony of a pagan historian, since this pagan is impartial and completely trustworthy. But St. shows us the same thing. Chrysostom “Yes,” he says, “there are, and I myself have seen them - clergymen who have a bad reputation. It is not without some legitimate grounds that the integrity of their government is suspected. But it is impossible for something evil not to sometimes be mixed with good. Alas, there were temptations even in the times of the apostles!” But even then, when the incorruptibility of a priest or bishop was known to be ideal, despite this, very often it seemed like a temptation just because the clergy were busy with business and brought in the same customs as the laity; i.e. frugality, stinginess and greed. The management of great wealth is always done in the same way. Yes, St. spoke with sadness then. John, we can no longer reproach the faithful, for the clergy themselves are no different from the laity, and this stops our mouths. To be an overseer, a steward and a merchant is not a bishop's business, and, however, it is now necessary that he enter into all this personally, or through the medium of a deacon. Thus, it happens that members of the clergy enter into relations with sellers of wine, bread and other supplies, and start disputes and even feuds with them. How far was all this from that wonderful initial era, when the Apostles did not want to themselves even distribute the collections made thanks to their cares! St. Chrysostom was the first to admit that this deplorable state of affairs was inevitable and almost could not be corrected. It could not be reasonably expected that from the time that society almost entirely became Christian, all believers would fulfill the essential duty of almsgiving. It is true that with the increase in the number of unfortunates requiring help, the number of rich Christians undoubtedly increased, but not all of these rich people were truly imbued with the consciousness of their duties to the same extent. It would be a real dream to think that private initiative and personal charity would satisfy the enormous task undertaken by the Church. Therefore, it was desirable that the clergy himself take control of the administration of alms and oversee the organization of permanent institutions supported by him: hospitals, almshouses, etc. All the greatest bishops of the 4th century understood this; one of the most remarkable, as much for the firmness, clarity and accuracy of his understanding as for his practicality - St. Basil the Great stood at the head of this movement. His metropolis, Caesarea, for a long time stood ahead of other cities of the empire in the number and best management of the institutions founded in it, so that for everyone it became a worthy ideal. Imbued with the same thoughts, St. Chrysostom defended the right of the Church to own income and real estate. The basis for such a right, in his eyes, was the need to heal the all too common negligence of the faithful. “Fulfill your duty,” he said to the Antiochians and Constantinople, “carry out works of charity, as the gospel commands, and then we will joyfully give up the estates that we now hold only against our will.” These are the ideas of St. Chrysostom about church property, but in this matter, as in many others, his feelings sometimes elevated him above his own ideas. We have already noted several times that in some of his hopes there was something difficult to realize. He was a Christian in the truest sense of the word, and a true Christian is always somewhat given to daydreaming. Even on the assumption that, on his part, he is moving toward the full implementation of sublime commands, it is implausible that everyone will imitate him. Hence it happens that at certain moments he directly hopes for what he so passionately desires. And already in Antioch, when St. John preached wonderful discourses on the Gospel of Matthew (from which we have taken the most important quotations in this chapter); he had the decisive intention of introducing private charity into the custom, in order to reduce the burden that weighed on the clergy. He hoped that, as a result, the clergy could be freed from part of their wealth, which burdened him with its management, absorbed his time and worries (and both would easily find better use for themselves) and developed in the clergy habits and a mentality completely contrary to their profession. In the excellent development of the 85th conversation, after the calculation of the main possessions of the Antiochian church, which we have quoted, he interrupts himself with the exclamation: “It is not without intention that I regret this: I do not want my complaints to remain in vain and strive to ensure that they result in precious improvement.” Did he actually have any time in Antioch? This is hardly plausible, since in the rank of presbyter he only had the ministry of the word, entrusted to him by the bishop. Flavian, and could only take indirect and limited participation in the management of society. But the idea, so clearly expressed by him, never left him from then on. When he entered the episcopal throne of Constantinople and became the complete master of his actions, this thought was no less close to his heart. Since he was always more embarrassed by the difficulties presented by the huge expansion of church property than by the benefits derived from them, he took the opposite side to Nectarius in everything. One cannot help but be surprised at the reform he carried out in the episcopal house. Nektary made a real palace out of his house; he lived there in the same way as he was accustomed to live when he was a man of the world - a vain nobleman, receiving at his dinner or at an elegant feast those prefects with whom he competed in luxury. St. Chrysostom, the son of the chief military commander (magister militae), was accustomed in his youth to the same way of life as Nektarios, but soon preferred harsh feats of asceticism to him, and sold valuable objects that seemed useless to him; locked the door of his house against the idle; stopped the feasts that had brought such great popularity to his predecessor, and gave the people of Constantinople an excellent example, badly interpreted by many of them, - the example of a bishop dining alone. No less surprising is how he took advantage of the influence that he soon had over one very rich widow, Olympias, with the goal of wresting her from the hands of the few conscientious clergy who were exploiting the latter, and teaching her to direct her donations in such a way as to produce the greatest possible true benefit from them. He also showed rare courage by taking action against those mendicant monks who abused the somewhat superstitious alms of the laity. But it seems that he went further and that some of the reproaches of his opponents had at least apparent validity. So, for example, his accusers were, perhaps, partly fair, if it is true that he sold part of the church property, if only to help maintain or establish hospitals. St. Basil, who had a more moderate and practical mind, hardly reached such noble imprudence. But is it possible, however, to condemn St. too harshly? Chrysostom? The evil that he wanted to heal seemed great enough that he was allowed to go to some extremes. This is why, in our opinion, if it is a mistake to assert, together with overly cautious critics, that St. Chrysostom did not allow any extremes, and if without great restrictions one must accept some of the epithets that the historian Socrates assimilated to him, then it is no less unfair to condemn him harshly and direct Pharisaic censure against him. What reformer, in order to better achieve his goal, is not in danger of going to extremes? And much more credit goes to those who make such a mistake than to those who lack the slightest impulse to achieve the goal. And St. Chrysostom was truly a reformer of the morals of his age, first through his preaching in Antioch, then through his preaching and actions in Constantinople. Let us now take a closer look at what were the most important duties that, due to the negligence of too indifferent believers, the Church bore on itself, and which obliged it to have a correct budget. St. Chrysostom lists them almost in full in the 24th conversation on the first letter to the Corinthians. First of all, it was alms given to the poor. But the Church was not limited to just distributing food or clothing to them. In all the large Christian cities, almshouses were erected vying with each other, following the example of Caesarea, and St. Chrysostom, advising Stagiria to visit the “shelter of the poor.” Here they kept the sick and weak, lepers, suffering from cancer - all those incurable patients on whom St. John pointed out Stagirius as people who were more unfortunate than him. The first hospitals were built for them, usually bearing the name nosocomia. Sometimes they also adopted the name “hospitals” (xenodochium), applied in particular to shelters open to strangers. And in fact, the Church had a duty to offer them shelter, since private people refused to follow the good advice we have already given in its place. However, since these strangers were usually poor or sick, then, strictly speaking, hospitality merged with other, previously named forms of alms. Ep. Palladius in his dialogue (V) tells us that St. Chrysostom built many new institutions in Constantinople, in addition to the already existing ones, and supplied them with a very complete staff of overseers and ministers. Finally, the Church was passionate about visiting and helping prisoners. This last form of alms seemed much more important in the 4th century than it is now, because at that time the fate of prisoners was immeasurably harsher. St. Chrysostom, who was very strict about all civil legislation, who saw in most judges only “robbers and murderers,” speaks even worse about jailers. However, the details he offers are completely confirmed by other authors, in particular Libanius, and we see a striking example in the person of the unfortunate Antiochian senators, imprisoned as a result of the indignation of 387, and subjected to terrible suffering there. In particular, St. John describes in one thorough comparison the miserable plight of criminals condemned to dig for ore. The Church could not always bring relief to these last sufferings, since the mines in most cases were located at a great distance from the cities. It must also be remembered that administrative and fiscal strictures and the injustices of unbridled despotism could fill these so terrible prisons with innocent people, or, although guilty, who deserved reproach only for minor offenses. After all this, the Church simultaneously continued to show special care towards widows and virgins and to be the first to give special help. The number of widows who appeared on her lists of assistance increased, according to St. Chrysostom, up to three thousand in the city of Antioch, which, as is known, numbered no more than one hundred thousand Christians. For some, this number seemed too high. They tried, as always, to find plausible excuses to justify their hardness of heart, since, although the Church supported these widows, when there were insufficient sources of income, it sometimes made an appeal for private charity. The rich used the text: “let the widow be chosen...”, etc., regarding which St. Chrysostom gave one conversation, with the aim of recalling the rather strict conditions imposed by the apostle. Paul for the election of widows. St. John was forced to prove to his objectors, whose ignorance was perhaps feigned, the need to remember that widowhood during the time of the apostle was both a rank of the church hierarchy and a right to public charity. Therefore, when the Apostle demands so many virtues from a widow, he is talking about rank, and not about the rights to charity. These distressed widows were not all equally venerable. Among them there were also those who were famous for their intrigues, ingratiating themselves with rich families, showing cunning cunning here, quarreling some, reconciling others, trying to find their own benefit in all this. Their poverty, age and position gave extreme freedom to their tongue, and they delighted in gossip and slander. For the sake of this chatter, they often abandoned those matters. which St. recommended to them. Chrysostom, namely, raising children and hospitality, which he viewed as their main responsibilities. But often he also expresses the highest praise to many of them, extolling their resignation and peace of mind, which they are able to maintain both when they are given some kind of obol, and when they are completely denied alms. He shows the price of their zeal for the church, which, however, as you can see, was not always voluntary, but rather was a condition of the help provided to them. “You come when you want,” he told the rest of the believers, “and they must pray and sing psalms day and night.” And anticipating the objection we have just noted, he added: “and they are in this position not only for the sake of the alms that are given to them, since they could beg for alms in the square and at the crossroads of the streets, and, if they were not honest, they could even indulge in those petty shameful activities that serve so many old women as a means of subsistence.” The same contrasts were found between rich widows. Many of them remained widowed not in order to renounce the life of the world, but, on the contrary, in order to spend it with greater freedom and pleasure. These are the widows who are described in the “consolation of the widow of Pherasias” at the beginning of his career; the same St. At the end of his life, John met three of his irreconcilable enemies - Marsa, Kastritsia and Evgrafia. But among the rich widows there were also those who “extinguished all carnal desires, curbed lust, trampled it underfoot, threw it to the ground and led to complete impotence.” These completely doomed themselves to raising their children, as did the mother of St. John, Anfusa; or, left without children, they devoted themselves entirely to the interests of the Church, like the Olympics. From among these last widows the Church elected deaconesses, among whom were St. Chrysostom found the most amazing devotion. It was to them, before leaving Constantinople forever, at the moment of betraying himself to an official who had orders to take him into exile, that he turned his last advice and said his last farewell to them. The behavior of virgins who dedicated themselves to the Lord was not always impeccable. If the usual disadvantage of widows was a tendency to gossip and intrigue, then the virgins had such a disadvantage was the desire to please. On this occasion St. Chrysostom gave the most careful advice and showed them, through a very subtle and witty analysis, what deep knowledge of their minds and hearts he possessed. We will not find better advice in the famous letters of Bl. Jerome. Like the latter, St. John does not ignore the fact that even a simple outfit can reveal the same skillful coquetry as gold and silk clothes. “And in simple clothes you can find enough pretension to surpass rich clothes... You can choose a shade that goes with dark materials, and tie yourself with a belt with art. There are virgins who show themselves to be as skilled as actresses. They skillfully avoid that the belt does not form folds on the side, and that it is not too tight, thus skillfully avoiding both extremes. They make beautiful folds - and in all this there is more seduction than in silk clothes. What does it matter that they wear black shoes if they are beautifully shiny and have a graceful shape - a pointed toe and a low heel? What is the point in the fact that they do not blush if they wash with the greatest care and wear a veil of even more dazzling whiteness than their face, and on top of the veil, in order to skillfully highlight it, they put on a black bandage? What can I say about their eye movements, gait and gestures?... But, some say, I don’t think about anything bad, and on my part there is no desire to please. I do it completely naturally and without thinking about it... That's why virgins are not respected, that's why they laugh at them. This is their own fault." However, these are still fairly minor shortcomings, and perhaps St. Chrysostom goes somewhat far in his severity. Virgins were exposed, or rather, exposed themselves to much greater danger. Many wanted only to have the appearance and glory of that difficult virtue - abstinence, which the Church valued so highly, and at the same time, through some easily acceptable compromise, they managed to come up with simplifications of this command. St. Chrysostom not only fought against stinginess among his clergy: he often saw that the clergy was a victim of terrible carnal temptation. And there is no doubt that the energy with which he denounced the guilty was one of the first reasons for the hatred that broke out against him in such a strong storm. A lot of time has passed since the Church struggled with a dangerous, ineradicable, constantly condemned and constantly reborn evil: the cohabitation of clergy with virgins. Both of them, striving to maintain complete abstinence, admitted that they could not live alone. Either the clergy spoke about the need for virgins to support their home, or the opposite demands came from virgins who needed clerics to manage their affairs. Evil was equally widespread in both the West and the East. In Africa, during the time of St. Cyprian, it became especially difficult. The capture at the scene of a crime, in one of the communities bordering Carthage, of a deacon who was in connection with a virgin, gave rise to the famous Pomponius to consult with the great teacher of the Church, and St. Cyprian answered him with a very interesting letter. The guilty argued that they had not succumbed to any temptation and had not committed any sin. This was not the only case: on the contrary, it was repeated very often. St. Cyprian spoke on this issue with the greatest severity: he did not have the naivety to believe the excuses given by the culprits and knew well that one should not play with fire and “give room for the devil.” He declares, first of all, that cohabitation, even if chastity is observed at the same time, as they try to prove, would be worthy of condemnation simply because of temptation. But at the same time it is clear that St. the father is not subject to the slightest illusion and looks at assurances of innocence as completely hypocritical. And it was not only Africa that was tainted by this evil. In the East, in particular in Antioch, many examples of the same abuse could easily be pointed out. Even one bishop, the famous Paul of Samosat, according to his opponents, lived with two young and very beautiful women who followed him in all his travels 36 . In the 4th century, morals did not change. The third canon of the Council of Nicaea forbade clergy to live with women other than their sisters, mothers and aunts. But this rule was almost not observed, and the testimony of St. Chrysostom proves that it was violated just as much in Syria as in Constantinople. There is some doubt about the time of composition of St. John of his main treatise against the so-called Sinizakts or Agapites, i.e. spiritual sisters 37. But, on the one hand, we know that in Constantinople he took very energetic measures against them, and on the other, in many conversations, without any doubt, delivered by him in Antioch, we find the guilty noted with all the desired accuracy. Exactly the same as St. Cyprian, Chrysostom does not hide from himself the gravity of his offenses. He knows very well what this strange claim to maintaining exemplary cleanliness in cohabitation means in most cases. However, more clearly than Cyprian, he admits the possibility of a case (always, however, in his opinion, exceptional) when this claim is legitimate, and it seems plausible that this sometimes happened in reality. But his disapproval is still no less universal and absolute than the disapproval of the Bishop of Carthage. First of all, it was possible to distinguish the innocent from the guilty only after a great temptation, namely, after the medical examination to which some virgins were subjected in Constantinople or Antioch, as easily as in Africa. Further, if, with a very sensitive decline in discipline, it really could happen that some honest, and essentially truthful, but weak clerics deluded themselves with an illusion and, without criminal intent, lived with the Agapites, then they always faced a double danger. Firstly, the inevitable slander and secondly, the danger of exposing yourself to temptation. And the latter was no less dangerous, since even one who had triumphed over the flesh for a long time could not be sure that his fall would not take place today or tomorrow. There was something else to fear about the future. To make a concession on one point would not mean giving the flesh a reason to become more and more demanding? Did this not threaten to soon see church celibacy clearly insulted, and the discipline of abstinence overthrown? All these reasons were quite sufficient to justify the severity of St. Chrysostom. There is nothing more interesting than reading his treatise “Against the Agapites.” Here he displays the extraordinary depth of a moralist and a perfect knowledge not only of the basic characters of human nature, but also of its innermost and deepest inclinations. Without false shame, without any fearful silence, he enters into an analysis even more daring than the analysis we noted of the passion of virgins for clothes. Everywhere one can feel the disciple of the prophets, who, just as often and in the same expressions as they, defended freedom of speech, defended the right to express thoughts without cover and to sharply depict evil, with the goal of its surest correction. We have just traced the long and victorious struggle of St. Chrysostom against the various ranks of the clergy and they saw that he equally had to instill in bishops, priests, widows, and virgins a love of simplicity and an aversion to luxury and pomp. But in the divine service itself, no less than in the clergy, he had to notice a tendency to deviate from the original simplicity. Without a doubt, it was gratifying to see how all the provinces of the empire, all the large cities, sometimes supported by the generosity of sovereigns, vied with each other and built majestic churches. But St. Chrysostom preferred to these golden domes and magnificent basilicas that modest upper room, in the very top part of the house, where the apostle preached. Paul, when the young man Eutyches fell from the window. That little upper room was full of zealous and virtuous believers, but this could not be said about the Great Church in Antioch or about the churches of Constantinople, when these latter were overrun by a noisy, scattered and immodest crowd, in which a few righteous were lost among the indifferent and careless mass. Undoubtedly, St. Chrysostom knew that it was necessary to make many concessions to the spirit of the age, and it even happened to him (since, being an experienced preacher, he did not neglect to take advantage of the weaknesses of his listeners, in order to bring them to repentance) to praise the conveniences represented by these beautiful structures, to draw attention to the strong, sheathed roof of the church, under which the people were protected from the weather, while they had to be exposed to the open benches of the circus or theater. But over the years and as his authority increased, especially from the moment when he, in the rank of apxbishop of Constantinople, could freely apply his ideas, John, as far as permissible, opposed the development of liturgical luxury. He was not a building bishop, like his opponent Theophilus of Alexandria, and, if he did build, he gave preference to hospitals over churches. He never encouraged his flock to give more to the Church or the bishop than to the poor, but on the contrary, he indignantly condemned that vain opinion - so often found even in our days - which makes the vain donation of precious objects for worship preferable to modest and secret alms. These generous donations seemed to him fundamentally no less ridiculous than those generous distributions that city leaders make to the people out of calculations of empty popularity. However, in an effort to limit such donations, he acted with wise and prudent caution, which he rarely felt lacking. “If you see anyone offering expensive sacred cups, or any mosaic, do not give orders to sell or break these offerings. Don't eradicate this jealousy! But, if before the final decision the donor asks you for advice, then manage to dissuade him and teach him to prefer alms.” Thus he spoke in Antioch; in Constantinople he was less careful. In this last period of his life, he wanted to turn these vain donations into more than just alms: he had the intention of giving them another purpose. Judging by some of the places we cited above, it seems that the villages in the vicinity of Antioch were all converted to Christianity. The number of pagans, perhaps, was not much greater there than in the city itself. But, undoubtedly, this could not be said about the environs of Constantinople. The poor peasants in the vast domains of the rich, whether they remained pagans or converted to Christianity, were equally deprived of almost any religious education. Christianity had its fortresses in big cities. Sensitive to all the misfortunes of the poor, St. John could not help but notice the neglect in which the peasants remained. He knew that priests among them were very rare or very ignorant, and one day he expressed a noble wish: if he could raise his city flock to such perfection that he would have little leisure left, then with what pleasure he would devote it to preaching the gospel in the villages! But the more the reform he had undertaken within the city itself moved forward, the more clearly he felt the futility of this hope. Then he turned to the side of the rich, to large property owners. “You create,” he told them, “baths and markets in the countryside, you thus introduce effeminate urban morals there, corrupt your peasants, and the fatal consequence of this is that they become disobedient to the teachings. So, in your empty search for perishable popularity, you go directly against your own interests. Try best to convert the villagers to the Christian faith if they are still pagans, or lead to the discovery of Christian virtues if they are already converted. But how will you correct them if they still see your negligence towards their souls? Build churches instead of baths. Let no one have an estate without a church. Don't say that there is a church in some neighboring suburb - it needs to be on your own estate. Provide her at the same time with the necessary amount for the maintenance of the priest, deacon and the entire necessary hierarchy. Give a dowry to this church as you give it to your daughter, and she will truly be your daughter. If the emperor asked you to build him a house for his premises, would you not one day hasten to obey him? Do not act differently towards God. Do you find this cost too significant? “Then start with a modest building, and your heir will increase it.” Since the listeners pretended to be deaf, St. John allowed himself to point out a reward that, according to the concepts of that time, had a high price: he promised that the names of the builders of the village church would be pronounced during the liturgy. Seeing the spectacle presented by the society we depicted in the 4th century, from the moment of the triumph of Christianity, it is understandable how many truly Christian souls experienced sadness mixed with indignation. In their eyes, the previous century, the century of persecution, and St. stood incomparably higher. Chrysostom exclaimed: “I heard from our fathers - (however, let this not happen to us, for we are commanded not to seek temptations) - that during the ancient persecutions it was possible to see truly Christian men.” Where, in fact, was now the former purity in those cities where, no doubt, the cross shone freely over the gates of the basilicas and even on the palaces, but where all the places of pleasure of the ancient city still existed, from the circus and theater to the lupanar? Where was the love - when large families retained their countless legacies and, having established themselves in their high main positions, apparently belonging to them by right of inheritance, incessantly increased them through extortion, while a huge number of poor people remained so pitifully at the thresholds of their stately houses? Where was pure faith in this strange mixture of dogma and childish superstition? Christianity conquered the world and marveled not at the greatness of its victory, but at its mediocre results. Everything was subordinated and nothing changed. “Having become Christian, the world,” according to Fleury, “has not ceased to be the world.” It was obvious that the pure teaching of the Gospel would never become the absolute rule of morality, and that the Church would be forced to endure certain relaxations in discipline. We have seen that even St. Chrysostom, who had as much a wise mind as a high heart, at times succumbed to this irresistible desire. It was impossible to hope to keep the severity of the commands intact except in the company of the chosen ones, far from large cities corrupted by incurable vices. This explains the emergence of asceticism. From here arose the current that carried the best people, following the first Egyptians, into the deserts and monasteries; hence came that great movement which imposes its characteristic sign on the 4th century. The exalted minds of that time saw this quite clearly, and bl. Jerome himself made the following comparison: now asceticism recruited the chosen ones from Christian society, just as in previous centuries Christianity chose the best people from pagan society. Almost all the great people of that time, all the holy fathers, more or less directly and completely fell under the great influence of asceticism. Almost all of them, at a certain moment in their lives, wavered like St. Gregory of Nazianzus, between “the active and speculative life,” and the best destiny was chosen by those who, like St. Chrysostom, after testing their souls in hermitic meditations and severe ascetic deeds, returned in order to enter the church hierarchy into the rank to which their merits called them, and to receive the power that they considered it their duty to accept. Syria was one of the first provinces of the empire where there were followers of the example given in Egypt by Saint Anthony and his imitators. Very soon the mountains around Antioch were populated by hermits and monks living in hostels. In the city itself, as in the rest of the empire, some greeted this news with the same enthusiasm with which others reacted to it with contempt and malice. In the most distant countries during this era we will find the same deep division of public opinion on this subject. When, in Aquitaine, Postumian, upon returning from his trip to the East, stopped at Sulpicius Severus to tell him about the miracles he had just seen, his speeches aroused great surprise among the listeners, and only the owner’s friends had the good fortune to listen to him. But almost at the same time, in Bordeaux, general bitterness was directed against Peacock, who broke with worldly life and secretly retired to the Spanish mountains, together with his wife Therasia, who from that time on became only his sister. Previously, something exactly the same had happened in Antioch itself. The desire for asceticism captivated most of the best young men, who, under the high direction of Bishop Meletius, received their education there under the teacher's supervision of Diodorus of Thapsis. St. Basil and Theodore, friends of St. Chrysostom, gave in to this attraction. Chrysostom himself was restrained by Anfusa and abandoned his intention with deep regret; As soon as the opportunity arose, he followed the example of his friends. But the parents generally did not have the same opinion with their sons. Already such a perfect Christian as Anfusa showed insurmountable resistance to the desires of her son. Fathers were even more hostile to asceticism than mothers. We are not even talking about the pagans, who had almost no opportunity to judge the hermitage otherwise than biasedly, as evidenced by the writings of Julian and the especially eloquent attacks of Rutilius. But the Christians themselves behaved almost the same way. Some of them, in their ardor, went so far that they were ready, in their words, to renounce Christianity if Christians increasingly retreated into the desert. When the master's son went into seclusion in the family, even the slaves felt a kind of contempt for him. And in fact, this happened in Bordeaux after the conversion of Paulinus, and some pages of St. Chrysostom seems to describe in advance the very curious history of this conversion, as it is known to us thanks to the correspondence of Ausonius with his old student. Often, only with the help of pious cunning, the young men were able to fulfill the desire that irresistibly captivated them all. We have already seen that Stagirius lived in a monastery with the complicity of his mother, but without the knowledge of his father, and was greatly afraid of the storm that could be foreseen if his father found out that he had been deceived. St. Chrysostom tells another, completely similar story and, perhaps, even more curious in its particular details. This is the story of a young man whose father, who held one of the highest military positions, intended his son for the same career and wanted him to prepare himself for a similar position. But the thirst for solitude seized the young man, and, fortunately, he managed to persuade his mother in his enterprise. Both of them together very skillfully staged a pious deception. The young man was to go to Antioch, in order to listen to the correct course of that rhetorical teaching, which was then a necessary precondition for all future candidates for public office. But one monk agreed to leave his solitude and, as a teacher, accompanied him, preparing him for asceticism and teaching him with his advice and example to lead a monastic life in the city itself. The malice shown by such a large part of civil society, sooner or later, had to be resolved with a cruel blow. This happened in the year 365, when Emperor Valens issued a law aimed at stopping the monastic movement. The basis of the law was partly that the most ardent defenders of Orthodoxy, fearless opponents of Arianism, condemned from its very beginning by Saint Anthony, entered the ranks of the monks, and partly also that the general attraction to solitude harmed the interests of the empire, robbing it of precious strength at a time when the need for the inviolable preservation of what was still intact was most strongly felt. Then something like a persecution of the monks began. All this makes it easier for us to understand how St. Chrysostom came to the idea of ​​composing his important treatise “To the Opponents of Monastic Life,” where he had in mind not only the pagan opponents of this institution, but just as many, and even more, opponents from the Christians themselves. Of all the curious details given to us by St. Chrysostom, first of all, it turns out that some, admittedly exceptional, but characteristic facts could arm even sincere and virtuous Christians against asceticism. The great decision to be a hermit, taken suddenly by many in the full bloom of youth, was not carried out equally well by all. We do not mean Stagyrius, of course, who remains the most striking example of the fallacy of choosing a type of life; but we are talking about other, rather dangerous cases. Such, for example, is the case with Theodore, the future bishop of Mopsuestia, who, together with St. Chrysostom is the most remarkable of the students of Diodorus of Tarsus and who was later destined to become a very original and, perhaps, even the most original teacher for the entire Greek church, after Origen 38. Theodore very soon repented of his sharp break with the world and, one day, wanted to return to the world again. He became carried away by a very ardent love for a certain girl and was ready to marry her. More solid than him, St. Chrysostom looked with indignation at this decision, as treason, perjury and desecration of the sacred, and sent two hotly written letters to him, in which he spared no reproaches. There were even more severe falls: such, for example, was the fall of that monk who, unable to resist the visions that overwhelmed him, found an excuse to come to Antioch and here, one day, was caught by his partner, who was watching him, at the entrance to a place of indecency. The fall of young Phoenix was only short-lived and his story, told by St. Chrysostom to Theodore, is completely similar to the story of the fall of Theodore himself. A very rich man, left an orphan in his youth, Phoenix unexpectedly said goodbye to rhetorical schools, retired to the mountains in order to spend a philosophical life here (as hermitage was called at that time), and showed virtue beyond his age. Soon regret for the world appeared in him. His guardians, noticing this, intensified the nascent fire of lust, and it became known that Phoenix had returned to Antioch. He is met in the square, on horseback, surrounded by numerous servants. He immediately has mistresses, and, in the company of flatterers and parasites, he spends the free and cheerful life of a young man of a noble family. Taking advantage of his complete inexperience, everyone exploits him, and to such an extent that ruin is inevitable. Opponents of monastic life are already predisposed to attribute this catastrophe not to the unbridled passions of the young man, but to asceticism and loneliness. They repeat that, having abandoned all his scientific pursuits too early, before achieving any fruit, he became incapable of managing his household affairs. But the slander of envious people was not justified. Already ready to marry Hermione, Theodore found his friend next to him - St. Chrysostom, who, thanks to his passionate eloquence, again called him to fulfill his vow. Phoenix was saved by his unknown friends, humble defenders, who were saddened by his fall and made a plan to return him again to virtue and faith. With remarkable patience and skill, little by little they managed to get closer to him. Every time they met, they greeted him, and he, sitting on his horse, barely deigned to nod his head dismissively. But, firmly holding to their intention, they were not disheartened by these foreseen insults, and, taking advantage of all favorable opportunities, continued the siege of this soul. A weak man, with a weak will and a fickle mind, Phoenix had no strength to triumph over this skillful and persistent strategy, just as he could not resist the tricks of his guardians or the tricks of the parasites. Little by little, under the influence of their cautious activity, he began to feel himself in a hopeless network. He responded to greetings with greater courtesy, began to stop and even get off his beautiful horse, which had served as an object of temptation for his former admirers. With his head bowed, he walked silently, listening to the advice of these pious people. After some hesitation, a new, and this time decisive, change took place in him. Having distributed all his property to the poor, he thus cut off his path to return and “finally reached the highest degree of virtue.” This wonderful story, for the reporting of which we owe gratitude to St. Chrysostom, shows that in the 4th century there was always real virtue. At the sight of this skillful proselytism of people of low origin unknown to us, the times of the apostles come to mind. So, if sometimes weaknesses and falls of the monks occurred, then in most cases they were temporary, and in the end those who sinned again became the property of the Church. But this did not prevent city residents from taking advantage of such cases against monasticism itself. Worldly people only wanted to see the fall and turned their eyes away from repentance. They watched the monks, observed their behavior very closely, and were ruthless at the slightest indulgence. If they found out that any of them had any extra clothes, or enjoyed a less meager meal, they indulged in the most stinging condemnations. But at the same time, everyone succumbed to that uncontrollable impulse of reverent respect towards the holy individuals who had acquired miraculous power. From all sides they asked for health and, with this selfish goal, they were persecuted in the very depths of their solitude. They were often grateful for the immeasurable power that their complete selflessness gave them. Their mediation was resorted to in order to soften the cruelty of the city leaders, and often they actually begged for mercy that no one else could achieve. One memorable example of self-denial and love was given by the monks in the year 387. The very people who, in the year 365, according to the law of Valens, were cursed by their compatriots and at one time were even persecuted, now presented a wonderful spectacle. When Antioch was emptying and everyone who could fled far from the general danger, these hermits, on the contrary, came down from their mountains; Every day new crowds of monks came, living in monasteries or in complete solitude. St. John was not alone in raising the spirit of his flock at that time: he had many unknown helpers, about whom he himself speaks with pious animation in one of his conversations. The name of one of these hermits has been preserved to us, namely Macedonia, who boldly grabbed Ellebych’s horse by the bridle 39 and spoke to him in a prophetic tone words that the next day became known to the whole city and revived faint hope in the hearts. “Doesn’t the emperor know that these statues can be restored; If he destroys this living statue - a man, then he will not be able to correct the evil he has caused? This story is told by a modern witness - St. Chrysostom and represents all the features of the strictest authenticity. And what is most surprising here is not so much the brave courage of the monk, but the patience of the commander, who, having full power in a city under martial law, humbly listens to the admonition of the hermit and bows before this admonition, as if before words inspired by God. This is a fact characteristic of that century. And in Constantinople, just as in Antioch, St. Chrysostom remained an enthusiastic admirer of this philosophical life, as monastic life was called at that time. Nevertheless, the various indications of experience obtained by him during his long career produced some significant changes in his view, which we should note. At first, no alien elements were mixed into his enthusiasm. He was young, and then hermitage for all young men of a religious and exalted character was the ideal desire of the heart. The panegyric in honor of the establishment of monasticism, contained in his treatise “To the Opponents of Monastic Life,” comes entirely from the heart and is written with amazing warmth. St. Chrysostom not only shows all the holiness of hermits, but also describes the honors that are given to them when they appear in cities, and praises the widespread fame they deserve. Like St. Vasily, he even makes an appeal to aesthetic feeling and, in proof of his position, refers to the love for rural nature, vividly felt by his contemporaries. At the same time, in St. In Scripture he finds examples that are the support of this institution, which to most seemed an innovation. Naturally, he cites the soon-to-be-classic example of St. John the Baptist, who was rightly looked upon as the patron saint of the desert dwellers; also points to an even more curious fact of the Jews’ presence in the desert, “which was like a monastery for them.” In one small treatise he compiled around the same time (“Comparison of the Tsar and the Monk”), which is very clearly influenced by secular rhetoric, he compares the monk with the king and gives preference to the former in expressions apparently inspired by the sayings of the Stoics about their wise ideal. However, in order to find out his opinion on this subject in his youth, it is even more important to remember what he did than to read what he wrote. Undoubtedly, his filial love was so deep and respectful that he did not want to resist the insistence of his mother; There is also no doubt that, by his own admission in the book “On Contrition,” he left the world not without some internal struggle. But, if this struggle could be very hot, then it should not have lasted long. As soon as he received his freedom, he headed into the desert to spend a life of harsh deeds as a cenobitic monk and then as a hermit. After his return, he retained a grateful and touching memory of this, and in his conversations we constantly encounter wonderful praises of philosophical life. Sometimes he compares it with the lives of those who spend their days in the theater, and shows the monks as angels, and the latter as pigs; sometimes he tries to make clear the severity of this life, comparing it with the existence of nomads, Scythians, living in wagons (amaksoviya). Describes St. with love. John spends the day in monasteries and cites, as examples, those prayers that the hermits taught him. Sometimes he praises Egypt, those deserts, more beautiful than paradise, where hosts of angels in human form, whole faces of confessors and innumerable communities of virgins live. He especially likes to repeat that monks do not live an idle life, but work and give alms. Finally, he advises from time to time to visit neighboring monasteries, so to speak, to retire, and expresses surprise at the nobles who agree to spend several days among the equality of all people reigning there. But soon, however, St. Chrysostom saw that in hermitage, as in all human endeavors, extremes and danger are possible. His own teacher, under whose guidance he was brought up, St. Bishop Meletius, a very original man in the moderation of his character and breadth of ideas, could open his eyes. Ep. Meletius, in accordance with the true evangelical spirit, accustomed to always appreciating the depth of hearts and sincerity of thoughts and not placing a high value on external manifestations, once said to a monk wearing chains the following words: “iron is not of great value: the mind must restrain the flesh in spiritual bonds.” Like him, St. John, apparently, always, even in his youth, thought that it was less important to run away into the desert than “to be able to come to true spiritual solitude,” as he expressed this to Stelechius. It seems to us - although this is pure speculation - that he left his cave, in which he lived as an anchorite, and joined the ranks of the church bishopric, not only because his broken health prompted him to do so, but also because, having exhausted the joys of the desert and recognizing himself sufficiently hardened by six years of strict solitude, he sometimes felt the impulses of his active nature and ardent character. Be that as it may, but already in his three books “To the Opponents of Monasticism,” where he speaks most of all about the feat of hermitage, there are some pages in which he not so much defends the hermit life in itself, but rather collects mitigating circumstances in its defense. His desire was such a state of society that, without retiring into the desert, it would be possible to carry out the commandments of the Gospel in all rigor in the world itself, and this thought, expressed here, he later pursued with greater force and without the indecision with which he expressed it at first. But the corruption of the cities, in which it was no longer possible for a perfect Christian to live, made the harsh healing of asceticism necessary. Expressions of St. Chrysostom becomes even clearer in his treatise “On the Priesthood” and in his “Conversation on the Blessed One.” Philogony" when he compares a monk to a bishop. He gives preference to the latter, since he must have the same perfect personal virtues as a monk, and, moreover, he is entrusted with the great duty of active love, from which a monk is free! Thus, as St. Chrysostom gets older, and his experience increases; his thoughts are defined more accurately and expressed more openly. There were no severe crises, shocks or upheavals in his moral life: he developed correctly, in wonderful harmony and with wonderful unity; only his true personality, at first somewhat hidden by the inevitable influence of his age, was constantly liberated and purified from all impurities, with the goal of getting closer and closer to the purest gospel ideal. Some ideas, the beginnings of which we see in his first works, little by little emerged in all their meaning and in their full sense; some spiritual feelings, at first somewhat suppressed by others, random and extraneous, eventually achieved complete dominance in him. Which apparently had an effect on St. John's main influence regarding the question that interests us now, and which led him to a rather significant change in his previous views - although he did not formally contradict himself and did not abandon the essence of his original ideas - was the conviction of one rather strange phenomenon. Hermitage, which quite rightly could inspire fear in statesmen and civil leaders and seem to them to be a reason for the weakening of the unfortunate empire, already consumed by mortal ailments, could just as (as strange as it may seem) in the eyes of the bishops appear dangerous for Christian society itself, could strike it back. We have already very often noted the constantly growing evil from which the Church suffered. Its ancient unity no longer existed; the clergy was more and more clearly separated from the people, and all the laity, all leading a secular life, became more and more accustomed to the idea of ​​the possibility of a double morality: one intended for priests, the other for themselves. More piety is required from the priest, less from the laity; Priests are entrusted with difficult-to-fulfill virtues: chastity or poverty, and they also take care of the sacred rites and even prayer itself. While the priests conform to the commandments of the Gospel, the laity can go about their business and even indulge in their pleasures. And now, after this complete division of Christian society into two classes has already been finally felt, a third is joining them, and the laity is presented with a new opportunity to free themselves from the heavy burden hitherto placed on the clergy alone. In the conversations of St. Chrysostom, we constantly encountered the objection that his flock raised against him every time he called on them to implement some too-forgettable virtue. “It’s none of our business,” the laity said, “it’s good for the monks.” And the monks themselves, by fleeing from the cities, do not thereby show that in the cities it is impossible to lead a life that completely corresponds to the Gospel ideal? But it is impossible to destroy cities, just as it is impossible to destroy the world, and, therefore, the Church must allow certain means of reconciliation. From honest people who have their own household and business, she cannot demand those virtues to which she calls people living in the desert and free from all care. This claim outraged St. Chrysostom, and his whole life was spent fighting him. It makes him indignant because, having once taken the path of indulgences, it is impossible to foresee where their end will be, and, moreover, when making concessions to indulgences, it is very difficult to observe the proper measure; commands are either absolute or non-existent. Finally, this claim outrages him because it quite naturally gives the infidels one of their strongest arguments. If they ask: why don’t you lead the life that Christ commanded you? - you answer them: true, we do not carry out it, since it is impossible to carry out it in the world, - but there are monks who carry out this life for us. How you wish that they would not triumph over you and exclaim: your rules are not good and untrue, since they are not applicable everywhere. whereas morality must be universal and perfect. One must not make excuses, but in the cities themselves lead a monastic life, in other words, an evangelical life, since this is one and the same thing. One must be sober, like the monks; like them to pray, work and show themselves merciful. “We have all the commandments of the law in common with the monks, with the exception of only one - celibacy.” Thus, sometimes the hermitage doubly contradicted its purpose. People who retired to the desert often deprived civil society of virtues and talents, and these latter in those unfortunate times would have easily found use for themselves. Against their will and knowledge, these people in some way gave the world support in its evasion from the demands of the Gospel. And the society they left behind used their virtues and harsh exploits as an argument in favor of their inertia and weakness. In the last years of his life, St. Chrysostom also learned of other dangers arising from monasticism. Apparently, in Aniokhia he saw only such monks as served to the honor of their rank. In Constantinople and, during his exile, in Cappadocia, he found completely different ones. First of all, he learned what kind of hungry beggars were, living more in the city than in their monasteries, who abused public charity and besieged the wealth of Olympias. Finally, on his way he met ignorant fanatics, who overran Caesarea at the first news of his arrival, threatened to set fire to the house where he was staying, and fiercely pursued him to the country house in which a pious Christian woman offered him refuge. Even from here they forced him to flee at midnight, although he was already exhausted to the last degree by the tediously long journey and the stomach illness that he had suffered from for many years. His mind was too sublime and his soul too noble for personal misfortunes to influence his ideas. Neither in his last letters, nor in the treatise he compiled in the very depths of exile, we will not find a single expression where he spoke about monasticism with severity that could be justified (for anyone else) by these last circumstances. He did not hold the entire institution responsible for the misdeeds of some. But nevertheless, it is certain that from the time he left Antioch to pursue the life of the hermits, his ideal underwent change and expansion. Then he thought that perfect Christian virtue could not find a place in cities, and for the sake of saving one chosen one, he sacrificed the fate of many. But he soon realized the one-sidedness and incompleteness of this apparently highest rule. From his correspondence we know one very characteristic case, which gives us full opportunity to judge the mood of his mind in these last years. During his painful journey into exile, he meets one of those monks who completely locked themselves in a cell, ceasing all communication with the world and only through a window or hole receiving food offered to them by public charity. Did St. John was surprised at this miracle of asceticism, which everyone around him considered sublime and even surpassing human nature? No, he was struck by only one thing: the inaction to which this recluse condemned himself, and since at that moment he was especially busy finding missionaries to convert Phenicia to Christ, he tries to convince the monk that it would be incomparably more pleasing to the Lord if he returned to an active life and went on this mission. St. succeeds in this matter. John, and the ascetic leaves his cell in order to unite with the presbyter Constance. This is the direction the thoughts of St. took then. Chrysostom. He found nourishment in the constant reading of St. Gospel, received a better education than most of his contemporaries at the school of Diodorus of Tarsus and, in addition, was gifted with a deeply sensitive and humane soul. He understood the historical meaning of the gospel, without darkening it beyond measure with allegorical subtleties, and could easily notice that the Divine Teacher Himself, I. Christ Himself, retired into the desert only for a short period of time. It is known that He lived among his compatriots, was in relations with them, had communication with the most humiliated people and knew publicans and sinners: “Behold, a man of poison and drink, a friend of publicans and a sinner!” St. John knew that it was the duty of his disciples of all times - a duty so perfectly understood by the Apostles - to accurately imitate His lessons and examples. From now on, his ideal was no longer the cave where he lived as a hermit, or even the monastery where he lived in a hostel, but the original Jerusalem society and the city that he cursed in the heat of his youth - that is, Antioch or Constantinople. But, in his mind, it was already a Christian city, inhabited by believers who completely obeyed the strictness of the new law, fulfilled the gospel commands without excuses, in a word, true monks in the world, similar in everything to the strictest hermits, with the exception of marriage. A curious letter from Livanius has survived, where he asks the city chief Priscus for protection of the Palestinian Manichaeans. It should be noted that until the time of Justinian, the Church of Antioch did not accept into the canon either the second epistle of St. Peter, nor the second and third epistles of St. John, nor the epistle of St. Judas. Probably the same should be said about the Apocalypse. Chrysostom's disciple, St. Nile, after him gave a very skillful development of methods of historical interpretation, as the Antiochian school understood it. There are three such homilies and they all date back to the first times of his preaching in Antioch. Chrysostom says that in his time, in addition to the tombs of St. Peter and Paul, the tombs of the apostles John and Thomas were also known. The tombs of the other Apostles were not known. (26th Discourse on Hebrews) Bishop courageously fought against these same customs. Asterius of Amasia. Of course, Antioch, since the New Year's discourse was given here. There was an area called the Matrona Abyss, regarding which, unfortunately, St. Chrysostom does not speak clearly. Just as he does not use clear expressions about the similar, very often visited, sanctuary of Saturn in Cilicia. However, St. Chrysostom recognizes the legality of the oath if necessary. This last objection is not without interest, as an example of those dialectical philosophies to which the opponents of St. Chrysostom. “So-and-so they said was shipwrecked and drowned. Many fish grabbed the drowned man, and each of them ate part of his body. These same fish were caught, one in one and the other in another bay, and eaten by different people. In turn, people who ate fish that devoured a person died in various countries and, perhaps, were even eaten by animals in a similar way. How, after such mixing and separation of members, can a person come to life again, and who will collect these ashes again? (7th discourse on 1 Thess.) Approx. translation During the memorable event of the Antiochian disturbance, St. Chrysostom spoke of philosophers with special contempt. He contrasts their cowardice with the courage of the monks, who came to the city in droves in order to support the courage of their brothers, while the philosophers fled, showing all the futility of their false virtue. But there is some degree of exaggeration in this: Livanius, for example, did not leave the city and, as it seems, fulfilled his duty. They abused the words of the ap. Paul: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds” and they said, “Let us do evil, that good may come.” Only in one case, in his conversation “about what should not be damned,” he expressed extremely free thoughts. But here he meant only the Paulinians, who, strictly speaking, were not heretics and separated from the Meletians only because of the question of persons The Marcionites went even further, and St. Chrysostom, taking the opportunity to arouse the attention of his listeners, one day enlivens his conversation with a story about Marcionite baptism performed after death. In fact, when a catechumen died among these heretics, one of his fellow believers lay down on the bed where the recently deceased lay. The priest asked the deceased whether he wanted to be baptized, and since he, naturally, was silent, the one lying on the bed answered in the affirmative for him and, according to his desire, baptism was performed. Socrates tells us about this in church history (V: XIX). The case concerned a criminal relationship between a woman and a deacon. From the words of Socrates, who learned the details of the case from a contemporary witness, presbyter Eudaimon, it is not entirely clear how society learned of the offense. Whether the presbyter to whom the woman revealed her sin demanded public confession, Socrates does not say. But it could very easily happen that in such a case some kind of immodesty was committed, or, even simpler, the flock made their conclusions, seeing the punitive measures taken by the church authorities. One of the charges against St. Chrysostom at the Pridubsky Cathedral was that he allowed licentiousness, saying: “if you sin again, repent again, and no matter how often you sin, come to me, and I will heal you.” At St. Chrysostom we find some interesting information regarding the holy, or, as they called it then, the great week. Emperors ordered the closure of courts, granted pardon to prisoners, etc. The most important thing, as it has been said, is to have a heart that is pure from every bad feeling. St. Chrysostom reports that his contemporaries, with the superstitious formalism of their age, did not dare to begin prayer after intercourse with their wife, although this was completely legal, and, on the contrary, they prayed immediately after the end of a quarrel or discord, without achieving peace, although this deserved the greatest condemnation. “At the judgment seat,” says St. further. John, - you need to speak Latin; one must speak with God in the language of faith and chastity.” In him we will also find several examples of prayer; So he cites a prayer he memorized from one “holy man” (undoubtedly some hermit), which he advises to read. At St. In Chrysostom we find a very persistently expressed belief in the intercession of saints. But while proclaiming their superiority, he feared that this might lead to abuse. He points out that the Canaanite woman had to pray herself, and I. Christ did not accept the petition of the apostle. Peter and James. A very widespread prejudice at that time was the belief in the transfer of merit from one person to another. From St. John we learn that some considered their salvation assured because there was a bishop in their family, or there was a saint among their ancestors. The above words were spoken by ep. Akakiem under the following circumstances. Departing for negotiations with the Pope, the Syrian, Bishop. Akaki stayed at the house of St. Chrysostom. The Archbishop of Constantinople did not change his way of life because of his arrival. And Akaki was forced to be content with the same meager table that the saint always used. It was here that Akakios, offended by this simplicity, in the presence of strangers, expressed his threat to St. John: “cook his own dish for him.” Note translation It should not be overlooked that Paul of Samosata was persecuted by passionate hatred. Their Latin name is subintroductae. This name was adopted by the aforementioned widows and virgins, who brought clerics into their homes in order to manage their economic affairs. They were also called “beloved” and “girlfriends”. Note translation It seems plausible that Theodore, to whom two letters from St. Chrysostom, there is indeed a person who was later Bishop of Mopsuestia. But this identification cannot, however, be considered absolutely correct. Ellebychus and Caesarius are government officials who arrived from the capital in Antioch to investigate the case of the overthrow of the royal statues. Note translation