Заключение

General judgment about Antiochian and Constantinople morals in the era of St. Chrysostom – Results of Chrysostom's Sermon There is nothing more difficult than to pronounce a general judgment about the moral value of an era. How many incorrect and erroneous concepts we have even about our own time! Moreover, we run the risk of being superficial and unfair when we are talking about a very distant century, the opinions and prejudices of which were completely different from those reigning at the present time and about which only very incomplete documents have survived to us. The position does not lose its force even when these documents are still relatively quite rich, which can be said about our subject. The danger becomes even greater when it is not a matter of studying the whole, and the historian turns to all the evidence and verifies them one by one through the other, but when, on the contrary, we have to deal with only one witness, which is the condition of our work. However, one can see that this very condition, which at first glance inspires so much fear, in this case represents something comforting, since the witness we have just studied is not an ordinary witness. The slightest suspicion cannot touch his conscientiousness, and if, in a noble impulse of his thought, he sometimes approaches the realm of the impossible, then even in such cases, due to a rare gift, he is almost never completely devoid of feeling and understanding of practical needs. Undoubtedly, each of us, depending on the nature and various requirements of our own moral ideal, can differently assess the severity of the judgments of St. Chrysostom and the legality of his denunciations. But all must agree in recognizing that his pictures are extremely rarely exaggerated. He knew that exaggeration plunges the listener into despair, and he was too experienced and too desirous of success to fall into such a blunder. And therefore we must try, with all the necessary prudence (which in such a case will never be superfluous), to show now in proper light the general features that, in fact, according to his conversations, seem to characterize the time when he lived and the cities where he preached. From the time Constantine the Great recognized Christianity as the official state religion, Roman society was based on a compromise between two powers, one of which, long constrained, sought to defeat the other: we are talking about the ancient state and the Christian Church. The political system remained almost the same as that established by Diocletian; The civil system still rested on legislation developed by jurists of purely pagan and philosophical origin. The Christian spirit has now made some detailed changes here, but has not touched its very foundations. Opposite to this system, Christianity was presented as a religious society, always absolutely different from civil and political society in its traditions, ideal and, finally, in its essence. After reconciliation and unification, neither the state nor the Church wanted to submit or sacrifice themselves for one another. But they had to make mutual concessions, and from this it followed that neither one nor the other fulfilled their functions perfectly. We will not deal with political issues here; for us it will be enough to remember that although Christianity did not directly oppose the state - this would be absurd after the coup - however, it could not help but harm it. It demanded from people completely different virtues than civil virtues, sometimes directly irreconcilable with the latter. In asceticism it suppressed and absorbed living forces, which, if used well, would provide invaluable services. It is fair that St. At the end of his life, Chrysostom ceased to be a supporter of extreme asceticism. But, nevertheless, no matter how moderate he himself was, he turned his gaze almost exclusively to the heavenly Jerusalem, despised the earthly city and, sharing the thought of the very near end of the world, could not be interested in the future of the state. Civil society remained built on the principles of ancient Greco-Roman civilization. The first impression made by many of the most important conversations of St. Chrysostom, that this society suffered from two contiguous evils, namely from the extremes of wealth that befell a small number of families, and from the extremes of poverty in the lower classes. We have shown, however, that when the fiery preacher, the merciless enemy of the rich and the indefatigable champion of the poor, gives us truly precious details about social classes, he clearly admits the existence of a middle class, having everything necessary for existence and living, if not in perfect prosperity, at least without too great deprivations. In fact, if the rich, the owners of truly excessive wealth, made up one tenth share in Antioch, and the same share were represented by absolutely pitiful beggars, then this proportion, apparently, had nothing extraordinary; Isn’t it like that even now in our great new capitals? If there was a huge difference, on the one hand, between the senator of Antioch or Constantinople, the owner of vast houses and monstrous incomes, and, on the other, one of the artisans who listened with such joy to the word of St. Chrysostom, is the distance now less significant between the richest owner of a factory and his artisan, between the millionaire, the king of the American railroads, and the worker of one of the many companies controlled by the former? The only truly fundamental difference between ancient society and modern society was the institution of slavery, to which St. Chrysostom reacted with indignation, but did not want to openly fight it, recognizing that Christianity should never be revolutionary, in the modern sense of the word, that is, it should not remake the civil system. Let us only add that the hardness of heart was then, perhaps, much greater among the majority of rich people than it is now. The predominant Christian virtue - love, was learned only by the best part of society. Not long enough has passed since it was preached for its influence to be felt everywhere and for it to have time to transform, so to speak, the very soul of humanity 51 . The freedom of ancient morals still reigned almost completely intact. It was extremely difficult to instill in people the meaning of chastity. Civil law and public opinion favored debauchery, both by their indulgence in certain cases and by their unequal views on men and women. In addition, the institution of slavery made the most criminal abuses common and seemingly permissible and allowed for the stubborn persistence of almost ineradicable customs. Without a doubt, all these evils would be easily corrected if everyone strictly followed the rules of Christian teaching. But the Church, having become the mistress of the world, now itself suffered from worldly vices. First of all, the area of ​​​​its conquests increased immensely: the majority of the inhabitants of the empire had already converted to Christianity, but many conversions were selfish. The result was that the inner mood of many souls was deep indifference, that the majority had no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, dogmas and morals. Religion, almost entirely ignored, had too little influence on all those people who came to church only on the days of great feasts, remained as long as possible among the catechumens, and, strictly speaking, cared about entering the office of a true Christian only at the time of death. From here stemmed that strange mixture of extremely diverse superstitions, which is the distinctive stamp of the era. The influence of Greek or Jewish beliefs was still very significant. The sects carried out constant deceptions with one another. Something also remained of that old pagan prejudice that it was prudent to have the greatest number of possible gods. Undoubtedly, they now recognized one God, but they were not at all embarrassed by the fact that the forms of cult that were given to Him were extremely diverse and even threatened to be contradictory. Symmachus said that it is impossible to come to the discovery of truth in one way. (Non potest uno itinere perveniri ad tam grande secretum). Many who chose the great Christian path, on occasion, willingly deviated onto cross roads and went astray. On the other hand, among the faithful, born into the bosom of the Church itself, into families that had been Christian for several generations, relaxation and routine penetrated. From the time that Christians began to be born, instead of being made, the renewing influence of faith was no longer felt to the same extent as before. Now people no longer experienced the turning point that previously led a person to conversion; they did not care about detachment from the old man, and baptism was no longer accepted as an obligation to a real moral transformation of life. This resulted in a tendency to see only external and material forms of cult, and a kind of superstitious ritualism arose. Thus, the very essence of Christianity, which was supposed to be spirit and truth, was distorted. Manners were subject to debauchery to the same extent as customs were subjected to routine. The division between clergy and laity became more and more sharp; the laity more and more came to the idea that all the harsh and difficult to fulfill prescriptions of cult and discipline were assigned only to the clergy. Meanwhile, part of the clergy too often set an example of temptation. Such, apparently, was the society of the 4th century. Far from our society in terms of political system, as far as such distance is possible, it, however, also had some similarities with ours, in the extreme complexity of its moral and religious system. Whether it stood higher or lower than ours is an idle question into which we will not go, since a historian cannot test the depth of hearts. This society had great weaknesses and great vices, but one example of St. Chrysostom is already enough to prove that at that time there was no shortage of amazing people who strived with all their souls to correct society. And has any other era shown greater public desire for the most sublime ideal? Is it possible to determine what the results of the preaching of St. Chrysostom? This is a question that one cannot help but be interested in, since it was precisely this that the saint himself was most interested in. St. John did not throw the seed to the wind, not caring to know where it would fall and what it would produce. He wanted it to rise, and not only always had the most lofty concept of his mission, but he also carried within himself this invincible conviction, which is truly necessary for every reformer in order for his reform to be accompanied by success. This did not mean that he was characterized by any thought of false pride, since he placed his hopes not so much in his own personality as in the Divine inspiration, readily received, and in the sublime teaching of which he was the interpreter. But at the same time, he was also characterized by the consciousness of what the selfless ardor and courage that animated him could do. “Be a leaven!” (ζυνη) - he constantly repeated to his listeners, advising them to influence each other in the interests of mutual improvement, and he himself was such a leaven, extremely effective and fruitful. And how far his hopes and hopes stretched! In one of his first conversations, dating back to the time when he, immediately and bluntly, wanted to reveal to the inhabitants of Antioch his intentions and desires, he admitted that “one person filled with zeal is enough to transform an entire people.” Expressing this, he thought about the superiority of St. Paul, the great apostle whose praises were full of him and whom he so often advised to take as an example to follow, he felt, however, that he himself was overwhelmed by Divine zeal. unable to undertake this bold task of reforming an entire people. This work he actually undertook, and tirelessly strived to achieve it until his death. So how successful has he been here? It is necessary to make a distinction between the vices that St. Chrysostom was an opponent. Some, which were exclusively the result of a known order of things, characteristic of the 4th century and antiquity in general and characterizing a certain historical period, arose from random causes and were doomed to gradual disappearance under the influence of time. This influence of time could receive powerful support from chosen people, such as the great Greek and Latin bishops. Other vices inherent in human nature remained ineradicable and had only to change their form. In the first category we will include all customs that were determined by too general ignorance of religion, a very easily tolerated admixture of superstitions of all origins and, finally, the persistent influence of ancient pagan traditions, which have gradually penetrated absolutely everywhere since a very long time. Thus, when St. Chrysostom condemns wedding or funeral rites, he fights against customs, although powerfully entrenched in the hearts of almost all his contemporaries, but still subject to change and correction, thanks to the influence of Christianity. And it is almost impossible to doubt that here he achieved well-known results. In the absence of any proof of this, we will be content with those self-confident words of his, which he once uttered and which we have just quoted, namely, that one person can do a lot. Moreover, we saw that in his conversations he sometimes happened to rejoice at the progress that he noted. And he did not say this lightly, because he observed the behavior of his flock extremely closely and every day, even outside the church, he had continuous and extremely sincere relations with them. Unfortunately, it should be added that the inhabitants of the East, who were subject to his correction both in Constantinople and Antioch, were distinguished by extreme mobility and impressionability. The eloquence of St. Chrysostom could at a certain moment produce an amazing effect; but it was soon forgotten, the listeners fell into their former errors, and their former seductive actions were resumed. It was much more difficult for St. Chrysostom fights against those innate inclinations of our nature, some of which very easily turn into dangerous vices, such as, for example, against greed and love of luxury. He could, at least, come to the aid of very pressing needs through those pious works to which he devoted almost the entire income of his bishopric. But did he manage to plant mercy in the hearts of the faithful? His constant intention was to transform the rich and he passionately wanted this radical reform. We have seen him repeat many times in categorical terms that, while striving for this reform, he does not consider it an impossible dream, but hopes to come to a practical result and for this he is working with all his might. But he did not achieve this general reform and could not achieve it. However, there was some consolation left for him. He gathered around himself the entire flower of society and instilled in them his virtues. We have already indicated his main opponents: they were numerous and ardent. His supporters were no less devoted to him, and his imitators no less worthy of admiration. From the first days of his youth, after he himself fell under outside influence, and among other things to the influence of his friend Vasily, his own influence spread to everyone around him: to Maxim, Theodore, Stagiri, Demetrius 52, and to many other persons unknown to us. His most valuable acquisition in Constantinople was the acquisition of influence on the Olympiad, which had the good fortune to first be edified by St. Gregory of Nazianzus and complete his education under the guidance of St. Chrysostom. But Olympias was not the only person, and the accomplices of St. John, in his good deeds, there was a whole host of pious deaconesses, of whom Pentadia is the most famous. An exception should be made for Archdeacon Serapion, who, undoubtedly, was distinguished by strict virtue, since without this condition he would not have deserved the sincere confidence of his bishop, but who lacked gentleness. He brought his severity to the point of cruelty and repeatedly gave rise to complaints, as, for example, when he intensified the discord of St. John with Severian of Gaval, instead of helping to stop it. And how many devoted friends of St. Chrysostom left behind himself, going into exile! And it is remarkable that he left them in the most opposite classes of society. Olympias and the deaconesses belonged to the highest families. On the contrary, among the most insignificant people were those unknown friends of his who did everything possible to keep their archbishop; they even decided to riot and almost revolt in the streets! True, Constantinople had already been the theater of many religious unrest more than once, and in the future it was destined to experience even more serious disturbances. Unrest caused by theological disputes was even a characteristic feature of the Byzantine Empire, but this time they were caused by the noblest motives: at the heart of the dispute was the question of Christian morality. And this happened because, thanks to a remarkable exception, the throne, almost always occupied by theologian bishops or political bishops, was now occupied by an apostle. These unknown supporters of St. John, or, as they were called then, the Johannites, could not be deterred by any threats. From the very moment when in the baptismal room he addressed his touching farewell words to the righteous deaconesses, before giving himself up to the kyriocy, who had orders to take him away, St. the archbishop advised them the most prudent restraint. However, even the wisest military leaders do not always manage to communicate their restraint to all warriors. The ardor and jealousy of the Johannites carried them to some extremes. The government wanted to hold them responsible for the fire that destroyed one of the most beautiful quarters of Constantinople, the Great Church and the Senate building. The prefect blamed this on his direct disciples, the favorites of St. Chrysostom, and showed injustice and malice in this matter. But it does not seem impossible - and even somewhat probable - that in the crowd of supporters of St. John, there were also those who tried to take revenge using the means that the teacher himself strictly condemned them. In any case, this remains unknown, but the firmness of the Johannites truly excites surprise. They did not want to submit to the new bishops, first Arzakios and then Atticus. Dispersed from the very first days by military force in the church and, later, in the baptismal sanctuaries, where they were preparing for baptism, John’s supporters constantly renewed their ranks and for a long time formed a small Orthodox society that held its meetings outside the city. The Ioannites patiently waited for the day when the son of the same Eudoxia, Theodosius the Younger, restored the good memory of St. Chrysostom and solemnly transferred the remains of the martyr bishop from Koman. At the same time, and in addition to the deaconesses, many significant persons remained faithful to the holy exile. He managed to attract to himself some persons from high Byzantine families, although most of them, frightened by his exposure of wealth and luxury, showed embittered resistance to him. The fact of his closeness to such persons we can attest to through his very curious correspondence, mainly composed of letters dating back to the time of the exile. We see here that many senators argued about the honor of offering him refuge in their possessions, which they had near Cucus. They sent him gifts, but he refused to accept them and sent them to establish the Phoenician and Cilician mission. True, it cannot be said that these manifestations of piety were among those that St. highly valued. Chrysostom, and this is quite felt in his answers. It may be that those who offered him hospitality or sent him gifts did not, as he would have preferred, comply with the strict rules of his morality. But some other facts show us, however, its influence penetrating to the very depths of the human soul. The most curious is the story of that young man Theodotus, the son of Theodotus, who was carried away by the example of St. John to monastic life and eventually achieved the consent of his father, although against his wishes. It is no less interesting to see from this, attributed to St. Chrysostom correspondence, how much deep devotion the inhabitants of Antioch retained for him. His misfortunes kindled the ardent love of the entire people for him, despite the intrigues of the unworthy and, according to the biographer Palladius, even shameful behavior of the bishop. When Theophilus and Severian, using the usual technique for Theophilus and having already applied it in the case of Presbyter Isidore, sent secret intelligence officers to Syria in order to find out about the past of St. John, then these latter, not only did not reveal anything that could serve as a reproach for him, but they could not even provoke the slightest false testimony, they could not catch the slightest noise of slander, that is, they were deprived of the means that they used with the greatest shamelessness. When Theophilus finally gained the upper hand, and St. Chrysostom made his journey to Kukuz, during his long journey through Asia Minor, the holy exile constantly received from his native city precious testimonies of sympathy. In particular, the clergy, the same Syrian clergy whom he praised, did not forget him: many presbyters wrote him touching letters, and from the tone of the letter of the priest Constance, we can judge how much these friends of St. John were like him, that is, animated by his spirit and imbued with his virtues. So, St. Chrysostom did not reform, as he had hoped, the morals of the entire Antiochian or Constantinople people. But first, it could eradicate some private abuses, or at least prepare the way for future reform. Secondly, he exerted an extremely powerful influence on all those who came into contact with him, on those chosen souls who felt passionately attracted to him. We know those whose names were preserved by Bishop Palladius, and how many more we know! One who had such a lofty idea of ​​his episcopal mission, who considered the responsibility of a preacher so terrible and believed that he needed to give an account to God not only for himself, but for his entire flock, could have a calm conscience if his humility did not serve as an obstacle to this. He was confident that on the day of judgment he would appear before the high throne with a wonderful host of souls converted by his word and example. And he knew very well that there could be no gift more pleasant to the Father and the Son than a saved soul, and he loved to repeat that the acquisition of a single soul is an incomparable matter. “For there is nothing more precious than the soul, not even the whole world.” Principles of Chrysostom's morality - His moral and religious ideal If a politician is judged by the results he achieves, this is not how an apostle is judged. The most important thing here is to find out what ideal the apostle was striving for, since this ideal continues to retain its influence after his death on subsequent generations. And we, therefore, need to try to illuminate the guiding ideas of St. Chrysostom, which until now have been presented to us only in a separate form. St. Chrysostom did not have a mind naturally inclined to metaphysics, and did not work to develop theology, so one can write a history of dogma without even mentioning his name. He draws his faith from the gospels, explaining them according to a method very wise for his time, rather historical than allegorical. However, this method does not exclusively belong to him, but is characteristic of the entire Antiochian school, very different from the Alexandrian school. He honors Christianity because its rapid spread seems miraculous to him and, in his opinion, carries within itself an obvious sign of truth. Mainly, he believes in the power of the need of the heart, in the power of admiration for the sublime beauty of the teachings of Jesus Christ. He accepts Orthodoxy in the form as it was defined at the Council of Nicaea, and invariably repeats those provisions that have become traditional since the time of Athanasius the Great. St. John is original only in the field of morality. It seems to follow from this that professional metaphysicians might be somewhat dissatisfied with him, but such a conclusion would be unfair. The moralist stands at the true center of all things, and from this point of view, if his view is true, then his morality has great value. The main conviction that has always inspired St. Chrysostom, is the belief in the free will of man. It is necessary, however, to speak on this subject in some detail, since the question is very important and not devoid of difficulties. It is known that on St. John was often looked upon, if not by pure Pelagians, then at least by semi-Pelagians, as one of their like-minded people and even as one of their predecessors 53 . Julian 54 referred to it in his polemic with Blessed Augustine, and it took the latter much trouble to refute it. Cassian, one of the most remarkable half-Pelagians, was a direct disciple of St. Chrysostom and always considered it an honor to have been educated by him. The Pelagian Annianus translated into Latin, in accordance with the needs of the time, some of his conversations, which he regarded as especially significant, and even prefaced them with a rather remarkable preface, where he very well and with reasonable sympathy noted the features of the genius and character of St. John. On the other hand, the Orthodox tried to prove the complete Orthodoxy of St. John, starting with St. Augustine and until the seventeenth century, when the renewal of debate about grace aroused lively interest in reasoning about this subject. Tilmon, for example, did not consider it possible to avoid this reasoning, although he discussed it only halfway and not without some confusion. Indeed, the decision is quite difficult, and especially it must seem so to theologians, who are accustomed to weigh words and syllables very strictly, and to apply, apparently, very strict methods of interpretation. This matter is not so difficult for free criticism, which, however, has the advantage of complete impartiality. It is necessary, however, first of all to note that the main places in the works of St. Chrysostom's ideas about free will are extremely numerous and quite often contradictory. He essentially stood for the idea of ​​moral freedom and, however, did not want to sacrifice his faith in need and the power of grace for this. Some of these obvious contradictions, as well as some of his not entirely accurate expressions, are easily explained by the very mentality of the saint. John, who has little inclination towards pure philosophizing. Another reason has often been proposed by Orthodox writers, and it is indeed not without force. It consists in the fact that this unclear question about the relationship of grace in free will, in the era of the preaching of St. John, not only was not decided by the Church (since it has never been and will never be strictly decided), but it was even clearly stated. The great theological dispute between Pelagius and Bl. Augustine had not yet raised it. Only in one of the last letters of St. Chrysostom contains a fleeting and unclear allusion to a certain Pelagius, whose delusion he laments; and it cannot be asserted with all certainty, although it seems plausible to us, that this Pelagius really is the heresiarch. Be that as it may, the Orthodox did not cease to assure that if St. Chrysostom was present at this great dispute, he would have examined the issue more closely, would not have allowed some somewhat ambiguous expressions and, in a word, would have energetically taken the side opposed to heresy. For our part, we think that he would have acted in exactly this way, but we must not forget that if he had been involved in this dispute, at a time when Orthodoxy had not yet spoken out on this issue, he would have contributed to the creation of the Orthodox view. And who knows, maybe his influence would balance the influence of bl. Augustine. Undoubtedly, the Church could not allow a purely Pelagian position, completely contrary to the spirit that had long reigned in the Church, and irreconcilable with religion, which has at its core the idea of ​​redemption. And we repeat, St. John would have condemned the Pelagian view if it had been expressed in his time. But in such a question, shades of thought are of great importance. Bl. Augustine, with all the power of his ardent genius, carried theology for a long time onto the path of the opinion of exclusively active grace. Mind of St. Chrysostom was most strongly attracted by the idea of ​​the participation of free will in the matter of salvation, and he always firmly held onto it. The future of the teaching on this subject would change significantly if Bl. Augustine in his struggle met this powerful fighter. In our opinion, it can be said with complete justice that, although St. Chrysostom was never a Pelagianist, but he was, indeed, quite close to that movement, which after him was called semi-Pelagianism. He assimilates a lot of grace, but, upon strict examination, most often represents it only as an assistant to free will, and does not look at it as a necessary prime mover. And this conviction could not be taken away from him, because he lived by it, it was his existence, and without it all his preaching would have no meaning. At first glance it may seem strange that this preacher of the meaning of free will so often returned to the panegyric of the Apostle Paul and primarily presented himself as a student of this teacher. But here two remarks need to be made. Firstly, following his historical method of explanation, St. Chrysostom sometimes better understands the true meaning of the texts of St. Paul than most of his contemporaries, and he explains some very important verses in a unique and sometimes very unexpected sense. Secondly, - in ap. Paul, he distinguishes between two people: a man of grace and a man of love, and he means precisely the latter. He marvels in him at the apostle, whose activity was so energetic and fruitful that he converted a huge part of the world, he marvels at him who wrote the famous verse “if not the imam of love...” and all his own preaching was precisely the development of this very verse. And Neander 55 wittily noted that even when talking about the conversion of St. Paul, St. Chrysostom does not sacrifice free will, but tries to show that at that moment it was an essential element in him. In connection with the theory of St. John Chrysostom on free will has another position, often developed by him and, as it turns out after a thorough analysis, does not originate from the Gospel or the Epistles of St. Paul, but from that worldly philosophy to which the ap. Paul, and St. Chrysostom considered it his duty to treat with contempt. We understand the position of the Stoics that nothing can harm a person except sin. This thought of St. John often expressed it in his teachings and, at the end of his life, in the very depths of exile, turned to it and made it the subject of a private treatise. His views on the governance of Providence are close to the same theory. We have already seen that Christianity could hardly instill in the minds a belief in the resurrection, since Jewish and pagan prejudices opposed it. Some found it difficult to allow the renewal of bodies and the restoration of flesh; others thought that God's mercy was too great and therefore refused to believe in the eternity of torment. But almost the entire world accepted without doubt the immortality of the soul. Although such a belief was of great help and had extraordinary power, however, many felt confusion and anxiety, seeing the eternal spectacle of the injustices of fate. In order to give an answer to such persons, St. Chrysostom proposed a very clear theory of the management of Providence, relating to the type of reward systems. With his enormous knowledge of the human heart, with his very broad and conscientious experience, he recognized that there is neither a completely good nor a completely bad person on earth. He admits that if an evil person is happy here, then he will be rewarded for some good deeds unknown to people and will be punished for his vices in the future life. In the same way, seeing a person suffering from great, apparently undeserved misfortunes, we do not know whether he has committed some minor sins for which he is being punished. And since virtue prevails over vice in his life, then after death he will have to taste eternal bliss. In particular, this point is developed with fascinating eloquence in excellent conversations on the parable of Lazarus. Such a view may seem rather superficial, and, undoubtedly, it is more prudent not to try to solve such a difficult and obscure question with such precision. However, we do not know how firmly St. held on. Chrysostom gave the decision. Let us not forget that he presented it more as a preacher than as a teacher, and we will understand that, under such conditions, his explanation could achieve its goal. So, most of all, St. Chrysostom respected man's free will, on which personal responsibility is based, and all his efforts tended to influence this free will. He wanted a person not only to obey the law, but to understand it and feel attracted to it out of free love. Hence his horror of routine, of all purely material forms of piety and narrow ritualism. How many wonderful words of his we have already cited on this subject and how many more we could cite! Comparing the Jewish synagogue with the Christian church, he exclaimed: “We have no wood and fire, altar and sword, but all our faith is spirit!” Hence the restrictions that he eventually made in relation to asceticism, when it seemed to him that people were exaggerating the importance of the latter. Hence, finally, his efforts to revive the divine service, in order to prevent the oblivion of its meaning. The ideal of St. Chrysostom was a truly apostolic and evangelical church, where there would not be too deep a separation of the clergy from the laity, but all believers would be equally imbued with the same spirit. “And the multitude of believers had one heart and one soul” - this was truly his motto, and this is exactly what he wanted to realize. This is the meaning of the advice he so often offers - never forget your neighbor and care about the salvation of others as much as about your own. Let every home be a church, let every father of the family oversee the upbringing of his wife, children and slaves, help them and guide them in the matter of moral improvement. Let the influence of each family extend to neighboring families. Nobody more than St. Chrysostom did not show a sense of mutual responsibility. He wanted everyone to mutually observe each other and make mutual instructions; that would be true brotherhood. The only danger - the danger of temptation - is easy to avoid if you know how to observe moderation and the necessary prudence. The support of these councils of St. Chrysostom presented to his listeners a really very strong reason: you, he said, know each other better than we, elders, but we do not have the opportunity to know you. We see that in the person of St. John, in that age of theology and politics, which had the great task of establishing the most important dogmas and determining the proper mode of relations between Church and State, we have before us a man who takes us back to the very first times of Christianity, to that blessed era when the world sought to honor God in spirit and truth, and people rendered Caesar's things to Caesar, without asking his permission to render God's things to God. Neander brightly illuminated this original side of the personality of St. Chrysostom, comparing him with his great Western rival, St. Augustine, the true founder of medieval theology. This comparison can be completed by distinguishing St. John from St. Ambrose, the true ancestor of bishop-politicians. Let us add one more caveat: Neander, following the historical spirit of German science, sees in the appearance of St. Chrysostom is partly a necessary phenomenon, an inevitable consequence of a certain period of the 4th century. He notes that the years of the priesthood and bishopric of St. John fall on a relatively peaceful time, replacing the Arian disputes and preceding the Pelagian debates, so to speak, a time of theological truce. This remark is not without justice, but St. Chrysostom was created primarily by his own nature, his loving soul, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel. We should be grateful not to historical necessity, but to his own free will. We see in St. John, the first of those great people that the Church had in almost all centuries of its existence. These people knew how to return to the spirit of the original times of Christianity and, due to their indifference to external forms, worked only on correcting morals. Beginning with the era of the first Christian generation and ending with the century of the Franciscan principles, we do not know anyone who would have made more sincere efforts to introduce into all society, from the highest to the lowest classes, the true foundations of Christianity in all their strength and purity. Neander rightly said that St. Chrysostom was equally revered by all Christian denominations. One may put it more strongly and say that he is equally worthy of the respect of all those who, regardless of their views on dogma, look upon the morality of the Gospel as the highest ideal that has ever been offered to men. If that spirit of truth and love and that mercy that animated him should in the future, whatever it may be, inspire all great deeds and all great thoughts, then St. Chrysostom will always remain one of the most beautiful moral examples that humanity can contemplate. He possessed those two opposing qualities which only a great soul can combine, and which were marvelously united in the Divine Teacher of the Gospel - that is, the courage of those daring people who delight heaven, and the holy meekness of the humble. Using again the expression of one who understood St. so perfectly. John, for he loved him a lot - we mean Neander - we can say that “he was merciless towards sin, full of mercy towards the sinner.” In this conclusion we mean the cities where the activity of St. Chrysostom, and we limit ourselves only to the observation that, according to his own testimony, the situation of the villagers was, apparently, much more pitiful than the situation of our peasants. Maximus, later bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, and Theodore, later bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, were comrades of St. Chrysostom according to the school of Libanius and Diodorus of Tarsus. Demetrius is a pious monk to whom St. John wrote his first word, “On Contrition.” The personality of Stagirius was mentioned numerous times above. Note translation The original thinker of the Antiochian school, Theodore of Mopsuestia, took the side of the opponents of the bl. Augustine. Julian, bishop of Eclan, near Beneventum, supporter of the Pelagian current. Famous church historian, author of the book “St. John Chrysostom" (Der heilige Iohannes Chrysostomus). Note translation