The youthful years of St. John Chrysostom and his preparation for pastoral ministry

Contents I. The life of St. John Chrysostom before baptism II. The ascetic feat of St. Chrysostom and the clarification of life's calling III. Return of St. Chrysostom to Antioch and acceptance of the grace of the priesthood I. The life of St. John Chrysostom before baptism 1. The Great Shepherd 2. The time of origin and meaning of the name John after Chrysostom: analysis of different opinions. 3. The year of birth of Chrysostom, his parents, the nature of family relationships, the initial influence of the family on the character of Chrysostom, the death of his father, the personality of his mother. 4. Chrysostom’s natural talents and his education from Andragathius and Livania. Notes about these teachers of Chrysostom and their comparative influence on the personality of the great pupil. The character of Livanius and his predominant influence on the upbringing of Chrysostom regarding will. 5. The combination of ardor and severity in the character of John. 6. Attitude towards comrades, friendship with Theodore and Vasily. 7. Entry into civil activities, becoming a lawyer, the worldly life of Chrysostom, internal struggle and identification. 8. Influence on Chrysostom by Meletius of Antioch, characteristics of the latter’s personality. 9. Baptism of Chrysostom. 1. Many great shepherds shone in the east in the 4th and 5th centuries, but hardly a shepherd of the Church of any time surpasses the great Chrysostom in the richness of his spiritual life. At the beginning, a pagan, a lawyer, an educated man, Chrysostom in his inner life experiences a great process of spiritual rebirth. He accepts Christianity, learns the beginnings of Christian life, deepens himself, observes life. The study of life in all its unsightly reality turns Chrysostom away from it; he recognizes the unsuitability of worldly principles for spiritual life and comes to realize the need for asceticism. He flees into the desert and indulges in harsh feats under the guidance of an ascetic elder. Not satisfied with this, he retires to a secluded cave and exhausts himself for two years until, due to illness, he is forced to return to the worldly hostel. But this gradual feat of external self-mortification was at the same time a continuous growth of the spirit - gradually clearing himself of passions, Chrysostom more and more came to the realization that it was impossible for a Christian to achieve personal spiritual achievement without serving his neighbors. Moral logic itself led him to realize the need for pastoral service to his neighbors. His social upbringing and upbringing in the desert led him to an understanding of the principles and tasks of spiritual life. Arriving in Antioch, he obediently devoted himself to church service. The study of social life and his spiritual nature clearly showed him the disastrous state of the moral life of society and the weakness of personal human strength for revival. The ascetic education of the desert led to the awareness of the inadequacy of caring for oneself without serving others; it showed the young ascetic the need for pastoral service and its possibility with self-sacrifice and the help of divine grace. And so he left the desert and resignedly submitted to his calling. In this article we will try to trace the gradual growth of a pastoral mood in the soul of Chrysostom before he assumed the priesthood. 2. When assigned to St. To John his name is Chrysostom and what is the meaning of this name? The name of the great shepherd of the Church of Christ, Chrysostom, is so ancient and popular that it is known to every Orthodox Christian. Many people do not know about John, the Presbyter of Antioch and even the Patriarch of Constantinople, but with the name of Chrysostom every Christian invariably connects the idea of ​​the great and holy teacher of the Christian faith, who shone in the east for the glory of Christ’s Church. Therefore, it is very important to know the meaning of the origin of this name. According to the usual opinion of the legend of St. John received the name Chrysostom during his lifetime and even in his early days - during the period of the Antiochian presbytery. This legend, included in our Cheti-Minea of ​​St. Demetrius of Rostov, is as follows: - When St. John was appointed presbyter of Antioch, he began to take special diligence in caring for the salvation of the human souls entrusted to him and, with all the strength of his pastoral zeal, devoted himself to church preaching. He delivered his sermons orally and without prior preparation. John's fame as a preacher grew, the whole city flocked to his talks, officials left their services, merchants left their trade, artisans left their occupations, and everyone hurried to the church where John spoke. Cursive writers recorded his sermons and distributed them in many copies, “and there was not a single person in the city who did not want to hear John speak.” Not hearing John’s preaching was a great deprivation, and at this time, the beginning of his preaching activity, enthusiastic listeners expressed their delight, in addition to the usual applause, and various verbal praises and names: “the same and various names praising his work; “I call him: the mouth of God and Christ, friends with sweet words named after him, and others with honey-drinking words,” says his life. However, not one of these many names became the permanent name of John, but remained a simple memory, as an expression of the fleeting delight of admiring listeners. The name of Chrysostom alone was forever connected with the name of John. The Life explains this by the fact that the name of Chrysostom does not indicate momentary delight, but deep surprise at the power of John’s words, along with the difficulty of understanding them. “As a rule, the blessed one,” says the life, “sometimes from the deepest wisdom utter words, and especially he does this at the beginning of his presbytery and composes a sermon that is not understandable to unlearned people.” The preacher's fame and extraordinary eloquence attracted the people, but the scientific nature of some expressions made it difficult for the people to understand him. And so, the life continues, “a certain woman alone, listening and speaking without understanding, raised a voice from the people and spoke to them: to the spiritual teacher, moreover, the river, John Chrysostom, you have deepened the well of your holy teaching, but our minds are short and cannot reach.” Then the multitude of the people said: “If the woman also spoke this word, then God will call his name, henceforth let him be called Chrysostom. From that time until now, this is what is called from the whole church. Saint Chrysostom thought to himself that it would be useful to spread a word that was intricately woven to the people, and therefore endeavored not to use sophisticated ornate words, but to decorate his conversation with simple moralizing words, so that even the simplest listener would understand and would benefit from it” 1 . Thus, according to the testimony of his life, it turns out that the name of John Chrysostom refers to the beginning of his pastoral activity as a presbyter of the Antiochian Church and indicates a certain historical fact, which even had an influence on the nature of Chrysostom’s teachings, since it forced the great teacher to be more in line with the understanding of the people and to take care of the external decoration and simplification of speech. Saint Demetrius of Rostov, in his homily for the day of Chrysostom, recognizes this tradition as undoubted. “We are ashamed,” he begins his teaching, “we are ashamed of the male sex, as we are now celebrating the lamp of the world, like the saints of our father John Chrysostom, not we, but the wife of Chrysostom. He was nicknamed Chrysostom from his wife, not from us. God will save that wife, who named the good, red thing befitting St. John yours, Chrysostom. In truth, God spoke from her mouth, by name and by deed.”2 This is the usual explanation of the origin of the name John after Chrysostom. But it cannot, however, be considered reliable, taking into account, on the one hand, the pettiness of this fact and its disagreement with the character of Chrysostom as a popular preacher. On the other hand, this explanation is refuted by reliable evidence from antiquity. The legend that John was called Chrysostom for his depth of thought and incomprehensibility of expression despite his external attractiveness during his lifetime is based on the testimony of Metaphrastus, which in turn is accepted as reliable by Baronius. The testimony of these historians says that at first Chrysostom spoke sublimely and, as a result, was incomprehensible to ordinary listeners. After the remark of one pious woman (pia muliercula), he freed himself from his youthful passion for speaking sublimely (ipsum vero mutasse e vestigio juvenilis animi cujus est acta petere, institutum, dictionemque faciliorem imis auribus accommodasse) and began to adapt his speech to universal understanding. And at this time, that is, when, taking into account the expressed opinion of the people, he began to apply himself to the popular understanding, the people repeatedly called him Chrysostom in enthusiastic cries 3 . However, one should recognize as fair the remark of the learned author of the historical commentary on Chrysostom, John Stilting, that the opinion of Metaphrastus is not grounded 4 . In fact, upon careful study of the extensive works of the great shepherd, we come to the conviction that the name of Chrysostom was not adopted by John during his lifetime. Indeed, the people uncontrollably flocked to his conversations, indeed, his sermons were recorded at the very moment of their pronunciation and were then carefully read in family homes, indeed, finally, that the delighted people very often interrupted their shepherd with loud applause and verbal expressions of delight - we find the most reliable evidence of all this in his very works. Chrysostom himself speaks about the attitude of his listeners towards him, about their attention to him and approving applause, and makes a critical moral assessment of these relations. But he nowhere mentions calling himself Chrysostom, meanwhile, if the latter had been learned by him during his lifetime, he would not have failed to mention it in his conversations. In the same way, the testimony of Metaphrastus and Baronius is contradicted by the fact that none of the contemporary writers of Chrysostom assign this name to him, which would have been impossible if John had been called Chrysostom during his lifetime. The fact that John was given the name of Chrysostom during his lifetime is impossible, as Metaphrastus says. The last remark of the woman who called John after Chrysostom marks the boundary between two periods of his preaching and pastoral activity. Before receiving the name of Chrysostom, John attracted the people only with the external power of eloquence, and the inner meaning of the sermon in most cases remained inaccessible to the common people due to the sublimity and unpopularity of the style. In the second period, Chrysostom begins to care about simplicity of presentation, about developing a popular style, and through this work he becomes understandable to the people. But such a statement has no basis. Chrysostom, due to the natural properties of his preaching talent, always spoke to the people as eloquently as clearly. His eloquence was natural, clear and accessible. Even in his early philosophical treatises in defense of monasticism and against the Judaizers, where most of all one would have expected some intricacy from him, he is as simple and accessible as in his ordinary conversations with the people. Chrysostom is a great orator not only in terms of the natural power of his oratorical talent and the abundance of preaching material, but especially in terms of the clarity and accessibility of his presentation. This combination of height and simplicity of speech explains his extraordinary preaching success and gives him first place among the pastors and teachers of the Eastern Church. Among the contemporary writers of Chrysostom, the latter is called John of Constantinople. Even his friend and contemporary Palladius calls him this in his dialogue 5, and only in other later writers do we find the name Chrysostom. There can be, of course, no doubt that the name Chrysostom was given to John to designate his extraordinary, as if golden, eloquence. In the Encyclopedic Dictionary Suidas Lexicon, compiled by many anonymous authors, where various judgments, sometimes false, are given, the meaning of this name is explained in this way. “The works of John,” it is written there, “are innumerable, because he studied all the Jewish and Christian scriptures (i.e., the Old and New Testaments) in commentaries like no one else. He praised the exploits of the martyrs with extraordinary eloquence, having a language that in its flow surpassed the abundant waves of the Nile. No one before him was distinguished by such eloquence, and only he was given the name Chrysostom, as if by his hereditary right. The number of his writings is impossible for man to survey, but for God who knows everything.” This judgment about the power of Chrysostom’s eloquence is common to almost all church writers, especially the Greeks, who prefer it to all others. However, the name of Chrysostom in the appendix to John of Constantinople was used by writers earlier. The name of Chrysostom is found in all biographers from the beginning of the 7th century, such as, for example, George of Alexandria, John Moschos. It was also known in Spain, as St. Isidore of Spain, saying that “John, the most holy bishop of the See of Constantinople, called Chrysostomus, through his speech brought great consolation to the heart and the pleasantness of eloquence” 6. Isidore's testimony is important in that it indicates the existence of a Latin translation of Chrysostom's works already in the 7th century. Previously, Isidora Cassiodorus already in the 6th century. uses the name of Chrysostom when he talks about his concerns regarding the translation into Latin of Chrysostom's interpretations of the Epistle to the Hebrews 7. The name Chrysostom is also used by Joanna Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch in the 6th century. But even earlier, in the fifth century, the name Chrysostom was used in relation to John. He is mentioned with this name in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only in the Greek original; in the Latin translation this word is omitted. Theodoret calls him by this name when, at the end of his history, he lists the last bishops of Constantinople 8. Also calls John St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the treatise “de traditione divinae missae” (Traditions of spiritual publications). So from what has been said, it is clear that the name John Chrysostom came into use around the middle of the fifth century among the Greeks, and then a little later it came into use among the Latins. One might think, notes a commentator on Chrysostom, that this name was given to Chrysostom around the time of the transfer of his relics to Constantinople (see the name Chrysostomi in the Latin listing of the Patriarchs of Constantinople) 9 . And there seems to be no reason to doubt this. If this is so, then the name of John Chrysostom acquires special exceptional importance, as a sign of the spiritual triumph of the great shepherd of the Church, a sign of the life-giving and triumph of the great pastoral idea, for which Chrysostom selflessly sacrificed his life. Let us recall the position in which the Church found itself after the condemnation and death of Chrysostom, those numerous and varied strife that lasted for decades among the Eastern Church. Many victims fell from the Ioanite camp (as John’s followers were called), victims of wild violence and tyranny of the opponents of the great shepherd. The Western and Eastern churches had no communication with each other. The great shepherd of the West, Innocent, whom Thierry rightly calls the peacemaker of the Christian world, the great clergyman of the Albanian heights, who showed the world, under the garb of a Christian high priest, the calm and reasonable soul of the ancient Roman 10 - the great Innocent put his soul into the cause of defending Chrysostom in the restless east. He was a supporter of Chrysostom, but the East, in the person of its shepherds, represented a hostile force. He suffered many moral and material deprivations, he endured a lot of labor in this holy cause. Let us recall his efforts at the meeting of the ecumenical council in Thessalonica for the sake of the restoration of Chrysostom, his embassy to the east, the misadventures of the latter 11, and we will see all the incongruity of the church life of that time. The internal struggle of parties in the east, the apparent impossibility of mutual reconciliation, the refusal to accept Chrysostom into church communion even on the part of such pastors as Cyril of Alexandria, the breaking of churches - all this gives reason to believe that Chrysostom’s cause is the basis of a schism between East and West 12. According to Theodoret 13, the Western Church had not entered into communication with the Eastern Churches until they included the name of Chrysostom in the diptychs (In church society, the term “diptych” refers to an ordered list of Local Churches and, accordingly, the sequence of commemoration of their leaders during services). Only in 418 the name of Chrysostom, as the bishop of Constantinople, was included in the diptychs, and over the next 20 years there was a gradual increase in the veneration of Chrysostom, finally in 438 his relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople 14. Thus, the greatest preacher of the world of Christ became a stumbling block and temptation, but he also united two opposing camps in recognizing the greatness and life-giving nature of the pastoral idea. If we believe the historian’s opinion about the time of John’s “assimilation” of the name Chrysostom, then we will have to recognize in this name of the great shepherd an expression and sign of the church unification of East and West and the internal pacification of the Church. A grain, if it does not fall into the ground and die, will not bear fruit, but if it dies, it will produce abundant fruit. The pastoral idea in the person of Chrysostom triumphed: the persecuted righteous man died, but with his death, the tree of religious inspiration grew, stagnation and indifference passed, he denounced his flock as a shepherd during his lifetime and shone again with the light of the life-giving unity of the Church. In this case, the name of John Chrysostom, as an expression of church-wide recognition of the pastoral idea, is important for us, as living proof of the life-giving, expedient and effective nature of those pastoral principles on which Chrysostom built his activity. 3. The year of birth of Chrysostom is not established exactly 15. There is no doubt, however, based on the evidence of antiquity and random notes in the very works of Chrysostom, that he was born earlier than 350 16. However, such a chronological date cannot be recognized as accurate and reliable, especially if we take into account the fact that Chrysostom was attracted to the bishopric around 374, so he had to be 30 years old by that time. It seems reliable that Chrysostom was born around 341 or 344 17 and more reliably the latter. Tilmont and Montfaucon agree 18 that Chrysostom did not retire into the desert before 374. But this event followed shortly after he avoided being elected bishop, because the fear that he would not be installed as a bishop against his will forced him to flee. St. John of Damascus, in a word of praise to Chrysostom, testifies that he was made a reader at almost thirty years old, 19 and this was in 372, and from this time about two more years passed until John fled from the bishopric. Bearing in mind all that has been said, it is necessary to recognize that John was about 30 years old when he evaded the episcopal rank and that this was in 374, therefore, the year of his birth should be recognized as 344 (Currently, the year of birth is recognized as 347). Chrysostom's birthplace was Syrian Antioch 20 - this capital of the east, which, after ancient and new Rome (Constantinople), along with Alexandria, occupied the most important place among these four great main cities of the then educated world or the Roman kingdom (της οιχου μενης) 21. She was the main city and mother of the cities of all Roman Asia, as Chrysostom repeatedly calls her in his conversations to the Antiochian people 22. The parents of Chrysostom Secundus and Aneus belonged to the upper class of Antiochian society. Sekund held an important and responsible post as the head of the Syrian troops 23. Aneusa came from a noble and wealthy family. In addition to John, Secundus and Aneusa also had a daughter older than John (editus in lucem post sororem). Chrysostom's family was the ideal family that he later painted before his listeners; it was a small church, a place of moral improvement, deep love and self-sacrifice. Deep submission to the will of God, humility before the punishing right hand of the Most High, meekness in mutual relationships, tenderness and caring - these are the Christian flowers that grew in the family environment of Chrysostom. Secundus and Aneusa were both virtuous Christians 24 . Chrysostom did not know his father at all; the latter died shortly after the birth of his son. John remained in the care of his tender and highly virtuous mother. He owes the Christian direction of his upbringing to her 25 . His letters about the priesthood preserve convincing evidence of the high Christian mood and deep educational influence that it had on John. When the ascetic Christian mood of Chrysostom, implanted in his soul by his mother, while studying life, prompted him to flee into the desert and surrender to the personal feat of self-mortification, then only his mother’s voice shook his stubborn intention. Mother’s constant admonitions, says Chrysostom, prevented me from fulfilling my intention - to flee into the desert. When my intention became known to her, then she took me by the hand and led me into the inner chambers. Instantly, springs of tears flowed from her eyes, and from her lips words more sorrowful than the tears themselves. Sobbing, she said to me: “My son, I did not long enjoy the cohabitation of your virtuous father. It was God's will. His death, which soon followed the illnesses of your birth, brought you orphanhood, and me premature widowhood with all its sorrows, which can only be well known to widows. Further depicting the severity of the lonely position of a widow, inexperience, and numerous worries associated with raising her son, she points to her determination to live alone as evidence of God’s help to her and love for her deceased husband and remaining son. Being a baby and barely able to babble, when children are especially pleasant to their parents, you have already brought me a lot of joy, she told John. Be patient until my death. Maybe my life won't last long. When you bury my body in the earth and unite my ashes with the ashes of your father, then undertake long journeys, cross the seas that you want. Then no one will interfere. But while I’m still breathing, don’t be separated from me. Do not bring upon yourself the needless wrath of God by leaving me to be a victim of disasters, while I am innocent of anything before you. If I have given you a reason to blame me for involving you in the vanities of life and forcing you to take care of your and my needs, then run from me, as they run from ill-wishers, from enemies, forgetting the laws, and the works of education and the skill of communication that has been inseparable until now, and everything else. But if I do everything on my part to remove from you the slightest concern about the needs of life, then, if nothing else, at least let these bonds tie you to me. Although you say that you have many friends, none of them can give you better peace of mind, because there is no one who cares about your well-being as much as I do. 26 "This warm, enthusiastic memory of the greatest of mothers gives us a vivid idea of ​​the school in which Chrysostom received the initial lessons of Christian self-sacrifice, ardent love for others, and submission to the will of God. We are present, as it were, at the birth of the great shepherd of the Church; we see the direction in which his future life will go, which began in the depths of a Christian family under the vigilant and protective supervision of a Christian mother. Her first lessons, the lessons of childhood, awakened in John attention to life; the study of life turned the young ascetic away from the sinful world and he, in community with his friend, rushed into the desert to devote himself to personal improvement through asceticism. But the voice of the wise mother stopped him, he pointed out to Chrysostom the moral connection that exists between people, pointed out the duties of love and loving service to humanity, which is higher than personal asceticism and even personal holiness. Leave yourself and do good to your neighbors - that’s what the mother’s voice told Chrysostom. He did not deny personal salvation and the need for personal asceticism, but pointed to care and concern for others as a higher feat and guiding in relation to asceticism itself. It is not surprising that John remembers this mother’s voice before embarking on his difficult path of asceticism; it is not surprising that even in the silence of the desert, in the loneliness of the cave, he heard his mother’s voice, as if calling him to pastoral service to people. When saving yourself, save others, while seeking your own salvation, do not forget about your neighbors - this is what this loving, soulful voice of a Christian mother told him. 4. No detailed information has been preserved about the initial education and upbringing of Chrysostom. His biographer Palladius limits himself to a vague remark 27. However, based on reliable historical evidence, 28 we know that John studied eloquence from Libanius and philosophy from Andragathius, famous learned mentors to the youth of his time. One cannot think that the comments of Palladius and Theodore of Trimifuntsky relate to this higher education of Chrysostom, because this is contradicted by his early age and his personal testimony about himself and the inconsistency with other facts of his life 29 . Based on the literal understanding of the Greek original, where sophisti, qui voculas captant corresponds to σοφισταί τών λεξειδρίων, we can understand the testimony of Palladius in such a way that the talented youth Chrysostom (sollertiori ingenio) soon learned the basics of primary education, learned to read and write, mastered the vocabulary and constructions of correct speech and soon left school, because already at an early age the highest demands of the spirit were alive and conscious and he began to study the Holy Scriptures, striving there to comprehend the highest truth. One cannot think that Chrysostom limited himself only to lower education; this is contradicted by the nature of his great creations. If Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus received higher education, then Chrysostom cannot be denied the same, because a careful study of his works convinces the reader of the multitude and variety of scientific information and the deep power of thinking. It is reliably known that even in his comparative youth, Chrysostom surprised both teachers and comrades with the power of thought, elegance of speech, and resourcefulness of dialectics; his education and eloquence at its culmination were such that no equal was found for him in eloquence and power of thought. One cannot think that, after his decisive renunciation of the world, he again retired to pagan schools, because in general such leaps were not in his character and because from the content of his works it is undoubtedly clear that he continued the feat of Christian life, once begun, continuously. Finally, one cannot think that Chrysostom, at the age of 18, acquired a higher education and surpassed his contemporaries in the power of thought. In the works of Chrysostom we find evidence that he was in the Livaniya school at the age of twelve. In his Word to the young widow, Chrysostom points to the fact that virtue, coming into relationship with the soul of people, is recognized as morally high by both Christians and infidels. In confirmation, he points out the fact of his youth. When I was still young, he says, I remember, my teacher (and he was the most inveterate pagan) was surprised at my mother in front of many. Wanting to find out, as usual, from those around him who I was, and having heard from someone that I was the son of a widow, he asked me how old my mother was and how long she had been a widow. And when I said that she was forty years old, he was amazed and loudly exclaimed to those present: “Ah! What kind of women do Christians have!” 30 But Chrysostom’s mother was less than 20 years old when she lost her husband, and the latter died soon after the birth of John, therefore, at the time of his teaching with Libanius, John was more than 20 years old. One should think that Chrysostom’s initial upbringing was entirely under the influence of his mother. Even during his primary education, while attending a grammar school, the boy John listened to Christian lessons from his God-fearing mother. From her he received those deep lessons of Christian piety that determined his direction for the rest of his life. The deeply religious, pious Aneusa herself tried to instill in his soul the principles of Christian life, love for people and resigned submission to the fate of providence. It is also clear that the Holy Scripture was the boy’s reference book, especially since in the vast Antioch, which was replete with copies of sacred books, a rich widow could always acquire them. But while raising her son at home, Aneusa did not forget that he needed a scientific education, and so, upon reaching the age of twenty, he began to listen to eloquence from the famous Libanius 31 and study philosophy from Andragathius 32. This was the usual path to education at that time. Young Christians, under the guidance of sophists, rhetoricians, and philosophers, studied eloquence, philosophy, and classical literature. Of course, pagan mentors, proud of their scientific superiority, pursued their own personal goals in the education of youth - they wanted to eradicate the seed of the gospel in the souls of their Christian pupils by indicating and highlighting the scientific superiority of paganism over Christianity, but they succeeded very rarely, because along with their pernicious direction there was a beneficial influence on the pupil of a Christian family and the truth of Christ appeared to the enlightened mind in even greater brilliance. Apostates came out of these schools, but even more great shepherds and builders of Christ’s work came out. Let us recall the testimony of Gregory of Nazianzus about the benefits of pagan schools: “Although for others, he says (not without reason, pious people think so), Athens is soul-destroying, because it abounds in evil wealth - idols, it is difficult not to be carried away by others who defend and praise them, but there was no harm from them for us, who have squeezed and blocked our hearts. On the contrary, it must be said that, somewhat unusually, while living in Athens, we were confirmed in the faith, because we learned the deceitfulness and deceit of idols and there we learned to despise demons, where they are amazed at them” 33. Such was the effect of pagan education on Chrysostom, who studied, although not in Athens, but with the same illustrious pagan mentor who educated the other two great saints of the East. From childhood, the foundation of spiritual life in Christ, implanted in the soul of Chrysostom, the constant supervision and instructions of a loving and beloved mother - all this directed the spiritual development of John along the true Christian path. He did not stop reading the Holy Scriptures, and his enlightened mind became more and more aware of the instability of secular, extra-Christian principles of life, and his thought was increasingly inclined to accept the yoke of Christ. Meanwhile, John's formal education went its own way. Listening to the lessons of pagan mentors, John enriched his mind with knowledge of various sciences, became familiar with examples of ancient eloquence and acquired the art of deeply influencing the human heart with the power of words. He surpassed all his contemporaries in the power of eloquence and Christian thought. The famous Livanius himself was proud of him and even admired his extraordinary talents, considering him the best of his former students. He did not find anyone to succeed the best Chrysostom if he was not a Christian, Sozomen says about this 34. John's great virtues and pleasant memories of his former talented student defeated the fanaticism of an inveterate pagan. Lying on his deathbed around 390, when John was already a presbyter of Antioch and had the reputation of an excellent preacher, Livanius was forced by the power of truth to utter an approving review of his long-time listener. Can we expect better certification, and is it necessary to look for more evidence that St. John successfully passed the Livaniya High School?! There is also positive evidence from the young years of John’s life - this is a speech of praise to the emperors, which he sent to Libanius for consideration, and the latter was delighted. Happy are you, wrote Livanius, who can be so praised, and happy are the emperors who have such an orator in their time. The letter of Libanius is preserved in the works of Isidore Pelusiot 35 . The question regarding the recipients of this laudatory word remains controversial, but the majority is inclined to admit that it was assigned to the emperors Valentian and Valens (Acta sanctorum, vol.44, September, vol. IV, p. 411). George of Alexandria believes that the commendable word was written during Chrysostom’s stay in Athens, where he aroused the envy of the Athenians with his successes in science and was forced to leave. But George’s assumption has no basis and is refuted by the clear evidence of reliable historians - haec narrat - unns ille Georgius tabulator (Vita s. loan. Chrys. nunc primum adornafo etc. pag. 86 Migne t. 47). It is reliably known that St. Chrysostom never practiced eloquence in Athens, and it is very likely that he was not even in Athens at all (Acta sanctorum, vol.44, September, vol. IV, p. 411). It is difficult to say with certainty how long Saint John remained in the schools of Livania and Andragathia. However, we can affirmatively say that quite a long time has passed and, in any case, no less than three years, judging by the connection of historical facts. No matter how great the brilliant talents of young John were, in order to successfully complete a fairly extensive course in the rhetoric school, in order to become the best of Livanius’ students, a lot of time and hard work was required. What were the results of John's education, besides the indicated external successes of his enlightenment? There is no doubt that of the two mentioned mentors of Chrysostom, Livanius had almost exclusive influence on him. John studied philosophy from Andragathius, but not because of a free attraction to it, but because it was required in accordance with his contemporary views on the education of youth. He did not feel an inclination towards philosophy and even had a dislike, so strong that it remained with him throughout his life and shines through in many of his conversations. Yes, it couldn’t be otherwise. The practical disposition of Chrysostom’s soul sought the immediate fruits of spiritual life, wanted the moral upliftment of people and the improvement of the world order, but philosophy does not have the indicated facts as its inevitable and quick consequences. Livanius attracted Chrysostom, in addition to his remarkable formal merits, by his honesty, truthfulness, and ability to relate directly to a person beyond the external position and foundations of the latter’s life. He attracted his gifted student, finally, by tolerance, by protecting the inviolability of free will and conscience. At the same time, what was attractive in Lebanon was the trait of fidelity to an idea once taken - to give triumph to paganism, but without external breakage. This character of Livanius determines the degree and direction of his influence on Chrysostom. The character traits that we indicated in Livaniya, we find reflected in the character and activities of his student. He learned from Livaniya, on the principles of free will and conscience, to erect a planned building, in a word, as an echo of his soul, influencing the will of a person. In parallel with this education, as we indicated above, Chrysostom’s maternal upbringing went on, aimed at rooting the religious-Christian principles of spiritual life in the soul of young John. The two forces were resultant in determining John's direction, but they did not forcefully act on him. Brought up in the consciousness of free will, Chrysostom himself had to determine his life direction. But it wasn't that easy. John's ardent nature still required a long study of life and stern moral training before its direction in life was decisively determined. Chrysostom belonged to those natures whose spiritual ferment continues for quite a long time; such people can evade their undoubted calling in life for a long time, and for a long time cannot clearly recognize their life tasks. But now the internal fermentation ends, the life purpose and meaning of life are explained, and then their life direction is determined once and irrevocably. They may be persecuted, persecuted, exiled, their inner experience may raise objections to the consistency of the principles of life, they may be killed, but, no matter what, even in the eyes of death itself, they will remain faithful to their life calling and die, blessing providence. 5. Such was John. With excellent natural talents, he received an education and upbringing that corresponded to his spiritual make-up. His diligence and inquisitive mind reached the point of intemperance and extreme ardor. Wherever he noticed truth and justice, he rushed there with a thirst for knowledge. This impetuosity of soul, for some who did not understand his spiritual make-up, seemed like ardor (arrogans) and even insolence (protervus). Socrates preserved evidence that John was considered by some to be very prone to anger. He had more ardor than timidity. In disputes and conversations, John was distinguished by his immoderate freedom of speech. But along with these traits, we find in him a tender love for his neighbors and a willingness to help those in need. But according to the testimony of the historian, he helped his comrades who were unsteady in science a lot, but in meetings he seemed immoderately ardent for those who did not understand his soul 36 . This combination of ardor and severity towards people with deep and selfless love for them naturally presupposed a long and difficult internal struggle, through which John’s true calling in life could be determined. 6. Moral connection with peers and fellow students at Lebanon School was important during this struggle. Of his friends, Theodore and Vasily were especially close to him, and especially the latter. The question of the importance, possibility and calling of pastoral ministry, the question of life for John, he decides together with Vasily. Chrysostom himself characterizes this friend of his with very sympathetic features. “I had many,” says John, “I had many friends, sincere and faithful, who knew and strictly observed the laws of friendship. But among the others, one surpassed everyone in his love for me, and differed as much from them in his disposition towards me as these latter differed from people who had no special affection for me. He was always my inseparable companion, we studied the same sciences, listened to the same teachers. With the same zeal and desire we practiced eloquence and other sciences; we had the same desires, stemming from the same source. And not only at the time when we went to the teachers, but also after leaving school, when we consulted which path of life would be best for us to choose - and in this case we found ourselves agreeing in our thoughts 37.” But with such spiritual agreement with him, John’s friend was alien to his ardor and ardor. Once having decided in principle the issue of life in the sense of continuous spiritual service to God and people, Vasily remained adamant. Moreover, he did not leave John, he convinced him to settle with him forever in the desert and “the convictions,” says Chrysostom, “were successful and the intention awaited only fulfillment 38.” 7. But this was not the ardent nature of Chrysostom. Before he finally surrendered to his life's calling, he had to experience a long spiritual struggle, experience life, study its conditions, see its corrupting principles in all their unattractive nakedness, and then enter the field of Christ as a zealous worker. Despite the inner attraction to spiritual work, John surrendered to the flow of external life. He himself depicts his worldly life as follows. “When we were supposed to enter into the blessed monastic life and devote ourselves to true philosophy, then the balance of our life was lost. His lot, due to its ease, was exalted, but I, still carried away by worldly desires, humiliated my lot, burdening me with youthful dreams. Although our friendship remained as strong as before, the community union was dissolved, because it was impossible for us to live together due to our different occupations. When I, too, was somewhat freed from the storm of life, he welcomed me to him with open arms. However, even then we could not maintain the previous equality. Carrying out his feat with great zeal, he reached great heights and left me far behind him. But out of his condescension, valuing my friendship dearly, he shared all his time with me. This was his previous desire, but my cowardice prevented it from being fulfilled. Those who attended courts of law every day, those who pursued the amusement of public spectacles, could not often spend time with a man who talked only with books and never showed himself to the people 39 . Here is John’s personal confession that he did not have the strength immediately, after completing his education, to devote himself to serving God. Tempted by worldly fame, his extraordinary eloquence and thirst for life, Chrysostom entered the field of civil service. From the above self-confession of John it is also clear that he did not immediately after leaving school devote himself to sacred studies, but for some time he practiced conducting legal cases 40. To do this, it was necessary to study the laws especially carefully 41. And he, according to historians and by his own admission, studied law, went to judicial institutions and defended the cases entrusted to him. The occupation was quite tempting and dangerous; it could develop in him ambition, selfishness and lies. However, a solid foundation of religious and moral education protected him from passionate hobbies and accelerated the crisis of spiritual struggle, simultaneously ensuring a favorable outcome of the latter. John's youthful thought was carried away by the deceptive brilliance and various pleasures of light. But the world did not swallow up John because he was not of the world. While practicing law, he did not stop reading the Holy Scriptures. The Bible was for him the book of life. Under her influence, the best traits of his character developed - extraordinary inspiration in the consciousness of holiness and higher moral strength, ardent zeal for truth and righteousness and fiery unshakable faith. At this time, his Christian ideal was established in him and fought against the old man. This is the ideal that runs through all his creations and is already revealed in all its completeness and clarity in his first writings. This is the ideal of an unshakable, militant and all-conquering faith, which arose in him through the study of the Bible and was nurtured by the sorrows of life. In its further development and life application, this ideal showed Chrysostom the path of its implementation in pastoral service. Serving as a lawyer and wandering through the crossroads of the world, however, brought John its benefits. As a lawyer and a person keenly interested in public life, John had the means and opportunities to become closely acquainted with the needs and aspirations of his contemporary society. Attending public entertainments with his observational skills gave him the opportunity to learn all the corrupting effects of the then theater and the vanity of worldly entertainment, against which he subsequently armed himself with such force of his pastoral zeal and oratorical eloquence. Reading the Word of God, self-knowledge, reflection and close friendly communication with his friend Vasily, all this resulted in John’s decisive rejection of the principles of worldly coexistence and an appeal to the leadership of the Church. With his excellent abilities, extensive information, eloquence and noble origin, John could eventually occupy a prominent place in the public service. But, under the above conditions of his inner life, Chrysostom soon felt in himself the action of Divine grace, which manifested itself in him as internal dissatisfaction with his life and a desire for spiritual activity, for a quiet life, devoted to spiritual exploits and reflection on the subjects of the highest Christian knowledge. 8. Chrysostom’s acquaintance with Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, dates back to this time. According to Palladius, this acquaintance led Chrysostom to accept baptism 42. What was Meletius like and why was rapprochement with him crucial for Chrysostom in relation to the life question? – The high personality of the archpastor of the Antiochian Church Meletius is depicted in John’s laudatory words with ideal pastoral features, spoken five years after the death of Meletius. “Like a beautiful root, hiding in the depths of the earth, it itself does not show itself,” says Chrysostom, “but reveals its good power through its fruits; just as blessed Meletios, hiding in this tomb, is himself invisible, but through you, his fruits, he reveals the power of his grace” 43. Further, Chrysostom points to the mutual relations of Meletius and his flock. “When he arrived in the city,” continues John, “each of you tried to name your child by his name, thinking through this to bring the saint into your home, and mothers, forgetting their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, named their children after the blessed Meletius.” He testifies to the great pastoral zeal of Meletius, when he, like Moses, “delivered the city from heretical error and, cutting off rotten and incurably sick members from the body, returned true health to the Church.” He further points out the enmity against Meletius on the part of the opponents of Christ’s truth, his extraordinary courage, the love of the people and the continuous communication of the flock and the shepherd throughout the latter’s exile. He was expelled to be away from the children, but the opposite happened: he united even more closely with the flock by bonds of love and went to Armenia, as if taking the whole city with him. Those who were in communication with him, who heard and saw him, considered themselves satisfied and received complete spiritual satisfaction. The bishops, looking at his holiness as an initial example and taking from him an obvious example of serving in this dignity, acquired the true and clearest rule according to which churches should be organized. He had piety, wisdom, zeal for the faith and all the complete virtues characteristic of a priest 44. In the above words one can see a complete description of the man who decided the fate of John. Meletius amazed and conquered the impressionable young man with his meekness, humility and selfless fidelity to his calling. Studying the life of his native city, John could not help but notice the powerful influence that the Church had on the morals of citizens, and while studying the latter, he could not ignore the great ministers of the church. God-fearing, who loved deeds more than words, more piety than wisdom, Meletius, with his life and teaching, always testified to John the great truth that without love for God the divine commandments cannot be kept, that enlightenment of the mind and heart is impossible where the ray of divine grace does not shine, and that only he is able to understand the right to proclaim the word of truth who through a good life has made his soul the church of Christ. This was John's mentor. His great personality immediately attracted Chrysostom to himself and he found in her a solution to the life issues that worried him. He was worried and burdened by the emptiness and meaninglessness of worldly life that he recognized. Meletius, by his example, showed him the meaning of life in the selfless feat of love and teaching to enlighten the darkness of the world. Chrysostom was worried by passions, burdened by the discord between the perceived ideal and the reality of his life, Meletius showed him a moral point of support in the renunciation of personal good, in self-denial and asceticism, in complete insensitivity to personal suffering in the name of the pastoral idea of ​​love and service to others. The moral influence of Meletius prepared the ground in John’s soul on which his great and unusually vital pastoral ideal grew, and also the need and readiness for selfless service to the latter arose. Undoubtedly, the positive lessons of Meletius also greatly contributed to the clarification of John’s religious consciousness. According to the testimony of antiquity, Meletius in his conversations carefully instructed John in the dogmas of the faith and explained the Holy Scriptures and the spirit of Christian piety and after that baptized him, and after some time Chrysostom was appointed reader 45 . 9. This is how the grace-filled joining of Chrysostom to the Church of Christ took place. In the words of Chrysostom himself, one can say about his education the same thing that he said in application to his pastoral ideal - the Apostle Paul. “This great fish was caught, not by the fish, but by the word of the Lord. Just as a fisherman, sitting on a high stone and raising his rod, lowers his fishing rod into the sea from above, so our Lord, who discovered spiritual fishing, caught this great fish. And what happened to that fish that Peter caught at the command of the Lord, also happened to this one. For this fish also had a statir in its mouth, only an unclean statir. Therefore, God gave him true knowledge and made the coin real. Go, the Lord told him, to the people and, having freed them from darkness, transfer them to the kingdom of Christ’s love” 46. This is what Chrysostom spoke, several years after his captivity in obedience to divine grace, about the great apostle of languages ​​(Paul). But these words are completely applicable to himself. Through a long study of life and careful introspection, he learned the exceptional value of the blessed foundations of life, the necessity and possibility of selfless service to people, and became one of the fighters against evil and sin. And “this was not a matter of human effort, but of divine grace” 47. The fact of Chrysostom’s long-term evasion from holy baptism is explained by both external and moral conditions. In the 4th and 5th centuries. many Christians maintained the custom of delaying the baptism of children until adulthood. This custom was often accompanied by disastrous consequences, since infants died unbaptized. Moreover, some were slow to accept baptism, postponing it until old age on the grounds that sins committed after baptism were subject to greater responsibility than the sins of a natural person. Chrysostom repeatedly rebelled against this prejudice. “The sacraments are wonderful and desirable,” he said, “but let no one accept baptism when he is already separated from his soul. Then it is not the time of sacraments, but of testaments, and the time of sacraments is health of mind and chastity of soul” 48. Saint Gregory the Theologian also armed himself against this, calling it “the devil’s temptation” 49. But in relation to Chrysostom, one cannot assume evasion of baptism through negligence. Rather, here one can see the manifestation of a common and very important trait of his character - a humble consciousness of his unworthiness and a clear understanding of the high responsibilities that the holy title of disciple of Christ imposes on a Christian. It is necessary to take into account the integrity and at the same time the fundamental uncertainty of his nature, in which each of the great decisions and revolutions of the first period of his life had to be preceded by a difficult and prolonged internal struggle. Finally, there could have been another, completely external reason for John’s avoidance of baptism—the consciousness of the need for higher education and the desire to explore the natural ways of acquiring the truth and only then surrender to heavenly guidance. It is known that, according to the customs accepted at that time, a Christian who had already been baptized was not allowed to attend pagan schools. II. The ascetic feat of St. Chrysostom and the clarification of life's calling 1. The moral rebirth of Chrysostom under the influence of divine grace, his desire for an ascetic life. 2. Exile of Meletius in 372. Diodorus and Carterius. Theodore and Maxim. 3. John's religious sensitivity. The fall of Theodore and the early calling of Chrysostom to the episcopal service are two facts that hastened the determination of his life vocation. Messages to Theodore the Fallen. 4. The installation of Vasily as bishop, the evasion of the episcopal rank of John. 5. The Origin and Character of the Words Concerning the Priesthood. Analysis of their content. 6. Chrysostom’s flight into the desert and a four-year ascetic feat under the leadership of a stern Syrian, evidence of this by John of Damascus. Characteristics of monastic life. Chrysostom as a defender of monasticism. 7. The pastoral meaning and purpose of asceticism and the teachings of Chrysostom, the missionary nature of monastic life. Chrysostom's words about asceticism are the fruit of his ascetic self-deepening. The essence of Chrysostom's views on monasticism. 8. Theory of religious and moral education of youth. 9. Thirst for an even harsher life and Chrysostom’s removal to a cave. Two years of ascetic labor in a cave. 10. Clarification of the pastoral vocation. 1. The baptism of John, prepared by great and lengthy reflection, was for him a decisive turning point in his moral life. A new period of his life began, a period primarily of spiritual activity, asceticism and complete clarification for him of the religious ideal of life. Having received baptism, Chrysostom continued his studies of the Word of God under the guidance of Meletius until the latter’s expulsion by Valens in 372. John’s gracious renewal was expressed in a complete change in his moral life and in the desire for asceticism with renunciation of the world. Palladius, the most reliable of Chrysostom’s biographers, testifies to the change in moral life. Answering his interlocutor’s question regarding John’s character in communicating with people, Palladius testifies to his complete spiritual composure and points out the beginning of it as the acceptance of baptism 50 . Chrysostom himself repeatedly confirms that although there was some ardor in his character, after baptism he got rid of it and continued an active spiritual struggle with the sin of his nature. In the third Word on the priesthood, he says among other things that a priest is especially harmed by anger. “Nothing,” he says, “darks so much the purity of the soul and the clarity of thoughts as swift and unbridled anger. Anger destroys even the wise (Prov. XV, 1). The darkened eye of the soul, as in a night battle, does not distinguish allies from enemies, bad from good, but looks at everyone equally and, even if some kind of evil lies ahead, it conveniently decides to do anything, just to satiate the soul with pleasure. Anger disturbs the peaceful state of the soul, easily inhales arrogance, unjust enmity, reckless hatred, often prompts insults for no reason and forces one to do many other similar things, the soul is carried away by the rapid flow of passion and cannot stop anywhere in order to resist its aspiration” 51 . But when this analysis of anger was proposed by Chrysostom to Basil as a motive excusing John for evading the priesthood, Basil decisively rejected the significance of this negative motive for Chrysostom himself. I will not tolerate your pretense, he said, for who does not know how far you are from this passion? But Chrysostom replied that “the beast of anger still sleeps in him and, if it does not manifest itself, then only thanks to the calmness and solitude of his beloved” 52. John was faced with a choice, either to choose a quiet cell life with its silence and hidden deeds, or, while in the world, to serve the Church as a clergyman, a position associated with many labors and concerns not only about himself, but mainly about others. Vasily did not leave John and convinced him to settle with him forever in the same dwelling 53. And soon John bowed to his friend’s convictions and decided to devote himself to a hermit’s life. But he knew that his mother’s love, the memory of her, would torment him wherever he went, if he carried out his life decision without her consent. He turned to his mother for blessing. We know that John’s mother did not allow him to leave her and he postponed the fulfillment of his desire for a while. One might think that Meletius also prevented John from abandoning himself to hermitage and asceticism, knowing his suitability for church services, and for this purpose he soon made him a reader. Having joined the ranks of the clergy, John became even closer to Meletius and in his very position he found new motivations and strong guidance for the study of the Word of God and for moral improvement 54 . Remaining in his mother's house, he led a strict ascetic life. By fasting, night vigils, reading holy books and self-absorption, he tried to curb his passions and subjugate all the actions and movements of his soul to Christ. Particularly valuable in this case is the testimony of John of Damascus, who in his praise of Chrysostom says that all his virtues were based on the richest foundation of humility 55. “Who, tell me, who will expose my vices,” Chrysostom asks Vasily. “These walls and this cell? -But they can't talk. The mother who knows my life most? “But I have little communication with her, and besides, we have never been in disagreement with her.” If anyone wanted to test my soul more accurately, he would find many weaknesses in it” 56. But these words of his, full of modesty and humility, testify that he did not abandon asceticism even in his mother’s house and at the same time strived for new exploits and desired stricter discipline. The desire for seclusion and a more severe upbringing gradually grew in him. Words about the priesthood, the fruit of his spiritual asceticism, testify to his vigilant and continuous vigil over himself. It cannot be said that he did not then have any external disciplinary means, which he cared so much about. 2. In addition to Basil, according to historians, he used the instructions of the presbyters Diodorus and Carterius and his friends Theodore and Maximus. The Arian Valens sent Meletius of Antioch into eternal exile in 372. The place of Meletius in teaching was taken by the presbyters Diodorus and Carterius 57. The first of them, the most famous, enjoyed the special respect of John. In his welcoming speech to Diodorus, John portrays him as an ascetic and zealous shepherd of the Church, points out his non-covetousness, apostolic character of life, concern for teaching his flock, zeal for the faith, patience in adversity, and calls the Antioch citizens themselves as witnesses 58 . Carterium is less known. John owes his thorough knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and his extensive theological education mainly to Diodorus. In addition, under the influence of the instructions of Diodorus, the very method of explaining the Holy Scriptures used by John was formed. Chrysostom's comrades in the study of the Holy Scriptures and the beginning of monastic life were his former comrades at the Livaniya school, Theodore and Maxim, whom he disposed towards monastic life 59 . Diodorus and Carterius also date back to the time of Chrysostom's Antiochian upbringing in the case of his danger, which he talks about in conversation 38 on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Emperor Valens, with his Arian freethinking, was terribly superstitious and therefore monitored all manifestations of magic and sorcery. Antioch was especially suspicious of him in this regard. The city, according to Chrysostom, was filled with police agents who were looking for witchcraft or magic books. And then, one day, John, walking with his friend (probably Vasily), saw a book floating off the shore. They picked it up and began to examine it. It happened that at that time a police agent was passing by and they spent several terrible minutes in awe and horror, afraid of being discovered and subjected to cruel punishment 60 . And there were many similar cases with John, as he himself testifies. What is important here is John’s attitude towards such facts. “I told you,” he says, “this is so that everyone, knowing, if not these, then other similar cases, will constantly remember them. For example, has it ever happened that a stone thrown and could have fallen on you did not hit you, always keep this in mind. This greatly helps us to nourish the love of God. This relieves despondency in misfortunes” 61. This incident characterizes the completeness of Chrysostom’s Christian worldview and indicates the path of its development - the path of religious-psychological study of life, the sanctification of life facts by religious consciousness. Each of these cases more and more confirmed Chrysostom’s faith in the world-ruling Providence and pointed out the weakness of natural human forces as a self-sufficient life principle. 3. Two major facts from the life of Chrysostom were of decisive importance for him: the fate of one of his friends, Theodore, and his early call to the bishopric. Both facts had the consequence in the soul of Chrysostom of the final determination to surrender to ascetic deeds in the consciousness of personal powerlessness in relation to the high tasks of life. The ardent and impressionable Theodore, having studied the beginnings of Christian life, made a final renunciation of worldly life and devoted himself to spiritual exploits. He spent whole days in reading, whole nights in prayer 62. But his turn to the ascetic life, which surprised his friends, was not deep; it happened without powerful moral revolutions and without a long feat of self-examination, but through one moment of passion for the high ideal of spiritual life. He soon became carried away by worldly life, was seduced by secular pleasures and decided to get married. This event greatly upset the friends. John was shocked to the depths of his soul, clearly seeing in the example of Theodore the weakness of the natural man in spiritual life. Prompted by zeal for the salvation of the perishing Theodore, John writes to him two epistles, or letters, which are known as To Theodore the Fallen Exhortations 63. The content of these messages is determined by their reason and purpose. In the first letter, Chrysostom convinces Theodore to leave the vain worldly life again and be faithful to the once chosen monastic path. He warns Theodore against possible despair in his situation and points to the mercy of God and the remnant of goodness in the human soul as the basis for the possibility of conversion from the very depths of the fall. The speech is replete with many examples from the texts of Holy Scripture, which already proves at this time a good knowledge of the Bible and the ability to use the word of God for moral purposes. The second epistle is essentially the same; it contains a remarkable argument against the possibility of married life for Theodore, since he has already become engaged to the heavenly bridegroom and, leaving him, commits adultery. Both messages constitute Chrysostom’s valuable gift to the science of spiritual life. The most remarkable thing about them and what increases their value is John’s deep, heartfelt, loving and all-encompassing sorrow for his perishing soul, an eternal pastoral sorrow that has as its limit only the conversion of the sinner 64 . This was John’s first appearance to serve his neighbor with words, the first experience of his pastoral activity 65. 4. The second fact, which was of great importance in the preparatory period of Chrysostom’s life, was his early calling to the rank of bishop together with his friend Basil directly from the title of readers of the Antiochian Church. Despite the modest and full of humility life of John and Vasily, they soon became known to the leaders of the church and it was decided to appoint both friends as bishops. The time of this event can be assumed no earlier than 374 66 on the basis that John’s removal into the desert dates back to this year, and the latter, in turn, was caused by his early call to the episcopate and he withdrew for fear that he would not be installed as a bishop against his will. According to the testimony of Damascus, John was made a reader at about thirty years of age 67, but about 2 years passed before he was called to the bishopric, so that he was approaching 30 years of age 68. Chrysostom himself testifies many times that at the time of their calling to the episcopate both of them were in their youth. Pointing to Basil's personal dignity as the basis for his acceptance of the episcopal rank, John, however, calls him a youth. Exposing the possible objections of outsiders who are jealous of the honor of their election to the primacy, Chrysostom especially points to their young age as a reason for the temptation and objections of people against the legal capacity of Basil and John to be primates of the church (word I). By this he testifies that they were both at a young age at the time they were sought for the bishopric. John knew well the high virtues of his friend, but he also knew the latter’s ardent love for himself, due to which he could take the lot of the priesthood only if John agreed to the same. Knowing this, John decided to resort to deception, expressing apparent consent to be a bishop in order to persuade his friend to this high ministry. Basil 69 having previously consulted with John and having received from him visible consent to jointly undertake the high episcopal service, he submitted to the court of the fathers in the hope that John would follow his example. But John, plunged into awe and horror by one rumor about the intention of the leaders of the church to elevate him to episcopal dignity, avoided initiation and disappeared into the desert. When Vasily learned about his friend’s deed, he was overwhelmed with deep sorrow, both as a result of deception on the part of John, and especially as a result of the awareness of his loneliness in difficult pastoral service. He found the place of John’s refuge and, with tears in his eyes, came to it, asking John to explain his action to him. With full readiness to alleviate the grief of his friend, Chrysostom justifies himself to him by pointing out his sincere and deep respect for his merits. With rare power of thought and speech, he defends himself against the accusations brought against him by ill-wishers and envious people, and convinces that one should not think much about insulting people when it comes to insulting God. At the same time, John expresses his thoughts about the high dignity of the priesthood, paints with bright colors the high ideal of the shepherd of the church, speaks about the difficulties facing him, about those external and internal trials with which the shepherd must constantly struggle, especially since his personal death entails the death of the souls entrusted to him. These thoughts of Chrysostom, which perfectly characterize his spiritual image at the end of the preparatory period for the pastorate, are set out by him in his famous Words on the Priesthood 70. 5. The main subject of the Words on the Priesthood is the pastoral ideal: the importance, difficulty, height and great responsibility of pastoral service. But the consciousness of the pastoral ideal, with some self-observation, necessarily evokes the consciousness of a person’s own unworthiness in order to accept the yoke of Christ. It is this consciousness of unworthiness and repentant self-knowledge that forced Chrysostom to shirk his pastoral calling and flee into the desert; this consciousness of his unworthiness, we think, is the main idea of ​​Chrysostom’s Words about the priesthood. For a worthy accomplishment of the high pastoral feat, selfless love is necessary, which Chrysostom presents as the first impulse and the most important basis for pastoral service to people. But the desire to take upon oneself the yoke of Christ evokes the consciousness of the greatness of the feat and, along with it, the weakness of natural human strength and personal imperfection in its complete inconsistency with the high pastoral ideal. The latter is the motive that weakens the subject’s determination to accept pastoral service 71 . The solution to the puzzling phenomenon that John, despite his ardent love for God and his neighbors, nevertheless shied away from pastoral service, is that through self-observation and self-examination he acquired for himself a repentant consciousness of his weakness and a certain passion of the soul, of personal inadequacy to the high ideal of shepherding. Love for God and his neighbors prompted John to serve the latter, since the Lord placed care of the sheep as a necessary sign of love for Him, and the consciousness of his weakness (ή άσθενία) rejected him from accepting the yoke of Christ. Thus, there was a certain duality of spirit, an internal struggle that required urgent resolution. Moral logic itself led Chrysostom to the consciousness of the need to eliminate that negative authority, which alone prevented him from surrendering to his inner calling and satisfying the best aspirations of his spirit. He realized that it was necessary to cleanse his soul of passions through self-denial and realized the need for preparatory education of the spirit for shepherding. 6. And so he goes into the desert 72. The Syrian elder to whom Chrysostom came, outwardly rude and stern, was experienced in spiritual life. John completely submitted to the harsh demands of the cenobitic life of the Syrian monks and improved spiritually, rising from strength to strength 73 . Chrysostom remained in the monks' hostel for four years (δίς δύο twice two) and took away the most gratifying impression from there. The structure, life, character, moral and educational significance of monasteries, based on John’s personal study of them, are depicted by him as very attractive features. We will indicate the most significant aspects of monastic life in the East during the time of Chrysostom according to his personal impressions. “Monastic life,” according to Chrysostom, “represents the complete opposite of worldly life: between monastic and worldly life there is the same difference as between a pier and a sea constantly cut by the winds. Avoiding markets, they preferred life in the mountains, which has nothing in common with worldly life and is not subject to any human vicissitudes 74 . The abbot himself woke up the brethren and they immediately, reverently freed from sleep, stand in a row and suddenly stretch out their hands to the mountain and chant sacred hymns 75, standing up healthy, vigorous and fresh. Neither the harp, nor the pipe, nor any other musical instrument produces such a sound as can be heard in silence and in the deep desert when these holy people sing 76. Having sung hymns with reverence, they kneel and call upon the God glorified by them for help in such matters that others would not quickly think of. They do not ask for anything real, but they ask that they boldly stand before the terrible throne, when the Only Begotten Son of God comes to judge the living and the dead, so that none of them hear this terrible voice: “We do not know you!”, so that in purity of conscience and an abundance of good deeds they can complete this difficult life and swim across this stormy sea 77 . Having finished their morning prayers and singing sacred chants, they turn to reading Scripture 78. One takes Isaiah and rants with him, another talks with the apostles, the third reads the books of other writers and philosophizes about God, about the world, about visible and invisible objects, sensory and spiritual, about the insignificance of the present life and the greatness of the future life 79 . Among them there are also those who have learned to copy books. Each of them, having occupied one separate dwelling, constantly practices silence, no one makes fuss. Then they perform the third, sixth, ninth hours and evening prayers and, dividing the day into four parts, at the end of each of them they glorify God with hymns 80 . There no one calls for servants, for everyone can satisfy his own needs. They make the fire themselves, chop the wood themselves, cook the food themselves, and serve those who come. There you will not hear anyone insulting another, you will not see anyone insulted there; there are neither those who receive orders nor those who give orders, but all servants, each one washes the feet of wanderers and one before the other tries to provide them with services, they do not distinguish who came to them, a slave or a free one, but they serve everyone equally 81 . They love to treat the poor and the crippled, and there are many such guests at their table, and that is why they are worthy of heaven. One heals the wounds of the sick, another leads the blind, another carries the legless 82. Their inner mood represents complete spiritual composure, self-effacing humility and a willingness to serve all people. Their soul, according to Chrysostom, is free from all passions and illnesses, thin, light and purer than the thinnest air 83. Complete and true freedom is the property of those who have renounced the worldly principles of community life. They do not have fear and trembling, the boss does not blame, the wife does not irritate, the son does not grieve, excessive laughter does not tire, the crowd of caresses does not pomp 84 . There is no master and slave: everyone is slaves and everyone is free. They are both slaves to each other and masters over each other 85. They are citizens of heaven. Therefore, when someone invested with dignity comes to them, then all arrogance especially disappears here 86. For the saints, nothing is the king, nothing is the boss, but just as we laugh at children who represent the king or boss in play, so they despise the pride of those who inspire fear with themselves 87 . There is the height of humility, there people who formerly shone with worldly honors or were famous for their wealth now restrain themselves in everything. The greater one is the one who warns the other in doing the lowest works. They don’t say: this is mine, this is yours. These words, which were the cause of countless strife, were expelled from there 88 . Pride and arrogance cannot creep in there; they don’t know what flattery is. They have equality in everything, and therefore they very comfortably succeed in virtue. Such equality is much more conducive to teaching the lower than if they were involuntarily forced to yield primacy to the higher, because, just as a daring person is admonished by one who, having received an insult from him, yields to him, so an ambitious person is taught humility by one who does not pursue glory, but despises it. They make efforts not to have primacy, but to be humiliated, and they try in every possible way to surpass each other in not enjoying the honor themselves, but giving it to others. And this is easy for the hermit, because the hermit is occupied only by the desert, he sees flying birds, swayed by the breeze of the tree, streams flowing quickly through the valleys” 89... Complete spiritual composure, self-denial, humility and readiness to serve people endlessly go hand in hand with the strictest external asceticism among the monks. The latter is expressed both in clothing and food. “Their clothes,” says Chrysostom, “correspond to their courage. They are not clothed in long clothes, like pampered and relaxed people, but their clothes are prepared, like those of those blessed angels - Elijah, Elisha, John and other holy men 90. The desert dwellers' meal is like a beautiful and comely wife who does not need any external adornment, but has natural beauty 91. They feed not on the boiled meat of dumb animals, but on the Word of God 92 . Their meal is without any excess, pure, full of piety, 93 because they eat food not for satiety and pleasure, but to satisfy natural needs. There are no bird catchers or fishermen between them. They are content with bread and water 94. They do not offer many dishes that spread fragrance, but they serve only bread and salt, while others add more oil; Others, who are more infirm, are given additional herbs and vegetables 95 . They have no streams of blood, they do not cut meat, no headaches, no seasonings for food, no heavy smell, no unpleasant smoke, no incessant running and noise, no turmoil and unbearable screams, but only bread and water: water from a pure source, bread from righteous labors. If they want to cook their food better, then berries are their delicacy. Their table is the table of angels 96. Just grass serves them as a bed, many sleep without shelter, and the sky serves them instead of shelter and the moon instead of a lamp, which has no need for oil or to adjust it, and it is not for nothing that the moon shines for them alone 97, etc. Their sleep is decent: there you won’t hear anyone snoring or yawning, you won’t see anyone stretched out in their sleep or naked, but everyone sleeps, lying down more decently than those who are awake. Great fear of God does not allow them to fall into deep sleep and plunge their soul into the flesh, but sleep, as if from the outside, touches them only to calm them down. And all this comes from a good mood of the soul” 98. External asceticism, as a person’s detachment from the earthly and animal principles of his nature, is necessarily assumed in Christianity due to the purpose of the latter to serve the return of sinful man to a state of pristine beauty and moral purity. Therefore, asceticism should be a sign of general Christianity. “Listen,” says Chrysostom, “what is the life of the nomadic Scythians, what is the way of life of the nomads 99, this is how Christians should live, go around the universe, fighting with the devil and freeing those captive by him and forget everything of everyday life” 100. Exceptional asceticism, as a personal feat of individuals who are especially zealous for the success of the Christian idea in the world, is necessarily combined with an element of the public. Therefore, ascetic ascetics are lamps shining throughout the entire earth, walls with which the cities themselves are fenced and supported. They withdrew into the desert to teach you to despise the vanity of the world 101. Monasteries provide a quiet pier: they are likened to luminaries, which, being placed in a pier, shine from a height on people coming from afar, attracting everyone to their silence, not allowing those who look at them to be shipwrecked, and not allowing those who look at them to remain in darkness 102 . Therefore, Chrysostom considered monasteries to be the highest Christian schools of virtue, instilling in the souls of people a clear consciousness of the Christian idea in its essence and sound concepts about things 103. From the presented image of monastic life 104 one can see not only the current state of monastic life in the best monasteries of Chrysostom’s time, but also the influence that they could have on the latter. Anyone who stayed with the monks for one or two days, according to Chrysostom, received great benefit. But John himself spent four whole years in a communal monastery, not for the sake of external study of monastic morals, but due to an internal attraction to the feats of moral improvement. Under the guidance of a stern elder, he bore full monastic obedience and had all the means that the monastery provides for spiritual advancement. In the solitude of the desert, under the guidance of an elder, in close communication with great ascetics of the spirit, in severe ascetic deeds, he underwent the Christian school of self-knowledge and self-denial 105. The undoubtedness of the beneficial influence of monastic life on John, especially in the pastoral sense, is clear to us from the characteristic feature of the life of the monasteries described by Chrysostom, that in it the elements were closely combined - personal-ascetic and pastoral-social. The first was expressed in the harsh exploits of the monks and their detachment from attachment to earthly things. The second was revealed in acts of spiritual and physical mercy towards strangers who came to the monastery and the general spirit of love and readiness to selflessly serve people, which was immediately noticed by the stranger and had a beneficial effect on his moral self-awareness. 7. Bearing in mind the content and nature of the works written by Chrysostom during his hermit’s life, we are convinced that here, in the quiet of deserted monasteries, a pastoral idea matured in the soul of John, so far only in the form of a gradually increasing internal struggle between love for one’s neighbors and the consciousness of one’s unworthiness. During his life in the cenobitic monastery, John, in addition to the famous Homilies on the priesthood, wrote several works remarkable for the strength of their religious feeling and clarity of Christian consciousness. Of these, we will indicate - to Demetrius the monk about contrition and to Stelekhios about contrition, written on private occasions, and to those who are hostile against those who are attracted to monastic life - a message of a public nature. The first word about contrition was written by Chrysostom at the request of a certain Demetrius, as the author himself explains at the beginning of the word 106. By rank, this Demetrius was a monk, as can be seen from the entire content of the words, and especially from the ending. The content of a word is determined by its very name. John, himself full of contrition, calls Demetrius to him and points out the general grounds for the constant sorrowful feeling of a Christian in the general decline of virtue, in the dominance of evil, lack of love for one’s neighbor and the continuous enmity of people. The content of the second word about contrition, written at the request of a certain monk Stelechios, is the same, as can be seen from the beginning of the word. The word to Stelechius was undoubtedly written after the word to Demetrius and constitutes a necessary continuation of the latter, as can be seen from the words of Chrysostom himself, when he refers Stelechius to a previously written letter 107. Both words about contrition constitute the fruit of ascetic self-deepening and are imbued with sublime love for Christ, a spirit of tenderness and deep sorrow for the sinfulness and depth of the fall of the human being. As the fruit of asceticism, they awaken the soul of a sinner, humble pride, destroy self-conceit and lead to the path of self-knowledge and repentant contrition. Having himself deeply understood the essence and meaning of monastic asceticism, Chrysostom appears as an ardent defender of monasticism in his three remarkable works in this regard, written at the same time - these are: 1. To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. By the content of Chrysostom's apologies themselves, one can judge the occasion and circumstances of their writing. 8. During Chrysostom, the flow of worldly people into the solitude of the desert and under the guidance of the elders opened. There were many cases when the children of noble and noble parents, under the influence of secret conversations with pious monks, became disgusted with the worldly bustle of life and turned to monasteries for an ascetic life. It is clear that the people of the world did not like this trend towards monasticism. People of the upper circle, according to Chrysostom, were imbued with aspirations for power, wealth and career, and they looked at education solely as a means to obtain external benefits, completely forgetting about the main goal of education - the elevation and ennoblement of the spirit with Christian concepts. “When fathers convince their children to study science,” says Chrysostom, “then in their conversation with their children you will not hear anything other than these words: such and such, they say, a low person and from a low state, having improved in eloquence, received a very high position, acquired a large estate, took a rich wife, built a magnificent house, became feared and famous for everyone. Another, they say, having studied Latin, shines at court and rules everything there. Each one again points to the other and that’s all – to the glorious ones on earth, but no one will remember those who are famous in heaven, and one day, even if another decides to mention them, he will be persecuted as someone who upsets everything” 109 . With such a worldview of the educated class, the removal of young people into monasticism was met with hatred and enmity towards those hermits of the deserts who, by the power of their moral influence, attracted youth to themselves. The parents threatened their sons with disinheritance and burned with anger towards the monks. Among such circumstances, Valens issued a decree on the persecution of monks and their assignment to military service. For Valens personally, the decree was caused by the desire to weaken the ranks of the champions of Orthodoxy, such as the monks. As for society, Valens' decree was accepted with enthusiasm, since it gave satisfaction to the wild instincts of the mob and secret hatred against the monks of the upper class of society. And so the self-praising, cruel persecution of the monks began everywhere. It was as if some evil spirit had taken possession of everyone’s souls, that was all there was to talk about. Whether you go to the square, or to the pharmacy shops, or to any part of the city where idle people usually gather, you will see everyone laughing everywhere. Just as warriors, having fought many battles and won many victories, cheerfully talk about their exploits, so these people boast about their audacity. You will hear one say: I was the first to lay hands on such and such a monk and strike him; another: I found his cell before others, and I, says another, irritated the judge against him more than others, another boasts of the prison and the horrors of the prison, and the fact that he dragged those saints around the square. Then everyone starts laughing at this 110, etc. At this time one of his friends came to John and asked him to write a word of exhortation to the persecutors of monasticism. John at first refused for a long time and stubbornly, citing his inexperience and, in particular, his reluctance to expose the unattractive aspects of Christian life to the pagans. But when a friend convinced him that the discord in Christian life was no longer a mystery to the pagans, and therefore he himself needed to especially hasten to exhort the foolish. And so Chrysostom, in his famous three apologies, appears as a defender of monastic life 111. He convinces the persecutors of monasticism that they are fighting against themselves, while the holy men whom they expel will not suffer the slightest harm, but will still be in close communion with God, because enduring insults and slander brings reward to those who suffer and are slandered 112 . The essence of Chrysostom’s views on monasticism boils down to the following points: 1) monasticism is caused by the unsatisfactory state of Christian life and its goal is to raise Christian morality; 2) monasteries can be superfluous only if the Christian ideal is a reality. “I often wished and prayed,” says Chrysostom, “that the need for monasteries would pass and there would be so much deanery in the cities that no one would need to flee into the desert. But since everything has fallen into disorder and the cities, where courts of law and laws are full of lawlessness and untruth, on the contrary, the desert grows the abundant fruit of wisdom, justice demands, - Chrysostom concludes, - that you blame not those who want to be saved from this storm and excitement and lead to a quiet haven, but those who make each city so inconvenient and unsuitable for philosophy that those seeking salvation are forced to flee into the desert" 113. In his last two apologies for monasticism, Chrysostom refutes the unconditional significance of the principles of worldly life, which was attributed to them by the people of the world. He points out the illusory nature of wealth and fame, and the absolute importance of moral purity as a principle of true life. He tells the unbelieving father, taking the latter’s point of view, that “fame, power and social influence - all this is largely the property of the monks. Neither the desert makes one dishonorable, nor does being in the royal court make one glorious and noble.” 114 “Glory and nobility are not in clothes, not in place, not in rank and not in power, but in spiritual valor and wisdom 115. Christian philosophy combines in one soul two things that are opposite for ordinary people - humility and height. The monk also has power - the invincible power of patience, there is also glory, there are also pleasures, for he enjoys inner peace.” In the third apology for monasticism - to the believing father - Chrysostom takes the point of view of a Christian and points out, as a darkening of Christian consciousness, the sad fact of the introduction of selfish elements into the Christian worldview, as a result of which Christians care about external benefits and personal advantages. A darkened Christian worldview reflects mostly unfavorably on the method and tasks of upbringing and education. The goal of the latter is a career and a prominent role in society. In accordance with such views, that which somehow, at least indirectly, serves to achieve fame, even if undoubtedly depravity, is considered good. The bad thing, says John, is not only that you instill in your children something contrary to the commandments of Christ, but also that you cover up wickedness with euphonious names, calling constant presence on horse tracks and in theaters - secularism, the possession of wealth - freedom, love of fame - generosity, insolence - frankness, wastefulness - philanthropy, injustice - courage. And as if this deception were not enough, you also call virtue by disgusting names: modesty - ignorance, meekness - cowardice, justice - weakness, humility - servility, gentleness - impotence, 116, etc. Chrysostom sees in these aspects of raising children oblivion of the basic principle of Christian life - love for neighbors and frightens with responsibility for neglecting this beginning of Christian life. He dwells with particular force on the indisputable position that without caring for one’s neighbor, personal salvation is impossible. He lists nine degrees of human falling away from Christian love: 1) cruelty towards animals, workers and livestock of enemies; 2) carelessness about the enemies themselves; 3) contempt for the brothers, even if they were ignorant; 5) neglect not only of the body of the family, but also of their soul; 6) carelessness regarding the death of our children; 7) reluctance to look for experienced educators who would take care of our children; 8) an obstacle to those who voluntarily take on the tasks of Christian education; 9) persecution of persons who care about the public good and Christian education 117. With bright colors he depicts the unsightly state of the contemporary upbringing of youth, with strong words he castigates the parents’ attachment to the earth and to earthly things, and frightens them with responsibility for the moral corruption of their children. But having a negative attitude towards the modern system of education, Chrysostom did not stop there, but indicated his positive principles of education, under the guidance of which personal moral improvement goes inextricably from the social feat of saving others. He puts scientific progress and moral improvement in close connection and relationship and asserts the impossibility of one without the other. To successfully study literature, he says, you need good morality, and good morality does not need the aid of literature. You can be chaste without external learning, but no one will ever succeed in science without good morals, when he spends all his time in vices and debauchery 118. The basic principle of upbringing and education, according to Chrysostom, is religiosity 119. When the soul is chaste, then there will be no loss from ignorance of eloquence, but when it is corrupted, then the greatest harm comes from it, even if such a person’s tongue is very sophisticated, and even the greater the harm, the more power in the word 120. Given the lack of Christian schools in Antioch, where Christian youth could be educated in a good direction, Chrysostom advises parents to send their children to be raised in monasteries and leave them in desert solitude until the seeds of piety take root in them and they become strong in spiritual warfare and capable of benefiting their neighbors. He urges us to abandon the outrageous distinction between monastic and worldly duties, youthful and old, assigning to some the full obligation of moral rules, while freeing others from being guided by them. John concludes his word to the believing father with a call to glorify God for the fact that the truth of Christ exists unwaveringly among the sinful darkness of the world. 9. All three apologies of Chrysostom, in addition to their correspondence to the direct purpose of their appearance, are very important in the sense that they fundamentally change the view of education, presenting the latter for leaders and educators as an end in itself, but not as a means to achieve some extraneous goals that are not directly related to the educational idea. But the indicated apologies are especially important in relation to the history of the development in the consciousness of Chrysostom of the pastoral idea on ascetic principles 121. We have seen that even at this time of strong passion for personal asceticism, Chrysostom was aware of the inextricable connection between personal and social elements in the matter of Christian perfection. A strict ascetic who worshiped the ascetic structure of monastic life, John did not, however, consider the idea of ​​pastoral and pedagogical service to his neighbors to be contrary to the idea of ​​monasticism. Fiery in soul, fully striving for self-sacrifice for the good of his neighbors, John still did not find the strength and opportunity within himself to realize his ideal. Strict towards his inner man, he still saw in the latter the seed of aphids and, tormented by love for his neighbors, he thirsted for more and more new exploits for the sake of the complete destruction of sin in his soul and for the sake of humility of the will into complete obedience to Christ's law. And for this purpose, for the sake of the convenience of self-mortification and self-knowledge, John retired to a lonely cave and indulged in severe ascetic deeds 122. According to Palladius, John’s two-year feat in the cave was continuous asceticism, not only in the sense of exhaustion and mortification of the flesh, night vigils and standing, but also in the sense of constant spiritual ascent from strength to strength through the study of the Word of God and prayerful communication with God. The harmonious combination of bodily and spiritual exploits, self-mortification and self-deepening contributed to the final clarification of the great pastoral idea for the consciousness of Chrysostom. Through suffering, he gradually came to the possibility of reconciliation with the world’s evil, from which he fled into the desert; he came to realize the great significance of the suffering itself and the need to fight evil and heal the suffering of his neighbors. III. Return of St. Chrysostom to Antioch and acceptance of the grace of the priesthood 1. Three words to Stagiria, as an expression of Chrysostom’s complete detachment from the principles of worldly life. 2. Chrysostom is the teacher of suffering. The result of an ascetic life; compassion for people, selfless love, service to human suffering for the sake of the revival of people, as the highest meaning and goal of pastoral life. 3. Return of Chrysostom to Antioch and acceptance of the deaconate. The special nature of the deacon's ministry at that time and its pastoral significance for Chrysostom. 4. Chrysostom’s literary activity during his diaconal ministry: two words of admonition to a young widow, books about virginity, a book about St. Vavile; analysis of their content. 5. Characteristics of Chrysostom’s views on the means of pastoral work. 6. Chrysostom’s acceptance of the priesthood in 386. Psychological analysis of Chrysostom’s spiritual and pastoral mood, as an elucidation of the internal foundations and motives of pastoral service. 7. Introductory speech of Chrysostom to the Antioch flock. 1. Chrysostom's four-year stay in a hermit's hostel and the two-year feat of solitude had a beneficial effect on Chrysostom. Proof of this are his three letters to Stagirius 123. Stagirius came from a noble family and was the son of a certain powerful nobleman, as can be guessed based on the content of John’s words themselves. Stagirius was brought up in the rules of the Christian faith. In his early youth, he led an absent-minded life and indulged in the pleasures of the world, and then secretly, without the knowledge of his parents (more precisely, his father), he went to a monastery in the vicinity of Antioch. His acquaintance with John dates back to this time. At first, the harsh monastic discipline was very difficult for the pampered aristocrat, but when, by God’s permission, he was struck by a serious illness, he changed completely. John depicts the state of mind of Stagirius at this time in the following terms. “You complain,” he says, “that in the past, when you led a worldly life, you did not tolerate anything like this, and when you left the world, then you felt such an illness that can confuse the soul and subject it to despair.” Then John says that Stagirius was very embarrassed by the fact that many, previously obsessed with such diseases, having indulged in worldly life, were completely freed from them, but he spends all his time in fasting, all-night vigils and other feats of strict life and yet does not receive liberation from the suffering that befell him. What had a particularly depressing effect on Stagirius was the fact that many holy people called to him, who had great power in other cases, were, however, completely powerless to help him. Dejection, despair and cruel grief in view of the hopelessness of his situation took over the soul of Stagirius so much that he was often close to attempting suicide 124. 2. Having learned about the condition of Stagirius, John, moved by love for the sufferer, due to the impossibility of coming to him, offered him consolation in a letter to ease his grief. “When I heard about your suffering,” writes John Stagiri, “everything unpleasant in this world no longer seemed unpleasant to me and everything pleasant – pleasant. Having long known the vanity of the world, then I recognized this even more and my love for your piety became stronger. Although I, by the grace of God, am free from the attacks and torments of the evil spirit, I feel no less than you the sadness and sorrow of these torments, and anyone who knows how to love as they should love will believe me in this.” 125 Himself deeply suffering, John finds it possible to offer Stagiria spiritual consolation, pointing out the moral and educational significance of suffering. The general basis of the Christian worldview, according to the Words of Stagirius, should lie in trust in divine providence, in the firm belief that God does everything for our benefit, that he sends disasters to people in order to instruct the weak in good deeds, lead to self-awareness and contrition, and will give the righteous opportunities to show the strength of their faith and love. John proves the inevitability of suffering in the bitter vale of human existence, because suffering is a necessary consequence of the sinful state of mankind 126. In view of this, it is indecent for a Christian to inquisitively ask the Divine Will why the righteous suffer misfortune, and the wicked live among pleasures. It is indecent, as it were, to demand from God an account and justification for His actions and to grumble without comprehending the abyss of God’s destinies. Sorrows, temptations and all the disasters that happen to us, as much as the blessings of life, prove the divine providence for us 127. Throughout the first Word to Stagirius, John proves by examples of Old Testament and New Testament sufferers that there is no sorrow that, with Faith in God, with trust in His mercy, the human soul could not endure, that the most painful sorrow should be sorrow for sins. Of particular importance here is the thought that occupies a central position in all the Words to Stagirius - the thought of the inevitability of suffering during a person’s moral ascent along the path of Christian virtues. According to Chrysostom, “None of those for whom God cares a lot is without sorrows, although it seems otherwise to us” 128. Having sufficiently developed this idea, Chrysostom explains from this point of view the incomprehensible suffering of Stagirius himself. “You,” he says, “Stagirius, surprised that this evil spirit attacked you not in the old days, when you lived cheerfully and surrounded yourself with worldly splendor, but now, when you have given up all this and completely devoted yourself to God, you do the same, as if you began to wonder why no one bothers the spectators, but for the one who signed up as a wrestler, got accustomed to wrestling and went to the place of wrestling, only that one is attacked by the enemy, hitting him in the head and hits him in the face. This is the law of struggle! 129 If you ask why God did not allow this demon to attack you when you lived in luxury and were attached to worldly affairs, then I will answer in response that this is the work of His providence for you. He knew that then the enemy, having found you easily defeated, would immediately destroy you. Therefore, God did not call you to this struggle immediately as soon as you entered monastic life, but gave you a lot of time in advance for exercise, and when you were already strengthened, then He brought you to this difficult field 130. In the second Word, having expressed several consolations to Stagirius regarding his plight and concern for his family, John again dwells on his favorite thought about the inevitability of suffering in the world, due to which “our whole life must be spent in struggle and labor, if only we want to enjoy eternal peace and countless blessings 131. We should complain not when we walk along a sorrowful path, but when we deviate from it” 132. He establishes, as an inevitable law of moral life, that moral perfection and God's favor are acquired through sorrows and the beginning of a sorrowful path is the beginning of moral life 133. In the further content of the second Word to Stagirius, John confirms with examples from Old Testament history his idea about the inevitability of suffering for the righteous, and already here he indicates the pastoral nature of the suffering of a Christian when he says that the sorrow of the righteous: 1) there is asceticism among the world's evil and the fight against the latter 134; 2) it is necessary to unite with love, because the righteous grieve when they see sinners sinning and not converting 135. The entire content of the third Word to Stagirius 136 is devoted to the development and substantiation of the idea of ​​the inevitability and moral and educational significance of suffering. Chrysostom dwells here primarily on the great pastoral examples of Moses, David, the prophets and the Apostle Paul. Moses was taken to court in early infancy and raised in luxury. But he grieved when he saw that his compatriots were languishing in unbearable slavery, enduring poverty and oppression 137. But this was not the only thing Moses grieved about. He was especially burdened by the fact that his compatriots were wicked. He was not grieving for himself. He mourned the misfortunes of his neighbors and especially their moral decline. Having traced Moses' readiness to deliver the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt and pointing to the deliverance itself, Chrysostom testifies that this is where severe and unbearable suffering began for Moses. Moses' compatriots, delivered from slavery, did not understand the cost of deliverance and were not grateful to the deliverer. They approached Moses and greatly disturbed him, demanding Egyptian meat from him; they did not thank him for the present, but wanted the former, and this was the hardest thing 138. If he did not have a strong love for them (ει μεν μη φιλοστοργως ειχε προς αυτους if in fact, it was not love), his sadness would be less cruel, he would only have to grieve about his own fate. But since he loved them more than his parents, in caring for them he had another reason for grief - grief over their corruption and wickedness. Moses was not so offended by being insulted as by being insulted by them. And every time, the more they sinned, the more he was tormented and grieved. They made a calf, played and had fun, and Moses lamented and grieved and called upon himself a terrible curse, but nothing forced him to stop having compassion for them. Therefore, when he saw that those he loved so much were going for the worse, what grief was he in, what tears? He had to experience double grief - both from the fact that some perish in sins, and from the fact that others remain uncorrected and do not benefit from their misfortune 139. Reviewing further the entire sorrowful feat of Moses, John ends his memories of him by pointing out the endlessness of his sorrow, because he was not worthy to lead his beloved Israelites into the Promised Land. He went down to the grave with sadness, because with a prophetic spirit he saw the disasters that would befall the Jews. Having begun to grieve and grieve from the first age, he ended his life with the same sorrow 140. The grief of all the prophets had the same dual character. On the one hand - and this is common to all of them - throughout their lives they were tormented by torture, sawed apart, stoned, imprisoned, died by the sword, wandered in sheep's and goats' skins, suffering disadvantages, disasters and bitterness (Heb. XI, 36-88) - these were personal sorrows. On the other hand, this was accompanied by another sadness, even more severe, from the fact that they saw how the wickedness of those who caused these disasters increased, and with this they were tormented more than by their own disasters 141 - such are the properties of their pastoral grief. The same is the example of the Apostle Paul. His sufferings were, on the one hand, personal, because he endured hunger, thirst, nakedness, shipwrecks and being in the deserts, he endured fear and danger, intrigues, prisons, wounds, vigils, countless deaths and everything else that he endured for the preaching of the Gospel 142. On the other hand, he had to suffer as a shepherd when he saw the falling away of his converts. When all the faithful inhabitants of Asia turned away from him, when the Galatians, a whole and famous people, deviated from the faith, when the Corinthians divided their Church into many parts and, having shown indulgence to the fornicator, brought him to insensibility, then Paul’s suffering was inexplicable and his soul was enveloped in hopeless darkness 143. The dirty trick of the flesh given to him so distressed and disturbed him that he repeatedly asked God for deliverance from him and did not receive deliverance. Again he suffered greatly due to the illness of Epaphroditus (Philip. II, 27); he suffered because of seducers and those who opposed him (2 Tim. IV, 14). If he himself was inflamed for each of those who were tempted, then it was not possible for this ignition to go out in his soul, because those who were tempted and who provided food for this fire never stopped. If cities, and often entire nations, fell away, all the more, one must think, one or another of the believers was continuously subject to this falling away, when there were so many Churches in the universe. Let us even assume that no one has ever been tempted, and in this case, says Chrysostom, I cannot recognize him as free from sorrow. The ultimate goal of Paul's life, according to his testimony (Rom. IX, 3), was a universal conversion to God, but it was personally unattainable for him and, obviously, having not achieved this, he led a life more painful than those tormented in Gehenna, because for him that was more desirable than this 144. Eloquent and directly corresponding to the spiritual experience of people, Chrysostom’s reasoning about the necessity and moral and educational significance of suffering, first of all, achieved its direct purpose as a consoling word to Stagiri. Stagirius clearly understood from these three messages of Chrysostom that: 1. Suffering is a sign of divine providence for him. 2. Suffering inevitably accompanies everyone leading a spiritual life and struggling with passions. 3. His personal sufferings are difficult for him only from an imperfect point of view on them, while others suffer much more and more severely than him 145. But for us, the Words to Stagirius are significant not only in a general didactic sense, but also primarily for characterizing the pastoral education of Chrysostom. We see in the Words to Stagirius a monument to the ascetic education of Chrysostom, we see the pastoral calling he had already realized. At first, in disgust from the vanity of the world, he fled into the desert in order to gain peace of spirit for himself through a personal feat of asceticism. He was under a harsh upbringing by a Syrian elder, studied the Word of God, prayed, reflected... His spiritual horizons expanded more and more, his inner experience increased. Here he found inner peace for himself, but not through insensitivity to the disorganizations of the world, not through escape, but in the consciousness of his closeness to humanity, in spiritual communion with universal human suffering, in deep world sorrow. The gradually intensified ascetic feat, despite its extreme severity, achieved its goal; it educated, renewed and inspired the spirit of Chrysostom. He found the good he sought not in distance from suffering, not in indifference to people, but in suffering itself and in love for people. The ascetic feat did not kill his personal sensitivity, as we now see among the fakirs of India and other fanatics, he did not stop suffering, no, but his suffering received a new shade, a new direction - compassion for people and service to human suffering itself. It was here that his dominant ethical direction arose and developed, which was later revealed in his activities as a church teacher 146. At the same time, the harsh feat of self-mortification reached its limit and the physically exhausted Chrysostom was forced to return to Antioch. 3. This return of John to Antioch appears to his biographer Palladius not as a simple consequence of John’s physical weakness, but as a sign of divine providence for him 147. And we cannot look differently at this significant fact of John’s return to the noisy city he left behind after a six-year feat. It was not physical suffering that forced him to leave the solitude of the desert. His will was so strong that physical suffering alone could not change her decisions. He had suffered before, but did not leave the desert. He suffered severely physically and on the archbishop's throne, but did not abandon his ministry, did not seek a peaceful solitary rest where he could get rid of his unbearable suffering. Chrysostom suffered physically both in exile in Armenia, and in distant Cucusa, and in harsh Comana, but physical suffering was weaker than spiritual and he did not care about his physical health, but among the deprivations, inconveniences and sufferings of exile, he forgot about his physical weakness and burned with pastoral zeal, wrote inspired messages, cared about the holy cause of the Phoenician missions, grieved over the shortcomings and disasters of his beloved, but deprived of him the closest leadership of the flock. To give in to physical suffering, to submit to the external violence of a weak flesh with the unwillingness of a free and omnipotent will was not in the character of Chrysostom. We are deeply convinced that the most severe suffering of the body, the most hopeless painful state was powerless in itself to return Chrysostom to the noisy city. And yet we see that he left the cave and came to Antioch. How can this appearance be explained? – He returned to the world not for a cure for serious illnesses, not for a peaceful life among the comforts of life, but for the difficult and difficult service of human suffering and rebirth as a shepherd of the Church. It is clear that it was not a physical illness that brought him out of the desert cave, but that great flame of a pastoral calling that had smoldered in his richly gifted soul for so long, like a small spark, and gradually kindled under the influence of asceticism, self-mortification and self-denial. The pastoral idea of ​​serving one’s neighbors, their revival and renewal, which had grown and was clearly recognized by John, was what turned out to be so strong that it could conquer the strong will of the great ascetic ascetic of the Syrian Desert. His return to Antioch is similar to the same returns of the great hermits, stylites and ascetics to the world they left behind, when difficult times arose for the Church of Christ. It is similar to the appearance in public service of the great bearers of the pastoral spirit - the prophets of the Old Testament, when they, having long refused and avoided proclaiming the need for repentance to the sinful world, were finally overcome by their inner calling. And these great and fiery people went into a sinful, bitter and stiff-necked world to proclaim to a man mired in sins the great truth of repentance that he hated. So is Chrysostom. For a long time he shied away from pastoral service, for a long time he avoided it. His severe temptation was long-lasting; for a long time he saw for himself the main goal in the personal improvement of the soul, in the personal struggle with passions, in personal asceticism. But a pastoral calling matured in him. It finally manifested itself in his soul, like a great and all-consuming flame, like a burning coal in the mouth of a prophet, and conquered his opposing will. So and, exclusively, in this way we can explain Chrysostom’s exit from the desert and return to Antioch. We do not look at the latter as a private and isolated fact of his life, but as a necessary consequence of his entire previous life and especially of his six-year ascetic feat. This second Moses, the greatest treasure given to the world, says St. John of Damascus about Chrysostom, left Egypt, abandoned the use of life, as far as it concerned him, completely stood out from the world and, as a result, saw in suffering, as if in a bush, a shining God. Just as a rose grows among thorns, so this fragrant and pleasing plant to God grew in deeds of virtue (Chrysostom). Having renounced attachment to the world, indifferent to everything earthly, he remained in thought about God and contemplated God, as far as it was possible to contemplate. Then he returned again to Egypt, which he had left, intending to lead from there, from the bitter work of Pharaoh, a great and numerous people to the fertile land of promise by passing through the crimson sea of ​​divine water and blood, protecting himself from the attacks of sinful Amalek by raising his hands in the image of the One who, for the sake of love for us, stretched out his hands on the cross to give us the possibility of deliverance. Having spent two years in a cave, in constant wakefulness of spirit and body, meditating on divine sayings and cruelly mortifying the flesh, he soon freed himself from sinful ignorance, came to himself with the light of true knowledge and humbly returned to the world for a great and most excellent work 148. So, John’s return to Antioch after a six-year ascetic deed should be looked at not as a concession to a serious physical illness, but as the completion of his many years of feat and the last act of a long and very important period of his life - the period of his preparation for great pastoral service and for the implementation of those high tasks of a servant of God, which he had in his clearly recognized ideal 149. Upon his return to Antioch at the end of 380 or the beginning of 381, John was ordained a deacon of the Antiochian Church. His dedication was undoubtedly carried out by the tutor of his youth, Meletius, who, after the death of Valens in 378, by order of Gratian, Valens' successor, returned from exile to Antioch. This is the clear evidence of this from the most reliable biographer of Chrysostom, Palladius 150. Ordination to the deacon was undoubtedly no later than February 381, so on the 12th of this month Meletius went to Constantinople to attend the Second Ecumenical Council, from where he did not return, since he died in Constantinople during the council meetings 151. Having known his hermit reader for a long time, Meletius enthusiastically accepted him into his archpastoral embrace and, knowing his preparedness for church service, but at the same time his humble deviation from prominent church positions, made him a deacon of the Antiochian Church. And we see that John, who had previously long and persistently deviated from church service, now humbly accepts the rank of deacon. Obviously, a long ascetic experience created in him the psychological opportunity to reconcile his clearly recognized personal unworthiness with the heights of the pastoral ideal. Ardent love for his suffering neighbors and the determination to devote himself entirely to sacred service were met with the archpastoral calling and John submitted. Upon returning to his fatherland, says Damascene, Chrysostom accepts the degree of priesthood and, like a grateful son, through his activities he gives the reward to his mother, the nurse 152. John did not have to serve long in the rank of deacon under the bishop who appointed him to this sacred degree. But Flavian, the worthy successor of Meletius at the Antiochian See, was just as experienced a shepherd and treated John just as warmly and cordially as Meletius. John zealously fulfilled the newly assigned duties of a deacon. These duties consisted of serving in the priesthood of the bishop, overseeing the deanery of church meetings, and church charity. The deacon was then a participant in all his orders with the bishop. The position of deacon was difficult, but it represented the best preparation for the position of bishop. To be a support for the poor, to study their misfortunes, to see with one’s own eyes the extreme needs, to find the reasons for this often in the greed and cruelty of the rich, to appear to the poor and weak, as if a visible instrument of the Church - all this was especially pleasant to the saint. Chrysostom, whose heart was so tender and who so hated lies and pretense. The diaconate brought him into the sphere of real life and opened his eyes to human suffering. Life showed him man in all his moral nakedness and gave him knowledge of passions, interests, disasters and vices. Sad knowledge, nevertheless, knowledge necessary for those who want to carry out pastoral service to their neighbors. Thus, Chrysostom’s deaconal ministry in the Antiochian Church was a continuation of the preparatory period of his life, it was a school of pastoral knowledge. It gave him what desert asceticism could not give, it gave him knowledge of real life, its laws and morals in their best and bad sides. The service of a deacon was very important for Chrysostom in that particular relationship that provided a wide field of observation and a complete opportunity to study life. 4. At this time he did not bear direct pastoral responsibilities of teaching and spiritual healing 153. However, Marcellinus quite rightly asserts in his chronicle that Chrysostom, during his five-year diaconal service in Antioch, wrote many divine books 154. According to Palladius, Chrysostom's ability to teach was known to the residents of Antioch during his diaconal service, which was mainly the reason for the passionate desires of the people to see Chrysostom in the rank of presbyter 155. Chrysostom's teaching was known to the Antiochians from his early literary works and from those few, but very valuable works that were undoubtedly written by him during the five-year period of his diaconal ministry. We mean two words of exhortation: “To the Young Widow,” “Books on Virginity,” and “The Word of Blessed Babylon, and also against Julian and to the Gentiles.” To characterize this period of Chrysostom’s life, we consider it necessary to make several comments about the origin, content, nature and significance of these works. The admonishing words “To the young widow” (ad juniorem viduam) had their origin in the uncontrollable grief of the young widow of a certain Thirasius. Thirasius was a young nobleman, remarkable not so much for his official position as for his high moral qualities. Chrysostom calls him a rare person among the secular people of that time 157. He belonged to the number of God's beloved, was a useful and virtuous man 158 and did nothing that would deprive him of the heavenly kingdom 159. The general provisions that can be extracted from the entire content of the said Word are as follows: 1) Thirasius was a virtuous man, therefore his transition to the afterlife for him personally is an undoubted benefit, as the achievement of the ultimate goal of existence. 2) The earthly fate of a person is not something definite, but is a fluctuating sum of random elements, therefore one cannot think that the continuation of life is good. 3) Spiritual communication between people is possible even after the death of some; in view of this, inconsolable grief has no basis. 4) Finally, we need to take care of strengthening those foundations, the existence of which the transition to the afterlife does not represent anything terrible, that is, to live virtuously. The particular disclosure and justification of these provisions amazes the reader with knowledge of the human heart, its hidden ailments and the best means for healing the latter, knowledge of life and its laws, and the deepest ability in spiritual communication to share in the suffering of one’s neighbor. The second word “To the young widow” (ejusdom ad eamdem de non iterando conjugio) is a natural continuation of the first and develops the idea that it is better for someone who has been separated from marital ties after the death of one of the spouses not to enter into a new marriage. John bases his thought on the principles of moral feeling and common sense 160. The book “On Virginity” presents a beautiful in style and remarkable in depth of thought exposition of the principles of Christian virginity, its internal foundations, its connection with the general provisions of Orthodox Christian moral teaching and dogma, as a result of which the impossibility of true virginity among pagans and heretics becomes clear. In terms of the depth of thought and ascetic direction of this wonderful creation of Chrysostom, it represents a wonderful fruit of the asceticism of its author and one of the best experiences of applying the principles of asceticism to life 161. But, undoubtedly, the first place among the works of Chrysostom, relating to the preparatory period of his life that we are studying, should belong to the “Tale of Blessed Babylon.” This remarkable work of Chrysostom has the character of an apology 162. In terms of its writing, it refers to an actual historical fact, and in the way it illuminates the latter, it represents a convinced defense of Christianity and Christian shepherding. As the most important of the works of the preparatory period, the Word of Blessed Babylon deserves special attention. The work about Blessed Babylon is based on a fact that took place under Julian the Apostate. In the vicinity of Antioch there was a suburb remarkable for the beauty of its location, clean, fragrant air and abundance of springs, covered with shady cypress trees. Here was the church of Apollo and the oracle. During Chrysostom, Daphne (that was the name of the suburb) served as a place for walking, noisy and riotous feasts and debauchery. To destroy the disgrace under Galle, a church was built in Daphne and the relics of Saint Babyla were transferred. The moral goal was achieved, the outrages stopped, and the prophecies in the church of Apollo also stopped. In 362, Julian, a zealous adherent of paganism, ordered the removal of the relics of Saint Babyla from Daphne, hoping to restore the temple of Apollo in all its splendor. The relics of Saint Babyla were transferred to Antioch with extraordinary solemnity, but the triumph of paganism did not follow. Soon after the transfer of the relics of Babyla, the church of Apollo was destroyed by fire, but its lower parts remained as a keepsake for future generations, as proof of the insignificance of idols 163. Thus, the virtue of Christianity triumphed over pagan superstitions. Chrysostom's extensive book about Saint Babylon begins with a general overview of the history of Christianity. The history of the Gospel, according to Chrysostom, clearly demonstrates that Christ’s truth has triumphed over the tricks of the lies of the world. The meaning and basis of this undoubted law of the history of the economy of human salvation lies in the very content of the truth, in its essence. The power of truth does not need any help, but, even if thousands of people try to drown it out, not only is it not destroyed, but through its very oppressors it becomes more brilliant and lofty, laughing at those who are raging and in vain exhausting themselves 164 . From this follows a conclusion for Chrysostom regarding the means of communicating Christ’s truth to people. The power of truth, starting from the very essence of the latter and turning to the inner experience of people, does not need external violent help, therefore Christians are not allowed to overthrow error by coercion and violence, but are commanded to accomplish human salvation with conviction, word and meekness 165. External violent means are unnecessary even for eliminating external obstacles to the spread of truth, since its self-sufficient power overcomes everything and manifests itself primarily among obstacles and persecution, under conditions of sorrow, persecution and struggle, but not freedom and tranquility 166. Light will never be darkness as long as it is light, and the truth of our deeds is not refuted, because it is the truth, and there is nothing stronger than it 167. History shows that in times of persecution Christianity was stronger than in times of peace. “When,” says Chrysostom, “someone who agrees with us in the confession of God ascends to the royal throne, then Christians are in a carefree state, so little do they rise in honor. When the wicked man gains power, pursuing us everywhere and subjecting us to countless disasters, then our position becomes excellent and brilliant, then the time of valor and trophies, then the opportunity to achieve crowns, praises and any distinction 168. Having thus indicated the essential side of Christian truth - its self-sufficiency, Chrysostom, in the person of the holy martyr Babyla, paints the image of an ideal servant of truth, a deep believer in the power of the latter, a selfless fighter and defender of it. He points out the fact of Saint Babylon’s excommunication from the Church of the emperor who betrayed the truth. “The one who owned most of the universe, possessed many nations, many cities, countless armies and was terrible everywhere, both in the greatness of his power and in the cruelty of his morals, Babyla excommunicated from the Church with such firmness and with such fearlessness with which a shepherd would separate a mangy and sick sheep from the flock. He did this, confirming in practice the words of the Savior that a slave is only one who commits sin, even if he had a thousand crowns on his head, even if he seemed to be the ruler of all people, and whoever does not recognize anything bad is more royal than all kings, even if he was among his subjects. Thus, the subordinate ordered the boss and the subordinate judged the one who owned everyone and pronounced a sentence condemning him 169 - and he did all this calmly and meekly, because his soul was imbued with spiritual salt” 170. The latter constitutes a necessary element of the personality of a true servant of truth. “Doctors, when they need to cut out festering members or stop inflammation in them, begin to heal without leading themselves into sin in advance, but on the contrary, then they especially try to keep the soul in a calm state. If the one who wants to heal the body needs such tranquility, then the one who heals the soul needs to be in the highest and most excellent state of calm and wisdom” 171. The individual fact of spiritual healing, due to the properties of its nature, must, however, achieve and achieve common goals. “Although the one who was excommunicated was alone, many benefited from this; all the unbelievers were amazed and surprised when they learned what boldness Christ communicated to his servants” 172. A particular fact in itself, no matter how brilliant and amazing it may be, has no value, however, if it does not serve as a means to a common goal, therefore a good person must do everything for the common good and to improve the lives of others 173. Saint Babyla was subjected to a painful death for his pastoral zeal, but “this death was a joy for him, because the saints, loving the Lord, with great zeal accept suffering for Him and become more joyful” 174. “Only one thing can bring sadness to a true shepherd - this is the death of a sinner and his persistent persistence in evil” 175. Having examined in detail the circumstances of Vavila’s death, Chrysostom draws the following conclusions of a pastoral nature. “By his deed, the blessed one curbed the infidels, and made the faithful more pious, not only private people, but also soldiers, and military leaders, and city governors, showing that the king and the last of all, among Christians, are only names, that even the one who wears a diadem is no better than the very last, when he must be exposed and punished. He brought benefit to those who would later serve as priests and kings. The mind of the first was elevated, showing that the one who has received the priesthood is a more powerful guardian over the earth and over what happens on earth than one who wears the scarlet robe, and that it is necessary not to diminish the greatness of this power, but rather to renounce life (more precisely, from the soul) rather than the rights that God from above gave to this power” 176. If it is not safe to be a hypocrite when a person is offended, then what punishment will he deserve who was silent and did not pay attention when the divine laws were insulted? 177 The pastoral feat of Blessed Babyla was a matter of free will, and not necessity; as a sign of this, the saint bequeathed to bury the signs of his exploits along with his ashes, expressing that these bonds were very pleasant and kind to him due to the strong love that tied him to Christ. “And now,” says Chrysostom, “these bonds lie with his ashes, instilling in all the leaders of the churches that, even if they had to be bound, or killed, or suffer something similar, they must endure everything willingly and with great pleasure, so as not to change or disgrace the power entrusted to them in the slightest part” 178. “Blessed Babyla,” Chrysostom concludes his book, “showed the difference between the priesthood and royal power, tamed all worldly pride and trampled upon worldly vanity, taught kings not to extend their power beyond the measure assigned to them by God, and showed the sacred persons how they should use their power” 179. We dwelled in detail on the content of Chrysostom’s book about Blessed Babylon in view of its special importance for characterizing the period under study in the life of the great shepherd of the Church. In the early period of his life, when John was still attached to the world and the earth, the great ideal of shepherding matured in him. Soon the time had come for him to be called to pastoral service. The consciousness of his unworthiness and personal shortcomings in comparison with the ideal of the priesthood prompted Chrysostom to abandon the high service offered to him and flee into the desert from the world, so that through asceticism under the guidance of great ascetics of the spirit, in contemplation of nature, in contemplation of the destinies of God, in self-deepening and self-knowledge, he could acquire for himself that high state of mind, which seemed to him a necessary condition for the worthy acceptance of pastoral grace. Through long and severe trial, he came to the realization of the hopelessness and purposelessness of human life, since it has a strictly individual character, such a life is meaningless and aimless. He realized that the meaning of life is in serving others, in devoting oneself to serving the public good - the creation of others and the pacification of the world. And so he emerged from solitude, left the desert and resignedly, submissively surrendered to the will of God and the will of the bishop, who called him to sacred service in the lowest degree - deacon. During the comparatively long period of this ministry, he carefully studied life, human suffering, the struggle of passions, the laws of spiritual life, since the very duties of the diaconal service brought him face to face with life in all its best and bad sides. Love for his neighbors, an ardent desire to give people peace, to heal spiritual suffering, a desire that he felt like an inner fire in his soul - all this attracted him to pastoral service. Strictly speaking, his very return from the desert to Antioch should be considered an expression of his readiness to accept the pastoral rank. But he was aware of the need for some study of life, its conditions and laws, in relation to the principles of spiritual rebirth, which were given in his inner experience after many years of ascetic experience. His readiness for pastoral service does not stand, however, in direct opposition to the refusal and flight from the priesthood that took place before he went through the ascetic school. There, his refusal had its basis in humility and consciousness of personal unworthiness; here, his readiness to bear the yoke of Christ is explained by his love for people, submission to the will of God and a clear consciousness of the purpose and meaning of human life. He did not lose that high pastoral ideal, which found expression in inspired and sublime words about the priesthood, no, this ideal was inherent in his soul throughout his entire life until that last moment of his life when he died in distant Armenia with his classic saying on his lips: “Glory to God for everything!” The pastoral ideal of Chrysostom breathes in all his numerous and wondrous creations, in every enterprise, in every act of his zealous pastoral activity. His readiness to accept the yoke of Christ, with the awareness of his unworthiness and the height of the pastoral ideal, is explained by the fact that through ascetic experience Chrysostom discovered in his spirit, knew and studied those laws and foundations on which the reconciliation of heaven and earth is possible - the high ideal of a shepherd with the personal unworthiness of a candidate for the priesthood. These laws are the laws of love and self-denial. Realizing the immutability, strength and omnipotence of these laws, Chrysostom accepted the yoke of pastoral service as the most unshakable incentive for a meaningful and purposeful life. Chrysostom was brought to the consciousness of these laws by the double upbringing he underwent: ascetic upbringing and social upbringing, upbringing in the desert and upbringing in life. 6. John's elevation to the rank of presbyter, which undoubtedly dates back to 386 180, was carried out by Meletius' successor at the See of Antioch, Bishop Flavian 181. According to the testimony of many historians (Baronius, George of Alexandria, etc.), the installation of Chrysostom as a presbyter was associated with many miraculous phenomena. Thus, when Bishop Flavian sang hymns at night (hymnos nocturnos recitaret), an angel appeared to him and commanded him to appoint John as a presbyter. In the same way, an angel appeared to John himself and convinced him not to renounce the priesthood. Finally, during the very dedication of John, a white dove 182 was visible above his head. Although Palladius is silent about these miraculous phenomena, however, there is no reason to consider them fictitious, especially since in the first conversation of Chrysostom after his installation as a presbyter, one can see some confirmation of these testimonies. 7. Asking prayer for himself from his flock, Chrysostom says the following: “We needed protection even before, when we were alone in a peaceful life, but when we were brought into the middle - I don’t say how - whether by human diligence, or by divine grace, I don’t argue with you about this at all, lest someone say that I’m speaking feignedly. Be that as it may, when we have been brought out and have taken upon ourselves this strong and heavy yoke, we need many hands and countless prayers, so that we may be able to return the deposit intact to the Lord who gave it on the day when those who received the talents will be called and brought in and will have to give an account.”183 It is impossible not to see in these words of the speaker his deep conviction in his grace-filled higher calling to the priesthood. Only humility and modesty keep him from enthusiastically confessing the miraculous and omnipotent grace of God, which called him, who had long resisted, to pastoral service. The entire content of his first speech convinces us of this particular view of Chrysostom on his initiation. Despite his closeness to 40 years of age, Chrysostom considers himself still young for such a great undertaking as pastoral ministry. “Is it really true what happened to us,” he asks. - Is the present really not night or a dream, but really day and we are all awake? Now everything has happened, has come true and has happened in such a way that it is more incredible than dreams and a city so vast and populous, a wonderful and great people listens to our wretchedness, as if they would hear from us something great and excellent” 184 . John looks at his shepherding during dedication as a great sacrifice to God, the most precious and best of all other sacrifices, therefore he recognizes the need for constant spiritual work for himself, so that “the few spiritual blessings collected with great difficulty do not disappear, leaving the soul empty and meaningless” 185. With such humility, Saint Chrysostom began his pastoral service, which he decided to carry out in full attention to his inner man, with all zeal, until his last breath, until God willed to keep him in this life. Chrysostom's presbytery service was not rich in external events, because, by his very position, he was not an administrator of the church, but a preacher, a teacher of the people. During the time of Chrysostom in the Antiochian Church, the duties of the elders were divided for the convenience of their performance in accordance with the abilities of each. Some were entrusted with performing divine services, others with managing external affairs, and others with leading the religious and moral life of the Church through preaching. The latter duties seemed essentially the most difficult, as Chrysostom himself says about this in the 3rd conversation on the first letter to the Corinthians. “The gospel,” he says, “is the most important thing. The gospel was given (in the Apostolic Church) to a few, but anyone who had the priesthood could baptize. Anyone who has been instructed in the faith and has believed can be baptized by anyone else: the disposition of the one who approaches and the grace of God complete everything. And in order to bring the unbelievers in faith, this requires great work, great wisdom and even poses danger. Everything has already been done there. Anyone who wants to receive the sacrament is convinced of the faith and it is not at all difficult to baptize someone who believes, but here (in the gospel) great work is needed to change the disposition, correct the character, destroy error and instill the truth.” Teaching and preaching were entrusted to the most educated and skilled elders in the word. Saint Chrysostom was known for his high enlightenment and extraordinary eloquence, so he was entrusted with the ministry as a teacher and preacher. This activity was especially suitable for him, especially consistent with the makeup of his spiritual powers, not only because he was an educated, enlightened and eloquent person, but especially because he was an ascetic ascetic, because he experienced the laws of spiritual life, knew the secret of influencing the human will, and knew the laws of the rebirth of souls. This knowledge, the entire structure of his spiritual life, unrelenting personal spiritual improvement made him an omnipotent spiritual ruler over the crowd, which was ready for anything at the word of the famous ascetic shepherd. His inner power made him the center of church life, the engine of the masses, despite the fact that all administrative activities of his time took place outside of his personal participation. By strength of spirit alone, by his moral influence alone, Chrysostom was so strong that he could wage an unarmed, victorious struggle against external forces, against all the evil of the life of that time. One appearance of Chrysostom 186, one appearance at the pulpit already made him the ruler of numerous listeners. His deep, penetrating gaze with large and sunken eyes looking meekly, humbly and lovingly, attracted hearts to him and poured the oil of renewal into relaxed souls. In general, his appearance was an exact imprint of his great spirit. His invincible and omnipotent power over people was not just a momentary triumph of external eloquence and it was not this that attracted hearts to him, but the fullness of his spiritual life, constant inner activity, attention to himself, the soaring of the spirit towards God, the ardor of love for his neighbors - this is what made him an inexhaustible vessel of grace. And the gracious source of his pastoral word flowed uncontrollably, irrigating the sinful field, turning dry, dirty and barren soil into the beautiful garden of God, into a fruitful and rich field. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Lives of the Saints. Chetii-Minei. November 13 (26). The life of our holy father John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Orthodox Church commemorates John Chrysostom also on January 27 (February 9) on the day of the transfer of the relics and on the day of the Council of the Three Hierarchs on January 30 (February 12). The Catholic Church commemorates John on September 13th. Works of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Part III. Teachings in memory of St. John Chrysostom, pp. 388–390. Ed. 7, M. 1848. Qua ex parte illud est consecutus, ut ab omnibus facillime audiretur, … OS AUREUM diceretur. Acta sanctorum, vol.44, September, vol. IV, § LXXXIX, 1483. r. 691. Paris. 1718–38. Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. Chrysostomi Vita. (Opera, vol. Xiii.) p. 7. Isidorus, Cordubensis episcopus. Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Cap. LI. Cassiodorus, consul et senator, postea monachus et abbas. Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Cap. XL. Acta sanctorum, vol.44, September, vol. IV, § LXXXIX, 1480, p. 690. Acta sanctorum, vol.44, vol. IV., § LXXXIX, 1482, p. 690. Videatur cognomen Chrysostomi coeptum circa tempus corporis Constantinopolim translati. Paris. 1718–38 Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. Chrysostomi Vita. (Opera, vol. Xiii.) p. 13–15. The Acacian schism is a 35-year (484–519) church schism between East and West, caused by disputes over Emperor Zeno's Henotikon, named after the Patriarch Acacian of Constantinople. The Acacian schism was the first church schism in the history of Christianity. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. Book 5. Chapter 34. About what happened regarding him (To Chrysostom). Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Church history. Book 5. Chapter 36. About the subsequent repentance of those who were at enmity against Bishop John, and about the transfer of his remains. CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS TIME., ANTIOCH: The Early Years BY REV. CHRYSOSTOMUS BAUR, O. S. B., The Biography List of "Snonymous" Chrysostom. Many ancient writers speak about the life of Chrysostom. Almost all of them are listed in Saville's edition: 1) church historiographer Socrates; 2) Palladius, Bishop of Elenopolis; 3) Proclus of Constantinople; 4) Cyril of Alexandria; 5) Sophronius of Jerusalem; 6) John of Damascus; 7) Martyrius, Patriarch of Antioch; 8) Kosma Messenger; 9) Cosmas, deacon during Chrysostom; 10) Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus; 11) Great Nile; 12) Leo, emperor; 13) Nikita Paphlagonian; 14) Theodore of Trimifuntsky; 15) George of Alexandria; 16) Sozomen; 17) Zosima; 18) Isidore Pelusiot; 19) Evagrius the ascetic and other Greek historians. Among all these sources of information about Chrysostom, first place should be given to the dialogue of Palladius of Helena. Stilting recognizes the dialogue as the first source after the works of Chrysostom. Among all the sources of information about Chrysostom, he says, the first place is undoubtedly held by the works of Chrysostom themselves, recently carefully published by Montfaucon. Second place among writers who explore the life of Chrysostom deserves Palladius’s “Historical Dialogues.” Palladius, Chrysostom's biographer, is a controversial personality. Theodore of Trimifuntsky calls him a venerable husband and friend of Chrysostom; he recognizes Bithynia as his place of ministry, where he was a bishop until the time of Chrysostom’s exile. After his expulsion, Palladius was persecuted by a hostile party and was imprisoned in a cold and stuffy prison for 11 months. His further fate, according to Theodore, is unknown (Theodor Trimith. de vita et exsilio s. Ioan. Chrys. s. 57). He is usually called the Bishop of Elenopol. Vigotsky believes that he was not the Bishop of Elenopol. According to the testimony of George of Alexandria, Palladius lived in Constantinople during the time of Chrysostom and was a direct eyewitness to all the deeds of Chrysostom. Palladius left both Constantinople and his fatherland, refusing communication with those who destroyed Chrysostom. In some ancient codices, Palladius is called Bishop of Asponenus (εν αλλοις γραφεται ασπωνον), on the basis of which inscriptions Socrates says that the name of Palladius was not attributed to himself under the famous dialogue, but was attributed after, which is where the tripartite definition of the place of his episcopal service came from. It is very likely that the famous Palladius was also the Bishop of Elenopolis in Bithynia and was then transferred to Galatia to Aspona, which probably means the city of Amasia. Socrates is noticeably inclined towards the latter assumption, because the name of Palladius is placed in the catalog of bishops who were transferred from one diocese to another. Be that as it may, no matter how controversial the issue of Palladium is, based on his dialogue one should see in him a sincere friend of Chrysostom, ardently devoted to the latter. His dialogue from here acquires the special value of a reliable historical monument of the time when everything was armed against the great Archbishop of Constantinople. The historical evidence of Socrates, Sozomen, Cosmas and other historians must be verified in parallel with the testimony of Palladius (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, volume IV, pp. 405–408). Of the later writers about Chrysostom, the most remarkable George of Alexandria is distinguished, however, by the least reliability. With an inelegant and even unprocessed style, the legend of George is filled with various incredible and fabulous facts, from where they were transferred to the Cheti-Minea, while neither Chrysostom in his works, nor Palladius in his dialogues mention any miracles. Sancti patria, parents, natalis figendus circa. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 408. Sancti patria, parents, natalis figendus circa. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 409. Some biographers of Chrysostom are inclined to recognize the year 347 as the year of his birth (Neander I, p. 1, Malyshevsky, Archimandrite Agapit, Paul Albert and Filaret of Chernigov). Others lean more towards 344 (Lebedev). The latter opinion should be considered more reliable. Moritur Sancti tum infantis pater: uterque parents probabilius erat Christianus: Sancti praeceptores, studia, eloquentia. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 410. Oratio panegyrica. Auctore s. Joanne Damasceno. Acta sanctorum vol. 44., vol. IV., pp. 700 – 709. Antioch of Syria was considered the third most important city of the Roman Empire after Rome and Alexandria. It was the first center of Christianity outside Palestine and the starting point of Paul's missionary travels. This city was located 300 miles north of Jerusalem, where the Lebanese Mountains and the Asia Minor Taurus meet. Antioch was founded around 300 BC. on the banks of the Orontes about twenty miles from the sea. Thanks to its port, called Seleucia, it maintained constant communication with the west, while it was visited by trade caravans from all over the Middle East. In the 4th century A.D. its male population was 150–200 thousand. The city was famous for its schools of philosophy, medicine and rhetoric, a library and various public entertainment institutions: theaters, stadiums and baths. Like other Hellenistic cities, the city was divided in two by a wide, colonnaded street. This is the only ancient city known to us that had a regular system of street lighting. The inhabitants of Antioch gained a reputation for being rude wits and inventors of nicknames, and it is no coincidence that the name “Christians” appeared here (Acts 11:26). And it was this pagan city, overwhelmed by passions, that became the main center of Christianity outside Palestine. Doctor Luke is traditionally considered a native of this city. It is quite possible that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Antioch. Neander 131, p. 1. Palladius calls Chrysostom an Antiochian. In terms of its central importance in the Asian East, Antioch was a living center in mental and religious terms, but at the same time, like other large cities, Antioch was a center of moral corruption, which the best son of Antioch, Chrysostom, fought during his presbytery. "In officio magistri militum Siriae". Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. p. 48. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 1. paragraph 5. Many biographers of antiquity, however, deny the undoubted position that Chrysostom’s parents were Christians. Let us point out the most significant negatives. Theodore of Trimifuntsky claims that Chrysostom's parents were pagans and he himself was a pagan. The certainty of this understanding of the word ethnicus is confirmed by the context of the speech. Further we read: Verum tamen divina gratia compunctus ad ecclesiasticos conventus coepit accedere et divinarum sceripturarum lectionibus interesse (Migne t, XLV1I, pp. 56–57). This is the same opinion of George of Alexandria in the ed. Saville, pag. 119. He claims that the parents of St. Chrysostom were pagans, but they were baptized after John, who, in his opinion, was baptized in childhood or early youth. Some others, following George, claim the same thing. There is no doubt that our Cheti-Minean narrative is based on the same testimony of George of Alexandria. In the life of John we read the following: “Light of the world, teacher of the universe, pillar and foundation of the church, preacher of repentance, St. John Chrysostom was born in Syrian Antioch from infidel parents who adhered to Hellenic wickedness,” etc. But such an opinion is completely inconsistent with the facts of John’s childhood history and the circumstances of his baptism, and also finds a complete refutation in the works of Chrysostom himself. John was baptized around the 20th year of his life. Meanwhile, it is reliably known that he lost his father soon after his birth and therefore his father could not be baptized after Chrysostom. Aneus’s mother remained at the age of 20 and, following the command of the Apostle, abandoned her second marriage and devoted herself to raising her son. When Chrysostom studied with Livanius, even before receiving baptism, his mother was already a Christian, which is confirmed by the famous exclamation of Livanius; when he heard that Chrysostom’s mother, not 40 years old, had been a widow for about 20 years, he exclaimed: “What kind of wives do Christians have!” Finally, in addition to the first word about the priesthood, where the Christian character of Chrysostom’s mother is clearly depicted, we also find confirmation from Chrysostom himself that he was born into a Christian family. In the 11th conversation against the Anomeans, spoken already in Constantinople, Chrysostom testifies to his pastoral love with the following words. “Who will not be amazed and surprised,” he says, at your fiery zeal, unfeigned love, favor towards teachers, agreement with each other, which all together are sufficient to attract even a stony soul to you. Therefore, we love you no less than the church (Antioch), in which we were born and raised and instructed, for this church is the sister of that one, and you have proven your kinship with it by your deeds (On misc. vol. I, p. 548). From this it is clear that he was born of Christian parents, because he compares not city to city, but church to church. The Church is known to be Christian. In view of the undoubted contradictions between the opinions of George and Theodore and the facts of the life and history of Chrysostom, it is quite fair that they should be rejected (Vita Chrystomi adornata. Migne t. XLVI1, pag. 83–84). Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 1. paragraph 5. Cum autem esset ingenio sollertiori sese in litterarum studio exercuit ad sacrarum scripturarum ministerium. Hine decem et octo annos natus, a sophistis, qui voculas captant, descivit; ubi monte vero virili fuit amore captus est sacrarum literarum. Dialogus pag. 18. Theodore affirms the same thing, saying: Verumtamen divina gratia compunctus ad ecclesiasticos conventus cocpit accedere et divinarum scripturarum lectionibus interesse (de vita et exsilio Joan. Chrys. p. LVIII). Socrates book VI, ch. Sh; Sozomen History of the Church Book VIII, Ch. II, Theodoret 3, 23. Meanwhile, in our life of Chrysostom, Palladius’ remark is understood precisely in this sense. “When I began to come of age,” we read there, “my parents gave me the teaching of Hellenic wisdom to Libanius the sophist and Andragathias the philosopher. The boy was still in existence, but the elder began to understand, having made him wise by the Holy Spirit, for having known the one true Creator of all God, he abhorred Hellenic godless polytheism, and flowed to the Holy Meletius, etc., which is in direct contradiction to the further words of the life, where it is said that after the death of his father he again studied philosophy and rhetoric and “became a rhetorician and quite a philosopher." Saint John Chrysostom. To a young widow. Word 1. paragraph 2. Socrates book VI, ch. III; Sozomen History of the Church Book VIII, Ch. II. Livanius was a native of Antioch and initially taught in Athens; from Athens he moved to Constantinople; expelled from here in 346, he moved to Nicodemus, then again was in Constantinople around 351. Finally, with the permission of Caesar Gall, he returned to Antioch and remained there as a teacher of eloquence until his death in 390. According to Theodoret, among teachers of eloquence Livadius took first place (book 3, chapter 23). His school of eloquence and oratory was preferred over others and provided convenient access to civil positions. It should be noted that for all his devotion to paganism, Livadiy was, however, more tolerant than other pagan mentors and treated the religious beliefs of his students with less fanaticism, as can be seen from the above remark of Livanius about Chrysostom’s mother. Who Andragathius was and what the direction of his school was - historical documents are silent. Gregory the Theologian of Creation, vol. IV, p. 76. Sozomen History of the Church Book VIII, Ch. II. Erat Antiohiae ad Orontem presbyter quidam, nomine Joannes, nobili gonere natus vita integer dicendi persuadendique artifex egregius et omnium sui temporis oratorum prestantissimus, sicut Libanius Syrus Sophista testatus est. Nam cum moriturus esset, percontantibus amicis quis in ejus locum succederet: Johannes inquit, nisi Christiani ilium subripuissent. Pelusiot in libro 2 Epistoiarum epist. 42 ad Ophelium. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 1. paragraph 1. §V. Sancti amicitia cum Basilio, familiaritas cum S. Meletio, a quo instruitur et baptizatur: lector forsan ab eodem, forsan ab alio ordinatus: Sancti periculum. Acta sanctorum, vol.44, vol. IV., p. 412. One must think that his famous speech in praise of the emperors was written at this time. Socrates book VI, ch. Sh; Sozomen History of the Church Book VIII, Ch. II. Paris. 1718–38. Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. Chrysostomi Vita. (Opera, vol. Xiii.) p. 18. Saint John Chrysostom. Praise to the saints. A laudable conversation about our holy father Meletios, Archbishop of Antioch the Great, and about the zeal of those gathered. Socrates claims (Book VI, Chapter III) that John was made a reader by Bishop Zeno. George of Alexandria and other later writers also claim. Following the example of Socrates, Baronius thinks that Chrysostom was made a reader by Zeno, Bishop of Tyana, or Zeno, Bishop of Mayum. Marcellinus, in a chronicle under 389, states the opposite of the above views. He says that John, born in Antioch in the same place, was made a reader by Meletius, the bishop of that city, and little by little carried out church duties. Tilmon decisively asserts that Socrates is wrong in his judgment, as if from the testimony of Palladius it follows that John was made a reader by his bishop Meletius in accordance with the canons (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV., p. 412, 57). However, we do not find that Palladium strongly asserts this. Of course, when a little later he speaks of making John a deacon, he clearly testifies that this was done by Meletius. But he is silent about the first case and does not state that John was made a reader by the same one with whom he remained “omnipresent for three years” (άμφί τά τρία έτη). As for the canons, nothing contrary was done to them even in the case of the installation of John by Zeno, since Zeno of Tire ruled the Patriarchate of Antioch during the exile of Meletius. We can only say that John was installed as a reader no later than the beginning of 372, if he was installed by Meletius, and not earlier than 372, if he was installed by Zeno. It is somewhat unclear when Chrysostom was made a reader, whether immediately after baptism, or after some time, i.e., how his three-year stay with Meletius should be understood. This doubt, it seems, is resolved satisfactorily if we translate literally the original testimony of Palladius regarding the indicated event. The words of Palladius should be literally translated as follows: when he, sanctified by the bath of regeneration, remained about three years, he was made a reader, that is, baptized in 369, he was made a reader in 371, or later, so that he had a three-year period of time between baptism and entering into church positions. Neander understands this in the same way (B I, p. 14). The testimony of Theodore of Trimifuntsky remains lonely and incomprehensible, that John received baptism in the city of Amida from Bishop Beatan and was soon made a reader of the Antiochian Church by Bishop Pimenius of that city. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations “On changing names.” Conversation 1, paragraph 3. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Acts of the Apostles. Conversation 1. paragraph 7. St. Gregory the Theologian of creation. Vol. Sh, pp. 281–284, 297–300. Paris. 1718–38. Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. r. 67. Further resolving Theodore’s objection regarding Chrysostom’s character in view of the fact that many accuse him of anger and arrogance, Palladius points out the complete absence of these negative qualities in him and argues that Chrysostom could be accused of anger and arrogance and was actually accused only by incorrigible sinners who were denounced by him with all the severity of pastoral zeal, but it is very clear that this kind of severity always borders on spiritual softness and deepest sorrow for the death of the sinner (p. 68–69). Only Socrates, on the basis of false and unverified sources, accuses John of being angry and not caring at all about humility. But Socrates' opinion stands almost alone. Many writers of antiquity, recognizing the ardor and severity in the character of Chrysostom, attribute its immoderate manifestation to the age before baptism (see Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 414, §VI). Given Chrysostom’s clear consciousness of the Christian ideal, it is quite understandable, of course, that deviations in life from it must have caused him severe grief. And so he, in full consciousness of his divine right, turns with severe reproof to the merciless rich, to depraved youths, to clergy who have forgotten the duties of their rank, etc. He scourges vice with an iron rod, denounces the court, denounces the entire direction of life. And, of course, the sinful world had to see in him with its blinded eyes an angry and intolerant person. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 3., paragraph 14. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 1, paragraph 4. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 315. Oratio panegyrica auctore S. Ioanne Damasceno cap. I, 2. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 701. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. Word 6, paragraph 7. Diodorus was later Bishop of Tarsus and wrote many books. Saint John Chrysostom. Praise be given to Bishop Diodorus, who previously preached and praised John Chrysostom. Theodore was later Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and Maximus Bishop of Seleusienses in Ibauria: Socr. Lib VI, p. Sh; Sosom. lib. VIII, cap. II. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Acts of the Apostles. Conversation 38. paragraph 5. Saint John Chrysostom. To Theodore the fallen exhortation 2. p. 1. Sozomen, Hezichius, Theodore of Caesarea indicate only one letter to Theodore. Leontius of Byzantium, a famous theologian of the late 6th century, and Isidore of Spain recognize two letters entitled “To the Fallen” addressed to the same person. The latter says that he himself read two letters of Chrysostom to Theodore (I read two books written on Theodore’s complaints and exhortations.) The same is the testimony of Leontius of Byzantium (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, pag. 416). This is also proven by the similarity of messages in content and style. The second epistle suggests that Theodore responded in writing or orally to the 1st Epistle of John and wanted to justify his return to the world by concerns about household affairs, examples of others, etc. At the end of the second epistle, Chrysostom makes it clear that he wrote to Theodore first and his great love for the latter forced him to write this epistle as well. Neander thinks that the second message is written to another person, Neander. Der hi. John Chrys, V. I, pp. 22–23. But there is no reason for this. Saint John Chrysostom. 1st admonition to Theodore the fallen. clause 1. There are disagreements regarding the time of writing the Admonitions to Theodore the Fallen. According to Baronius, they were written by Chrysostom during his life in the desert. He is followed by Montfaucon and some others. Tilmon, referring to the second letter, which speaks of Theodore’s 20 years of age, objects that they were written much earlier, but Tilmon’s mistake is obvious; There is no doubt that he has in mind some other (perhaps forged) letter of Chrysostom (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 419). The exact basis for judging the time of writing of the Exhortations can be deduced from the above testimonies of historians about the initial relationship of John and Theodore. According to the testimony of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Theodore, at the same time as Chrysostom, studied the Holy Scriptures with Diodorus. But Diodorus had special care for the Church of Antioch together with Flavian from 372 to 378, that is, while Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, remained in exile. One must think that at the beginning of this joint study with Diodorus, the epistles of John to Theodore were written. The content of the letters speaks against the later (during desert life) origin of the letters. When Chrysostom lived in the desert, he spent the first four years under the discipline of a stern Syrian elder (Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. p. 18). But Diodorus, under whose discipline and leadership John is trying to return Theodore, was not an elder then. because after several years he was appointed bishop and served as bishop for 36 years (Theod. lib. V, cap. 40). One should think that Chrysostom’s studies of the Holy Scriptures with Diodorus began no earlier than 372, because that year Meletius was sent into exile, but it is incredible that Chrysostom studied with Diodorus while Meletius was in Antioch. In accordance with the above reasons, one should think that the entry of John and Theodore under the discipline of Diodorus, to which the letters call Theodore, dates back to 372. There is also no doubt that they were written before Chrysostom went into the desert, i.e., around 374. So, the letters to Theodore were written by Chrysostom between 372 and 374, therefore, in any case, they constitute the first a monument to his pastoral ministry in words. Tilmont and Montfaucon agree that John did not retire into the desert until 374. Vs. The early (before 30 years) calling of John and Basil to the episcopal rank is objected to, pointing to the XIth rule of the Council of Nioki in 314, at which it was decreed that no one should be appointed presbyter before the age of 30, even if he had an approving life. Chrysostom himself repeatedly objects to the meaning of such a decree and its literal execution. He testifies that the preparedness of a well-known candidate for pastoral ministry should be judged not by age, but by his moral state. In the 2nd Word on the priesthood, he speaks about this to console Basil: “What wouldn’t they say? The flock of Christ is destroyed, etc. Although this same thing can be said about you, you will soon prove by your deeds that one should not judge intelligence by age, nor give preference to an old man for his gray hair, and completely remove a young man from this service due to his years.” This applies only to those who are young in faith (newly baptized). And between this (νεος) and the other (νεοφυτος) there is a great difference. According to the meaning of these words of Chrysostom, it follows that even the decree of the Nioki Council is not violated when young people are admitted into church service if their moral qualities correspond to the latter. The practice of the church shows that there were frequent examples of the installation of persons under 30 years of age as presbyters, for example, Remigius was installed as bishop of Remenza when he was about 22 years old; Eleuthevrius, a twenty-year-old youth, was installed as a bishop in Illyricum by Pope Anicetus. There are disagreements regarding the personality of Basil, the primary source of which should be considered Socrates, who, as we have already seen more than once, conveys a lot of unreliable information about Chrysostom. Socrates says it was Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. But the falsehood of such a statement is obvious to everyone. Basil the Great was not a youth at this time and did not live in Antioch while this was happening. He, as is known, was a presbyter in Caesarea for a long time, then a bishop in the same city for several years, while Chrysostom’s friend lived in Antioch and studied with him under Diodorus and Carterius. Photius thinks that it was Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, who, one must think, was only born around this time, since in 451 he participated as a bishop in the Council of Chalkidian, and in 458 he wrote to Emperor Leo. It is also impossible to identify Vasily with Maxim, a friend of Chrysostom. Baronius, who is more reliable in this case, based on the fact of the participation of Chrysostom’s friend at the Council of Constantinople (381), says that he was one of the two bishops who were there who bore the name of Basil: one was the Bishop of Rafanensky in Syria, the other was the Bishop of Byblos in Phenicia. As for the latter, in many editions of the conciliar acts he bears the name of Basilides, and not Basil. The other is signed by Basil, Bishop of Rafanensky (see Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 425). Montfaucon considers the last opinion about the personality of Basil to be the only probable one and considers him the bishop of Rafana of Syria. The latter opinion has its basis in the words of Chrysostom himself. According to John's testimony, his friend, soon after his dedication, came to him with deep sorrow, wanting to know the explanation for his behavior towards him. After a long conversation, saying goodbye to John, Vasily begged his friend not to leave him alone, to give him instructions, advice and consolation. Saint John promised to come to him from time to time to talk. But constant communication and meetings between friends were possible only if the place of Basil’s bishopric was not far from Antioch, where John lived and near which he labored. This was precisely Rafana of Syria. According to Cellarius (Georg, t. II, pg. 258), the city of Rafana was located in central Seleucia, of which Antioch was the main city, and was located between Antaradus and the Orontes River, on which Antioch lay, so that there was a very small distance between Rafana and Antioch (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 426). There are disagreements regarding the time when the Words were written, which, however, can be resolved quite easily. Socrates (lib. VI, cap. 3) says that the Words on the Priesthood were written by Chrysostom after he was ordained a deacon by Meletius. But in Montfaucon’s opinion, in no case can it be assumed that the Words on the Priesthood were written during the course of the very events about which they appeared, since the meaning of the speech clearly presupposes a certain period of time between the event and the conversation about it. According to Baronius, the Words on the Priesthood were written after the event they describe. Based on the meaning of Baronius’s speech, one can think that up to six years passed between the event and Chrysostom’s justification of his action. But this is more than incredible, because then there was no need to a) justify his flight from the bishopric, which happened so long ago; c) Vasily, of course, no longer needed such late consolations, since a six-year period of time could of itself provide a certain explanation for the matter; c) finally, there was no need to renew in the minds of the Antiochian citizens an event that at one time had greatly excited them, as can be seen from the very Words on the Priesthood. But since it is still necessary to assume some time between the consecration of Basil as bishop and the flight of John into the desert, on the one hand, and the writing of the Words about the priesthood, on the other, then we will not be mistaken, in view of the arguments presented above, if we say that they were written while the memory of Chrysostom’s flight was alive, thought out in the solitude of the desert and published after several months from the day of his flight, as a wonderful apology for his act. In accordance with the established position, one should think that the Words about the priesthood were written by John around 375, or before his final entry into the hermitage. Germantium testifies that they were written in the desert. And this does not in the least contradict the well-known fact of Chrysostom’s zealous pursuit of social feats, since even in the harsh conditions of life he still had some leisure, and literary exercise is not contrary to monastic discipline and is even useful. Saint John Chrysostom. About the priesthood. word 1. We find reliable, albeit brief, evidence about this rather significant and undoubtedly important period of John’s life in his biographer and contemporary Palladius and in John of Damascus. Damascene defines the content and significance of John's exploits as a preparatory school for the shepherd. Oratio panegyrica auctore S. Ioanne Damasceno cap. I. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 701. The name of the elder, according to George of Alexandria, is Gesychius (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, §X, 121, p. 426.) Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 68., paragraph 3. Saint John Chrysostom. Commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy. Conversation 14, paragraph 3. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 68, paragraph 3. Saint John Chrysostom. Commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy. Conversation 14., paragraph 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 68, 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy. Conversation 14, paragraph 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 72, paragraph 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 69, paragraph 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 70, paragraph 4. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 68, paragraph 5. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. Conversation 69, paragraph 3. Nomads (or nomads, Bedouins) (from the Greek nomados - nomadic) is a conventional name for peoples and ethnic groups who lead a mobile lifestyle throughout the year or season. For a detailed and thorough acquaintance with Chrysostom’s views on monasticism, we recommend reading the following works of his: a) On spiritual contrition. To Demetrius the Monk., First Word. To Stelechius., Second Word. b) To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. First word. To an unbelieving father. Second word: To the believing father. Word three. c) To the ascetic Stagiria. Three words. In this regard, Chrysostom's conversations on the Gospel of Matthew - Conversations 68, 72 and 73 and on 1 Epistle to Timothy, Conversations 14 - deserve special attention in this respect. The beginning of his life in the monastery dates back to the end of 374 or the beginning of 375. Saint John Chrysostom. About spiritual contrition. To Demetrius the monk. To Stelechius. The time of writing the words of contrition is approximately determined based on their very content. Thus, in his word to Demetrius, John laments that idle carnal questions about food and housing are common even to monks. But, not wanting to be a harsh accuser of the monks, he refers to personal example. From his words it clearly follows that the letter to Demetrius was written shortly after John entered monastic life (nuper, in recent times), i.e., after the beginning of 375. According to Montfaucon, the word to Demetrius was written no later than 376. The conclusions of Tilmon and Germanium about the later origin of the words about contrition are without any basis. Stilting admits the possibility of words about crushing appearing even in 377, but not later. Chrysostom's monastic life began in 375; between this event and the writing of the words, some time had to pass before Chrysostom became acquainted with monastic life and monks (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, §XI, 143, p. 431). Based on the time of their appearance, the listed three works of Chrysostom belong to his earliest creations and, of course, it is absolutely certain that they were written before his presbytery. Time can be accurately determined based on the chronological date of the event that gave rise to their writing. This reason was, as is known, the persecution of Valens against the monks. According to the news of Paul Oronius (lib. XVII, cap. 33), the Arian Valens, after the death of his brother Valentinian, a pious Catholic, opened a persecution of the Orthodox, especially monks. He passed a law that monks should be expelled from their monasteries and forced into military service (ad militiam cogerentur). This is also the news of Jerome (Valens legem dedit, ut monachi militarent). This law was issued in the year of Valentinian’s death, which according to November 375. So, the law of Valens was issued at the beginning of 376 and undoubtedly in Antioch, or in general in Syria, where Valens was at the end of 375 and the beginning of 376. Around Easter 376 (Basily the Great letter 256 or 201) the persecution of monks in Syria began. Soon after the beginning of the persecution, Chrysostom, already known among monks for the severity of his life, his learning, and his eloquence from previously written works, was asked to make a literary defense of monasticism, and he wrote these three works. The learned publisher of Chrysostom's works raises several objections to the indicated chronological date. 1) He finds it very possible that the indicated three epistles of Chrysostom were written before 374, on the basis that John supposedly mentions in the first of these books the existence of sacrifices to idols, and the latter were prohibited by the decrees of Valentinian and Valens before the death of the first, i.e. before 374, therefore, Tilmon thinks, the word in defense of monasticism was written earlier than this time, i.e. before 374 But it should be noted that in this objection more is given in the conclusion than in the premises. The objection is based on those words of Chrysostom, where he complains that in his time and under pious kings such a lawless deed is being committed (persecution of monks), he complains about the decline of morals and tells, as evidence of the latter, that one of the Christians, seduced by the devil, once said that he was ready to renounce Christianity and make a sacrifice to demons. But these words do not yet give the right to conclude that idolatry is widespread, but only indicate a certain decline in morals, and moreover, as a private fact. In addition, if the content of the word against the persecution of monastics gave the right to the indicated conclusion, it would not, however, say anything against the chronological date we have established, since we must take into account, as possible, the fact that the decree of the emperors on the cessation of idolatry was carried out over the course of two years, from 374 to 376, when the apology of Chrysostom appeared. The objection falls. The second objection to the appearance of the apology of John in the time of Valens is based on the fact that Chrysostom calls the kings pious, while it is known that Valens was an Arian and a persecutor of monasticism, therefore, they conclude that it was not written in the time of Valens. To this it should be noted that Chrysostom calls kings pious without any particular emphasis on their personal moral qualities and the purity of their religious beliefs. In this case, he simply contrasts Christian society with pagan society, pagan kings with Christian kings, and on the basis of this he tries to further clarify the incongruity of the sad fact that he denounces. His words in this case have the same meaning as the words of Gregory the Theologian, when he calls the Arian Constantius the most God-loving and Christ-loving of the kings, pious, like a still Christian king in contrast to Julian the apostate, unworthy of his piety (see Gregory the Theologian creation. vol. I, the first word of accusation against King Julian, p. 85, 97, 104–105). The third objection dates the appearance of the apology for monasticism to the time of Chrysostom’s presbytery on the grounds that he allegedly calls himself that when he places responsibility for raising children on parents and cites the Apostle Paul as an example. The objection relies on the word “we” (ημείς) and claims that Chrysostom was a presbyter at this time. But the weakness of the objection is obvious. The expression “we” is nothing more than an ordinary preaching device, and in this case it is only a personification of the Apostle Paul. One can point out many passages from the same apologies for monasticism that go completely against the indicated objection. For example, in the same 3rd apology, having pointed out the advantages of monastic upbringing of children, Chrysostom, who did not have his own children, here uses “we” as a common preaching technique, identifying himself with the listeners. So, all three objections to the chronological date established above are untenable. Apologies for monasticism were written in 376, in the first years of Chrysostom’s monastic life. Saint John Chrysostom. To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. First word. clause 1. S. Jean Chrysostome, considere coinme orateur populaire, par Paul Albert, s. 296. Saint John Chrysostom. To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. First word. clause 4. Saint John Chrysostom. To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. Second word (to the unbelieving father). clause 5. Saint John Chrysostom. To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life. Word three (to the believing father). clause 7. To this same time in Chrysostom’s life we ​​must attribute another small work, but remarkable in its originality of view, which bears the following title from Montfaucon: comparatio potentiae, divitiarum et excellentiae regis cum monacho in verissima et christiana philosophia vivente i.e. the acquisition of power, wealth or position as a monk in the most authentic Christian philosophy of life. (Montfauc. t. I; Fronto Ducaeus t. IV) There is no exact information regarding the time of writing, but Montfaucon and Tilman are quite convinced that the comparison of the monk and the king was written during life in the desert (solitudinis fructum esse - as a result of dryness). Chrysostom's not verbose creation (opusculum - small) in content boils down to the following provisions: 1) the king has many worldly needs - the monk is free from them; 2) true kingdom is mastery over one’s spirit, freedom from passions, and this, of course, is primarily possible for a monk, and not for a king; 3) the king wages war with external enemies, and the monk with demons and passions; 4) at night, a monk who talks with God is the happiest of all; 5) death is better for a monk than for a king; 6) finally, the monk deserves respect from the king. This excellent work of Chrysostom has not been translated into Russian, probably because there are objections to its authenticity, but most scientists recognize them as unfounded. Saville, in his edition of Chrysostom’s works, placed the indicated work between “spuria - counterfeit”, but in vain, which he himself almost admitted in later notes. According to Montfaucon, this work should be considered genuine by Chrysostom and placed among his best creations. The most reliable evidence of this stay of Chrysostom in the cave belongs to his biographer Palladius: όσον λογω, άναχωρει εν σπήλαιψ μόνος, γλιχόμενος αδηλίας κάκεϊ διατρίψας τρις οκτώ μήνας , αυπνος διετελει το πλεΐστον έκμανθάνων τάς τον Χρίστον διαθήκας προς εξοστρακισμόν τής άγνοιας. Μή άναπεσών δε τον τής διετίας χρόνον , μή νύκτως , μή μεθ ημεραν πληγείς από τον κονους τάς τζερϊ τονρς νεφρονς όννάμεις (Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi. p. 18). The testimony of Palladius, despite its brevity, is, however, very expressive and provides sufficient information about Chrysostom’s stay in the cave. Scholars and publishers of Chrysostom’s works disagree regarding the time of origin of the words to the ascetic Stagirius. According to Socrates (lib. VI, cap. 3), Chrysostom wrote these books when he was ordained deacon, after he returned to Antioch in 380. Montfaucon follows this opinion of Socrates, referring, in support of his judgments, to the initial words of the first word to Stagirius, where Chrysostom considers it his duty to take personal part in the suffering of Stagirius, comforting the latter with a word, helping with deeds and using all other means, at least to some extent alleviate his grief, and further refers to the impossibility of fulfilling this sacred duty in the following words: “We should now be with you, my dear Stagirius, and take part in your suffering and, at least to the best of our ability, alleviate your despondency, comforting with words, helping with deeds and using all other means; but since bodily weakness and an ensuing headache, forcing us to stay at home, deprived us of the opportunity to serve in such a useful task, we will not hesitate to do, to the best of our ability, what remains for both your consolation and our benefit.” Based on these words, Montfaucon draws the following conclusion: Stagirius undoubtedly lived in Antioch, since he left the mountains. John, aware of his duty to visit the suffering person, is, however, forced to postpone his intention, since he himself is overcome by a headache and general bodily weakness, as a result of which he is forced to stay at home. It is clear, Montfaucon concludes, that Chrysostom lived at that time in the same city with Stagirius, otherwise he could not have expressed himself in this way, therefore, the books to Stagirius were written after Chrysostom, possessed by illnesses, was forced to return to Antioch (to Stagirius the ascetic, possessed by a demon). On the contrary, Tilmon and Baronius admit that the words to Stagiria were written before John returned from the mountains to the city. In support, they refer to the repeated words of John himself, who says that Stagirius previously lived with him (“I say this now not on my own, but on the basis of those complaints that I often heard from you when you were with us”), i.e. in the mountains, from where he later returned to Antioch. Further, Chrysostom repeatedly says that he has information about Stagiria not directly, but from many who came to him (“however, he learned everything exactly, as if he were there. My and your friend Theophilus the Ephesian, having come, told me in detail about everything.” But such words, according to Tilmon, cannot be said by a person living in the same city with Stagiria. These are the grounds for opinions regarding the time of the appearance of the words to Stagyria. Of course, one can argue against each of them, and each of them has its share of validity. Montfaucon’s objection to Tilmon is absolutely correct, that Chrysostom’s statement about the method of obtaining information regarding Stagyria’s illness is completely appropriate for a person living in such a vast city as Antioch was, especially with its suburbs. But this is too little to assert the Antiochian origin of the words to Stagyria. Antiochian friends were possible for him during the monastic feat in view of the fact that the place of the latter was the outskirts of Antioch. There is much more reason to recognize the desert feat of John as the origin of the words to Stagiria. We are inclined to this on the basis of the content of the first word, from the beginning of which it is clearly clear that John was living in a monastery at that time, and Stagirius himself was in the desert, and not in Antioch, as one might think based on the fact that he fears that his father would not find out about his disaster and persecute the monks, but these fears would be strange if Stagirius was in the same city with his father. One should think that Stagirius, who at first underwent the feat of monastic obedience together with John, then, due to his illness, had to remain in a public monastery in the care of the brethren, while John went to the solitude of the cave. Hence, the time of writing the words to Stagiria should be considered 377 or 378 years. But what is important here is not so much the exact chronological date as the undoubted origin of the words to Stagiria during the ascetic feat of Chrysostom, because only in the latter case will the content and character of these words, remarkable in the ascetic-pastoral sense, be completely clear to us. Saint John Chrysostom. To Stagirius the ascetic, possessed by a demon. Saint John Chrysostom. In addition, Stagiria, that despondency is worse than a demon. clause 4. This word has its own title, indicating its subject: “Moreover, Stagiria, about despondency.” Saint John Chrysostom. In addition, Stagiria, about despondency, paragraph 1. Neander. Derhl. John Chrys. B.I. p. 30. Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi., p. 18. Oratio panegyrica auctore s. Ioanne Damasceno., cap. I. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 704. Chrysostom's ascetic asceticism, according to the testimony of George of Alexandria, even before his return to Antioch resulted in such a moral height of the young ascetic that he was awarded the gift of miracles. Thus, one noble resident of Antioch, who suffered from headache and eye pain, through the prayers of John, got rid of his serious illness. Another, also noble Antiochinian, named Archelaus, who suffered from leprosy (lepra erat insectus) through the intercession of John, received healing. He also talks about the healing of the blind right eye of a certain Eucleius and the bleeding Christina. Finally, he confirms the deliverance of the inhabitants of Antioch from the terrible beast. But according to the story of George, in the vicinity of Antioch there lived a ferocious lion that attacked residents and passers-by. The young ascetic of the Antioch desert ordered a cross to be erected near the city. The cross was erected and soon a dead lion was found at its foot (saevum leonem sub fixa cruce occisum - a ferocious lion was killed under the cross). George of Alexandria testifies that he borrowed stories about miracles from the narratives of reliable priests and God-fearing laymen, who confirmed their authenticity orally and in writing with an oath. If you trust George, then his stories about the miraculous manifestations of Chrysostom’s holiness are also important for characterizing his preparation for pastoral ministry. According to the testimony of George, while working miracles, John took care of arousing in the healed the desire for God and moral renewal. He inspired the healed Antiochian Archelaus to do good to his neighbors and fill the hands of the poor with alms. From now on, he said, beware of insulting the poor. God Himself, their Helper and Trustee, will not provide help to those who offend the poor. He promised the bleeding woman healing in the name of God if she firmly decided to leave her former evil disposition, her cruelty with slaves and would give alms to the poor. But especially remarkable is the story of George, included in Saville, about the vision that Chrysostom had during his desert exploit. According to him, the apostles Peter and John appeared to Chrysostom. John gave Chrysostom a scroll of Holy Scripture, and Peter gave him the keys, which, according to the clear meaning and interpretation of the writer of the Menaion-Chetya, meant Chrysostom’s calling from above in the field of pastoral service. The last story provides another basis for the conclusion we made above about the reasons for John’s return to Antioch. εντευθεν, he says, that is, immediately upon returning to Antioch, χειροτονειται (I οαννες) διακονος δια τον M ?? ordination (John) by Meletius altar two to three). The Latin translation gives rise to misconceptions regarding the time of John's ordination to the deacon. There we read the following: inde, postquam altari annos quinque ministrasset, a Meletio diaconus ordinatur, then, five years later, the altar server, the deacon was directed by Meletios i.e. it turns out that, upon returning from the desert, John remained idle in Antioch for five years, which is completely contrary to the authentic testimony of Palladius, the personal character of Chrysostom and historical reality. We do not consider it our duty to set forth the disputes that exist regarding the identity of the bishop who ordained John as a deacon, since regarding this we have reliable and definite testimony from Palladius and an exact chronological date and complete correspondence of current events in the life of Chrysostom. In his first introductory conversation after his ordination as a presbyter, Chrysostom himself testified that this was his first public speech to the people. “For you,” he says, “so many and great, of course it is not difficult to strengthen the soul of a young man weakened by fear, you are obliged to fulfill this request of ours, because it was for you that we dared to do such a thing, for you and for your love, which there is nothing stronger when it and us, not very experienced in words (θύ μάλα εμττείρως ι᾿χοι τας τον) convinced us to speak and forced us to enter the field of teaching, although we had not yet touched on these competitions, but we were always among the listeners and enjoyed the calm silence. But whoever is so cruel and rude that your meeting will pass in silence and, having found ardent lovers of the word, will not say anything to them, even if he were the most silent of all people. So, intending to speak for the first time in Church (ϊβυνλΰμιμ ονν πρώτον iy Ιχχληοία άλλων άφάνια λΰγυν) I want to dedicate the beginnings of the introductory conversation to God.” and so on (Montfauc. t. I, p. 535). “We needed protection before,” says Chrysostom, at the end of the same conversation, “when we were alone living a peaceful life, but when we were brought into the middle and took upon ourselves this strong and heavy yoke, we need many hands.” In conversation 16 to the people of Antioch, he says that this is the second year he has been talking with them, and this was the second year of his presbytery. From the above words of Chrysostom it is quite clear that during his deaconal ministry he did not speak publicly to the people. Therefore, Baronius’s assertion that Chrysostom not only wrote a lot during his diaconal ministry, but also preached sermons to the people of Antioch (sed etiam varia perorasse ad populum Antiochenum illo tempore) is groundless. Ubi (Antiochiae nimirum) per quinquennium continuum diacoтus multos divinosque edidit libros (Chron. ad annum 398). Palladii Dialogus Historicus de vita Chrysostomi., p. 19. A very important question regarding the time of appearance of these wonderful words is resolved on the basis of their very content. Pointing to the fact that persons higher in the hierarchy of life are exposed to many dangers, Chrysostom, in support, refers to the history of his time. “Without going into antiquity, I will say,” he says, “that of those who reigned in our century - and there were nine of them - only two ended their lives with their ordinary death. Of the rest, one died from the rebel, another in battle, another from his bodyguards, and another from the hand of the one who clothed him with a crown and purple. Their wives died, as they say, from poison, others from sadness. Even of the wives of the now reigning persons, one, although freed from previous misfortunes, experiences grief along with this joy, because the ruler now is still very young and inexperienced and is surrounded by many ill-wishers, while the other is completely exhausted from fear and lives worse than those condemned to death, because her husband, from the very time he put on the diadem, is still constantly at war and in battles, and more than from misfortunes, he suffers from shame and disgrace. It has never happened before, as is happening now, that barbarians, having gone beyond the borders of their country, penetrated several thousand stages into our land, burning villages and exterminating peoples,” etc. (St. John Chrysostom. To a Young Widow, paragraph 4). Then pointing out, to console the widow, that her husband died before her eyes, whereas under the current military situation many have lost their husbands without seeing them, Chrysostom says: “And is it surprising that many of the leaders died like this? The king himself, having hidden with several soldiers in one village, did not dare to leave it and stand against the attacking enemies, but, remaining there, was set on fire and died along with everyone who was there, not only people, but also horses, weapons, walls, and all this turned to ashes” (ibid., paragraph 5). These excerpts from the first Word to the young widow enable us to establish the chronological date of the appearance of these Words. The death of the emperor described here undoubtedly means the tragic death of Valens in the war with the Goths, which happened on the 5th of August 378. The nine emperors who are listed here must be understood as follows: - Constantine and his sons: Constantine, Constantius and Constance, Gallus, who, although he was only a Caesar, is mentioned, however, because through his murder Constantius took upon himself the purple. The sixth is Julian, the seventh is Jovian, the eighth is Valentian 1st, the ninth is Valens. That Chrysostom considers Constantine to belong to his age is not surprising - this is Chrysostom’s usual technique - to count as his age what is alive in the memory of old people, so, for example, he counts Faveta, the wife of Constantine, as his age. Of the listed emperors, indeed, only two (Constantine and his son Constantius) died a natural death, the rest all died an unhappy death, and the 9th, Valens, died tragically in the war with the Goths. The wives of two modern emperors, one of whom was afraid for her husband’s inexperience, the other was bored because of his constant campaigns, were undoubtedly: the first was Constantia, the daughter of Constantius and the wife of Gratian, who was then barely 20 years old; the other is undoubtedly Flacilla, the wife of Emperor Theodosius. The Word To the Young Widow was written by Chrysostom shortly after the tragic death of Valens, which, as we noted above, dates back to August 378. In February of the following year, Theodosius was proclaimed emperor by Gratian and then constantly fought with the Goths until 382, ​​when the latter were defeated. But at the time Chrysostom wrote the Word to the widow, the Goths were still raging and invading the empire, and the emperor was constantly in battle, as we saw in the very content of the word. From here it is very convenient and reasonable to assume that the Word to the Young Widow was written in the year of John’s return from the cave to Antioch, i.e. in 380, or better in the next 381. Saint John Chrysostom. To the young widow, Homily 1., paragraph 3. Saint John Chrysostom. To the young widow, Homily 2. The general character of this word, especially at the end, when Chrysostom makes the following conclusion: “All this is said not to restrict your freedom and not because, as I said, we accepted this admonition to condemn those who do not want to remain widows, but to convince them not to be too attached to the land, but to use the freedom that they once received” and so on (paragraph 6., last phrases). The nature of the sermon, which this word bears on itself, is the general preaching conclusion. All this has given rise to some (Tilmont and Montfaucon) to assert that this word represents a sermon spoken before the assembly. But the undoubted internal connection with the previous word, not only in content, but also in the tone of speech, speaks against this opinion. It is very possible that the general conclusion is a later insertion. And Montfaucon himself testifies that one ancient code does not contain this dubious conclusion. It is most likely that the word was actually written to the widow of Thirasius, but due to its general interest it became generally edifying. Saint John Chrysostom. A book about virginity. The origin of the work, precisely during Chrysostom’s deaconship, is supported by his personal testimony that it was written before his presbytery. In a conversation, undoubtedly spoken in Antioch, John considers it unnecessary to “talk in detail about virginity in view of the fact that he had previously written a whole book about it” (St. John Chrysostom. Discourses on the first letter to the Corinthians. Conversation 19.) “If we do not,” he says, “now dwell on virginity, let no one accuse us of laziness. We have compiled a whole book on this subject and therefore we consider it unnecessary to repeat the same thing here. We send the listener there.” But the discourses on the Epistle to the Corinthians were delivered in Antioch according to Chrysostom’s own testimony, which means the Book of Virginity was written during the diaconate, which is what both Montfaucon (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 327) and Stilting (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 438) are inclined to believe. 40. Saint John Chrysostom. Praise to the saints. The word about blessed Babylon, and also against Julian, and to the pagans. Montfaucon's full title is: liber in sanctum Babylam, contra Iulianum et contra gentiles. Judging by the vastness of this work, one cannot think that it was delivered before the people as an apologetic speech. In addition, there are direct instructions. that it was not a conversation, but a book (oratio, a liber scribenda). “I don’t need,” says the author, “to assure those who live of the truth of what is being told; they were present and saw these events, and they are now listening to this story. This is why I am writing this in front of living witnesses, so that when I begin to talk about something ancient in front of people who have not seen it, someone would not think that I am lying. Of those who saw this, old men and young men are still alive.” These words of the author clearly show that an essay about Babylon was written. On the other hand, they partly determine the time of writing when they indicate the vividness in the memory of Chrysostom’s contemporaries of the event from church life to which he dates his composition. But Chrysostom himself determines the time of writing more precisely. It’s already been twenty years, he says, since then, and nothing from the building spared by the flames has perished, but parts of it stand firm and strong. So he talks about Julian's attempt to restore the Temple of Jerusalem, and this dates back to 362. Consequently, adding a 20-year period, we get the year 382, ​​the time of writing the indicated apology. Or, if we assume that Chrysostom does not specify a precise chronological date here, the writing of the apology should be attributed to the time around 382 and undoubtedly during the deaconry of Chrysostom. Saint John Chrysostom. Praise to the saints. Part 15. A word about blessed Babylon, and also against Julian, and to the pagans. Accurate, detailed and clear information about blessed Babyla and about all the events associated with his personality are found in the very word of Chrysostom, and we partly borrowed them from Montfaucon (t. II, in duos sermones in Sanctum Babyiam, episcopum Antiochenum et martyrem admonitio, pag. 633–634). Saint John Chrysostom. Praise to the saints. The word about blessed Babylon, and also against Julian, and to the pagans. clause 1. We assert this on the basis of the following considerations: It is undoubtedly known that Chrysostom was taken to the archbishop's see of Constantinople after the death of Nektarios, which, according to the testimony of historians, dates back to September 20, 397 (Soсr. lib. VI, cap. 2). Several months after his death passed in the struggle of parties, each wanting to elevate its own candidate to the archbishop's see. The time of these disputes does not exceed, however, three to four months, since, according to the testimony of historians, Chrysostom was ordained bishop on February 26, 398 (Socr. ibid.; Sozom. lib. VIII, cap. 2). But John's ministry as a presbyter lasted twelve years. Subtracting this number from the chronological date of his consecration as bishop, we get 386 as the beginning of his service as a presbyter. This is the definite evidence of this from Palladium. This is completely consistent with the undoubted date regarding the 12-year period of his service as a presbyter. Such are the testimonies of Baronius, Leo the Wise, George of Alexandria and others. Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, vol. IV, p. 448. Sermo cum presbyter fuit ordinatus. Montfauc. I, 541. In John of Euchaitis we find the following description of Chrysostom’s appearance. “The Divine Chrysostom,” he says, “was of small stature (brevi statura), had a large and high head (magno elatoque oapite), was very thin, had a regular nose with decently protruding nostrils, a white and very pale face, sunken and bulbous eyes (oculis cavis et bulbosis). What this did was that Chrysostom aroused a pleasant feeling and inspired confidence in himself, even if he was in a sad and thoughtful mood. His forehead was large, open and mottled with numerous wrinkles, large ears, a narrow and very sparse beard, cut very early with gray hair, a face sunken and thoughtful from a harsh and ascetic life” (Acta sanctorum, vol. 44, tom. IV, p. 692). You can clearly see all the indicated features of Chrysostom’s appearance in the photograph placed in Volume I of the ed. Fronto-Ducaeus of Chrysostom's creations. The image of Chrysostom there bears the following inscription: Saint Chrysostom, in his hand is a scroll with the words: “stick to the spiritual, despise the worldly.” Below is the signature: “from an ancient green icon, painted in Constantine or ancient times, we are trying to depict this image of St. John Chrysostom with copper embossing, he also knows that the Greek month-books agree, where it is written with a small age, a great head, a spacious and seaish brow, fringes that go inside, humble and favorable, with a sunken face for the sake of dryness, with a rare, short and gray hair.” On ancient icons, Saint Chrysostom is depicted in the middle either with Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, or with Basil the Great and Nicholas of Myra.