26) Adolf Harnack.

We studied the views of this famous Protestant scientist on the issue of interest to us mainly from the following two of his works: Das Mönchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte. Eine kirchenhistorische Vorlesung. Zweite Auflage Giessen. 1882. Das Wesen des Christentums. Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Facultäten im Wintersemester 1899 – 1900 an der Universität Berlin gehalten von Adolf Harnack. Leipzig. 1900. In the fifth lecture, an entire section (I) “The Gospel and the World, or the Question of Asceticism” is devoted to the issue that interests us. According to Harnack, Christian confessions, no matter how different they are from each other, nevertheless agree on the basic requirement that faith must manifest itself in Christian life, that Christianity only receives its right and meaning there, where it produces the life characteristic of it. The truly Christian life is the universal ideal of Christianity. But what kind of life should this life be? Here the paths diverge, since the main Christian confessions give different answers to this question. The existence of different confessions in the final foundation is determined both by the difference in faith and, at the same time, by the difference in the life ideal that faith sets for itself. It was not theological disputes, or hierarchical lust for power, or national oppositions that caused the division of the church, although, of course, these conditions participated in it and remain important to this day, but the different answer to the vital question about the ideal of life produced and still maintains this division. 1395 If we ask the Roman or Greek church what the perfect Christian life consists of, they will both answer in agreement: in serving God, subject to the renunciation of all the blessings of life, property, marriage, personal will and personal honor, in short - in religious flight from the world, in monasticism. A true monk is a true, perfect Christian. Monasticism, therefore, is not a more or less accidental phenomenon in these churches along with others, but it is an institution based on their essence, 1396 - it is the Christian life proper. Therefore, we should expect that the ideal of monasticism will represent the ideals of the church, and the history of monasticism will represent the history of the church. Monasticism has its own history, not only external, but also internal, full of strong changes and sharp differences. 1397 Now the question arises: is it true monasticism, which sees the church of God in the world and in silent nature perceives the breath of the divine spirit, or true monasticism, which asserts that the world, by its nature and history, is the work of the devil? Which of these decisions is truly Christian and has a history behind it? 1398 It is this latter that Harnack turns to to resolve the issue posed. Monasticism is not as ancient as the church. In any case, the church of the 15th century, in which monasticism was formed, thinks of finding an institution essentially similar to it already in apostolic times; but the examples usually referred to in this case belong primarily to the realm of legend. However, the church is not entirely wrong with its judgment. Almost all Christians in the early history of the church were under the impression that the world and its history would last only a short time and would soon come to an end. Where this hope was especially alive, there earthly life and the duties of vocation lost their independent meaning. 1399 When the Gospel in the first century and at the beginning of the second began to carry out and fulfill its mission in the Greco-Roman world, it was understood by receptive, sensitive people as the message of “temperance and resurrection.” The latter supported encouraging hope, while the former—temperance—demanded renunciation of the world of sensuality and sin. The first Christians saw in paganism, its worship, its public life, in its state - the kingdom of Satan and therefore demanded the destruction of this world; but for their understanding, the opposite was not incompatible with this idea - that the earth is the Lord’s and God rules it and dominates it. They recognized themselves as citizens of the future world, the advent of which would soon occur. Whoever believes in this must consider everything around him as nothing. At that time, the imagination was most vividly aroused by the thought that the real world order was subject to judgment, because everything was infected with sin. Christianity had to undertake a struggle with the gross and subtle sensuality of the pagan world, and it exhausted all its energy in preaching the great message: “Be not animals, but be immortal souls; do not be slaves of flesh and matter, but be masters of your flesh, servants only of the living God.” Every cultural ideal had to recede into the background while this message was believed. 1400 Already during the third century, individuals, tired of the world, fled into the desert. Their number increased with the advent of the new century. They fled not only from the world, but also from the worldly church. They renounced honor, property, wife and children in order to surrender to the pleasure of contemplating the Lord, to devote their lives to preparing for death. The prevailing theology at that time taught them that the ideal of Christian life consists in feats of mortification and amazement at the Divine - when a person forgets about his existence, mortifies his bodily existence to the limits of death in order to fully rise to the contemplation of the heavenly and eternal. Moreover, no time, perhaps, has been so imbued with the idea that the world has become outdated, fallen, and so is no longer worth living. A great era in the history of mankind was truly ending. The Roman state, the ancient world, was leaning toward death, and its death agony was terrible. Rebellion, bloodshed, poverty, contagious diseases inside, while outside he was pressed from all sides by barbarian hordes, 1401 - this is the general background against which the whole life of humanity of that time took place. But nowhere was the inner falsity of all relationships felt more than in the focal point of culture - in Alexandria. Is it surprising that here, in lower Egypt, the hermit’s life, monasticism, got its start. The Egyptian people had the longest and richest history of any people known to history. While Egypt, under the domination of foreigners, was a land of labor, its city remained the highest school of learning. But now the nation's last hour has struck. It was at this time that monasticism began here; a little later we also meet him on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Harnack does not express much sympathy for the attempts and aspirations of some scholars to explain the origin of monasticism from specifically pagan influences on Christianity in Egypt, for which they pointed to similar phenomena on the basis of Egyptian religion. According to Harnack, the external influence on Christianity was not in this case more significant or important than the influence on other areas of Christian thought and life. “But social, political, religious reasons came into play here, along with the long-standing Christian ideal, which soon began to be considered apostolic.” 1402 At the end of the 40s of the fourth century, the monastic movement was already significant; the Eremites already existed in the thousands. Actually, the beginning of monasticism, like any great historical phenomenon, is surrounded by sagas, so that it is impossible to separate poetry from truth. But we still know what is important and essential: we know the original ideal and we can determine the scope of the concept of escape, removal from the world. The original ideal of monasticism was to become a participant in the pure contemplation of God, and the means was absolute renunciation of all the blessings of life, to which the church community also belongs. They not only avoided the world in every sense of the word, they also avoided the worldly church. Its soil was considered dangerous and there was no doubt that all sacramental blessings could be replaced by asceticism and constant contemplation of God - religious ecstasy. How did the secular church itself relate to the monastic movement? 1403 We observe the most amazing historical phenomenon that the church, at a time when it especially portrayed (represented) a legal and sacramental institution, outlined a Christian ideal that could not be realized in it, but only next to it. The more she connected with the world, the higher, the more humane she outlined (schraubte) her ideal. She herself taught that the highest goal of the Gospel is the contemplation of God, and she herself did not know any truer path to this contemplation than flight from the world. 1404 There were many motives for monastic life, especially since the establishment of the Christian state church. Already in the middle of the 4th century there was a motley society in the desert. Some sought to truly surrender to repentance and become saints, others - to be known as such. Some fled society and its vices, others fled public calling and labor. Some were simple in heart and unyielding in will, others were sick from the noise of life. Some wanted to be enriched with knowledge and true joy, while others wanted to become poor, both spiritually and physically. 1405 Even among true monks we notice already in the fourth century a most important difference. The main provisions: an exceptional life in God, poverty and chastity, to which the monastic monks also added obedience, were required equally from everyone. But what a different appearance they actually took! Thus, some of them, thanks to the fact that they escaped false culture, discovered in the desert something that they had not previously known - nature. They lived with her, admired her beauty and glorified her. From the hermits of the fourth century we have such images of nature as were rarely produced by antiquity. Like joyful children, they wanted to live with their God in His garden. But others understood asceticism differently. According to them, it is necessary to avoid not only culture, but also nature, not only social orders, but also man. Everything that can become a reason for sin (and what cannot become such a reason?) should be rejected - all joy, all knowledge, all human nobility (Menschenadel). 1406 Which of the two, here only in the scheme presented, types of this monasticism is more consistent on Greco-Roman soil? Which ideal is authentic in historical and religious terms - the ideal of those brothers rejoicing in nature and God, who lived in quiet solitude in the knowledge of God and the world, or the ideal of the indicated repentant heroes, who completely renounced God and people. Only the last one. 1407 We must imagine the historical connection. The general view of that time was that the highest ideal can only be realized outside the world, outside any calling: it is contained in asceticism. Although the latter is a means to an end, it is also an end in itself; for it contains a guarantee that the penitent achieves the contemplation of God. If this position is correct, then not only culture, nature, love for people, but also all moral activity should be eliminated as imperfect and unfavorable to the contemplative mood; this meant venturing into a grandiose attempt to free oneself from the soil of nature, culture, even from the moral world, in order in this way to imagine within oneself a purely religious person. Here we have the boundaries where Christianity comes into contact with the ancient Greek view. And the secular church has set up religious life as its highest ideal, which takes man already here on earth from all the conditions of his existence, even moral ones. And this does not mean that the opposite of moral has the same right - no! But Christianity has hitherto been unable to realize any new moral life in the form of society, and the moral dimensions of ancient life were worn out, useless in themselves, or did not exist at all. From here it was already consistent that the more strict ones, who, however, were not any kind of reformers, felt moral orders as boundaries that were fundamentally no better than the elementary conditions of human existence, from which they set themselves an indispensable duty to renounce and free themselves. Therefore, a Christian ideal is outlined, which is purely religious - one might say, “higher moral” (übersittlich). The Christian faith must receive its full meaning not on the basis of moral life, striving for a specific goal (zweckvoller), but on the basis of the negation of everything human - that is, through the most severe asceticism. This is how future participation in the divine nature is anticipated. 1408 Greek monks, if we do not keep in mind any exceptions, live now, as they did a thousand years ago, “in silent contemplation and blissful ignorance.” They perform work only to the extent necessary for life; however, for a learned monk, the unlearned serves as a silent reproach; a working hermit must be reproached by his conscience if he sees a brother who does not work, does not think, does not speak, but in solitary contemplation and self-exhaustion expects that the blissful radiance of God will finally appear to him. 1409 Monasticism stands next to the church, and not in the church, and this cannot be otherwise, for how can those who have abandoned any task of their own render a service to the church? The only thing in which monasticism takes part is the interest of church cult; monks write sacred images and books. But it can also emancipate itself from the cult; The church not only tolerates those hermits who withdraw from church society for years, but it is surprised by them. And she should be surprised by them, because they realize her own unattainable ideal. More precisely: her higher ideal, for she has now formed a double ideal - the ideal of asceticism and the ideal of cult. Whoever has not been given the gift of achieving participation in God through asceticism can achieve this participation through participation in the holy sacraments. 1410 The development of monasticism in the West proceeded quite differently. One glance at its history is enough to reveal a significant difference. Firstly, monasticism here has a real history, and, secondly, monasticism here made history, ecclesiastical and secular. It does not stand only next to the church, exhausted in asceticism and mystical contemplation - no, it stands inside the church, and along with the papacy it became a driving factor in Western Catholic church history. It is possible to describe Eastern monasticism from the fourth century to the present day without naming a single name, while the history of Western monasticism is the history of specific persons and individual characters. The last and most authentic word of Western monasticism was the Jesuit order. He solved a problem that the monastic orders that had arisen before him could not solve, and achieved the goal that these latter were striving for. But this order never became a dead instrument in the hands of the church. This order never entered the Church as an institution; on the contrary, the Church fell under the domination of the Jesuits. Monasticism has won, but what kind of monasticism? One that made the former program of the worldly church its own and at the same time devastated and doomed its very being. Asceticism and renunciation of the world became a form and means of politics here; sensual mysticism and diplomacy took the place of sincere piety and moral order. Under the domination of the Jesuits, the church became completely and specifically worldly. 1411 Greco-Eastern Christianity conceals within itself an element which over the centuries has proved capable - until very recently - of forming a certain counterbalance to the traditionalism, intellectualism and ritualism that dominates this church: monasticism. A Greek Christian, when asked who is a Christian in the highest sense of the word, answers: a monk. Whoever practices silence and purity, who avoids not only the world, but even the secular church, who avoids not only false teaching, but even speeches about the right, who waits in contemplation and immobility (unverrückt) until his eyes reach and are touched by the brilliance of the Divine, who considers only silence and the thought of the eternal worthy for himself, who expects from life only death, from whom mercy flows from purity and complete absence of self, - he is a Christian. For him, the church is not unconditionally (schlechthin) necessary, and the sanctification that it dispenses is not necessary. In these ascetics, manifestations of such strength and tenderness of religious feeling are revealed, their life is so full of the divine, so internally active, transforming itself according to the well-known features of the image of Christ, that one can safely say: “Religion lives here, and it is not unworthy of the name of Christ.” Freedom, independence and living experience were possible in monasticism. However, according to Harnack, such a high importance belongs to Greek-Eastern monasticism not so much in reality as in idea. 1412 The widespread opinion prevailing in Catholicism and shared by many Protestants is that the Gospel in its final basis and in its main instructions is strictly alienated from the world (weltfluchtig) and ascetic. Some proclaim this recognition (Erkentnis) with sympathy and surprise, strengthening it to the assertion that in this negative attitude towards the world lies, as in Buddhism, all the dignity and significance of the Christian religion. Others highlight the position of the Christian religion, requiring withdrawal from the world in order to prove the incompatibility of this religion with modern moral principles and its uselessness. The Catholic Church found a special kind of solution, actually a product of despair. She recognizes the world-denying nature of the Gospel and, accordingly, teaches that in the proper sense, Christian life is expressed only in the form of monasticism, as yita religiosa, but it leaves lower Christianity without asceticism, recognizing this state as still sufficient, satisfactory for achieving salvation. That complete following of Christ is possible only for monks, this is Catholic teaching. Schopenhauer turned out to be quite in agreement with him; he glorifies Christianity only insofar and because it contributed to the emergence of such ascetics as St. Anthony or St. Francis; What lies outside this in the Christian gospel seems to the philosopher useless and tempting. In a deeper reasoning than Schopenhauer, and with the captivating power of feeling and the power of language, Tolstoy exposes the ascetic features of the Gospel and connects them together, generalizes them for guidance. The ascetic ideal which he communicates, imparts (entnimmt) to the Gospel, is ardent and strong and includes service to others; but escape from the world is also characteristic of him. Thousands of our “educated” people are excited and irritated by his stories; but in the depths of their souls they are calm and satisfied that Christianity means the negation of the world, for they now know definitely that they do not approach it and will not follow it on principle. They rightfully realize that this world was given to them so that they would be useful within its benefits and orders; if Christianity demands something else, then this only proves its unnaturalness and, therefore, complete unsuitability for life. But does Christianity really deny the world? There are very famous passages which are usually referred to and to which, apparently, no other meaning than an ascetic one can be attached. 1413 “If your eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away from you; if your hand offends you, cut it off,” or answer the rich young man: “Go and sell everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven,” or the word about those who castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, or the saying: “Whoever comes to Me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and also his own life, cannot be My disciple.” From these words and from other places it is concluded that the Gospel generally preaches escape from the world, therefore, it is completely ascetic. But in view of this thesis, Harnack poses three arguments (Betrachtungen), which, in his opinion, should lead us to a different solution to the question. The first is obtained from the manner of Christ’s behavior, the manner of His life and life instructions; the second is based on the impression that He made on His disciples and which they reflected and imprinted in their own lives; the third, finally, is rooted in the essential features of the Gospel. 1. In the Gospel we find the following remarkable words of Jesus: “John came, neither eating nor drinking; and you said: he has a demon. The Son of Man has come, eating and drinking, and you say, “This man is a poisoner and a drinker of wine.” Thus, Christ, along with other derogatory names, was called a poisoner and a wine drinker. From this it becomes clear that He, in His overall behavior and way of life, made a different impression than the great preacher of repentance on the Jordan and the severe ascetic John. We see Christ in the homes of rich and poor, at feasts, among women and among children, according to legend, even at a wedding feast. He allowed His feet to be washed and His head to be anointed. Further, He willingly visits Martha and Mary and does not demand that they leave their home. Those in whom He delights to find strong faith He leaves in their calling and condition. We do not hear Him calling out to them: “drop everything and follow me.” He considers it possible, even necessary, for them to live with their faith in the places in which God placed them. 1414 Likewise, He did not organize His disciples into a monastic order: He did not give them any instructions about what they should do during the day. Whoever reads the Gospel impartially must recognize that this free and living spirit cannot be subjected to the yoke of asceticism, therefore, all passages that point in this direction should not be generalized, but must be discussed in general connection, in accordance with the basic spirit of the Gospel. 2. It is known that Christ’s disciples did not look at their teacher as an ascetic running away from the world. The disciples did not put ascetic exercises in the foreground; they adhered to the rule that the worker is worthy of his reward; they did not send their wives away. We know about Peter that his wife accompanied the Apostle even on his missionary travels. If we leave aside the news of the attempt to introduce a kind of communism into the Jerusalem community - and we should even leave it aside, since it is accidental and, moreover, is not of an ascetic nature - then we do not find anything in the apostolic time that would allow us to see in Christians a community of principled ascetics; on the contrary, the conviction prevailed everywhere that the Christian must exist in his calling and condition in the midst of these relationships. 3. In the circle of truths, which are designated by trust in God, humility, forgiveness of sins and love for neighbors, it is impossible to include any legalistic rules and principles (gesetzliche). 1415 Consequently, there is nothing ascetic in the Gospel in the fundamental sense of the word. According to the teaching of the Gospel, earthly goods belong not to the devil, but to God. “Your heavenly Father knows that you need all this; He clothes the lilies and feeds the birds of the air.” Asceticism has no place at all in the Gospel; but it requires struggle, struggle against mammon, excessive care and self-love, and demands, in the foreground, to put love, which serves and sacrifices itself. This struggle and this love is “asceticism” in the gospel sense. For there is something more serious and important than “giving your body to be burned and distributing your property to the poor,” namely, self-sacrifice and love. 1416 On the relationship of Christianity to poverty, Harnack in his sixth lecture expresses the following thoughts. A) Jesus views the possession of earthly goods as a grave danger to the soul, because it makes one hard-hearted and entangles one in earthly concerns. The rich have difficulty entering the kingdom of heaven. B) The statement that Jesus called for universal poverty, in order to then lead from this miserable state to the kingdom of heaven, is a false statement, false. The opposite is true. He called need need and evil evil. Being very far from favoring this phenomenon, he had a fiery desire to defeat and eliminate them. 1417 Of course, there is a power that, according to the teaching of Christ Himself, is worse than need - this is sin. But in any case, the following position stands firmly: Jesus Christ never wanted to preserve need and poverty anywhere; On the contrary, he wanted to defeat them and encouraged them to win. But to those who wanted to devote their entire lives to the proclamation of the Gospel, to serving the word, He advised such persons that they should renounce all possessions and earthly goods. But by this He did not turn them into beggars. They had to know for sure that they would find their bread and their food, and would not be left without satisfying their necessary needs and requirements. We know this from His saying, which by chance was not preserved in the Gospel, but which was conveyed to us by the Apostle Paul. He writes (1 Cor 9:..) “The Lord has commanded that those who proclaim the Gospel should also eat from the Gospel.” He demanded freedom from possession from ministers of the word, so that they could devote themselves entirely to their calling. But Christ did not teach that they should beg. 1418 The presented content of A. Nagpask’s works reveals the following, the most interesting and important theses on the issue that concerns us: 1) The perfect Christian life consists, according to the consistent teaching of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, “in religious flight from the world” - in monasticism. Thus, the essence of monasticism is precisely in religious flight from the world. 2) Christianity, from the very beginning of its spread, mainly on pagan soil, put forward, as one of its characteristic features, the requirement of “abstinence”; in connection with political and social, etc. Circumstances created monasticism as a specially ascetic form of life. 3) The purely religious, contemplative ideal realized in monasticism inevitably and unconditionally determines a negative attitude towards culture, nature, society, and all other people; a Christian, animated by purely religious aspirations, is freed from all boundaries, even moral ones; the Christian purely religious ideal is “higher moral” (übersittlich). 4) Monasticism - in essence and in fact - has no internal organic relationship to the church, although, on the other hand, monasticism corresponds to the ideal of the church itself, which, due to the very peculiarities of its position, it is not able to realize. 5) Although the ascetic ideal was proclaimed by the church at the very first stages of its existence, it has no basis in the Gospel. There is nothing ascetic in the Gospel in a fundamental sense. “Asceticism” has no place at all in the Gospel. 6) But the Gospel really requires a “struggle” against mammon, excessive concern for earthly things and self-love. On the positive side, it requires trust in God, humility, forgiveness of sins and selfless love for others. – This “struggle” and this “love” is “asceticism” in the Gospel sense of the word. Before moving on to a detailed analysis of the theses we have extracted, we note in general that the general tone and character of Harnack’s analyzed works is more journalistic than scientific. The originality, liveliness and interestingness of their content often come at the expense of the scientific accuracy and impartiality of the provisions revealed by the author. Along with reliable or at least probable thoughts, we find here - and often very controversial, judgments that are clearly exaggerated, conclusions and conclusions that are undoubtedly tendentious. The lack of documentation in the presentation and disclosure of the provisions defended by the author makes it difficult to verify them, since it does not allow one to see and observe the degree of their validity, strength, and probability. This is an original, elegant and beautiful construction, but without any stability, since it lacks a solid scientific foundation. Hence, if you read the above-mentioned works of Harnack without scientific analysis, then they can attract with the originality of their theses and the elegance of their presentation; but they do not withstand strict and accurate scientific testing - undoubted scientific facts expose here and there exaggerations, overexposures, too bold and risky, unreliable conclusions made in favor of confessional tendencies and in advance, regardless of the analysis of the relevant data, the accepted point of view. Due to such features, Harnack’s theses cannot be discussed in detail in a short essay. Therefore, we will only briefly note the scientific significance of each of these theses, since a positive disclosure of the questions raised by them and related to them will be presented by us in the essay itself or when analyzing the works of other scientists closer to our field. 1) As for, in particular, the first thesis, which characterizes monasticism as a “religious escape from the world,” then for its correct scientific assessment, an accurate analysis of the meaning of the term “world” itself is required, which both in Holy Scripture and in ascetic writing is used in the most diverse meanings, to the point of opposites. Therefore, it is not at all clear what that “religious flight from the world” means, which Harnack attributes to monasticism as its essential, specific feature. Obviously, this concept is very controversial and uncertain. Here we can mean society, and the state, and the family, and people in general, of any kind, and nature, and much more. The attitude, in particular, of ascetics to nature, according to Harnack, was completely different; he states here a different, to the point of opposite, dual relationship. One of the ascetics extended their desire to isolate themselves from everything external to the whole of nature, they wanted to achieve complete insensitivity and inattention to its beauties; other ascetics - contemplatives, thanks to asceticism, acquired special sensitivity and receptivity to those aspects of nature that reflected the perfections of the Creator. These ascetics cultivated in themselves and carried out in their lives precisely a religious attitude towards nature, which was also characteristic of an innocent person. Harnack’s very statement about two types of ascetic attitude towards “nature” can be recognized, perhaps, as correct, but his explanation of this fact is not deep and thorough enough, but rather superficial and random. For a correct scientific understanding of this issue, it is necessary to present the basic ideal of monasticism - the essence and conditions of contemplation, which were understood and implemented by ascetics in far different ways. 1419 2) Regarding the second thesis, we note that the historical genesis of monasticism in Harnack is not clarified and is not even outlined with sufficient certainty, accuracy and completeness. According to Harnack, the basis of monasticism was laid by the teaching of the early Christian community about “abstinence,” and various historical reasons (coups d’etat, anticipation of the imminent end of the world, etc.) contributed to the fact that the ascetic movement took a certain form - monasticism appeared. This explanation cannot be considered satisfactory and sufficient. The emergence of monasticism cannot be understood from external causes alone. Pointing to abstinence” as the general and main motive of asceticism is far from sufficient: “abstinence” cannot be recognized as a characteristic and specific feature of Christian monasticism, its main and self-sufficient content. Such qualities could only belong to a religious motive - the desire to achieve perfection for direct unity with God, which, however, Harnack himself agrees with. “Abstinence” is only one of the means, methods, contributing to the achievement of this supreme, fundamental goal. Among the reasons for the emergence of monasticism at a certain time, Harnack does not indicate one of the most important and characteristic ones - the cessation of martyrdom. In general, the author unfairly completely ignores the relationship of Christian asceticism to the fact and idea of ​​martyrdom. 1420 3) Harnack’s idea about the exclusivity of the religious mystical-ascetic ideal, that the desire to realize it led ascetics to deny or at least ignore not only cultural tasks, but also moral requirements, apparently have some basis for themselves in the actual facts of the history of Christian asceticism. Many mystic contemplatives, indeed, sought to completely seclude themselves from people, to break off all real connections and relationships with them. 1421 Some ascetics even advised “hardening your heart for your neighbor,” 1422 in order to surrender to undivided contemplation without any embarrassment or entertainment. However, the ascetics themselves explained that the moral law (actually religiously moral), which prescribes “loving” one’s neighbors and actively caring for their welfare, is obligatory for everyone. It is impossible to move on to contemplation without first having improved in active service to others. But those who devoted themselves to the exclusive contemplation of God did not forget their neighbors - they prayed for them, and in necessary cases, when circumstances required it, they did not refuse to provide them with real help 1423 in other respects. In any case, only from a detailed and comprehensive examination of the teachings and facts of life of ascetic mystics, their actual attitude towards people becomes clear and the question of the relationship between the religious-mystical and moral-active aspects in the ascetic worldview and life receives its proper coverage, not one-sided, not tendentious. 1424 Harnack’s assertion that every cultural ideal had to recede into the background before preaching about the necessity and obligation of asceticism, the domination of the spirit over the physical, sounds like some kind of obvious misunderstanding, an obvious untruth. Shouldn’t we, on the contrary, assert that the indicated requirement of Christianity constitutes precisely the most fruitful condition for progress and culture, the implementation of which requires the dominance of the human spirit over the inertia and inertia of external nature? 1425 4) The relationship of monasticism to the church is revealed in sufficient detail a little further - during the analysis of Holl, and therefore in the present case this issue is not specifically considered by us. 5-6) Saying that the Gospel does not contain “ascetic” elements, Harnack, firstly, takes the very concept of “asceticism” in a sense that is too narrow, cramped and limited, and sometimes even in a sense that is downright random, incorrect, inaccurate, exaggerated, arbitrary. This is especially noticeable in those cases where Harnack says that the ascetic worldview includes, or at least presupposes, the teaching that the world - nature belongs not to God, but to the devil; that the main, most important and most characteristic subject of ascetic work is self-exhaustion, self-torture, etc. This way of reasoning can in no way be considered scientific. Every concept should be taken according to its essence, if possible, freeing it from superficial layers and random shades. Of course, if we accept as a characteristic moment of the ascetic worldview the teaching that the World - nature belongs not to God, but to the devil, and that, therefore, one should unconditionally move away from people and so on, then such a teaching is not only in no way in harmony with the Gospel, but must, on the contrary, be recognized as diametrically opposed to it. But if we understand the teaching about the obligation for a Christian to “struggle” tirelessly, comprehensively, both against external obstacles and against one’s own selfish, selfish inclinations, inclinations and urges that prevent the establishment in a Christian of the beginning of holy Christian love for God and neighbors, then so understood and practiced “asceticism” is not only not contrary to the Gospel, but undoubtedly belongs to the essential and undoubted, convex and relief of its truths. The beginning of the “struggle” against the imperfections of bad reality is recognized by Harnack himself, and with this he implicitly admits the importance and even the necessity of the “ascetic” moment in Christianity. Harnack, like almost all Protestants, hates everything Catholic so much that he even transfers his hatred to the names themselves, to the terms themselves, although they are by no means specifically Catholic. The word ασκώ - however, only once - is used in the Acts of the Apostles, 1426 and, what is especially important, in the general sense - to use all efforts and efforts. In patristic writing this term is used very often. 1427 But the point is not in the names, but in the concept itself... The requirement of Christian “love” obviously presupposes self-denial, self-sacrifice, self-devotion, carried out only through the “struggle” with sinful selfishness, with a perverted attitude towards external goods, with “mammon”. It is this “struggle” that St. St. The fathers are ascetics, but their analysis of the area, essence, conditions, methods and purpose of this “struggle” penetrates incomparably deeper. The doctrine of “passions” is only a concrete disclosure of the actual content of the struggle against selfishness (φιλαυτία), which Harnack must speak about so generally and vaguely, but still. Thus, Harnack did not present essentially any arguments that would devalue the value of ascetic teaching. On the contrary, by his agreement to allow in the Gospel the basis for asceticism (“struggle”, in his terminology), understood in the indicated sense, Harnack himself thereby indirectly admits the important scientific value of the analysis of the patristic teaching with the aim, among other things, of comparing it with the teaching about “asceticism” that is found in the Gospel. As for, finally, the facts cited by Harnack to prove his idea that the life of Christ was not the life of a strict ascetic, they can only be accepted with great limitation. We are not talking about the fact that Christ combined prayer with fasting, that He did not even have a permanent home, that He was celibate, etc. Let us only recall that Christ is not commensurate with ordinary people. He represents an unattainably high ideal of infinite significance; Moreover, the ways to achieve this ideal are determined by the actual state of a person’s personality, its empirical moral content, which is usually dominated by self-love, manifested in “passions.” Hence, the path of Christian improvement cannot be only through the positive revelation of human strengths and abilities. That is why the absence of certain ascetic elements in the life of Christ cannot yet lead to the conclusion that they are useless, unnecessary, or not necessary for Christianity. Das Wesen des Christenthums, S. 149. An entire section of Chapter III is devoted to the disclosure of this subject. our dissertation. For a detailed justification of this idea, see the end of Chapter IV. our dissertation. For an indication of facts of this kind, see the section where the views of F. F. Gusev are discussed. For a detailed explanation of this particular teaching (mainly according to Isaac the Syrian), see in the same section. We talk about this partly in Chapter I, and partly in Chapter III. Wed, for example, prof. I. V. Popova. "The Religious Ideal of St. Athanasius". Theologian Vestn. 1904. May: “removing from public life, seeking leisure and freedom from external entertaining impressions, the monks devoted their lives to systematic work to cleanse their spirit from internal sources of sin. In this way they deepened Christian morality and, perhaps, served as an important factor in the history of human culture in general, directing man’s gaze to his inner World and creating that subtle understanding of mental movements that distinguishes the culture of European peoples. Acts XXIV, 16. In general, synonymous words are used to denote the concept of “asceticism.” See the “Introduction” of our essay, pp. V-VI.