27) Karl Holl.

Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim Griechischen Mönchtum. Eine Studie zu Symeon dem Neuen Theologen. Leipzig. 1898. This study is very lively and original, and partly touches on some interesting questions about asceticism and monasticism from a fundamental point of view, making attempts to characterize the ideals of monasticism, note its most outstanding psychological and grace-filled features, and generally clarify its religious and moral appearance. If the solution to these questions is not always correct, then it should still be recognized that the author, while raising lively and interesting questions, also has some indisputable data for their independent solution and original coverage. Thus, although we disagree in the vast majority of cases with the solution to the questions that interest us that we find in Holl, we should still be grateful to the author for his bold posing of these questions. In any case, since there is an attempt at an original solution to the issues within the scope of our research, we have no right not to pay due attention to it in the present case. In our sincere conviction, we, on the contrary, are obliged to analyze this work, from its principled side, as thoroughly as possible, proposing, at the same time, a positive solution to the issues raised in this book, which should partially achieve the direct, positive side of our research. 1428 Actually, the immediate task and direct subject of Holl’s study was a historical-canonical analysis and partly a dogmatic-theological examination of the epistle of confession (epistola be confessione), which the scientist Lequien published among the works of St. John of Damascus. 1429 However, the scientist’s desire to comprehensively examine the named monument, due to the naturally consistent course of scientific work, took the author far beyond the immediate boundaries of the intended task and even shifted the center of gravity to solving problems of the nature of the fundamental essence, the basic meaning and distinctive features of the monastic ideal. It happened this way. From the analysis of this monument, Holl concludes that the content of the message, speaking about the right of the monks to bind and loose (Vom Binden und Lösen), suggests that by the time of the origin of the named monument, this power, which originally belonged to the bishops, had been transferred to the monks (die ursprünglich bischöfliche Gewalt auf die Mönche übergehen lässt). 1430 Holl naturally asks: How could such a state of penitential discipline develop? 1431 According to the scientist, this circumstance expressed the tangible result of the struggle between the independent spirit of monasticism and church order. (Zwischen dem Selbständigen Geist im Mönchtum und der Ordnung der Kirche). 1432 This struggle represents one of the most important moments in the internal development of the church. To resolve the question of the relationship between enthusiasm and the original ideal of monasticism, according to the author, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of the “Life of Anthony” (vita Antonii). The scientist does not see any need to delve into an even earlier era. 1433 Of course, there were ascetics much earlier, but an ascetic and a monk - according to Anthony’s ideal of life - are far from the same thing (vom Asketen zu dem Mönch nach dem Ideal der vita Antonii ist noch ein bedeutender Schritt). 1434 In the history of Christian monasticism, this monument was of significant importance, since Anthony’s asceticism became a model in the implementation of the ascetic ideal for subsequent monastic generations. 1435 What are the most essential features and outstanding features of the ideal of “Life”? In this ideal, first of all, what is striking is the important, significant and noticeable success that it represents in its moral side in comparison with the views that have prevailed until now. Some researchers present the matter in such a way that the ideal of monasticism itself emerged through the accumulation of pre-existing ascetic motives and ascetic elements. But the moral ideal of “J. A." is more than an aggregate of individual ascetic views; on the contrary, it is a coherent whole, in which one feature successively requires another; It is not a series of individual virtues and exercises of strength that is required here, but αρετή, purification of the heart, sanctification of the whole personality. At this point, Clement for the first time took a major step forward in comparison with the ancient ascetic ideal, which depicts individual virtues to the point of virtuosity. However, how far from its abstract execution, also from the “Symposium” of Methodius, to the exclusively contemplative, full of life picture of the named monument. Could this success, the living image of the ascetic ideal in a specific person, be achieved without the appearance of intermediary men who embodied the ideal? From this point of view, the asceticism that a monk carries out appears in a new light - it has no value in itself, but is only a means to achieve an end; it serves to make man free. The complete surrender of property, external removal (Löslösung) from society has only the meaning that by these means the conditions for achieving perfection are realized. The monument always deliberately emphasizes how little what the monk gives is compared to what he hopes to receive. Connected with this is also the fact that the complete implementation (Leistung) of asceticism has the meaning not of merit, but of duty for one who truly (ernsthaft) seeks the kingdom of heaven. A monk must know that he, like a slave, stands before his Lord; Therefore, he should not count on what he has already done, but every day feel the obligation to new exploits. 1436 With such an understanding of the moral ideal to which monasticism aspired, it becomes very difficult to judge those who remained in the world. If indeed such asceticism seemed absolutely necessary for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, then the laity must be denied the Christian name. "AND. A." does not feel this problem at all; Consequently, Christianity is already completely accustomed to looking at it as an inevitable fact that not everyone does what they actually need to do. The Greek Church did not emerge from the contradiction that lay here throughout its existence. In comparison with the West, this had not one good side, but also a bad side; Since the monk who made the greatest sacrifice wanted to be nothing other than a true disciple of Christ, striving for the kingdom of heaven, then the concepts of merit and satisfaction could not take root (wuchern) here. But, on the other hand, in the Eastern Church it was impossible to recognize secular Christianity as consistently (so rund) as was possible in the West. 1437 He who takes Christianity seriously, who, if possible, wants to be faithful to the Christian hope, becomes a monk (wird Mönch); one can, of course, hope in God, but at the same time, God’s love for mankind (φιλανθρωπία) receives a dubious side meaning - that He does not apply any strict, obligatory requirement to everyone. Thus, there was a morally dangerous side here. But the ideal of monasticism will not yet be completely exhausted if we limit ourselves to describing its moral side, as has been done until now. "AND. A". everywhere also praises the religious advantages in his hero. Hand in hand with the moral successes that Anthony makes is the constant receipt of strength from God. Holl asks the question: can the revelations and miracles that are told about Antony be considered merely decorative embellishments, or do they belong essentially to this picture? According to the compiler of the “Life”, they are, in any case, not merely a moralizing addition. He puts them in internal connection with the moral deeds that Anthony performs. The idea he puts into circulation is not new. The belief has long been established that the highest religious ability is associated with a special moral feat. The ancient Christian idea that the ability to asceticism endows charisma, received on pagan-Christian soil the meaning that the ascetic feat results in charisma or, at least, revelations. 1438 This idea was also accepted by J. A”: if it sets a Christian the goal of being pure in heart, then this, on the basis of the Gospel word, also includes the expectation that one who has become pure will “see” God and will generally perceive things that are hidden to the ordinary eye. Anthony saw the soul of Amon going to heaven. Also, Anthony’s other organs were very finely developed; he felt, for example, the stench of the devil when he entered the ship. 1439 According to the meaning of the “Life of Anthony”, these graces are not only the distinction with which God wants to honor (ehrt) the disciples of Christ, but together they are gifts with which God rewards his chosen ones to fulfill the life task; in other words, talent is the force that he necessarily uses to achieve his goal. The gifts of foresight, miraculous healings - abilities by which one can penetrate even into the invisible world, are given by God according to his good pleasure, although these gifts, according to circumstances, seem necessary for everyone. But one charisma is necessary for every monk, this is the gift of discrimination (χάρισμα διακρίσεωες). The struggle that fills his life, the struggle with the restless thoughts of his own heart, as well as the struggle with Satan, who willingly takes on himself as an angel of light - a monk is not able to wage this struggle if he is not able to distinguish between tempting and holy thoughts, between good and evil spirits. Everyone should strive for this gift. While advising against asking deliberately (especially) for the gift of foresight, Anthony demands that monks strive for the gift of discerning spirits. 1440 That the problem of how one can distinguish between good and evil spirits really played a role in “Life” is evidenced by the fact that he sought to firmly establish the empirical signs of both, and these signs were not in fantastic manifestations, but in psychological actions, in various states of his own heart. There is no doubt that belief in the charismatic talent of the monk really existed. 1441 Just as a monk positively believes that that invisible world exists, so undoubtedly he must, if he hopes to achieve it, be convinced that he has been given abilities through which he can become the owner of this world. "AND. A.”, as far as it can be considered as a historical source, convinces us that monasticism really enjoyed veneration, which can safely place it among the highest bearers of revelation of previous times. In this regard, it is already significant that, according to the testimony of the monument, Anthony took Elijah as his model. But “Life” more often uses the name “man of God” for a monk (άνθρωπος τον θεον) and imagines that this title was a common name. In view of this, it seems less significant that the asceticism of the monk is compared by the monument being dismantled with the suffering of a martyr. 1442 Monasticism, therefore, had not only the significance of raising the moral ideal to a higher level, but it again awakened enthusiasm in the Church. With the rejection of Montanism, and finally since the deprivation of rights (Entrechtung) of the martyrs in the days of Cyprian, enthusiasm receded into the background in the church. Now he has risen mightily again. The inheritance from the Church passed to monasticism; and it could pass, because in ascetic circles the belief in the possession of spiritual gifts did not completely extinguish. The monk in the foreground seeks the salvation of his own soul. However, with the gift of grace that he has, a monk must and can act on others. And the Life of Anthony notes with special emphasis how God provides a lamp for others who wants to spend his life in silence. God leads him to those who needed his help. 1443 But the merit that a monk is able to render to others is not only the healing of diseases, the expulsion of demons and similar miracles; although this kind of thing, of course, is most striking and the ability to do this in a monk in itself can be trustworthy, since illnesses are caused by demons, over which the monk is the master, however, “The Life of Anthony” represents, as an essential accessory of asceticism, nothing else; at least as important. In the general depiction of Anthony’s activity, along with miracles, Anthony’s pastoral activity is always strongly highlighted. It is clear how directly this pastoral activity corresponded to the own charisma of monasticism; a monk is a called advisor for those who are confused and subject to temptation (Angefochtenen), for he has experience in spiritual struggle, has the gift of discerning spirits, he is an expert in the human heart; therefore, he is able to correctly discuss thoughts (λογισμούς) and give (indicate) the right means for overcoming passions (πάθη). 1444 This gift of monasticism is all the more significant because here we are talking about help that anyone can need, and this advantage belongs indifferently to every monk. The role that monasticism was called to play in the church is mainly based on this charisma. The ideal of “F” Anthony is the ideal of the anchorite. By its nature, it can only be realized in complete detachment. Only the one who is not forced to enter into communication with anyone finds inner composure (Sammlung), which consists in constant observation of his own thoughts - only the outer world disappears so much that the opportunity opens up to continuously live in the higher, invisible world. If “F” speaks of monasteries that arose under the influence of Anthony and were subordinated to him, then one cannot see in this the beginning of the development of monasticism, heading above the anchorite ideal. The ideal for monks living together in a monastery is the same as for the Eremites in the strict sense: personal improvement. Society appears not as something necessary, higher, but rather as lower, more suitable for those who are at the level of only disciples. Doubtful; whether Pachomius brought something higher to the understanding of this ideal. If with regard to Pachomius it is indisputable that he organized precisely (lose) in the full sense of the community and legitimized common life, then at the same time they usually keep silent that he had a practical view of the conditions thanks to which monasticism can win a wider space, and that he knew the danger that independent life has for the majority. 1445 But from the enterprise itself it is impossible to conclude with sufficient clarity in what relation the form of monastic life created by it stood to the anchorite ideal. The rule attributed to him contains few definitions that would represent (ausnützen) being together as a requirement of spiritual life; on the contrary, much is calculated to keep individuals at a distance from each other. One might think that in his organization he saw only the defense that a large mass needed in order to realize the ideal, but did not look at life in society as the highest morally, and therefore did not challenge the right to live separately from those who could really stand on their own. On individual expressions regarding anchorite life, which are attributed to him in the lives, Holl does not dare to draw a conclusion: they could have been put into his mouth later. 1446 Vasily V. comes closest to the ideal of the Life of Anthony. He sees only in a monk a true Christian who wants to be a complete disciple of Christ and live according to the dictates of the Gospel. From the content of the Gospel commandment, which he defines according to Matthew (Matthew 22:36–89), it follows, according to the thought of Vasily V, that the perfect fulfillment of this commandment requires renunciation from the world. For if love for God is the first commandment and this commandment contains the requirement to engage in thought about God, then the constancy of this direction of thought (Sinnesrichtung) is not achievable in the hustle and bustle of the world. 1447 But Vasily V. also accepts those thoughts by which the ideal of Anthony’s “Life” rises above ancient asceticism: asceticism does not consist in one of the individual “ascetic” actions, but in sanctification and the whole human personality; external renunciation is only the beginning, only a presumption of the real task - purification of the heart. In its main features, Vasily’s ideal agrees with the ideal of “F” Anthony; only Vasily was able to express these thoughts more strongly and substantiate them more deeply, presenting renunciation (άποταγή) as the other side of the positive goal - love of God. 1448 But Vasily finds that an ideal that is limited to this task does not yet fulfill the demands of Christ. Along with love for God, Christ makes it a duty to love one’s neighbors. The anchorite omits this responsibility, and therefore his life does not correspond to the full gospel ideal. But Vasily V. does not limit himself to disputing the completeness of perfection in anchoretism on the basis of a positive commandment: he points out that the anchorite’s own spiritual life suffers from an incomplete understanding of the ideal: the gifts that he possesses remain fruitless for another and he himself, not possessing all the gifts, does not, therefore, enjoy the fruits of the complete fullness of the spirit. At the same time, the one who lives on his own lacks the necessary criticism of his shortcomings; and from this grows complacency, the opposite of obligatory humility. Thus, the true ideal can be realized, although outside the world, but certainly in a society of like-minded people. Only society is a subject that always fulfills all the commandments of Christ. 1449 From this basis one can understand in what deep sense Vasily understands the emerging community. It is not only need, not only one’s own shortcomings that force one to live together: it is in the essence of the Christian ideal itself, which sets as its goal the living whole (das ein lebendiges Ganze), that it can only be realized by society. If Anthony was influenced by the example of the Apostles and the first disciples, then Basil loves to exhibit his monastic community as it is depicted in the Apostolic History. Even more fruitful for him were Paul’s thoughts that the disciples of Christ must realize in themselves the one body of Christ. 1450 On this idea of the “Body of Christ” Basil bases the most important instructions for living together: the primate (προεστώς) must play the role of an eye in the body; but also other offices and rights, exercising and fulfilling the duty of subordination to those entrusted with the special duty of management, acquires in the light of this thought its ideal significance. Already from the fact that Vasily uses and applies the image of the body of Christ to clarify the ideal of the monastic community, it can be concluded that Vasily’s ideal, just like Anthony’s ideal of life, contains enthusiasm. And this is not only in the sense that Vasily’s task as a monk, as a warrior of Christ, also includes spiritual struggle and that love for God, which is the highest duty, must rise to a passionate desire to contemplate God, but in fact, the understanding of the ideal contains in Vasily literally motives for enthusiasm. Vasily finds a place for the idea of ​​the Spirit, which animates the body and governs the members, complementing the idea of ​​the body of Christ. The gifts of the Spirit give the ability to perform various positions in the cenobium, and first of all this should be said in relation to the primate. 1451 If we take into account this spiritual character of the primate and other persons authorized by him in the cenobium, then the requirement becomes clear that the monk in the primate must see God present (Christ himself) and show his commandments - such unquestioning obedience, which he owes to God. Hence, one who grumbles about an order can rightly be reproached for not standing firm in the faith. Hence the duty of obedience extends so far that even a good monk must do not according to his own consideration, but according to orders; in the same way, even fair doubts must be suppressed. Thus, Basil puts forward the submission that he demands from the majority in such a light that the most insignificant cenobite appears elevated to the highest spiritual degree. He who acts at the command of the superior, who takes the place of God, makes a sacrifice to God in the smallest act. The unconditionality of the required obedience, which forces the monk to take on any anxiety, the most difficult feat, will be a particularly honorable title for him. For the obedience he renders to God is nothing other than the obedience of Christ. At the same time, he justifies the comparison of a monk with a martyr from a new angle, and this can be the reason for the self-esteem that filled even simple Cenobites. 1452 The significance of this ideal understanding, according to which the monastic community is the body of Christ and each individual member takes part in the spiritual forces that permeate the whole, cannot be weakened by the assertion that this idea is only a form, only an approximate image of expression (a figurative shell) for denoting a thing in reality much more moderate. On the contrary, one should remember that this view was proposed not in a sermon on monasticism or in a moral treatise, but in a rule, that is, in a work that contains principles for education. This alone should have led to the fact that those who lived according to this rule developed a sense of self-esteem, the consciousness that they were spiritual people. However, in comparison with Anthony’s Life, the enthusiasm in Vasily’s ideal seems darkened and weakened. It can be said that the views of both legislators of monasticism regarding the Spirit relate to each other, like the early Christian community to the community of the Apostle Paul. Among the abilities that the Spirit bestows, Vasily thinks in the foreground of moral powers and gifts that serve to promote the whole. He speaks about extraordinary actions, revelations and healings almost only when he quotes biblical passages in which these gifts are named among charisms; It is interesting in this regard how he speaks (reg. fus. tract. interr. LX) about inviting doctors. This weakening of enthusiasm is a necessary result of Basil's ideal: the community could not maintain such strict discipline if he gave force to the rights of charisma beyond those who were recognized for their prudence (δοκιμασία) and to whom the office was entrusted. But does Basil also attribute to the gifts of monks the right and obligation to act on others, that is, non-monks? In order to answer this question, we must imagine in what light Vasily views the Church and worldly life. 1453 Under the stunning impression of the circumstances of his time, Vasily in “moralia” presented a mirror of the Church: he convinces the Church, torn apart by disputes about faith, that it must be the body of Christ. To Christianity, which thinks that by developing (Ausbildung) dogmas it fulfills its duties to its Lord, Basil preaches with holy indignation that the Lord demands adherence to his commandments. The scale that Vasily applies to the Church as a whole is the same one that is used in the “rules” for monks: here too, his point of view requires the implementation of the Gospel. The main concept that he uses when describing the ideal of the Church is the concept of the “body of Christ.” He realizes that the realization of the ideal is not impossible in the world. This is possible, of course, only through the condescension of God, who allowed marriage to those who are not able to accept virginity; It is also possible to serve God amid the temptations of the world—possible, although more difficult. 1454 And Basil, despite his pessimism, however, thinks so highly about the worldly Church that even in it - since it is the body of Christ - he presupposes the dominion (government - Walten) of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. The activity of the Spirit in the Church is considered necessary by them. He cannot doubt that there are indeed persons in the world who are led by the Spirit, if he warns against offending the Holy Spirit in holy people. If Basil often, where he speaks about monasticism, recommends the latter as the only true path of salvation, then he never completely forgets that he is a bishop, and therefore he is careful not to formulate his positions so strongly that it seems impossible in the world to be a disciple of Christ. If Vasily presented the body of Christ as the ideal of both the great church and the monastic community, then one involuntarily recalls the poetic thoughts of the church within the church, and one expects that Vasily will place monasticism and the Church in internal relations with each other. However, this is observed only to a limited extent. Vasily does not think of the monastic community as dependent for its existence on the great church: this church does not need to turn to the church; it has in its midst the complete fullness of spiritual power and forms a self-contained, independent, complete whole. 1455 And this is all the more so since monastic communities could successfully fulfill their goal only if they confined themselves as strictly as possible: this goal is pursued by rigoristic definitions regarding visiting relatives and the exit of monks. In the same way, Basil did not make it his monks’ responsibility, as part of their vocation, to influence the Church, whether it would be religious-reformative or socially-charitative. In this regard, he cannot be given much credit for the fact that he introduced love for his neighbors into his ideal. For from this commandment he deduces not that a monk must fulfill his duties towards the laity, but that he must unite with those of like mind. Monks practice love, which is obligatory for perfection, mainly among themselves - where the rules talk about neighbors, they always mean fellow monasteries. The love of the monks extends to the laity only if they come to the monastery as those in need of help. 1456 However, Vasily did not want to prevent those in the world, whoever happened to be, from benefiting from spiritual life in the monastery. And indeed, laymen often came to the monastery to receive edification. If we now remember how sharply Basil condemns the anchorite ideal, then we can expect that subsequent times will show us a struggle between the two ideals that the 4th century put forward, and in this struggle the opposition between the anchorite ideal of Anthony’s “Life” and the Cenobite ideal of St. will play a role. Vasily. However, history reveals a completely different picture to us. 1457 To clarify how things really stood, the relationship between the two indicated ideals in Palestine in the 5th and 6th centuries is especially typical. There is no doubt that in the 5th century the center of gravity of the entire monastic movement was moved here. Both in the number and in the authority of its monks, Palestine at this time eclipsed the other provinces. The reason for this lies mainly in the powerful impulse of religious life in Palestine, which was produced by the increasing pilgrimages to the holy city. The increased importance of the country directly and indirectly also favored monasticism, which developed here. 1458 Geographical relations determined the fact that on the soil of Palestine the influences of both countries met, which until now had given the main impetus for the development of monasticism. 1459 The most outstanding saints of Palestine are Cappadocians by birth, and Basil’s “Rules” are relied upon as the basis for the life of Palestinian monasteries. But Anthony’s Life is just as famous here; stories and sayings of Egyptian hermits are part of the legend widespread in monasteries. If anywhere, then it is here that one can expect a divergence of both ideals of monasticism, and this expectation seems to be justified - especially since we find in Palestine both forms not only numerous, but also in a certain way corporately related. The anchorites and the inhabitants of the monastery stand under one head (αρχιμανδρίτης, εξαρχος), and at the top of the monastery there is also a primate with the same title. But the very method of their election showed that there was no struggle here; on the contrary, complete unanimity reigned: both primates with their deputies were nominated by the community of monks and approved by the Patriarch of Jerusalem; at times both positions were combined even in one person. 1460 This organization can be traced back to the beginning of the 5th century, and this in itself proves that within monasticism there was more connection than opposition. Even more. Both forms not only stand peacefully side by side, but they are even in organic connection with each other. From the lavra that arose near the cell of one great hermit, as the disciples grew older, a cenovia could be formed, or it could be included in the cenovia. But also the Cenobites, who felt within themselves the desire and strength for an anchorite life, could become hermits. 1461 The one who became an anchorite had very often previously been in the cenobium; It was considered more correct to go through the school of cinnovia before joining the monastery. In this practice, which made it possible to move from the Cenobite life at a more mature age to the anchorite life, there is already a clear indication of the relationship of dignity and order that was established between both types of monasticism: the Cenobitic life is an elementary school, the anchorite life is the highest level of perfection. 1462 Thus, Vasily’s intentions to present the Cenobite ideal of a monk as the highest in dignity could not achieve its goal. Kinovia turned out to be in second place and, as it seems, this order happened by itself, without any struggle. This result, upon closer examination, loses its surprise. Vasily's ideal was fundamentally full of contradiction. Vasily praised the concentration of thoughts in God as the highest goal, and considers the admiring contemplation of divine beauty to be the highest happiness. But how could this goal be combined with the obligation to work for others - with the injunction to bind oneself to the strictest obedience until death? Eternal guidance and control from another can only weaken, lower the feeling of well-being that gives courage to strive for the Highest. The conflict in which Simeon the Theologian found himself with the monastic brothers as a result of his solitary life was not accidental. Kinovit, who seriously understood his religious task, was constantly besieged by the community with demands, and in every possible way dissipated his desire when he wanted to concentrate for the purpose of contemplative unity with God. Only an anchorite could hope to achieve this goal, and if we understand the following of Christ in the monastic sense, it was quite consistent that, contrary to Vasily, only in the eremite was usually seen a complete, true disciple of Christ. The hostel was all the less able to fight anchorage because of the advantage that its own advantage, which, according to Vasily’s intention, this ideal should have, could not actually manifest itself. In the form in which Vasily portrays the ideal of his monastic community - a circle of like-minded people who, bound by brotherly love, strive for the Highest - for whom nothing exists that happens outside their monastery - in this form this ideal should, of course, produce a special charm. 1463 But the implementation of this ideal faced much greater difficulties than the implementation of the anchorite ideal. We see in Cyril and in other writers how in the monasteries they had to take care of the other day, what kind of economy was necessary to support the cenobium, how they rejoiced at gifts in money and kind, how the monks took advantage of their stay in Constantinople to ask for alms from the emperor - even the previously cruelly hated Anastasius - where did the idyllic life of detachment go? In Palestine, this was accompanied by a special duty - to shelter foreign pilgrims and provide them with hospitality: hospitality is an honorary title of the abbot along with his ascetic virtues. However, in other provinces this aspect of monastic administration was very developed. No, therefore, it is not surprising if, out of fear of becoming an abbot, some left the monastery. Thus, the ideal of Anthony’s “Life” retained primacy compared to the ideal of Vasily. It was hermitage that gave direction and determined the spirit of asceticism. 1464 But did this spirit remain undiminished in monasticism? If the image of the perfect monk, as it appears in Cyril and other writers in a whole series of images (Gestalten), is compared with Anthony’s Life, then one is left with the impression of complete agreement in all decisive, characteristic features. The monk even now strives, as his last goal, for nothing other than salvation. It was considered unshakable that only he has a solid hope of salvation who seriously achieves it by purifying the heart and who, as they like to say, works to “purify thoughts and cut off passions.” 1465 The consciousness that one can achieve the goal only gradually, step by step, is very alive in the time described: a stable expression for the inner development of the saints is αναβάσεις τί g θεσθαι έν τη καρδία. John, in his Ladder, made an attempt to present this path in detail. But a definite method has not yet been formed: in John Climacus the beginning (περί άποταγής) and the conclusion (περί αγάπης) are very clear, but in between there is a series of virtues and virtuous means, between which there is no direct internal sequence. 1466 However, the one striving for perfection must look for his own paths even in the ascetic method. Each of the great ascetics has his own specialty. The good side of the ascetic ideal was that it left an extremely wide field for individual striving and did not allow one to rest at a certain point, even if the ascetic had already achieved mastery over himself. We find among the ascetics full self-awareness that they possess the highest gifts with which God supports his saints in their struggle and rewards them for their victory. Not a single biography omits, when depicting the growth of its heroes, the reason to simultaneously highlight that, together with the progressive success of overcoming evil, always went hand in hand with the perception of spiritual strength. 1467 For all these writers, it is an axiom that the soul, which is the image of God, is able to contemplate God, if only the darkness caused by sins is removed from this inner mirror. Manifestations of spirit and power are attributed in the stories to each monk; Some of them are transmitted by eyewitnesses, so that no doubt is possible about the fact that faith in the various abilities of ascetics already dominated the understanding of events. 1468 We have here, instead of summary data from the lives of Anthony, specific pictures that allow us to clearly recognize the internal connection of this faith with the whole worldview. Everywhere where the famous ascetic appears, contemporaries expect something extraordinary, and even the natural onset of consequences seems to be carried out thanks to the assistance of a supernatural force. This is understandable. The world that is perceived by the bodily eye is only a fragment of the whole in which we actually live; every moment in every incident, one can observe the connection of the visible world with νοητός κόσμος, and assume that it takes place if a person acts, to whom the secrets of that world are revealed and who stands in connection with the forces prevailing here. It would be pointless to categorize miracle stories; one can only notice that among the miraculous powers, the ability to be perspicacious and look into the future was especially highly valued. Miracles are attributed to great ascetics without embarrassment, in which miracles performed by the prophets are repeated, as well as the miracles of Christ and the Apostles. 1469 Writers themselves often expressively state the agreement of the miracles occurring in their time with biblical miracles. In the deeds of ascetics they see the fulfillment of the promises of Christ. Theodoret, who in his Historia religiosa compares the miracles of the monks with the miracles of the Apostles and Prophets, directly asks the question whether such signs can still be performed now, and objects to those who doubted the miracles of the monks that they should also raise the question about the former miracles of great people. If the miracles of the great saints are quite consciously compared with the miracles of the ancient bearers of grace, then this reflects the conviction that these ascetics continue to bear to the same extent the spirit and power of the Apostles. 1470 Since a great monk has the conditions in his face, thanks to which he comes into the state of possessing the Spirit, then every monk can become what the great saints were, if only he strives for this seriously. 1471 Hence, every monk has the conviction that he is a bearer of the Spirit in a specific sense and that his intercession has a special significance with God. The legends also give us a picture of the extent to which the belief that monks had superior powers mattered to the religious life of the laity. Moreover, veneration begins even before the death of the saint. Still living monks were revered as miracle workers and prophets. 1472 Thus, Theodoret accepted into his Historia religiosa many of the ascetics who still lived with him. Among the factors that influenced the further development of the monastic ideal, Holl especially puts forward the influence of ideas attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. The principles on which monasticism was based have changed significantly since the time of Dionysius. From the promise that the monk pronounced upon entering his state, it became μυστήριον; next to the obligation appears an act of grace - and the idea of ​​​​the meaning of this dedication quickly develops: monastic initiation has the meaning of a second baptism, which, like the first, completely cleanses from sins. Theodore the Studite defends the already established view of monastic initiation at that time. That monastic initiation is μυστήριον in exactly the same sense (so gut) as baptism, this for Theodore is already such a truth, challenging which is tantamount to shaking the foundations of Christianity... Whoever disputes this sacrament must dispute the whole of Christianity. 1473 At the same time, as mystical initiation emerged from the vow, monasticism became dependent on the Church, which became more significant the richer the cultic act that accompanied the monastic vestments developed. In the life of Stephen, the celebration of dedication is included in the divine service, and specifically in the morning. 1474 The main elements from which this view was formed are easy to indicate: monasticism is a specific state of repentance; repentance is another name for asceticism, but repentance has long been designated as second baptism. 1475 If, as a result, the whole life of the monk was represented in the form of a second baptism, then the renunciation that the monk made and which developed into a solemn vow clearly indicated the renunciation at baptism and led to the fact that the very entry into the monastic state, that is, the taking on of clothing, began to be designated as a second baptism. This also gave the motive from the vow to make a dedication. The success of this view was of great importance for the entire state of monasticism. Through the fixation of this idea, the specific dignity of the monk received for the first time (erst) its definite expression. 1476 As having received the second baptism, monks are now by right a special state, the chosen people of God, the highest degree among Christians. The opinion that a monk who leads an angelic life is some kind of being of a higher kind is no longer just a bold view - it could be based on a specific advantage - the rebirth of a monk. Also, the monk’s self-awareness now receives more solid stability on this basis. He not only stands on his own decision to achieve the kingdom of heaven, he knows that he is endowed with grace in advance in striving for this goal; grace made him a new man. But this circumstance also had its downside. It is clearly characterized by the fact that the same Dionysius, who through the establishment (Statuierung) of the sacrament of monastic initiation elevated the monk above the laity, at the same time energetically indicated to monasticism its boundaries in the form of presbytery. Very decisively (in Eccles. hier. p. VI, 3, 1; T. III, 533C) he inspires the monk that through his initiation he received only personal advantage, but not the right to lead others; light comes to him only through the order of presbytery that is higher (über) than him. But, however, completely undisguisedly, the same Dionysius, in a letter to Demophilus, where the opportunity presented itself, says that the monk shows the way to the presbyter too. Here it becomes clear to Demophilus that he, as someone who has not directly received the divine light, has no right to criticize someone belonging to the state of the enlightened, who, even if he falls, can only be judged by his fellow man. 1477 From this we can understand what a gift of the Danaans was the dignity with which the Areopagite endowed monasticism. In ancient times, the monk's desire was to approach God closer and closer through heated struggle until he was able to directly perceive the rays of divine light; Now the position should have gained significance that the monk, by virtue of his position alone (Standes.-state), is generally incapable of entering into close communication with the light and enlightening others. But Areopagetism also contains something else that was dangerous for the enthusiasm of monasticism. Dionysius points to the sacraments, to the ecclesiastical actions of symbols, as mysterious conductors of divine power. This meant that in place of the free striving for God he put certain objects associated with contemplation - and instead of moral tension, he recommended a quiet attitude. 1478 Monasticism had so much vitality that it could not entirely embark on this path; but it could not completely resist this influence, and from here arises that special form of enthusiasm that dominates in subsequent centuries: the connection of mysticism, which is immersed in mystery, with animation, freely rising to the divine. Both directions meet together, since the prevailing belief is that in both cases, in two different ways, ascetics receive essentially the same thing, only in one case this state is achieved mediocrely, and in the other - directly. However, monasticism allowed just as little to steal free enthusiasm from oneself as it did to take from oneself the right, by virtue of the grace-filled gift inherent in it, to lead others. In the history of enthusiasm, Symeon the New Theologian has the significance that he gave a specific goal for the striving for God: the object of striving should be the contemplation of light, a concrete experience in which the feeling was calmed and from which moral strength was drawn. 1479 One can, perhaps, recognize Simeon as a self-deluded dreamer, but in principle it is impossible to accuse him of anything. After all, it must be assumed that God can reveal himself to his beloved as He pleases. As for the hesychasts, in comparison with Simeon N.B., only the well-known methods by which they prepared for the contemplation of the light seem to be real news - along with the requirement of internal preparation, they also recommended mechanical methods. Simeon does not know these various techniques, since they are in complete contradiction with his entire system. He indicates only the moral conditions by which a person is disposed to contemplate and expects the miraculous onset of this experience - this latter cannot be forced or artificially stopped. 1480 If the vision stops, then this is a reason for Simeon to pay attention to his inner state and test his moral state. 1481 It is perhaps easy to see in the method of the hesychasts only a gross distortion of religions. However, if the matter is considered in historical context, then it should be recognized that the hesychasts practiced this art (geübte) out of necessity. Visions, as Simeon and others experienced them, were a matter of individual disposition. The methods of the hesychasts eliminated this difficulty: they pointed out the path along which they could come to enlightenment at any time. The deviation of hesychasm from the ideal presented to monasticism was insignificant. One can even say: the more strictly and deeply the religious interest, the desire for personal contact with God, declared itself, the more joyfully one should welcome the method that opened up the opportunity for everyone (Jedermann) to enter into the possession of revelations. Hesychasm was a consequence, a consistent result of monastic enthusiasm; the mechanical character of his method is only “the criticism that history has uttered against it. 1482 The hesychastic dispute is characteristic of clarifying the differences between Western and Eastern views. For Varlaam, the belief that the perception of God in the light is something higher, more consistent with the essence of God, than the understanding of God in thought is incomprehensible. But to the Greeks, in turn, Barlaam appears to be an unholy rationalist who speaks of divine things like a blind man speaks of flowers; for one must see God, perceive him directly, in order to know about him. 1483 Based on the results of the hesychast dispute, Simeon of Thessaloniki tries to prove that monasticism was established for the first time not by Pachomius, who established only some external aspects of the schema, but by Christ and the Apostles, and it was already presented predictively in the prophets. This is the reason that monasticism is an essential institution of the Christian Church and, since it ascends just as directly as the presbytery to Christ and His Apostles, it is an independent institution. In the West, monasticism has become an obedient organ of the Church based on the presbytery. In the east, this kind of subjugation of monasticism was impossible. Until recently, the special advantages of monasticism compared to presbytery were valued here. Monasticism in the East had a strong advantage over the presbytery already due to its virginity. 1484 In the form that the enthusiasm retained in hesychasm, it had not faded even before that time. Ph. Meyer reports that hesychast prayer has always been in use on Mount Athos. If we imagine the special character of the Greek Church - the richness of its forms, which threaten to suppress the spirit, then we should recognize it as happiness that the spirit did not extinguish in monasticism. At least a free, living piety has been preserved here. 1485 This is the content of the actual second section of Gaulle’s interesting book, which has the most direct and immediate interest in our work. 1486 Regarding the presented content of the said book by Holl, we must say in general that this scientist, in his judgments and conclusions, has in mind some actual facts, but he very often gives these latter an incorrect interpretation, exaggerates their significance, gives them the wrong coloring to suit his tendency, etc. Most noticeably, especially tendentiously, the German scientist emphasizes the position that monastic enthusiasm and church institutions are phenomena of two special orders, which are incompatible with each other, mutually exclude each other, due to the internal, fundamental antagonism that exists between them. Understanding by “enthusiasm” the highest giftedness of the Spirit generally conditioned by contemplative asceticism, 1487 Holl tries with all his might to prove that such giftedness, as a fact conditioned by the personal characteristics and individual relationship of a person to the Divine, is directly opposed to the church, legal and cult order, to which the scientist naturally also - and mainly - includes the hierarchical church system with its grace-filled gifts, assigned specifically and exclusively to the rank. Healing mental illnesses - passions, erasing sins - this ability should be considered, in Holl's opinion, as a special charisma, which is inherent only in contemplative monks and is only artificially, outwardly and completely incorrectly assigned to church-hierarchical persons. In this regard, Holl also strongly insists that the true content of the true monastic ideal is exclusive and undivided contemplation, carried out in complete detachment, isolation from everything external. To what extent does historical reality favor such bold and decisive judgments of the named scientist? Justice requires that the author of the views being analyzed sometimes allows such overexposure that in his case the undeniable truth is intertwined with an undoubted distortion of the truth. Ascetic writings, indeed, are characterized by the view that true ascetics, great ascetics, receive the ability to perceive extraordinary grace-filled gifts that are given to them from God. According to the teacher. John Climacus, performing miracles, in which, for example, raising the dead, casting out demons, is an exclusively victorious honor of monks (ταΰτα πάντα μοναχών τά έπαθλα). Worldly people cannot accommodate these miracles (α ό κόσμος χωρήσαι ου δυναται). This is a distinctive feature of hermit monks (περί τι η ασκησις ηγουν η αναχωρησις ;). 1488 According to Blessed Theodoret, various gifts are communicated to the saints from God (διάφορα αύτοΐς θεόθεν έδόθη χαρίσματα), 1489, and “the ascetic commensurates his grace with labor” (ό δέ αγωνοθέτης τοΐς πόνοις την χάριν έπεμέτρησεν ). 1490 Holl's observation that these miracles performed by St. ascetics, are often put in analogy with biblical miracles, and there is a clearly noticeable tendency to show that the miracles of ascetics had complete similarities with the miracles of the Prophets, Christ Himself, and His Apostles. 1491 According to the thought of Simeon the New Theologian, in the present century there are equals to the Apostles of Christ and to all the Saints from the ages, like them, moved and influenced by the Divine Spirit. 1492 This idea is sometimes expressed in application to certain ascetics. “About Abba Apollos, for example, it is said that he became glorious, like a new prophet and apostle who appeared in our time.” 1493 This general idea is illustrated by numerous specific examples of miracles performed by ascetics: in their character, in their setting, sometimes down to the smallest detail, they resemble biblical miracles. 1494 Particularly closely related to the very essence and basic content of monastic perfection is the ability of ascetics to cast out demons. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the main condition for achieving monastic perfection is, if possible, the complete eradication of not only “passions,” but even unclean “thoughts.” On the other hand, at the same time, ascetic writers often say that different demons are in charge, so to speak, of different vices, receiving their very names from them. 1495 From here, naturally, the conclusion followed that the expulsion of demons is the predominant, even exclusive privilege of monastic ascetics. This idea is very definitely expressed, for example, in the following saying of Abba Pitirion: “whoever wants to cast out demons must first enslave the passions, for whatever passion he conquers, he will cast out such a demon (ος τις .... βούλεται τούς δαίμονας άπελαύνειν Ού γάρ άν πάθους τις περιγένηται, τούτου καί τον δαίμονα απελαύνει). 1496 This ability was also sometimes conditioned by the perfection of obedience of ascetics. 1497 This explains the stories from ascetic monuments that in some cases the clergy themselves turned to the ascetics with a request to expel the demon. Thus, the clergy (οί κληρικοί) in 1498 turned to Abba Vissarian so that he would cast out the demon when, after prayer in the church (έγενετό ευχή περί αύτου έν τή εκκλησία), the demon did not come out 1499) 1500. Another, no less remarkable, feature of ascetic perfection noted by HoII is clairvoyance. According to the writer ζ "Lavsaik", he who is worthy of the knowledge of God receives knowledge of everything else; sees mysteries because God shows him, foresees the future, contemplates revelations, which the saints also contemplate; performs miracles, becomes a friend of God and receives from God everything he asks for. 1501 The gift of clairvoyance, by the way, was expressed in the ability to penetrate directly into the moral state of another person, to accurately and accurately see all of his spiritual content - secretly committed actions, hidden plans. The seer “seemed to read” in the souls of the people around him. 1502 And this gift - generally rarer than, for example, the gift of discernment of spirits - was used by ascetics in the interests of correcting people. 1503 This insight, combined with the gift of “discernment of spirits” and “purification of thoughts” (gratia discernendorum spirituum et purgandarum cogitationum) 1504 naturally served as the basis and extremely favorable condition for the broad and fruitful activity of monks in the field of guiding souls. Attracted by rumors about the extraordinary manifestations of the charismatic talent of the monks, Christian people flocked in large crowds to the cell, to the cave or to the pillar of the ascetic, hoping to receive miraculous healings, to receive instruction, admonition, to open the secrets of their tormented soul, to receive experienced and practical advice, to ease and calm their tossing conscience.... 1505 And this side of the public service of monasticism, noted by Holl is indeed observed in the history of monasticism, but further conclusions that Holl draws from the facts related here cannot but be considered hasty and tendentious. According to the fair remark of Prof. Suvorov, “we only need to recognize as indisputable that the monks, famous for the holiness of life and spiritual experience, attracted people who, without falling under the disciplinary spiritual court, needed advice on how to deal with passions, or how to atone for committed sins, and in the prayerful intercession of a holy person. The situation in which the ascetics had conversations with people coming from the world, as it is depicted in the lives of the saints, does not make it possible to imagine anything “like a binding and resolving power.” Talking “through the window” with those coming about what relates “to the benefit of the soul, and giving his blessing, the monk did not think of exercising astringent and permissive power, which was conceived only in conjunction with the church court, with a certain order of church repentance, with church prayers and with church layings of hands,” 1506 Here is one of the characteristic news regarding monastic “healing of souls.” According to Blessed Theodoret, Maron not only healed bodily illnesses, but also offered decent healing to souls (ταΐς ψηχαϊς την πρόσφορον θεραπείαν προσέφερε), one doctor from covetousness (πλεονεξίαν), another - from anger (τον θυμόν); instilling chastity in one (περί σωφροσύνης), in another teaching lessons of justice (δικαιοσύνης); in one, denouncing intemperance (άκολαστίαν), in the other, awakening from carelessness (τό νωθρόν). 1507 It is in this sense that monasteries are called “schools of piety” (φιλοσοφίας φροντιστήρια). 1508 At the same time, the observation that not only laymen, but also clergy - presbyters came to confession to the elders is also significantly important and characteristic. This circumstance, in addition to the high veneration of famous hermits for their charismatic talent, is also explained, perhaps, by the imperfect organization of penitential discipline in the church of that time, in which the judicial-administrative nature prevailed over the pastoral tendency. 1509 As for the dogmatic side of the sacrament, it - at least the question of the organ of repentance - was not sufficiently developed at that time in the Eastern Church. 1510 All these and similar data hardly speak in favor of the idea defended by the German scientist regarding the fundamental discord between the bearers of, on the one hand, extraordinary, and on the other, hierarchical gifts of grace. An impartial researcher, on the contrary, will find in them an illustration and factual confirmation of the teachings of St. Ap. Paul that “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are different services, but the Lord is one and the same, and there are different actions, but the same God, who works all things in all.” 1511 None other than the Head of the Church of Christ Himself “will appoint some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as shepherds and teachers, for the perfection of saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the Body of Christ.” 1512 Between the hierarchical and extraordinary gifts of grace there was so little, much less fundamental, discord that historical monuments of asceticism sometimes record the combination of grace-filled gifts of both orders in one person. About Abba Motiya, for example, it is said that he was a bishop and had the gift of miracles. 1513 True, in the history of Christian asceticism there are isolated facts of a truly negative attitude towards attending church meetings and accepting hierarchical rank, but the facts in themselves, without correct illumination of them, do not say anything. Here, as an example, are a few, in our observation, the most characteristic facts of this kind. “A certain Abraham, who led a very harsh and strict life in the desert, fell into extreme conceit and, having come to church, entered into a dispute with the elders, saying: “And I was ordained this night as a presbyter by Jesus Christ Himself, and you must accept me as a presbyter ready to officiate (καί εγώ καί οφείλετε δέζασθαι με ώς πρεσβύτερον ίερατευειν μέλλοντα ). 1514 It is told about the virgin Taora in Lavsaik that she remained hopelessly in her cell and did not even attend church for communion. While the other sisters on Sundays were going to church for communion, she sat hopelessly in her cell in rags doing her work ( έν τή εκκλησία χάριν τής κοινωνίας εκείνη δέ ρακοδυτουσα άδιαλείπτως έν τή μονή έν τώ έργω κάθεζομένη ). 1515 When Ammonius, a disciple of Pamvo, the inhabitants of one city wanted to forcefully bring him to Bishop Timothy for his ordination as a bishop, the ascetic cut off His left ear to the root with scissors (άφαρπάσας ψαλίδα το αριστερόν οΰς έαυτου έως του πυθμένος έψάλισεν), and when this did not help, he vowed to cut off his own tongue if they forced him any more ( αυτυυίς ; 1516 So, although one or another negative attitude towards churchliness and hierarchy was observed among a certain part of strictly solitary, contemplative-hermit monasticism, such an attitude was not of a fundamental nature and did not relate to the church and hierarchy in themselves. On the contrary, in some cases the ascetics themselves explained that they refused to accept the priesthood precisely because of a deep consciousness of their unworthiness, reverence for the height of the rank and fear of heavy responsibility before God. In other cases, ascetics tried to avoid attending church meetings, refused to accept hierarchical initiation, and were reluctant to accept visiting bishops and others. actually due to the fact that they were afraid to disturb their concentrated contemplation, prayerful self-collection. It is told about the ascetic Akepsimus that shortly before his death “the head of the Church came to him” (ό τής Εκκλησίας πρόεδρος) and convinced him to accept the yoke of the presbytery (του πρεσβυτέρου την ζεύγλην), saying: I know both your lofty wisdom and my extreme poverty; but, having been awarded the episcopal service, I perform ordination according to the strength of such a calling, and not due to my unworthiness ( οιδα .... καί τής σής φιλοσοφίας το υψος A= λλα τής άρχιερωσύνης την οικονομίαν πεπιστευμένος , ταύτη τάς χειροτονίας , άλλ ’ ούκ εκείνη προβάλλομαι ). Receive the gift of the priesthood (τής ιερωσύνης το δώρον), through the laying on of hands and through the action of the grace of the All-Holy Spirit. To this Akepsim said: since I will leave here after a few days, I do not argue against this at all (ήκιστα περί τούτων ζυγομαχήσω); but if I hoped to live long, I would shy away from the heavy and terrible burden of the priesthood, fearing the future account (... ίερωσόνης φορτίον , τής παρακαταθήκης όρρωδών τάς εύίΐύνας ). and he himself bowed his knees to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit through ordination.” 1517 Abba Theodore of Thermaeus, having the rank of deacon (γενόμενος διάκονος εις ϋκήτιν), however, did not want to take upon himself the performance of this ministry and even hold the cup, precisely because of a particularly high respect for the holiness of this ministry. 1518 Abba Cassian said: “The great Isidore, presbyter of Scete, had a certain Paphnutius deacon, whom he wanted to make presbyter for virtue, so that he would be his successor after death. He did not accept ordination out of reverence, but remained a deacon.” 1519 The ascetic of Macedon did not want to accept ordination to the priesthood from Bishop Flavian, precisely because he was afraid that his ordination would deprive him of his solitude on the top of the mountain and his favorite way of life. 1520 Upon his ordination to the rank of Patriarch of Jerusalem, Abba Ammos spoke to those gathered for greeting (ut adorärent eum) by a representative of monasticism (venerunt oranes monasteriorum eremi abbates) about the difficulties of this rank and, among other things, said: “What frightens me most of all is the holiness of ordinations” (plus quam caetera timeo ordinationum sacrinam). 1521 The ascetics, who lived a strictly solitary life, tried not to meet people when visiting churches. They told about Abba Sisoes of Thebes that, at the end of the church service, he fled to his cell ( αυτου ). 1522 Abba Isaac of Thebes, “when he went to church, he tried to avoid any meetings.” 1523 The same fear of losing favorable conditions for solitary concentration also determined the reluctance of some ascetics to honor the visiting bishops. One day, seven bishops visited Abba Nathanael, who, according to his vow, did not cross the threshold of his cell for thirty-seven years. The ascetic did not follow them a single step (ουδέ βήμα ποδός). When the deacons accompanying the bishops reproached the elder for pride, he said: “I respect my bishops and honor the entire clergy; I am a sinner, the scum of all people. But, according to my vow, I died for all this and for all life" ( πάντα τον κλήρον τιμώ …. έμοί τή προθέσει άπέθανον ). 1524 Archbishop Theophilus, wanting to come to Elder Arseny, sent ahead to find out whether he would open the door for him. The elder answered him: “If you come, I will open it to you (έάν ελθης, ανοίγω σοι); but if I open it for you, I will have to open it for everyone (πασιν ανοίγω); and then I won’t stay here anymore.” The archbishop, hearing this, said: “If I drive him away with my coming, then it’s better for me not to go to him.” 1525 From the examples given, it is obvious that the negative attitude of the ascetics towards the church, towards the hierarchy, etc., manifested in them. in the vast majority of cases, it was not about churchliness in itself, but stemmed from the desire to avoid, if possible, any contacts and meetings with people. 1526 In the same way, ascetic monuments undoubtedly state the fact that extraordinary manifestations of grace primarily took place, indeed, in desert solitude, while the resettlement of the ascetic among people with the acceptance, for example, of the episcopal rank very often entailed the cessation of these grace-filled consolations - visions, revelations. Naturally, the question arose whether the acceptance of episcopacy served as the reason for the cessation of extraordinary gifts of grace, that is, in other words, whether both of these orders of phenomena are not in mutual antagonism, as a result of which it turns out to be impossible to combine them in one person at the same time. However, the answer to this question in the monuments is given in the negative, and the reason for this phenomenon is indicated in the fact that God wants to console ascetics with extraordinary gifts, deprived of all human consolation in the desert). 1527 Complete reliability of our conclusion is given by the passage related here from the works of St. Gregory the Theologian. According to this saint, “Athanasius the Great (during his stay in the Egyptian deserts) reconciled desert life with common life, showing that the priesthood is compatible with philosophy, and philosophy has a need for occult wisdom.” 1528 According to the meaning of these words, the priesthood seemed to some hermits to be incompatible with hermitage precisely because of its, so to speak, social character, and not in essence, because of the associated need to leave solitude. That such a difference between these two orders of religious life in essence could not exist is also clearly evident from the fact that, according to the teachings of the ascetics themselves, the priesthood, like any gift of grace, requires from a person high moral perfection, especially success in prayer, contemplative deeds and other contemplative virtues. “Until, if possible, (dirty?) has been overcome, until the mind has been purified, until a person is far superior to others in his closeness to God; it is not safe for him to take upon himself the care of souls and mediation between God and people, which is the duty of a priest.” 1529 “You must first cleanse yourself, then cleanse yourself; to become wise, then to become wise; become light, then enlighten; draw closer to God, then lead others to Him; sanctify, then sanctify” 1530 ... “Knowing the poverty of your strength, it is good to flee from the yoke of your superiors; however, those who are firm in the faith are unshakable ( αρχής . 1531 Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian “remained in spiritual contemplation until they were called by grace to become shepherds of the Church of Christ.” 1532 “When the priest gets ready, stands in prayer, propitiating God, praying and gathering his mind into one, then the Holy Spirit descends on the bread and wine offered on the altar.” 1533 About Abba Dorotheos in Lavsaik it is said that “for his blameless life he was awarded the presbytery, and officiated for the brethren living in the caves.” 1534 Mother Synklitikia said: “it is dangerous to teach someone who is inexperienced in active life (του πρακτικού βίου). If someone lives in a dilapidated house, then, by accepting strangers, he can destroy them if his house falls. So those who had not previously arranged themselves destroyed those who came to them (for instruction) (... καί τους προσελθόντας αύτοΐς άττώλεσαν ). For with their words they called for salvation, but with their bad lifestyle they harmed their followers more.” 1535 In short, according to the general meaning of the teachings of the ascetics, “ordination is the property of impeccable people (των άμεμπτων έστιν ή χειροτονία. 1536 After all this, it will not be at all surprising if, contrary to Holl’s assertion, we observe ascetics attending church meetings as a matter of routine, we see their ardent desire for the most frequent (sometimes weekly) communion of Christ’s Mysteries and we notice their deep respect for the holy order, for the bearers of hierarchical grace. Here are the most typical examples of this kind, which serve as confirmation of the thought we have expressed. Ascetic writing with indisputable convincingness, presenting a huge number of relevant facts, testifies that the clergy enjoyed great moral authority among the ascetics. 1537 At the same time, the presbyters in the society of ascetics also had high, so to speak, pastoral-canonical authority, the right to disciplinary trial of monks and impose penance punishments on them for serious sins. 1538 So, for example, the presbyter, as a form of punishment, ordered the monastic robes to be removed from the offending monk. 1539 As for the facts indicating that ascetics, not excluding strict hermits, visited churches, received the Eucharist and treated church ministers with respect and held their rank highly, then in general even direct facts of this kind are far from few in number. Here are some of them: About Abba Arseny, for example, it is said that he respected the presbyter and attended church (τήν σύναξιν). 1540 When the named Abba came to church, he usually sat behind a pillar (όπίσω toi στόλου). 1541 Two young men who settled near Macarius of Egypt, on his instructions, did not go to him or anyone else for three years, but only “silently came to the church to receive gifts” (et μη μόνον εις τήν εκκλησίαν σιωπώντες λαβειτην προσφοράν ) 1542 ). 1543 About Mark E., who stayed hopelessly in his cell for 30 years, he says that the presbyter usually came to him and brought him the Holy Gifts. 1544 - Abba Jacob, retiring for a forty-day feat of fasting in a cave in order to defeat the demon of fornication and free himself from this destructive passion, asked Abba Foka, after 40 days, to come to him and bring Holy Communion with him (τήν άγιαν κοινωνίαν). Abba Fokas found him half-dead after 40 days and gave holy communion of the Body and Blood (του τιμίου σώματος και αϊματος). 1545 It is told about one “great old man” in “Spiritual Meadow” that he spent fifty years in his desert, did not drink wine, did not eat bread except bran, and took communion three times a week (tertio singulis hebdomadibus communicabat). 1546 The Venerable Mary of Egypt, having achieved extraordinary prayerful perfection, 1547 nevertheless asks Zosima to bring her the Holy Gifts. 1548 According to the testimony of Vasily V., the hermits had spare gifts with them and communed themselves: “all monks living in the deserts, where there is no priest, communion themselves.” 1549 And this attitude of the ascetics to the communion of the Holy Mysteries was determined by the belief in the necessary saving significance of this communion, which is especially important for the hermits, who are subjected to especially cruel attacks by demons. 1550 Communion of the Holy Mysteries was considered so necessary for salvation that the belief arose about ascetics living in complete solitude receiving communion from the hands of angels. 1551 Here, finally, are a few facts testifying to the veneration of the ascetics for the dignity of the holy order and church holidays. On days of public celebrations (έν ταις δημοτελεσι πανηγύρεσι), the ascetic Simeon the Stylite shows a special kind of patience. After sunset and until it rises on the eastern edge of the horizon, he stands all night (παννύχων) with his hands raised to the sky, overcoming sleep and fatigue. 1552 With all his exploits (ταυτα άπαντα δρών) Simeon the Stylite “does not abandon concern for the holy Church (ουδέ τής τών άγιων Εκκλησιών αμελεί προμήθειας), sometimes fighting pagan wickedness, sometimes crushing the insolence of the Jews, sometimes scattering gatherings of heretics, sometimes sending a letter to the emperor about this, sometimes arousing zeal for God in the leaders, and sometimes convincing the shepherds of the Church themselves to take greater care of their flock.” 1553 About the ascetics Marina and Kira, blessed. Theodoret says that they “ordered the door to be opened for him, honoring the dignity of the sacred dignity” (τής ίερωσύνης τήν προεδρίαν τμώσαι). 1554 John of Lycopolis, a strict hermit and ascetic, singled out clergy from the crowd who came to him, whom he treated with special respect, as persons especially blessed (see his characteristic conversation with one deacon who hid his rank). 1555 If we keep in mind these and similar facts, which testify not to negative, but rather, on the contrary, to the positive relationship of monasticism to churchliness, to its most essential and most important aspects (epapxia, eucharist), then it is difficult to agree with the statement of the German scientist under discussion regarding the absence of any positive internal connection between the “great church” and the “church of the monastics.” Even if we understand in this case purely external, visible, tactile manifestations of these relationships, then in this case we will not find in the actual history of asceticism confirmation of Holl’s thought that the monastic community was a completely closed whole. 1556 Elsewhere in his book, Holl himself shows that monasticism played an important role in the church (in der Kirche), 1557 claiming to be primarily its pastoral activity 1558 in the general, broad sense of the word. Not only that. The idea of ​​the right and power of monks, as such, to bind and loose all those who come, constituting the cornerstone of the entire content of the book being analyzed (mainly the third part of it: “Die Binde-und Lösegewalt des Mönchtums”), naturally and necessarily presupposes the presence of a deep influence of monasticism on the great, secular church, and therefore states their close, essential spiritual connection. Clergy, as a church-everyday form, developed, according to some scientists, from a purely monastic institution - from eldership. Thus, “the monastic-everyday form turned into a church-everyday form and in this form existed in the East almost invariably for a long series of centuries.” 1559 Monasticism in general had a strong influence on the life of the church - on Christian morality and church discipline. 1560 Not the absence of a connection between monasticism and the secular church, but rather the opposite, is evidenced by the fact that the authors of historical and biographical monuments of ascetic life were bishops (Athanasius of Alexandria - "Vita Antonii", Theodoret - "Religiosa Historia", Paldadius - Historia Lausiaca"), as well as the fact that the vast majority of bishops from the 4th century were appointed from among the monks. Holl, indeed, had some basis for his given judgments about the relationship of monasticism to the church, but he presented these reasons - views and facts - in an incorrect and inaccurate light. And first of all - with which Holl himself agrees - even the ascetic point of view, in its views on the order of monasticism, revolves around the concept of the Church as the Body of Christ. Churchliness, conciliarity, and not individualism - these are the most prominent, distinctive features of ascetic views on the essence of normal Christian existence. According to Gregory the Theologian, “as in comparison with one plant a garden is better and larger, in comparison with one star - the whole sky and all its decoration, and in comparison with a member - a body; so before God a whole and well-ordered church is preferable to one person.” 1561 And essentially the mystical relationship of the believer to Christ, direct communication with Him not only does not interfere with the achievement and maintenance of mystical unity with the people who make up the Church, but is also absolutely necessary for the realization of the last moment, as its basis, root and source. The personal relationship of the believer to Christ, according to the teachings of St. Paul, who actually reveals the doctrine of the Church as the mysterious theanthropic Body of Christ, serves as the primary basis of the church structure, a necessary condition for the integration of the believer into the church body, which rests entirely on the power of a real relationship with the Lord the Redeemer. 1562 The real, mystical and moral communication of a Christian with the Head of the Church, therefore, is absolutely necessary as the initial and basic condition of communication with members of the Church, with members of the “Body of Christ”. The Lord Savior, “being the foundation and source of deliverance, at the same time is also the ever-present center of the merging of people... Everything here flows from Christ and everything in Him is “headed” in the closest fusion of all the regenerated... Consequently, in our salvation the idea of the Church will be to a certain extent secondary, since it already indicates its further result in the actual blessing of many through the Redeemer... True belonging to the Church of Christ - not without its mediation - conditioned by the personal communication of the believer with the divine Deliverer.” 1563 It is true that, in the sense of ascetic views, monasticism can be called, in a certain sense, an independent church, since monks differ from all other Christians, in terms of aspirations, goals, structure, organization, etc., in some special, specific features, although not of a fundamental nature. This idea is especially clearly revealed in Simeon N. Theologian, whom Holl also studies (but does not cite this place). According to St. A father, community or church of monastics can be called a “body” in a certain sense, due to their special, close organization, imbued with the unity of life aspirations and interests, where each member, from first to last, occupies a strictly defined position, generally constituting a closely knit, harmonious corporation. 1564 Now the question arises: how can we more correctly think and more accurately represent this certain separateness, the independence of the monastic institution in relation to the general church structure? Absolutely precisely and definitely answers this question. Theophan, expressing the essence of the patristic view in the following words: “composing themselves, under the leadership of one, a fraternal union and, as it were, one body, they (i.e., the monastics) constitute, as it were, a private church.” 1565 “Their main significance is to present in a small way the face of the Church of Christ in its most perfect state.” 1566 But the idea of ​​a “private Church,” while perfectly defining the relationship between monasticism and the universal, conciliar Church, not only does not suggest the absence of a close, organic connection between them, but, on the contrary, necessarily presupposes just such a connection. And indeed, according to ascetic views, the life and miracles of monastics are performed in the bosom of the universal Church. “From the beginning of the faith to this day, miracles have been performed by the holy fathers and blessed martyrs in the holy catholic and apostolic Church.” 1567 That is why, in the words of Rev. Isaac the Syrian, “monastic life is the praise of the Church of Christ” (καύχημα τής Χριστου εκκλησίας ή μοναχική πολιτεία), 1568 because the prosperity of monasticism contributes to the growth of the glory and authority of the Church. 1569 Without accurately representing, as we have just shown, the mutual relations of monasticism and the universal Church, Holl at the same time failed to characterize quite correctly the mutual relations of the two main types of monasticism - hermitage and community life. And this, in turn, was due to the fact that Holl incompletely and inaccurately presented and did not quite correctly define the main features and characteristic features of the monastic ideal in itself and in its relation to the general Christian ideal. According to the German scientist, true Christianity is realized exclusively in monasticism, 1570 and, moreover, in monasticism alone and certainly anchorite, 1571 since the internal unrelenting self-collection necessary for undivided contemplation is achievable only in complete detachment from everything. 1572 At this point, Holl touches on the very essence of the ascetic worldview, its very central provisions and main driving motives. In order to correctly, not one-sidedly understand the ascetic ideal, Holl should have studied it more thoroughly on the basis of primary sources, through their wide acquaintance, if possible, with all the most prominent and characteristic representatives of patristic and ascetic writing. Failure to comply with this condition is inevitably accompanied by Holl’s lack of a holistic, correct, so to speak, organic representation of the subject being interpreted - we do not find in him a completely clear, precise, definite idea of ​​the content of ascetic contemplation, its conditions, etc. In fact, it is impossible without great reservations to agree with Holl’s conclusion that only unconditional detachment from everything around us allows for true contemplation of the otherworldly, heavenly world. In fact, in ascetic writing we encounter, along with this or a similar presentation of the matter, a completely different one, one that does not deny, but, on the contrary, necessarily requires a positive relationship to the present world, and above all, to other people. 1573 It is not clear how the author did not ask the question that, if we understand the requirement of undivided contemplation in an unconditional unlimited sense, in this case the commandment of Christ the Savior about love not only for God, but certainly for people, is completely impossible to implement in true Christianity. Holl did not think deeply enough into the content of the moral worldview of Basil the Great, and therefore did not highlight the peculiarity of it that it quite accurately interprets the teaching of Christ the Savior - otherwise No11’s thought would have undoubtedly received a completely different direction, and he would not have seen an internal contradiction in the system of the Holy Father. Consequently, Holl's categorical assertion that the essence of Christianity necessarily requires unconditional detachment must be significantly limited and significantly weakened. And this is all the more so since even he himself, speaking about the moral and religious features of anchoretism, insists precisely on the fact that the hermit can and even should pour out the grace-filled gifts that are acquired through asceticism on others, 1574 and this influence on people by Holl seems even broader and more fruitful than the influence of a monk living in a hostel. The pastoral activity of anchorites occupies a prominent place in Holl’s depiction of the hermit ideal. 1575 If Holl had clarified in detail the fundamental relationship between hermitage and community life, then he would not have to be perplexed about the historical relationship of these two main forms of monasticism. Now this attitude remains unclear and incomprehensible to him. Holl himself admits that from his point of view it would be natural to expect that hermitism and community life, as forms of life pursuing the achievement of an ideal in different ways, should in fact not only diverge from each other, but also enter into decisive antagonism. And yet, by his own admission, this did not actually happen - such complete agreement and true unanimity reigned between the named forms of monasticism that in Palestine we find them corporately connected. 1576 How can we explain this circumstance? Holl does not provide a direct, satisfactory answer to this question. Confusion arises on the other side as well. Despite the close relationship between hermitage and community life in Palestine, although with the predominance of the first over the second, in 1577 enthusiasm did not weaken in monasticism, 1578 whereas from the author’s point of view, one should again expect a weakening of this enthusiasm, since Holl categorically admits that the ideal of Basil Vel. should have contributed to the weakening of enthusiasm. 1579 Thus, if we take history as a criterion, then Holl’s views in this case will not stand up to testing, since they are not confirmed by facts attested by history. In fact, we observe not only in Palestine, but even in Egypt - the birthplace of monasticism - the simultaneous and parallel existence of both main forms of monasticism. Although there was a difference between them, even disagreement, it was not fundamental, and therefore fully allowed for the possibility of their close relationship. According to Gregory the Theologian, in the Egyptian monastic monasteries, only desert dwellers led a completely solitary life, without any communication with people, talking only with themselves and with God, knowing the world only as much as one can know about it in the desert. Others, fulfilling the law of love with their sociability, were both hermits and living together; for each other they made up a whole world, encouraging each other to virtue by mutual example. Athanasius V., hiding in the desert, reconciled desert living with community life. 1580 Thus, both fundamental data from 1581 and the history of monasticism prove to us that not only community life, as Holl believes, but also hermitage are forms of monastic life that in themselves, taken separately from each other, do not exhaust the monastic ideal, since both of them, indeed, have, along with undeniable advantages, undoubted inconveniences and one-sidedness. These features, which distinguish both forms of monastic life from one another, concern, however, it should be noted, not the essence of the ideal itself, which they pursue and which, as Holl correctly noted, is essentially the same for them, but namely the conditions of their life, various ways of realizing religious and moral perfection. These features in some historical moments became aggravated and served as the cause of discord and even struggle between representatives of one and the other way of monastic life, so Holl in this regard is not entirely right when he speaks, apparently, even about the complete absence of this struggle in Palestine. According to Archimandrite (now bishop) Theodosius, who specially studied the history of Palestinian monasticism, “hermitage with its freedom presented many temptations for inexperienced ascetics; many hermits abused their freedom: without certain rules, they were guided solely by their own will. When a need arose or a desire was born, they went out into the world, interacted with the laity and received them. Such hermits could not sympathize with the Lavra, communal way of life of monasticism, introduced in Palestine by Chariton the Confessor; it seemed to them a restriction of the former freedom of asceticism. In the deserts of Palestine the recluse was too strong to submit at once to the new order of things; This circumstance implied the inevitability of a struggle between supporters of the old and new way of life of the ascetics. This struggle really took place, and it was carried out not only secretly in monasteries and cells, but also penetrated into the monuments of ascetic writing of the 4th century.... The monastic rule of Basil the Great, which became known by the end of the 4th century in Palestine, which gives a clear preference for the communal form of life of monasticism over hermitage, further intensified the struggle between adherents of the old and new order.” 1582 Not only that. The struggle between hermitage and community life, although not in such an acute form, exists even now on Athos. 1583 The inherent imperfections of hermitage and the practical inconveniences of this way of life for most monks were the reason why very often prominent representatives of asceticism sought to replace hermitage with a community life. 1584 This, in particular, should be said about Palestinian monasticism. 1585 However, the hostel did not provide the achievement of complete conveniences in the possible, complete and perfect implementation of the monastic ideal. That is why a special form of monasticism is being developed, a cross between hermitage and community life - the monastery. 1586 Thus, if Holl speaks of the unconditional preference that is given in ascetic writing to the hermit’s way of life compared to the cenobitic one, then he covers the subject tendentiously, taking into account and stating one series of data and losing sight of, hushing up a number of other characteristic facts. In ascetic literature, the view is also quite clearly expressed that the highest perfection is not the result of independent, independent, even highly intense and selfless asceticism, but such perfection is achieved only by complete, perfect, self-devoted obedience to the elder, under whose leadership the ascetic lives. 1587 In narrative ascetic literature, an illustration is given of the idea that the ability of ascetics to perform the most amazing miracles (for example, resurrecting the dead) is conveyed primarily to those who succeed precisely in the matter of obedience. Here are some of the most typical data. The elder said: “He who lives in obedience to his spiritual father has a greater reward than he who lives in the desert, in solitude.” 1588 “Obedience likens the novice to the crucified Christ (vidit fratrem suum crucifixum cum Domino), is the complete, highest manifestation of self-denial, and therefore is accompanied by the highest grace-filled gifts.” 1589 It was “for the sake of the obedience of one brother, and not for the sake of the asceticism of another, that the dead was raised” (pro obedientia mortuus surrexit). 1590 In general, “humility,” acquired primarily through “obedience,” is the predominant, central idea of ​​ascetic literature, running like a red thread throughout ascetic writing. “Humility,” according to the prevailing ascetic view, is the highest virtue, the core of ascetic perfection, its necessary foundation, the main driving spring. And from this point of view, the teaching of ascetics about extraordinary gifts and the highest states of contemplative perfection receives a special, specific shade that does not agree with Holl’s comments. In fact, the ascetic, until the very end of his life, is inherent in the consciousness that he is in no way worthy not only of extraordinary gifts of grace, but also of salvation itself - in the sense of even deliverance from eternal torment - he, like an (unbreakable) slave, stands before his Lord. Holl himself notes this circumstance, 1591, but does not draw the proper conclusions from it when presenting ascetic views on extraordinary gifts. He finds it quite consistent from a Christian point of view that the hesychasts sought to find and indicate mechanical methods through which everyone at any time could achieve enlightening insight, direct contact with God. 1592 Meanwhile, according to ascetic teaching, some persons are indeed honored with extraordinary grace-filled gifts and are awarded from God special visions, contemplations, etc., and the subjective ability to such states can, indeed, be achieved through “asceticism”, cultivating a contemplative mood and contributing to the achievement of a particularly refined receptivity to the impressions of the spiritual world - however, all this does not mean that a Christian has the moral right to consciously set as his goal achieving certain grace-filled gifts, specific visions, etc. The essence of the true Christian worldview is completely misunderstood by Holl at this point. Ascetic writing insists on the requirement that the goal of ascetic good deeds should not be transferred to any other object other than God. Consequently, in asceticism one should not consider the goal to be the achievement of extraordinary spiritual advantages and special gifts, but one should keep in mind only pleasing God and spiritual union with Him. Of the examples that confirm our idea, here are the most characteristic ones. The elder was asked: “How do some say that we see a vision of angels?” The elder answered: “Blessed is he who always sees his sins” (beatus est, qui peccatum suum semper videt). 1593 The elders said: “If an angel really appears to you, then do not accept it; but humble yourself, saying: I, who live in sins, am not worthy to see an angel.” 1594 The devil appeared to one elder in the form of Christ. “When the elder saw him, he closed his eyes. The devil said to him: “Why did you close your eyes? I am Christ” (ego sum Christus). The elder said in response: “I don’t want to see Christ here, but in that life” (ego hie Christum nolo videre, sed in illa vita). 1595 Especially clearly expresses the ascetic fundamental view of the question being treated by the Rev. Isaac the Syrian. “Let us renounce, he exhorts, from seeking high things from God (ζητήσαι τά υψηλά παρά του θεοΰ) Τ when He does not send or grant it, because God knows the vessels chosen to serve him (διότι ό θεός γινώσκει τά σκεύη της εκλογής τής υπηρεσίας έαυτοϋ ). 1596 Let us bring into order (arrangement, order) the region of the heart by works of repentance and a life pleasing to God; The Lord's will come by itself if the place in the heart is clean and undefiled. 1597 What we seek with observance, I mean God’s high gifts, is not approved by the Church of God. 1598 First one must acquire love, which is the initial contemplation of the Holy Trinity; and after that, and without giving, naturally, there will be contemplation of the spiritual (χωρίς δόσεως εσται φυσικώς ή των πνευματικών θεωρία). 1599 The true righteous not only do not desire this (i.e., receiving miracles and powers from God - see above - θαυμάσια καί δυνάμεις), but also refuse when this is given to them; and not only in front of people, but also secretly for themselves, they do not want this. 1600 Not only that. Shifting the center of gravity from pleasing God to the possible consequences of asceticism - extraordinary gifts, a conscious desire to achieve grace-filled privileges can be directly disastrous for the ascetic, accompanied by the loss of all perfections and leading to that state of spiritual blindness, which in ascetic language is called “prelest.” The facts and views related here are very characteristic and extremely important for testing the correctness of Holl's judgments. It is said about Valens in Lavsaik that he was a strict ascetic. 1601 But he fell into self-delusion and began to dream that angels were talking to him and serving him in every matter. 1602 Finally, in the ecstasy of pride, the ascetic became so dreamy of himself that he began to despise the very Mysteries of Christ. 1603 Having come to church, he said in front of all the brethren: “I have no need for communion; Today I saw Christ." 1604 A similar story is told about Eron, who, after a harsh, impeccably ascetic life, fell into such pride that he rejected all the authority of teachers, claiming that he must follow Christ alone; at the same time, he did not consider it necessary to begin the Mysteries of Christ. 1605 A similar story is told about the ascetic Ptolemy, who lived in solitude, not meeting anyone, for fifteen years. Deprived of spiritual guidance and conversation with reverend men and the edification of Sts. fathers, as well as the constant communion of the Mysteries of Christ (συχενοϋς κοινωνίας των μυστηρίων του Χρίστου), he turned aside from the right path and reached such madness that he began to assert domination in the world of chance (αυτοματισμόν καί τούτον τον άθλιον όμολογειν). 1606 With these comments we end our analysis of the interesting content of Holl’s book, since we have already touched on its most significant and basic provisions. 1607 What are the most important theses that we were able to extract, establish and substantiate as best we could when analyzing Holl’s work? 1) The attitude of monasticism to churchliness and hierarchy were for the most part, in general, not negative, but, on the contrary, positive. The facts of negative attitudes in churchliness observed in the history of asceticism are actually explained by the desire of ascetics for complete isolation from all external impressions and do not concern the Church in itself. 2) The contemplative ideal does not exhaust the entirety of the Christian ideal and does not express religious and moral perfection. 3) Therefore, hermitism cannot be recognized as an unconditionally self-sufficient, perfect form of life. 4) The ideal is reconciliation and mutual completion of hermitage and community life. 5) The ascetics could not set as their conscious goal the achievement of extraordinary grace-filled gifts. 6) The conscious, definite goal of a Christian ascetic can only be to please God by becoming like God in order to achieve the closest unity with God. This can be said about the entire present department, which is not limited to criticism alone, but always strives to give something positive. S. 141. The current scientific state of the issue of “authenticity” and “reliability” of the named monument is briefly but thoroughly explained by Prof. I.V. Popov in his study: “The religious ideal of St. Afanasy." Theologian Vestn. 1904 May, pp. 98–100 notes. S. 168. How little Vasily could think about the fact that monasticism should draw nourishment from the great church is best revealed by page 42. Vasily here expresses to his friend a tempting (vorsucherischen) thought, whether he is deprived of something if in solitude he does not have church services, preaching and public edification. The contents of this book in general - in its essential provisions - are quite briefly outlined by Prof. N. Suvorov (in the bibliographic department of the magazine “Byzantine Temporary”, T. V1, issue 3–4. St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 475–524), and this presentation is accompanied by a passing analysis of Holl’s main thoughts; the presentation of the second section occupies him, in particular, pp. 488–500. About the inconvenience and inaccuracy of using the name “enthusiasm” in this case, due to the fact that this term was already used in the 4th century. a specific meaning and use was adopted in relation to heretics, otherwise called Euchites or Messaliaps - see prof. Suvorov. Quoted, op. pp. 494–490. I. Climacus. Gr. II, col. 657B. Bl. Theodorite Rel. Histor. Praefat., col. 1289D; cp. ibid. col. 1292A. Cp. Afanasy A. Epist. ad Amunem monachum. T.XXVI. col. 1173. Cp. also Prof. I. V. Popova. "The religious ideal of St. Afanasy." Theologian Herald. May 1904, pp. 103–104. Rel. Hist. With. XVI, col. 1417C. There is also the idea that ascetics would acquire such power over nature that would liken them to Adam before the Fall. Abba Paul said: “If anyone acquires purity, everything will be subject to him, as to Adam when he was in paradise before he transgressed the commandment (si quis possederit puritatem, omnia subjiciuntur ei, sicut Adae quando erat in paradiso ante praevaricationem divini mandati). Verba Seniorum II, 11, col. 1002D. Cp. Patericon, XVIII, 14, p. 442. Simeon N. Theologian. Sar. pract. et tlieolog. § 57, col. 629A. Cp. § 106, col. 660D-661A. γεγονεν ευθυς διαβοητος ο ανηρ , ως αν νέος τις προφήτης και αποστολος τη ημετερα γενεά έπιφοιτήσα ;. Historia Lausiaca, c. LII, col. 1138A. Cp. cit. article by I.V. Popov, p. 107. Abba Vissarion, after prayer, crossed the Chrysoroi River on foot, immersing his foot only up to the toes (εως των αστραγάλων). Apophthegm. Patrum. Col. 140A. § 2, pp. Vitae Patrum. lib. VI. Verba Seniorum II, § 2, col. 1000CD. Another time, the same Abba stopped the setting sun with his prayer, so that he could reach the elder. Apoth. § 3, col. 1000D. Α Father Macarius of Egypt resurrects the dead for a while in order to find out from him in what place he hid the treasure taken for safekeeping. Apophth., col. 265AC. § 7, cp. Verba Seniorum. And, § 8. col. 1001 CDs. Wed. about Aeetb Milist Apophth., col. 297AB. Abba Pambo was so glorified by God that no one could look at his face because of the shine that he had on his face. Apoth. col. 368С. § 1. Cp. ibid. col. 372A. § 12. (In the last place it is directly stated that this miracle happened in the likeness of Moses; a similar thing happened with Abba Silouan and Siso). Abba Paul, who lived in Thebaid, took scorpions and poisonous snakes into his hands (without harm to himself), and even tore them in half. When the brothers asked how he received such grace, Abba answered them: “whoever acquires purity will obey everything, just as everything obeyed Adam in paradise, when he had not yet broken the commandments.” Apopbthegm. col. 380D-381A. Cp. Verba Seniorum, § 11, col. 1002D. Pratum spirituale, c. CXXIV, col. 182. The deceased girl, the daughter of Bishop Spiridon, through his prayers, appears to her father alive. Apopbthegm. col. 420A. It is said about Abba Julian, the former bishop of Bostrense, that he drank without harm a glass of water in which poison was placed, after he had made the sign of the cross over the glass three times with his fingers. Pratum spirituale, p. XIV, col. 16GCD. The angel binds the tongue of Abba David, in the likeness of the priest Zechariah Lib. dt. With. CXLIII, col. 191B. God sent an angel to serve the sick old man. Verba Seniorixm. VII, 44, col. U04V. (cf. Ancient Patericon § 51, p. 175). The writer “Lavsanka” even directly says that the monks living in Thebaid even in his time raised the dead and walked on the waters... like Peter: “and everything that the Savior did through the holy Apostles, they do at the present time.” Ilistoria Lausiaca. With. C, col. 1252D-1256A. Thus, in the monument “Vita V. Antonii Abbatis. (MSL. T. LXXIV, p. XV, co1 137D) says: diversa eorum er partita nequitia est. Historia Lausiaca, c. LXXIY, col. 1178C; cp. Apophthegmata Patrum, col. 376A. Cp. Ibid. With. XXVIII, col. 1082D (about Pavel the Simple). For the meaning of the terms κληρικός, κλήρος, see Suicerus T. II, col. 110–112. Apophthegmata Patrum. § 5, col. 141 AB; cp. Verba Seniorum, II, 4, col. 1000D-1001A. Obviously, church prayer over the possessed was practiced, sometimes with success, since this success was persistently expected in this case. Histor. Lausiaca, p. XLIII, col. 1116D-1121 A. Rufin. Ilist. manach. With. XI (about Venerable Gehlen). See also S.I. Smirnov. Spiritual Father, pp. 168–169. Wed. and in cit. op. S.I. Smirnova, pp. 214 et seq. Prof. N. S. Suvorova, cit. cit., pp. 514–515. II. prof. S. L. Smirnov agrees that senile confession is “a phenomenon of a moral and disciplinary order.” “But,” the author stipulates, in its moral task—the cleansing of the human conscience—it is similar to sacramental confession, an integral part of repentance, and was often mixed with it (especially with secret confession) and developed among monasticism, so to speak, at its expense. And this circumstance contributed to the emergence in monasticism of exaggerated ideas about the powers of the elders in the matter of healing the human conscience.” Spiritual Father, pp. 76–77 (Theological News. 1905 February, pp. 871–872). “Ancient monastic confession” is “only a pious exercise”; it “is one of the necessary moments of ascetic work.” Spiritual Father, pp. 116,117. Wed. pp. 123, 200. From the period of the ecumenical councils, Mr. Smirnov could indicate only one author - Barsanufius V., who recognized the power to knit and decide as an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, which is received by the most perfect of ascetics, like other charismatic gifts. In later times (IX-XI centuries), indeed, some simple elder monks “considered themselves the owners of the power of the keys, their confession – sacramental, although they did not have the priesthood” (Spiritual father ..., pp. 170–171. Cf. p. 133). However, regarding the evidence of Barsanufius V., it should be noted that they are rather vague and, b. n., they speak only about the gift of “insight” and “boldness” of ascetics (cf. pp. 133–134). This is, for example, especially the formula: “God, our great King, says to you: all your sins are forgiven you mainly for the prayers and supplication of the saints (elders) and for the sake of your faith in Him” (Αποκρ. 144). Another testimony is even more vague: there are three perfect men! before God, who have surpassed the measure of humanity and received the power to bind and decide - to release three and hold them... These men are: John in Rome, Elijah in Corinth and someone else in the diocese of Jerusalem... (Αποκρ. 575). G. Smirnov himself stipulates that John and Elijah, b. m., were also hierarchical persons (in any case, and it is difficult to categorically deny this); By the third, Barsanuphius probably meant himself. As for the later time, it no longer has such an important and fundamental character as the period of ecumenical councils - the time of the highest flowering of monasticism, when the very foundations of its life and structure were developed. Mr. Smirnov explains the transition of penitential practice to the jurisdiction of monks at the time of iconoclasm “by the then circumstances of church life” (Spiritual Father ... p. 307), and not by the fundamental antagonism of church life, on the one hand, and monasticism, on the other. Theodorite – Rel. Ilist. sar. XVI, col. 1417D. ibid. sar. XXX, col. 1493 D. Wed. and y (D I. Smirnova, pp. 219 et seq. See special pp. 271, 395. Smirnov, pp. 302 et seq., esp. 306. Apophthegm. 1 col. 300СD, §2. listoria hansiaca, p. CV, col. 1211 Α . ibid. cap. CXXXVII1, col.1236B. Historia Lausiaca, sar. XII, col. 1034A. Theodorite Relig. Histor. sar. XV, col. 1416CD. Apophthegmata Patrum, col. 193AB, § 25. Cp. Verba Seniorum, Χ V, 21, col. 957CD-958A. Ancient Patericon, XVI, 28, p. 368. ? ποθουμένης διαίτης άποστερήσειν. Theodorite. Relig. Histor. cap Χ III, col. 1401D (this episode is omitted in the Russian translation, pp. 131–182; cf. also N.N. Glubokovsky “Blessed Theodoret.” T. 2, p. 418 (note 2). Pratum spirituale, cap. CXLIX, col. 194CD. Apophtheg. Patr. col. 401B, § 37. Ilistoria Lausiaca, p. XVIII, col. 1042B. cp. 1042A. Apophthegmata Patrum. § 8, col. 89B. Cp. Verba Senior. II, 4, col. 858BC. Wed. Isaac Sir. Λ. XXXIV, σελ. 224–5; Wed Λ. LVI, σ. 342. Abba Apphius, Bishop of Oxyriphus, after he accepted this rank, in the midst of the world (έν τω κόσμω) could not lead the same strict life that he spent in hermitage. “Prostrating himself before God, he said: was it really because of the episcopate that grace departed from me ). And it was revealed to him that it was not for this reason (οτι ούχί); but then he was in the desert, where there was not a single person, and God helped him; and now he is in peace, and people help him. (Apophthegmata Patrum, col. 133BC. Cp. Verba Senior. XV, 13, col. 956C).... Someone, when he was in seclusion and led a hermit’s life, every hour enjoyed the blessed consolation, that is, visions and revelations (σελ. 499), and when he became close to the world, he sought, according to custom, I didn’t find this consolation; and he began to ask God to reveal to him the reason, saying: “Was it not for the sake of bishopric, Lord, that grace departed from me?” II he was told: “no, not for that reason, but because God provides for those who live in the desert and honors them with such consolations” ( ποιειτα των εν ερήμω οιαγόντων , καί άξιοΐ αυτούς των τοιούτων παρακλήσεων. Λογ. LXXXV, σελ .. 501. Cf. A. XIX, σελ. Gregory B. Oratio XXI, sar. XIX. T. XXXV, col. 1104AB:... και ιερωσύνη φιλόσοφος, και φιλοσοφία δεόμενη μυσταγωγίας. Gregory B Oratio II, Apolog. sar. XCI, T. XXXV, col. 493С. ibid. Oratio II,Apolog. Sar, LXXI, T. 35, col, 480B:... ουτω σοφίσαι; γενέσθαι φως , καί φωτίσαι έγγίσαι Θεώ , καί προσαγαγειν άλλους άγιασθήναι, καί άγιάσαι. Apoplithegmata Patrum, col. 316 ΑΒ, § 1, cp. Verba Senior. XV, 51, col. 963A. (saying of Abba Orsisius). Isaac S. Epist. IV, σελ. 555:... χάριτος γενέσθαι αύτούί ποιμένας τής εκκλησίας του Χρίστου. Isaac S. Λογ. XXXII, σελ. 204: .... , τότε έπιφοιτα τό πνεύμα τό άγιον επί τω άρτω , καί τώ οί᾿νω τώ επιτεθειμένο ) επί τώ θυσιαστήριο ). Historia Lausiaca, C. XCVII, col. 1203C:... λειτουργών τοΐς άδελφοις τοις έν τοις σπηλαίοις. Apopbthegmata, col. 425V. § 12. Apophthegmata R., col. 293A, § 9. Cp. Apophthegm. Patrum. col. 284BC, § 5; col. 205BC, § 7. Cnfr. Yerba Senior. X, 28, col. 917AB. Cp., for example, an incident from the life of Abba Nikon (Apophtheg. col. 309A-C), where the indicated power of the presbyter extended specifically to the hermit (άναχωρητής). Lib. cit col. 324D-325A-, § 11. According to prof. S.E. Smirnova, “in the most ancient monasteries of Egypt, while public confession was held in them, the presbyters were its performers.” Theologian West. 1906 Apr., p. 626. (Dissertation, p. 282). Wed. p. 634. (Dissertation, p. 300). Wed. also Theologian. West. 1905 February, pp. 366, 380–882. Public confession in monasteries was supplemented by public repentance, and the authority governing the matter was the presbyteral authority. Theologian Vestn. 1905 Feb., pp. 382 et seq. (Dissertation, pp. 98–89 cf. 94, 96), pp. 389. Apophtheg. § 16, col. 92B (conf. Verba Senior. XV, 8, col. 954A). Cp. § 36, col. 101C. Lib. cit. col. 105D., § 42. Cp. col. 125C., § 1 (about Abba Ammon). For the meaning of the word προσφορά, see Suicerus. T. II, col. 864–865. Προσφορά άγία = τά θεία μυστήρια (Chrysostom). Apoplitheg. col. 304A: είχε εθος ό πρεσβύτερος ερχεσθαι , και ποιειν αύτω τήν αγίαν προσφοράν. Wed. Rufin. Hist, monk. S. XV, T. XXI, col. 434. Apophtheg. col. 433A-C., § 2. For other similar cases, see Apophtheg. col. 252C, § 2 (about John Kolov (Cnfr. Theodorit. Religiös. Histor. p. XII, col. 1397B); col. 361C, § 168; col. 381C. Historia Lausiaca c. LII, col. 1147B (cnfr. col. 1147C.); col. 1148A (об Авве Аполлосе ); c. LXI, col. 1163B (об Авве Иоанне), с. VII, col. 1020B, 1020C; c. LXIX, col. 1177A (о нитрийских отшельниках); c. LXXXVI, col. 1194D (об отшельнике Eвагрии). Verba Seniorum. ХVIII, 17, col. 983D (cf. Patericon § 25, p. 106). Pratum spirituale p. XVII, col. 128C. Cnfr. s. IV, col. 125A (about Abba Leontius); s. XXII, col. 130A (about Elder Konon); s. LXXXVI, col. 162BC; s. CXXII, col. 181BC (about Abba Stephen of Sinai). Wed. Isaac. Sire. Λογ. LXXVI, σελ. 437. Cnfr. Vita S. Mariae Aegyptiacae Meretricis MSL. T. LXXIII, col. 679A: (Zosima) vidit eam elcvatam quasi cubitum unum a terra, et in aere pendentem orare. ibid. col. 685D-686A:... vespere sacratissimo Dominicae coenae, divini corporis et vivifici sanguinis portionem in vase sacro dignoque tanti mysterii affer, et sustine me in parte Iordanis, quae conjungitur saeculo, et veniens vivifica accipiam dona. Ex quo enim in ecclesia beatissimi Praecursoris, priusquam transirem Iordanem, communicavi, deinceps usque nunc nunquam communicavi, nunqum usque nunc sanctificationis hujus usa sum portione. T. XXXII, col. 486 (Letter to Caesarea). In general, the ancient monks, like all Christians at that time, took communion very often. In the Tavennes monasteries, for example, the brethren received communion every Saturday and Sunday. Hist. Laus. With. XXXVIII, col. 1099. The Kellyots of Scete, Sinai and Syria received communion once a week - on Sunday (Apophth. col. 252). The Vratia of Abba Apollos in Thevanda celebrated the Eucharist before every meal. Rufin. Hist, monk. With. VII, col. 418. Wed. Hist. Laus. col. 1147. I. Cascian mentions monks who, considering themselves unworthy, received communion only once a year. For his part, the ascetic advised communion every Sunday (dominicis diefnis). Coli. XXIII, c. XXI, col. 1278–1280. Venerable Macarius E. says to the woman he healed: “never stop going to church; never shy away from partaking of the Mysteries of Christ; misfortune happened to you because you have not approached the most pure Mysteries of our Savior for five weeks" ( άπόαχης τής κοινωνίας τών μυστηρίων τοΰ Χρίστου Ταδτα γάρ τοι συνέβη , τδ επί πέντε εβδομάδας μη προσεληλυ & έναι σε τοις άχράντοις μυστηρίοις τοΰ Σωτήρος ημών ). Historia Lausiaca, p. XIX-XX, col. 1049A. “The monks who live in the deserts are inflamed by the poison of the evil demons, and therefore they wish on Saturday and Sunday to come to the sources of water, that is, to the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to be cleansed from all the bitterness of the evil demons” (monachi in solitudinibus habitantes, acceduntur daemonum malignorum veneno, et propterea desiderant Sabbato Dominico venire ad fontes aquarum, hoc est ad corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri lesu Christi, ut purgentur ab omni amaritudine daemonum malignorum). Verba Senior. XVIII, 17, col. 983D (cf. Patericon, § 25, p. 106. Cp, eg Vita S. Onuphrii Eremitae. col. 2I6D-217A: ....Mirans in sermonibus •et actibus ac laboribus illius (i.e. beati viri Onuphrii), dixi: Pater benigne, die Dominico vel Sabbato communionem perdpiebas ab aliquo? A ille respondens, ait: Omni die Dominico vel Sabbato angelum Domini paratum invenio, sacrosanctum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri lesu Christi secuin deferentem: de cujus manu mihi pretiosissima donantur munera, vitaeque meae salus perpetua. Verum etiam omnes qui vitam spiritualem ducunt in eremo monachi tali participantur gaudio. Theodorite. Religiosa Historia, cap. XXVI, col. 1481D. Religiosa Historia, cap. XXIX, col. 1492A. Historia Lausiaca p.XLIII, col. 1115BC. Smirnov,. Spiritual Father, page XVIII. Wed. pp. 324, 328. Wed. Smirnov. Op. cit. page 179. Gregory B. Or. XII (Ad patrem), sar. Ι V, T. XXXV, col. 848В:... ?? ούτω και θεώ κατορθοΰντος ενός ολην Ἐκκλησίαν κατητισμένην. Cp. Ε f. II, 20–22. III, 6, 12, 17–18. IV, 11–3, 15–16. Προ f. N.N. Glubokovsky. The goodness of St. Ap Paul, pp. 440–446. Simeon N. Bogosl. Or. XXIV, T. CXX, col. 436A: Ecclesia, seu conventus et congregatio monachorum corpus quoddam est, ut audis ex Paulo de Christianorum Ecclesia, et ejus caput praepositus. Jam quemadmodum caetera corporis membra singula seorsum suam propriam funtionem liabent, ut pes ambulandi, manus tmendi et operandi, caput autem totius instar est, utpote in quo omnes seiisus, et mens, et ratio liabitant; sic et in monasterio fratres non omnes omnia, sed alius aliud quiddam efficere, et in hoc vel illo ministrare consuevit. E. Feofan. Nacher. Xp. Nranouch., p. 512 (emphasis added). Pratnm spirituale, sar. CCXIII, col. 237AB:... a sanctis Patribus, et a beatissimis martyribus ab initio fidei usque hodie fiunt mirabilia in sancta catholica et apostolica Ecclesia. Isaac Cup. Λ. X, δελ 62. We talk about this in detail and, as far as possible, in detail when analyzing the judgments of F. F. Gusev regarding the same subject. See esp. pp. 87 et seq. Gregory B. Og. XXI, sar. XIX, col. 1104A, T. XXXV: εαυτοίς μόνοις προσλαλοΰντε; καί τω Θεω , καί τοΰτο μονον κόσμον ειδότες , όσον έν τή έρημία γνωρίζουσιν οι δέ νόμοι αγάπη; τη κοινωνία στέργοντες , ερημικοί τε ομοΰ και μιγάδες , τοΐς μεν άλλοις τεθνηκότες άνθρωποι; και πράγμαβιν, αλλήλοι; οε κόσμος οντε ;; ερημικόν ξΐον τω κοινωνικω καταλλάττει. For a motivated disclosure of this data, see Chapter III. our dissertation. Archim. Theodosius, pp. 45–46; cp. ibid., pp. 92–96. According to Bp. Porfiry, “on Athos there exist and fight among themselves two systems of monasticism: self-living and community life; Both have their own characteristics, their own, as it were, degrees of idealization, but for all that, each allows itself to be understood by common features, as if essential. The first adheres to the principles of freedom, the second – to bondage.” Christian East: Athos, p. 555 (SPB. 1892). Blazh. Theodorite. Rel. Hist., p. V, col. 1353C: Publius first advised his disciples to lead a solitary life, and then established a dormitory, hoping that they would achieve greater perfection in virtue (τήν τελεωτάτην καταρθώσομεν αρετήν). Wed. Archim. Theodosius, pp. 13, 34, 114, etc. Wed. Archim. Theodosius, p. 106: “the desert ascetics gave clear preference to the monastery as a form of monastic life that combined the benefits of solitude and community living.” Wed. also pp. 33, 64, etc. Wed. Vasily V. Constitut. monast., p. XXII, § 2. T. XXXI, col. 1404BD. John Cassian. De coenobior. institut. Lib. XII, p. XXXII-XXXIII, col. 476A-477B. I. Climacus Gr. IV, col. 680B, 688B, 692A-693D, 704D, 705D-708A, 712B. Simeon Nov. Theologian Capit. pract. et theolog. § XV-XIX. T. CXX, col. 609–610. A detailed and thorough disclosure of this position will be given in Chapter III. Volume 2 of your essay. Frater, qui ad obedientiam Patris spiritalis animum dederit, raajorem mercedem habe quam ille, qui solus iu eremo recesserit. Verba Seuiorum, XIV, 19, col. 952C (Cp. Patericon. § 28, p. 315). Cp. Apophthegmata Patrum, col. 389C, §2: Avia Rufus said that “those who live in obedience to their spiritual father receive a great reward, Pratuni Spirituale, pp. LXV, col. 150A, cp. 149D. Verba Seniorum, XIV, § 17, col. 952A (cf. Patericon, § 26, p. 314). Verba seniorum, XV, 87, col. 968A (cf. Paterik, § 105, pp. 351–352). Verba Sen. XV, 69, col. 965D (cp. Patericon., § 84, p. 347): si pro veritate angelus tibi appareat, non suscipias facile, sed humailia temetipsum, dicons: non sum diguus angelum videre viveus in peccatis. Cp. ibid., § 68 (Pat. § 83, p. 316). Ver. Sen. XV, 70, col. 965D (cf. Patericon, § 85, p. 347). ήμεΐς καταστήσωμεν την χώραν τής καρδίας έν τοΐς έργοις τής μετάνοιας , και ταΐς ττολιτειαις ταΐς εύαρεστούσαις τω Θεω , και τά ? άμόλυντος γενηται. Ibid. σελ. 559. εκείνα δέ άπερ ζητοΰμεν έν τταρατηρήσει , τά υψηλά φημι δή του θεοΰ, άοοκιμον εστι τούτο τή εκκλησία του Θεοΰ. Ibid. Οί αληθινο δίκαιοι , ού μόνον ούκ έπιθυμοΰσι τούτων , άλλα και διδομένων αυτοΐς , αποστρε φόνται καί ού μόνον έν τοΐς άνθρώπων όφθαλμοΐς τούτο ου θελουσιν, αλλα και κρυπτώς εν έαυτοΐς. Ibid. Λ. XXXVI, σελ, 232, 233. Hist. Laus., p. XXXI, col. 1090B: κατορθώσας. Ibid.: ώς αγγέλων αύτιρ συντυγχανόντων , και τά προς εκάστην οιακονιαν αυτω ευτρεπζοντων. Ibid.: και έπί τοσουτον έφυσιώθη ό αθλιος , ώς καί αυτών καταφρονήσαι των μυστηρων του χριστοΰ. Ibid. col. 1091A: εγώ κοινωνία; χρείαν οΰκ έχω. Τόν Χριστόν έώρακα σήμερον . Historia Lausiaca, pp. XXXII, col. 1091BC: μή θέλοντα τή οϊήσει, μηδέ τοΐς μυστηριοίς σύτοΐ; προσέρχεσθαι. Historia Lausiaca, col. XXXIII, col. 1092BC. Let us only note that the solution to the question of how to distinguish between the actions of good and evil spirits, given in the biography of Anthony V., is generally understood and formulated correctly by Holl (cp. S. 151). Wed. cit. Art. I. V. Popova, p. 114 (May, 1904). It should be noted that this issue was resolved in exactly the same way in subsequent times. Compare, for example, Gregory of Sinaita Praecepta ad Hesycbastas, col. 1345A; cp. De quiete et oratione, § 10, col. 1312BC. For some quotations on the analogy between baptism and ordination (Holl, S. 206, 208) see Vita Beati Antonii Abbatis Rosweydi Notatio, MSL, T. LXXIY, § 78, col. 182A-183D; cp. also Vita Senior., I, § 8, col. 994B (cf. Patericon, XVIII, 36, p. 413). On the question of the meaning and use of the term πνευματικό; πατήρ (spiritualis pater) see the article by S. I. Smirnov “Spiritual father or elder in ancient eastern monasteries.” Theological Bulletin. 1904 November, pp. 473–508 (In "The Spiritual Father" dissertation, pp. 1–14).