3) Протопресвитер Иоанн Леонтьевич Янышев.

Views about. We have the opportunity to expound the protopresbyter on asceticism only on the basis of two of his printed works: 249 “The Essence of Christianity from a Moral Point of View” 250 and “Orthodox Christian Teaching on Morality.” 251 Since the “readings” in their essential provisions and justifications were included in the “lectures” of Fr. Protopresbyter, 252 then, when revealing his views on the point of interest to us, we will stick mainly to the last work, without losing sight of the first one, since it contains more or less characteristic details that contribute to a more prominent, relief shading of the features of the views of Fr. Protopresbyter. The question of the essence and meaning of “asceticism” Fr. The protopresbyter considers it in both parts of his lectures: in the 1st, which treats “morality in general,” and in the 2nd, which actually deals with “Christian morality.” Moreover, the point of view in both parts, even according to the author himself, is not the same, 253 since the concept of “asceticism” is taken in both sections in different senses, in unequal scope, with different content: the concept of asceticism in the first part has a narrower and more special meaning, denoting in fact only the dominance of the spirit over the lower aspects of human nature - material and mental - while in the second part “asceticism” is understood and is presented as a single, integral principle, the main driving principle and the essential, dominant direction of the life of a reborn Christian, meaning the achievement, with the assistance of grace, of moral Christian perfection, likeness to Christ. Thus, in the reasoning of Fr. I. L. Yanyshev about “asceticism” there seems to be some inconsistency, explained, however, by fundamental considerations, 254 mainly of a methodological nature, but in general, in essence, in its true form and final result, the point of view of Fr. The protopresbytera reveals a remarkable, truly rare and, without any exaggeration, outstanding depth of his theological insight, a living penetration into the very essence of the matter, which he understands correctly and expresses typically brightly, clearly and clearly - definitely. That is why the views of the most venerable author serve for us both as a reliable point of departure and as an authoritative confirmation of the correctness of our chosen basic point of view on “asceticism.” In the first part, establishing the normative foundations of “morality in general,” Fr. The protopresbyter strictly distinguishes between “two basic requirements of the moral law,” 255 two spheres in which a person’s moral needs are developed and satisfied”: 256 the relationship of the needs of a person’s spiritual nature to the needs of the organic or bodily, on the one hand; and the relationship of a person’s personality to other rationally free individuals, on the other.” 257 It is in the establishment of these double relationships that the energy of the spirit arises and manifests itself, as the power of self-determination.” 258 “Dominate, as a rationally free power, over the bodily needs of your nature, and through the body - over the external nature, i.e. possess and use them, and through this constantly improve your spiritual powers - this is the first requirement of the moral law.” 259 This requirement is based on the direct data of human self-awareness: “the preference for spiritual needs over sensual ones in a person who is aware of the difference between the two,” 260 necessarily manifests itself in the sphere of human self-awareness and precisely in the form of “an attraction independent of the will of a person to prefer spiritual needs to bodily needs.” 261 The basis of the natural preference for spiritual goods over bodily goods lies in the property of the spirit as a force of self-consciousness and self-determination, which in its essence incomparably exceeds everything material.” 262 Due to the indicated properties and indisputable advantages of the spirit, it is natural for it to be “reasonable power in relation to everything impersonal or material,” 263 while the opposite is directly unnatural. “The virtues of man, created in him by his power of self-determination, by virtue of the first requirement of the moral law, can be called ascetic in the broad sense of the word; since their source: power over the material and over all mental formations that arise from the outside, regardless of human freedom, is constant self-awareness and self-determination of the spirit, its development and manifestation in matter, is constant work and in this sense a feat (ασχησις). 264 Thus, “at the basis of all ascetic goods or virtues lies one basic need - the development of the personal spirit as power over all material things.” 265 Already from what has been said, we can conclude that “all ascetic virtues, taken together, are concentrated in one, which can be called self-respect. 266 Equally, bearing in mind the revealed concept of “asceticism,” we can say that Christ was “a Person, a spirit, had power over his psychophysical states, in a word, was, so to speak, the embodiment of ascetic virtue. 267 Here are the main, most characteristic provisions of Fr. Protopresbyter, which expresses the essence of his views on “asceticism” in the first part of his lectures. Despite all the indisputable correctness of his reasoning, one point in fact arouses some bewilderment: the too sharp, decisive division in the sphere of morality between the ascetic and communal principles, and the first, despite all the efforts of the author to give it a completely independent meaning and content, if possible, independent of the second, still turns out, in conclusion, to be a formal principle, and not a real one. In fact, there is no need to consider ascetic virtues “in contrast to another principle - morality, but it is more correct, giving “asceticism” a purely formal meaning, to recognize its obligatory nature in the field of manifestations of all generally moral human life, as a necessary means of achieving moral perfection. In fact, in the first part Fr. The protopresbyter understands “asceticism” in general as “power over the material and over all mental formations that arise from the outside, regardless of human freedom”; 269 ​​but the main dominant, central, empirical direction of the entire physical and mental life of an unregenerate person is egoism or selfishness. From it actually comes all the abnormality of the manifestation of bodily and mental life, therefore, it is against this very beginning that the moral energy of the spirit should be directed in suppressing abnormal or unnatural manifestations of bodily and mental life, and not against these manifestations in themselves. If “spirit” is the dominant principle in a person in relation to egoism; if he himself has the right direction, then he will certainly turn out to be, at the same time and for that very reason, the principle that correctly dominates both the body and all mental functions. That is why, taken detached from another moral requirement, completely independent of it, carried out and practiced completely independently, for itself, so to speak, autonomously, the ascetic principle is deprived of a true reliable criterion, does not have precisely defined boundaries and therefore can easily take on a perverted form, a false and downright destructive direction for a person’s spiritual life. The author himself is fully aware of this and definitely expresses it in different places. “Taken separately from other moral demands, it (i.e., the ascetic demand), in addition to its one-sidedness, can easily coexist with the crudest egoism and even serve as an instrument for it, which was in fact the case both among the Greeks and in fallen humanity in general.” 270 On the other hand, “ordinary ascetic benefits constitute a necessary condition not only for the development of the spirit as power in relation to nature, but also for satisfying the other side of the moral need, which manifests itself in its relations with other individuals.” 271 It is equally certain that “the community of life, the community of labor in the acquisition of goods, in the possession and use of them, required by love, and the application of this communication to the individual characteristics of each, required by truth, cultivating communal virtues in a person, at the same time gives his ascetic virtues a new motive that elevates their strength; and new purposes that expand their application.” 272 “Thus, with the development of social virtues, the development of ascetic virtues is strengthened and elevated in all respects.” 273 From all these places it can be concluded that the ascetic principle, as it appears in Fr. I. L. Yanysheva in the first part turns out to be, in its essence and character, a formal principle that necessarily needs for its settlement - in actual implementation - a real principle that animates and guides it. And in this case, there is no need to separate the ascetic principle from another moral requirement and give asceticism the character of a moral activity that ensures the complete subordination of the sensory element to the spiritual, regardless of the real, living content and the actual, main direction of this ascetic activity. Fr. himself eventually comes to the same conclusion. Protopresbyter. According to him, “neither one nor the other need can be recognized or satisfied one without the other,” 274 so that “and the development of ascetic goods de facto, at least, occurs only ... under the condition of communal virtues.” 275 “Thus, the mutual dependence of subjective, ascetic and communal goods or virtues on each other is beyond doubt.” 276 From here it is revealed that it is much more correct and expedient to consider “asceticism” as a principle that, permeating the entire moral life of a person, is aimed at eradicating and suppressing egoism in the entire being of a person, with the goal of putting all his forces, both mental and physical, in the service of the cause of love for God and neighbors, and to achieve this goal it is necessary to exercise a person’s strength in the indicated direction, adapting them to this purpose, and struggle, feat and labor turn out to be necessary. This beginning of “asceticism” in the sense of “moral exercise” 277 is necessary for the implementation of both, established by Fr. Protopresbyter, types of moral activity, since without exercise, without feat, not only is it unthinkable to achieve the power of the spirit over the body and in general over the “world,” but the victory of the principle of love over selfishness is also unfeasible. Asceticism, thus, penetrates both types of moral activity, constituting an obligatory assumption, a necessary condition for normal satisfaction in the implementation of both of them, and not just the first. This is the concept of “asceticism” that we receive after a careful analysis of the judgments of Fr. Protopresbyter on asceticism, contained in the first part of his “lecture”. True, here there are some apparently negative instances in relation to the guidance made, but, after careful consideration, it also loses its sharpness and power. O. I. L. Yanyshev distinguishes between “enslavement of sensuality as a crime of the first prescription of the moral law,” 278 on the one hand, and “egoism is a crime of the second prescription of the same law” 279 on the other. However, one should not lose sight of that other point of view, according to which sensuality is only a type, one of the essential manifestations of egoism, or, at least, a consequence of a person’s falling away from love for God. This is how, at least, the matter appears according to ascetic teaching, based on the analysis of the “passions” given in ascetic writing, the so-called “bodily” and “mental”. 280 O. The protopresbyter distinguishes egoism, by which he means “closedness of the spirit exclusively in one’s own individual interests,” 281 from sensuality, which he defines as “free enslavement of the spirit by the body and external nature.” 282 However, in the act of the fall of the first man, the moments of so-understood sensuality and selfishness appeared inseparably, constituting, obviously, a consequence of one anti-religious and anti-moral mood - a falling away from God, which could develop solely on the basis of selfishness. 283 According to the most respected scientist, “with the predominance of sensuality, egoism is inevitably combined (which itself is always either sensual, for example, voluptuousness, greed, or spiritual, for example, lust for power, ambition.” 284 Elsewhere, sensuality is understood “in the sense of a mood regarding the preference of sensual pleasures to the ascetic and social requirements of the law.” 285 Only in this case, that is, recognizing sensuality as one of the manifestations of self-love, can we say that in the process of a person’s grace-filled conversion to Christ, “humility, paralyzing spiritual egoism, thereby paralyzes sensual egoism or, what is also, the sensuality of a natural person.” 286 Only from this point of view is it possible to expand the concept of asceticism, as the scientist himself does in the second part of his lectures. “Having once received the opportunity or power to overcome the evil that lives within himself and to create morally good qualities in himself, a Christian is called to his own exploits, to asceticism, no longer understood in the sense of power over himself and his body in general, as we saw in the 1st part of moral theology, but in the sense of exploits of his Christian self-improvement or self-education on all aspects of religious and moral life.” 287 O.I.L., however, in one place says that “it is impossible to reduce all subjective, both ascetic and communal goods or virtues to one good or to one virtue.” 288 But it is quite possible and even essential to evaluate both from the point of view of their comparative importance and normative significance - and this means deciding the question: do both of these moral requirements have a completely independent meaning, independent of each other, or are they interconnected internally and necessarily, are in a relationship of close dependence. But we have already seen that the answer to the proposed question is possible from the point of view of Fr. Protopresbyter only in the second sense: “the mutual dependence of subjective, ascetic and communal goods or virtues on each other is beyond doubt. 289 And from here, naturally, opens up the possibility of finding among these virtues the dominant, fundamental, initial one, in relation to which the other will take a subordinate, secondary place, receiving only auxiliary significance as an instrument and means of achieving moral perfection, the essence, direction and purpose of which are indicated by the second requirement. It seems to us that one of the most important reasons why the scientist we are examining in some cases insists on the separation of the first moral requirement from the second is the fact that in the 1st part he does not sufficiently highlight the primary significance and specific features of the dominant moral duty - love of God. According to the author, “religious relations are nothing more than a type of moral, namely a type of relationship of the human spirit to other individuals, and differ from other types of the same relationships not by the essence of their internal content, for truth and love constitute the content of religious relations, but by the properties of the being to whom love and truth are directed.” 290 Meanwhile, both in the essence of the matter and in the exact meaning of Christian teaching, there is no valid reason to merge both of these types of relationships - to God, on the one hand, and to people, on the other. According to the teachings of Christ the Savior, love for God is “the first and greatest commandment,” 291 and the “second” - about love for one’s neighbor - is not identical, but only “similar” - όμοία - 292 to it. – From this point of view, one of the most decisive evidence of Fr. protopresbyter in favor of independence, the primary meaning of “ascetic” duty. The author finds the basis for indicating the “content” of morality primarily in the individual life of man in the teaching of Revelation about the purpose of creation and the innocent state of the first man. 293 According to him, “already for a single person on earth there was a moral requirement: to be not a thing or a passive instrument of the external elements of life, but a conscious force of self-determination in relation to them, to be just such a royal power in the world that uses it for its spiritual purposes, not enslaving it, but disposing of it.” 294 “Adam remained lonely on earth for some time, and despite his loneliness, he had already received a command from God, which, of course, corresponded to his own moral sense, although there could still be no talk of human society: he was commanded precisely to be the ruler of his earthly paradise, not only to keep it and own it, but also to cultivate it with his own labor (Gen. 2:15).” 295 However, the image and likeness of God first of all presupposes the implementation of proper normal relationships with the Creator, the preservation and development of feelings of humility and love for God. Consequently, in this case, “possession” of land had not an independent, but a subordinate, secondary meaning. O. I. L. Yanyshev sometimes directly states that “virtue, considered from the side of its content, is not alone in a person. If both the Word of God and philosophical teachings (among the Stoics) talk about the unity of virtue, then this unity refers not to its real side, but to the formal side, that is, to the unity of the moral feeling that gives material and authority to the moral law, and through this to the unity of the law itself according to its origin, but not to the content of the very prescriptions of this law.” 296 However, Revelation affirms the unity of the moral law also precisely in its basic content, since it prescribes to the Christian a holistic, unified religious and moral mood that covers his entire life - love for God, penetrating all the powers of man and love for his neighbors, for the sake of God. 297 The acquisition by the human spirit of power over his body and in general over the material world, the suppression of the dominance of the sensual-animal principle in his nature. - are essentially necessary for the implementation of truly spiritual life in a person, but not in themselves, not as self-valuable, independent, self-sufficient benefits, but only in the sense of necessary means, auxiliary aids and, therefore, only secondary moments in the matter of achieving the characterized moral mood, in the process of gradually introducing into the whole being of a Christian and into his whole life the beginning of grace-filled love, as a guarantee of communication with God and the basis of God-likeness. Only the indicated connection of ascetic virtues with the supreme principle of true Christian love gives these virtues both a truly Christian high meaning and true moral dignity. 298 Revelation leaves no room for the slightest doubt on this point. According to the words of the Apostle of the tongues, “if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it does me no good.” 299 Not only that. If ascetic virtues are inspired, directed and controlled not by the principle of love, but by the opposite principle of egoism, selfishness, then they have a directly negative meaning. It is possible and does happen, for example, that spiritual warfare against God occurs in the presence of ascetic impeccability. This idea is perfectly revealed by the venerable Fr. I. L.. According to him, “the power over material forces, which lies in the essence of our moral power of self-determination, can, of course, lead to egoism with its anti-social aspirations, and we see that not only in the ancient antediluvian world in the form of the descendants of Cain, but also in the ancient post-flood Western world, this egoism, with significant development of culture, reached the deification of oneself and a brutal attitude towards other individuals.” 300 “The descendants of Cain, according to the book of Genesis, showed success in crafts and arts and, apparently, achieved significant dominance over the material world; but this domination was combined in them with the deepest enslavement to egoism.” 301 If our outstanding theologian, despite such a categorical, decisive assumption and affirmation of the above provisions, still in some cases insists on the separateness, independence, primary importance of the ascetic virtues themselves, then this circumstance is undoubtedly explained by his desire to highlight as clearly as possible the features of his scientific views in comparison with “the newest and specifically English theories”, “which do not seem to know any other morality than public or social.” 302 Hence, some exaggerations in the views on the “asceticism” of Fr. I. L., which we actually see, however only in the 1st part, are explained naturally from the reaction to the undoubted extremes of the principles of moral science that prevailed then (and still partly now), which reduce all the contents of morality to social virtues. - On the other hand, Fr. I. L. Yanyshev’s goal was to bring into sharper relief the meaning of earthly material goods in the matter of moral development, to show their meaning and dignity more clearly and definitely from a moral point of view. According to him, ascetic virtue can and should do without one or another good in particular, but to be virtuous without any good, without any material soil for its development and perfection, is unthinkable; and the possession of this soil is already a good, which is served by all organic life and its possibility, that is, all the physical conditions of this life and activity.” 303 Meanwhile, “our systems” of “moral theology,” far from neglecting earthly goods, nowhere, however, place them in a necessary connection with human virtue, do not consider them as a necessary condition and natural result of it in a person’s earthly life.” 304 Thus, if we take into account all the indicated circumstances, it turns out that, according to the thoughts of Fr. I.L., “asceticism” is, although essentially necessary, still only a secondary, auxiliary, dependent, and not an independent aspect of morality. As for the 2nd part, here “asceticism” is already explicitly taken in a more general and broader sense, understood and depicted as a moral feat necessary for achieving the salvation of every Christian in general, for the affirmation and revelation of the gracious principles of the Kingdom of God, which are inherent in the nature of man in the process of his “rebirth”, 305 and therefore “applicable” (more precisely, necessarily required, from a normative point of view) “to every decisive Christian.” 306 It is in this sense that Fr. protopresbyter concept of “asceticism” in the 2nd part; This is how he undoubtedly understands and interprets this term essentially, in its true true meaning; therefore, in the 1st part the specified term is used by the author not in its own, but in a conventional sense; This use was caused by random, although, of course, completely respectful considerations: and he calls individual “moral goods or virtues” “ascetic” so as not to call them, following the example of English moralists, selfish.” 307 Consequently, the strict division between “ascetic” and “social” virtues, which runs like a red thread in the first part of the author’s work under analysis, was allowed by him in the interests of a more harmonious system and for other random, although quite solid and respectful considerations, than according to the requirements of the essence of the matter, which, on the contrary, rather encourages a joint consideration of both named moral principles, under the indispensable primacy of the real principle - love - from which the formal “ascetic” the beginning borrows its strength, its due direction and its due dignity. Concluding the consideration of the theological system of Fr. protopresbyter from the side that interests us, in conclusion we will point out that we, for our part, are completely aligned with his point of view on asceticism, which he holds in the second part of his system: we understand “asceticism” “in the sense of the feat of Christian self-improvement or self-education on all aspects of religious and moral life.” 308 This common basic point of view on the essence of “asceticism”, which is the same for Fr. I. L. Yanyshev, acquired by us on the basis of a detailed study of relevant primary sources. But we, however, consider it our scientific duty to state a completely correct, deep and accurate understanding of the essence of Orthodox teaching on this point, which we find in our outstanding Orthodox theologian, especially in the 2nd part of the analyzed work. Views of Fr. I. L. Yanyshev - naturally - had a strong influence on his listeners and students, of whom, before others, Prof. A. F. Gusev. In addition to the ethical and theological works known in print by Fr. Ioann Leontyevich, there are also lithographed academic lectures of his (only 70 copies were lithographed in 1881), some sections of which were not included in the printed prof. A. F. Gusev reading course about. Protopresbyter. However, judging by the designation of the main, main points of these particular departments by prof. A. A. Bronzov, the latter do not contain anything essentially important on our question (see the brochure of Prof. A. A. Bronzov: “Protopresbyter John Leontyevich Yanyshev.” pp. 4–8 cf. His: “Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas...”, pp. 62, 571). This article, presenting a combination of four readings proposed by Fr. I. L. in the “Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”, published in “Christ. Read." 1877 Part 2, pp. 143–199, 327–399. These readings also exist in separate reprints (pp. 1–140). Moscow. 1887. Page 1–332. This book is a separate edition of “lectures given to students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy” (not all, but still “a significant part of them” by Prof. A. A. Bronzov, cit. brochure, p. 3) And originally printed by Prof. Gusev; on page “Right. Review,” 1886, nos. 2–6, 9–12. Wed, and prof. A. A. Bronzov. Quoted brochure, page 13 p. 140; Wed Christ. Thurs. page 187. p. 156. cf. pp. 172, 194, 183. This idea is revealed in detail in “Christ. Read,” pp. 179–182; Wed page 193. p. 174; Wed pp. 144, 227; Christ. Read, page 199. i) page 144. Cf. prof. M. M. Tareev. Religion and morality. Theologian Vestn. 1904 November, p. 395. p. 146, cf. pp. 168–169; Christ. Read., p. 182. pp. 228–229; Wed Christ. Read., p. 351. We talk about this in detail in Chapter II. our essay. Christ. Read., pp. 178–179 Wed Christ. Read., p. 189. Orthodox Christ doctrine of morality, p. 203. Wed Christ.read., p. 178. p. 150, note. Wed. Christ. Read., p. 185.