4) Проф. А.Ф. Гусев.

With the entry into the scientific and literary field of A. F. Gusev, in the stuffy, stagnant atmosphere of Moral Theology, a fresh trickle was felt, foreshadowing the onset of a new, more lively and fruitful direction in the development of this discipline, which until then, apparently, was in a state of hopeless lethargy. 309 Having entered the arena of scientific and literary theological activity, the young, talented and energetic A. F. Gusev devoted all his first literary works to the development of issues related to the field of ethics, to the clarification of various moral problems from a theological point of view. According to the picture expression of Prof. A. I. Grenkova, A. F. Gusev “boldly takes up his plow to lead it across an abandoned field” 310 of ethical and theological science. The freshness of his scientific direction was in complete harmony with the burning interest of those issues, which he took upon himself to resolve within his power, a venerable work, for which he was expressed sincere gratitude even by people who did not agree with his most basic provisions and sincere convictions 311) 312). Touching upon the most basic, fundamental issues in the field of theological moral teaching, Prof. A. F. Gusev, in his very first works, touched upon our area - “asceticism”, made an attempt to illuminate this area of ​​​​Christian ethics, which was least developed not only then, but also at the present time, and in its very essence the most difficult, confusing and complex. A. F. Gusev from the very beginning took a principled approach and decisively diverged from the then school theological traditions. In the theological literature of that time, the legal point of view was completely dominant, viewing moral life as a series of actions determined by the prescriptions of the moral law and interpreting the prescriptions of the Gospel as a collection of rules - as if an external, legally binding code of dogma and morality for a Christian. From this system of views logically followed the doctrine of opera supererogatoria, in connection with the concept of the so-called “gospel councils” in contrast to universally binding commandments. And now A.F. Gusev comes out with an article: “Evangelical councils and their attitude to the positive demands of the Gospel” (Chronicles Reading 1873, part III, pp. 387–424). In Russian theological literature this was something unheard of, completely unusual, sharply and fundamentally at odds with the established traditions that reigned supreme in school teaching, as well as in theological literature. 313 If the essence of Christian moral perfection lies in “that the heart of man belongs entirely and completely to God” (p. 395), if this moral perfection is conditioned actually and precisely by the strength and energy of moral aspirations and drives, in whatever form they are expressed (cf. p. 409), if all the commandments of Christianity have as their actual content complete, undivided love for God and neighbors (cf. pp. 393–394), it is clear that “apart from fulfilling the positive commandments of the Law of God... in the field of moral life there is nothing to which, as if it were a super-duty requirement, he could be indifferent.... (p. 423). “It is possible to distinguish only one or another conditional form of fulfillment of the commandments of God’s Law, or one or another form of manifestation of moral life,” as “the practical application of the same obligatory commandments unconditionally for all the given unique makeup of one or another person” (ibid), “depending on the characteristics and needs of their personal moral development” (ibid). These are the main ideas and provisions of this article. The author revealed and presented the same thoughts, but in an expanded, in-depth form, in connection with his integral moral worldview, in his master’s thesis: “The moral ideal of Buddhism in its relation to Christianity.” St. Petersburg 1874 The provisions of this dissertation met with more or less significant objections, and it was from his brother F.F. Gusev 314 and prof. A. I. Grenkova. 315 Our author did not leave these objections without the most serious attention, detailed and detailed consideration in his answer to the first: “On the question of Christian asceticism.” Regarding the research on the moral teachings of Schopenhauer”, 316 - and the second: “A forced word in defense of the essay “The Moral Meaning of Buddhism in its Relation to Christianity” (response to Prof. A.I. Grenkov). 317 The named articles, almost in their entirety, are devoted to clarifying Christian moral views, according to the content and meaning of the objections themselves, which were directed almost exclusively to this side of A. F. Gusev’s dissertation. Since the specific features of the Buddhist worldview, as recognized by the vast majority of authoritative scientists, are pessimism and asceticism, it is natural that a significant place in the dissertation and response articles of Prof. Gusev is devoted to clarifying the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism and, moreover, in connection with an integral Christian worldview. What is the scientific value of A. F. Gusev’s views on the issue of asceticism? How accurately, definitely and truly was he able to express the essence of the Orthodox teaching on asceticism? How firmly did he place this decision in science? And hence: what is our actual attitude towards A.F.’s scientific attempt to determine the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism? We will try to give our best answer to these questions. Despite the fact that the most venerable author, when writing the above-mentioned works, possessed significant knowledge, remarkable erudition, liveliness, insight and depth of vision and, as a result, on some particular points he expressed thoughts that were remarkably true, and very deep, and quite accurately expressing the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the matter, in general, however, despite all this, Professor Gusev was not able to quite correctly grasp and accurately express the essence and fundamental features of the Orthodox ascetic views. In our opinion, the reason for this circumstance was the following: 1) consideration of the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism precisely in comparison with Buddhist asceticism or, more precisely, bearing in mind the apologetic goals inherent in the author - in contrast to Buddhist as a phenomenon that is decisively, in everything and unconditionally opposite to it; 2) an inaccurate definition given by the author to the very concept of asceticism in connection with an unclear understanding of the meaning of asceticism as a principle in the general system of Orthodox moral teaching; 3) lack of complete, deep and comprehensive, independent study of patristic ascetic writing and familiarity with the history of Orthodox asceticism. We hasten to make a reservation that by pointing out these shortcomings, we mean, so to speak, not the historical value of the works of A.F. Gusev, but their significance in essence for us, for our time, in the current state of science, in view of the tasks we have set and our intended goals. If we consider the state of affairs from a historical perspective, then the views of A.F. Gusev were a new and remarkable phenomenon for their time, since they revealed the issue undoubtedly more seriously, deeper and more fundamentally than legal systems of morality. It was difficult for the author, who wanted to defend the complete opposite of the Christian ideals, on the one hand, and the Buddhist, on the other, to prove the absence of any real points of contact in these ideals, in the presentation of Christian asceticism it was difficult not to fall into some one-sidedness. This is what really happened with our author: he perhaps clearly presented in the ideal of the Christian ascetic those features, those sides and properties that represent its most striking and striking difference from Buddhist asceticism and, on the contrary, tried to remain silent, to more carefully obscure those features in the first ideal that represent some, at least for the most part, simply visible external, and not real, similarity with the second. In fact, Prof. Gusev depicts the type not of an ascetic in the sense in which he himself defined this concept at the beginning of the section entitled: “Christian asceticism” 318 and not even of a Christian in general in the whole volume of his life definitions and moods, in the actual, concrete process of his gradual improvement, but the actual ideal of a Christian - “one and only his positive properties and qualities.” 319 Characterizing an ascetic with specific features, the author means an ascetic who “has achieved dispassion or freedom,” 320 According to the most analyzed teaching, highlighting especially the great active features in the character of the Savior, he had in mind those who put the Buddha on the same level as the Savior - a Buddha in whom it was passive features that predominated. “As much as we could and were able, we tried to direct our entire characterization of the Savior to more clearly illuminate and show the entire contrast between the moral character of the Buddha and the character of the Savior. 321 He, according to the precise definition of the author himself, examines “moral life both in Buddhism and Christianity... from its ideal side.” 322 And this, from the author’s point of view, is quite natural and understandable, since his goal was actually “to clarify and determine the essence of Christian asceticism, its general spirit and character in comparison with Buddhist asceticism.” 323 However, when posing the question this way, difficulties and ambiguities arose. It was necessary to answer the question: exactly what, exactly whose view of Christian asceticism the venerable author undertook to present and actually presented? Indeed, on the question of the essence of Christian asceticism, it is possible that different, even contradictory, views have been expressed and are being expressed. The author gives an answer to this question; however, this answer is not entirely clear and precise. Judging by the remark thrown in passing, the author had in mind to present the actual “evangelical view of asceticism. 324 In his response, Prof. He assures Grenkov that “he expressed an evangelical, or more precisely, ecclesiastical view of wealth.” 325 Elsewhere, A.F. states that he reached the positions he defended on asceticism “through the study of the New Testament and the works of our fathers.” 326 According to him confidently, “both Christian ascetic literature and the life story of St. devotees are on the side” of his “main provisions”. 327 In clarifying and defining the essence of Christian asceticism, its general spirit and character, the author, in his words, directly used the instructions of the “history of asceticism.” 328 Let us assume that this is so. 329 But what exactly, what features and aspects actually attracted the exclusive attention of A.F. Gusev? Here is his own answer to this question. “We sought inner meaning and meaning in manifestations of Christian asceticism.” 330 Prof. Gusev sharply rebels against the identification of asceticism, in the sense of a guide to indicating various means for achieving moral perfection, with the idea of ​​​​this perfection, which he exclusively had to follow under the guidance of ascetic literature and the history of ascetic life. 331 However, taking the shown point of view, the author falls into a significant methodological error, which entails the substitution of one revealed concept for another, and these concepts, although they are inextricably linked with the first both logically and in essence, are, however, still not at all identical with one another. Prof.'s fundamental mistake. Gusev is that asceticism, by the very concept of it, by its very essence, is a process of achieving moral perfection, a path from bad empirical reality to a moral ideal. 332 Consequently, it is absolutely not permissible to replace the concept of a Christian ascetic with the concept of a Christian who has already achieved moral perfection. 333 This substitution of one concept for another does not clarify the matter, but only confuses it. From all that has been said, it is absolutely clear that the negative aspect of the Christian’s struggle with passions, with the old man, with the bad side of empirical - both external and internal - reality in A. F. Gusev finds almost no place for itself among the typical features and specific features of the Christian ascetic, as if they do not exist and should not exist. That is why, when presenting the Gospel teaching, almost exclusively only positive features of Christian perfection are put forward and the Gospel demands are left aside, calling for self-denial, commanding, for example, to hate father and mother, to deny oneself, in the desire for heavenly to renounce everything earthly - sayings that give the idea of ​​preferring celibacy to marriage, etc., etc. 334 Thus, even after detailed explanations, interpretations and additions by A.F. Gusev, made by him in view of various objections of his literary opponents, the words of Prof. still largely (although not completely) retain their meaning. A.I. Grenkova: “asceticism, as it manifested itself in actual history, actually does not harmonize well with the concept of a general moral ideal, which the author expounded at length from both the formal and material aspects.” 335 Without touching upon particular features in this case, without entering into a detailed and detailed examination of Christian Eastern asceticism, as it manifested itself in history, we will note only its general, undoubtedly specifically inherent feature - contemplation, which, although it did not go as far as denying the socially active side of Christianity, nevertheless placed it firmly in the background, giving only secondary and subordinate importance. Meanwhile, A.F. Gusev, for understandable apologetic purposes, “most clearly put forward” in Christian asceticism the idea of ​​active love for one’s neighbors. 336 But also Prof. Grenkov, indicating his own method of correct, in his opinion, scientific construction of a treatise on Christian asceticism, himself did not find a solid and definite basis for his judgments, falling into the other extreme and exclusivity. In his opinion, prof. Gusev needed to make an “analysis” of “the great ascetic types, according to which we are accustomed to construct the concept of the ascetic norm - St. Anthony, Paul, Sysoi, Hilarion, etc., 337 and the author should exclusively have in mind asceticism as a historical phenomenon in Christianity, which had its own historical phases. 338 “In our opinion, he says, a reliable criterion for the relative understanding of the moral Christian ideal should be its historical revelation in the consciousness of the church. 339 And this method, in the words of Prof. Grenkov, is necessary precisely because “until now, as far as we know, the ascetic principle is thought of in Christianity as a fact and, moreover, in its historical manifestation with certain characteristics.” 340 However, it is natural to ask why the ascetic principle should not be thought of as an idea, as a worldview, given - in the form of premises - in the Gospel and accepted by the church? After all, hand in hand with the fact of ascetic life, its ideological literary disclosure and justification took place in the church. Prof. Grenkov further in the same article himself proves the need for a strict distinction between the ideal and its actual implementation, no matter how high the latter may be. 341 In the history of Christian asceticism, we have only feasible experiences of realizing the gospel ideal, attempts to realize it, which are always, in comparison with the ideal, more or less imperfect and one-sided. Hence, in our opinion, the researcher of Christian asceticism needs to analyze the specific content of the Christian ideal, since it is outlined in Holy Scripture and revealed in patristic writing, as well as to trace its understanding in the Church of Christ, as it was expressed, 1st, in ideas, views that theoretically substantiated Christian asceticism and, 2ndly, in facts, in the life realization of the Christian ideal, in ascetic life. Otherwise, there will always be confusion and inconsistency in the presentation of Christian asceticism, due to the inevitable ambiguity and inaccuracy. Prof. Grenkov stood for the need to analyze exclusively the historical side of Christian asceticism because he considered the Christian ideal in itself, in its essence, to be precisely indefinable, elusive - highlighting almost exclusively the formal aspects of its characterization - infinity, universality, eternity - and blurring its real side, its specific content. 342 This view, representing an undoubted extreme, is completely understandable and explainable historically, as a reaction to scholastic fragmentation, excessive reality and tangibility - with which features the Christian ideal was usually depicted at that time in Moral Theology, which was presented precisely in the form of quite precise, too specific rules and definite instructions. Consequently, both A.F. Gusev and A.I. Grenkov both fell into extremes and exaggerations in their judgments about the methods of revealing the issue of Christian “asceticism”. 2. Α. F. Gusev inaccurately and not quite definitely represents the very scope of the concept of “asceticism”, its very content and, at the same time, assigns “asceticism” in the overall moral worldview of Christianity a place and meaning that is not the same as what undoubtedly belongs to it in reality. And above all, in this regard, we do not see consistency and certainty in A.F. Most often, A. F. gives a narrow, special meaning to the terms “asceticism” and “ascetic”, identifying it, apparently, with monasticism. Here's an example. “Christianity is not only not against asceticism with its distinctive phenomena: constant action and poverty, but gives it the same place as all other forms of manifestation of Christian life. While Buddhism places the essence of righteous life in asceticism and thereby denies all other forms of righteous life, Christianity does not at all place ascetic service to the cause of the kingdom of God above any other.” 343 Sometimes the author’s “ascetic” way of life is opposed to the marital state, 344 and, therefore, by asceticism he means celibacy κατ ’ έξοχήν. Meanwhile, even in ascetic patristic writing, the feat of those who spend their lives in the world and live in marriage, but strive to maintain chastity, is also sometimes thought of in the concept of ασκησις. 345 Undoubtedly, this formulation of the matter is most convenient for apologetic purposes, when comparing Christian asceticism with Buddhist, since asceticism has received predominant importance in the system of Buddhism, constituting one of its most characteristic and integral features. However, in essence, as we will see, the definition of asceticism given by the author is narrow, one-sided, and inaccurate. However, the author does not always remain true to the given definition. So, obviously, he understands the term “asceticism” in a different, much broader meaning, when, for example, he sharply rebels against the identification of asceticism, in the sense of a guide to indicating various means for achieving moral perfection, with the idea of ​​this perfection. 346 The meaning and significance of Christian “asceticism”, as well as the scope of what is understood about “asceticism” itself, will be fully understood, will receive firmness and stability only and exclusively if we put the interpretation of Christian asceticism in connection with the Orthodox teaching about salvation, which, without any doubt, represents the praecipuus locus doctrinae christianae. In a debate with prof. A. I. Grenkov A. F. Gusev asserts the necessary importance, in order to understand the issues included in the field of asceticism, to accurately and definitely establish the meaning and significance of the concept of “salvation.” 347 Not only that. In passing and briefly touching on the Orthodox teaching on salvation, A.F. Gusev, as far as we can judge based on his brief formulation, understands it quite correctly, although very generally. According to his definition, the process of a person’s assimilation of “salvation” accomplished by Christ is as much a work of God’s grace as it is an independent one, accomplished by our personal moral activity, the embodiment in life of a moral ideal represented by the face of I. Christ. 348 “On the part of man, the condition for his salvation is repentance and faith, which are inseparable in their essence, by which the salvation accomplished by Christ is assimilated.” 349 These formulas do credit to our author, testifying to his theological insight and scientific instinct. 350 And despite all this, A.F. Gusev did not dare to put the concept of “salvation” at the forefront when presenting Christian teaching. Why? It is most natural to assume that the author was not yet able to fully adopt that point of view, which received recognition in theological science only 20 years later, and even then not without objections and bewilderment on the part of prominent and respected representatives of the former theological school (we mean the dissertation of Archbishop Sergius: “Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.” 351 But even if A.F. Gusev had understood this point of view, he would hardly have decided to take it up in his dissertation, as far as one can assume based on his general method - the desire to find the same differences between Christianity and Buddhism. The fact is that, according to one of the serious researchers of Buddhism, A.I. Vvedensky, there really is a “similarity” between Christianity and Buddhism, but only in one and, moreover, a purely external, formal sign, with a radical, fundamental opposition in everything else. Buddhism, like Christianity, wants to be primarily a religion of salvation, which it calls for.” 352 If this is true, then the concept of salvation, on the one hand, in Christianity, and on the other in Buddhism, should be the starting point for a scientist who wants to determine the relationship of Christianity to Buddhism in general and in particular on the issue of asceticism. Then - and only then - will the deep fundamental difference in the teachings of these religions in general and on the issue of asceticism in particular become clear, despite the apparent similarity. If we proceed from the Orthodox teaching on salvation when clarifying the issue of “asceticism,” it turns out that “asceticism” constitutes an obligatory element, a necessary accessory of Christian morality in its life implementation, so that Christianity, passing into life, necessarily contains a moment of asceticism, no matter what external form Christian life takes. Then it will be impossible to say, together with prof. A.F. Gusev, that “Christianity is not only not against asceticism..., but gives it the same place as all other forms of discovering Christian life.” This would be a big inaccuracy. Revealing the Orthodox teaching about “salvation”, it is necessary, in particular, to pay special attention to the final and highest goal that is achieved through religious and moral Christian improvement and which consists in the closest and direct unity of a Christian with God, since the essence and characteristics of this very goal determine the most characteristic features and specific features of various methods and paths of Christian asceticism. 3. The venerable author, in order to correctly pose and resolve the question of the essence and meaning of Christian “asceticism,” recognizes the need for independent study of Holy Scripture and Christian church literature 353 and reproaches his opponent A. I. Grenkov for the insufficiency of such study. But it can hardly be considered sufficient that A.F. Gusev himself was familiar with the above-mentioned sources. 354 Prof. A.F. Gusev actually draws only the gospel ideal - Christian moral perfection, as he rightly said about this himself in his dissertation. 355 Again, we hasten to make a reservation that the requirements for a thorough study of patristic ascetic literature are necessary on the merits of the matter. But we are far from the idea of ​​insisting to any extent that A. F. Gusev at that time, when writing his dissertation, must have fulfilled the conditions you proposed. We are only talking about what is not in the works of A.F. Gusev, but what should be when clarifying the question of the essence and features of Christian “asceticism” if the research wants to be thorough and justified. Considering it our duty to analyze in detail the works of A.F. Gusev related to our topic, we had in mind not only the implementation and application of the mandatory principle in theology, as in any other science: “history is the teacher of people.” From a detailed study of the works of prof. Gusev, we have extracted for ourselves more than one indication and motivated justification for the need to follow the best method and plan in our dissertation - no, this careful study has also brought us positive benefits in the sense of enrichment with some apt, thorough and practical thoughts. In particular, the writings of A.F. Gusev provided us with some help in analyzing the judgments about “asceticism” that we find in F.F. Gusev. Quite successfully, in places, the author defends against extreme views, for example, the position that “fiery love for God does not necessarily lead to complete seclusion and to contemplation prevailing over everything.” 356 Extreme views cannot withstand the pressure of indisputable data borrowed from Revelation, psychological analysis, as well as from the life of “the most revered ascetics by the church,” 357 expediently and skillfully attracted by the author, so that as a result of the polemic the inevitable need for their significant limitation is clearly revealed. As for the coverage from the point of view of A.F. Gusev of the issue of the so-called. “Evangelical councils” in connection with the resulting position about the equality in essence of all forms and state of Christian life in the matter of man’s achievement of moral perfection and eternal salvation, then this very important and complex issue, originally posed for the first time in our theological literature by A.F. Gusev, needs to be understood in more detail. Being a “pioneer” in relation to the formulation of the question given by him, for which our theological ethical science will always be grateful to him, having outlined the path of another, more lively, in comparison with the then dominant Catholic trends, solution and illumination of this issue and related problems, the author naturally at that time could not yet completely avoid some opposite extremes and did not highlight in relief the specific features of the Orthodox teaching proper on the issues raised, in comparison especially with Protestant. Having resolutely rejected Catholic jurisprudence, A. F. Gusev, as an Orthodox man, could not join Protestant subjectivism, and recognized the importance and high value of monasticism, “asceticism” in the narrow, narrow, special sense of the word. 358 Since, however, the assessment of the solitary contemplative form of Christian life, in connection with and in comparison with others parallel to it, was not placed on the only correct basis, which can only be represented by the Orthodox teaching on salvation, and since A.F. did not independently and widely study patristic ascetic literature on this issue, his provisions, on the issue that interests us, arouse some important bewilderments. Is the opinion of A.F. Gusev completely in agreement with the patristic spirit on the question of the meaning of various forms of Christian life? Doesn't it require not only deepening, but also some limitation, significant additions? In our opinion, the answer to the question posed can be nothing other than positive. The general, main idea of ​​the author is that “ascetics (in this case, monks) do not fulfill any advice regarding the highest perfection, but a direct, absolutely obligatory requirement of the will of God personally only for them.” 359 It is possible to distinguish only one or another conditional form of fulfilling the commandments of God’s law, or one or another form of manifestation of moral life,” which in fact “constitute only the practical application of the same unconditionally for all obligatory commandments to a given unique way of life of certain persons”... “depending on the characteristics and needs of their personal moral development.” In relation to the commandment, this form of life “is only one of the diverse ways of fulfilling it.” 360 The idea that the so-called “evangelical advice” is entirely within the limits of commandments and moral obligations is completely fair both in itself and from the point of view of ascetic writing. So, for example, according to the teacher. Mark of the Ascetic, monastic feats are not anything special from the commandments. They are the commandments. Show me, he says, feats other than the commandments. ( Δεΐζόν μ o ι έκτος εντολών ... αγώνας ). Whatever work of ascetic virtue you indicate, they are all (from) the commandments” (ότιοδν εργον αρετης εϊποις, εντολαι, βιοι παντα). 361 No less true is another thought that follows from the late professor: that “the moral perfection of a person” is determined by “the strength and energy of moral aspirations and drives, in whatever form they may be expressed.” 362 From this ideal, fundamental point of view, indeed, both solitary contemplative and socially active forms of Christian life have in themselves exactly the same significance in achieving religious and moral perfection, so from this side there is actually no reason to talk about any essentially superiority of the first over the second. 363 Not only people of the “contemplative life” (τοιθεωρητικοίς), but also of the “active” life (τοιπρακτικοίς) can equally achieve the “highest state of pure prayer” (τής καθαρας προσευχεως ). 364 Not only that. A Christian who has achieved moral perfection in ordinary conditions of life deserves, according to the recognition of some prominent representatives of patristic literature, even greater surprise than one who has achieved it in the unusual, one might say, artificial conditions of monasticism. 365 Thus, according to the thought of Clement of Alexandria, the energy of a Christian manifests itself not so much in a solitary, contemplative, celibate life, but in a socially active, practical, family life, which in this sense is thus higher than the first. 366 However, if we look at the matter not from an ideal, principled, but from a factual, concrete point of view, if we take into account the empirical conditions of human life, within the framework of which Christian perfection is usually realized, then judgments on this subject should be somewhat different. The fulfillment of monastic vows by some Christians, who, due to their individual characteristics, can fulfill them without representing any special moral perfection unattainable for other Christians, is nevertheless, according to the teaching of many saints. The ascetic fathers found a more convenient way to achieve this perfection than life under ordinary conditions. 367 This comparative ease and greater convenience of a solitary monastic lifestyle rests on the fact that it is easier for a person to avoid temptations when depriving himself, in the absence of objects that serve as a reason for temptation, than when possessing and using them. 368 In particular, celibacy and renunciation of property, eliminating reasons for temptations and passions, represent, according to ascetic teaching, favorable conditions for the development, education and maintenance of predominantly repentant self-deepening and prayerful and contemplative aspiration towards God. In this regard, considering monasticism as an exceptional form of asceticism in terms of the conditions and external structure of life, obligatory for all Christians, Christian ascetics proclaim monasticism as the most convenient way to achieve the highest holiness possible not on earth, but for the implementation of certain aspects of religious perfection (the so-called contemplative virtues) - even an exceptional, unique way. 369 According to, for example, Rev. Theophan, “the fullest of all this (of course various means of education and strengthening of spiritual life) and the most successful fulfillment belongs to monasticism. This is a way of life that in its best, purest and most perfect form fulfills the requirements of asceticism precisely in spirit.” 370 Regarding, in particular, celibacy compared to marriage, even in Holy Scripture the idea is clearly expressed that the first, without a doubt, is a more convenient, easier and unhindered way to achieve moral perfection than the second. 371 The essence of the patristic teaching on the issue of the relationship between marriage and celibacy in achieving moral Christian perfection is expressed briefly, but absolutely precisely and definitely, for example, in St. Gregory Palamas: “it is possible for those living in marriage to achieve purity, but with very great difficulty” ( καίίαρότητος άντιτοιεΐσβαι ταύτης , άλλα μετά πλείοτης δσης δυσκολίας ). 372 According to St. Father, the proper fulfillment of Christian duties in marriage is “much more difficult than the feat of virginity” ( νομίζω); 373 so that “life in virginity is much more doable and less difficult than married life” ( άνυσιμώτερον οντα καί άπονώτερον ). 374 “If you can, keep your virginity, so that you can belong entirely to God and cleave to Him with perfect love, remaining with Him all your life, without distractions, caring for the Lord alone, anticipating the future life and, like an angel, living on earth.” 375 Expressing our comments on the views of A. F. Gusev, on the essence and meaning of Christian “asceticism”, we, as we already had the opportunity to note earlier, had in mind the actual significance of the works of the venerable professor specifically for our dissertation and did not think of detracting from the undoubted dignity of his works, which they had not only in the era of their appearance in print, but which they have not lost to the present day. 376 The general, basic tendency of the author is extremely sympathetic. “Christ combined in himself the heavenly with the earthly, the divine with the human.” 377 “Christianity is a great cultural force that not only does not separate man from the earth and the creation on it of the kingdom of truth, love, righteousness and freedom, but, on the contrary, determines the very moral dignity of man and the degree of his suitability for a future blessed life in a renewed world by the extent to which he has worked to implement in his earthly life the task that Providence has set for him, as a certain person. 378 These are the main, favorite, sincere thoughts of the author, which run like a red thread through all his works and which, unfortunately, have not yet entered the consciousness of many representatives of our theological science. 379 These words will not seem like an exaggeration, an excessive exaggeration, if we allow ourselves to quote the words of a contemporary of that era, Prof. A. I. Grenkova. “Our theologians have no particular sympathy for moral theology,” he says. His academic credit is not so high that many greet this subject in the academic program with a smile; according to the correspondent of the Church Bulletin, after the audit at the Kyiv Academy the question was raised whether the name of this theology should be deleted from the academic program. It was in vain that one editor of a venerable spiritual magazine called and is calling on figures in this branch of theology; they did not appear, and the editors admitted that in their journal the gap remained a gap”... Pioneer of the science of Christian morality (Bibliographic note). Orthodox Companion. 1875 January, page 23. See cit. article, page 64. Of course, when evaluating the works of Prof. Gusev, marked by the favorable features and merits of a new, more recent direction, we should not lose sight of the “experienced”, most authoritative, one might say, powerful leadership that prof. Gusev, in the person of his professor - teacher Fr. Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev - his works are undoubtedly imbued with the spirit and direction of this particular school, marked to one degree or another with its stamp and, therefore, have a bearing on the personality of Fr. protopresbyter, as a professor, the relationship is close and significant (for this, see the brochure of Prof. A. A. Bronzov, “Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev, as a professor of moral theology at the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy,” p. 12 (St. Petersburg, 1899). It is also necessary to keep in mind the personal characteristics of Prof. Gusev, along with his talent, responsiveness to contemporary social and scientific needs, quality, which did not leave him and constituted his integral part throughout the subsequent period of his scientific and literary activity. In the interests of historical impartiality and scientific accuracy, it should be noted that in the article by A.F. Gusev, the point of view of his teacher Fr. I. L. Yanysheva, definitely expressed by him and his lithographed lectures. In his master's thesis: “Exposition and critical analysis of the moral teachings of Schopenhauer.” Moscow 1877 See his article: “Pioneer of the science of Christ. morality." Orthodox Interview. 1875 Jan, pp. 23–64. Orthodox Review vol. II, 1878 July, pp. 447–476 and August, pp. 596–637. Orthodox Review vol. I, pp. 242–271; 472–515; vol. II, pp. 59–106. “Christianity is not only not against asceticism with its distinctive phenomena - constant action and poverty, but gives it the same place as all other forms of revealing Christian life” (p. 237). Dissertation, p. 252, cf. page 250. Right Review 1878, II, p. 619. ibid. 1875, vol. I, pp. 514–515 (emphasis added) ibid. 1875, vol. I, p. 473. Dissertation, Art. 248 notes, (emphasis added). Right Review 1875 vol.II, p. 70 cp. ibid. vol. I, p. 505. ibid. vol. II, p. 71; cf. vol. I, p. 477. ibid., vol. II, p. 476; Wed page 478. About the degree of acquaintance of Prof. Gusev with ascetic writing and St. Fatherly literature will be discussed especially and specifically in the 3rd point of our analysis. Orthodox convoy vol. I, pp. 492, 493. Right convoy 1875 vol. I, p. 492. See our “Introduction and end of Chapter II.” “Asceticism” is precisely a method, a way of achieving, among other things, dispassion Cf., for example, Clement, A. T. IX, col, 625. Such a replacement was absolutely not allowed in ascetic writing itself, cf., for example, Cassian. Collat. I. s. VII, col. 490AB. Wed. ibid. With. X. col. 494AB. Matt. 6:24; OK. 8:22–24; 6:24; 14:26–27; 13:30; M f. 20:25–27; Mrk. 10:28–31; 42–44; M f. 10:37–38; OK. 9:23–29; 2 Cor.4:16; John 15:18–19; 28:36–37. Orthodox Sob. 1875. January, p. 47. Right Review 1878. vol. II, p. 451. Right review 1878 vol. II, p. 63. See Rights review 1878. II, pp. 46–47. Dissertation, p. 237. cp. Ave. review 1878 vol. II, pp. 623–624. Ave. review 1878. II, 627–630. Chr. Thurs. 1873. Part III, p. 409. Compare, for example, Asteriu A. Homil. V in. Math. XIX. 3. T. XL. col. 237B: άμφότερα δε μοι τα μέρη βωφρ oz ύνηνά α ν . η σ ά τ ω, τον αρραγή των γάμων αύνδεεμον. Right review 1876, vol. I, p. 492. ibid., vol. II, p. 73. cf. page 95. We, however, do not lose sight of the undoubted influence on A.F. Gusev by his prof. And L. Yanysheva - in uncovering this question, in particular, as in other cases.. Religious consciousness of paganism. Experience in the philosophical history of natural religions, p. 538. cf. p. 556. (Moscow. 1902). Wed. V. S. Soloviev. Auguste Comte's theory of three phases in the mental development of mankind. Collected Works, vol. 1 pp. 152–153. No matter how different ... the three religions (Brahmanism, Buddhism and Christianity) may differ from each other, they all have this in common: in principle, they have a negative attitude towards the present reality and set as their essential task the liberation of man from evil and suffering necessary in the existing world; they are all religions of salvation.” Wed. A. I. Vvedensky. Philosophical Essays, p. 136: “Unlike Buddhism, Christianity is the true message of human bliss, the true gospel; it teaches us not to despise those few joys that are still given to us by earthly life, although in general it evaluates it as unsuitable for true bliss and promises the latter only beyond the boundaries of earthly life. In a word, while Buddhism falls into the one-sidedness of pessimism, Christianity constitutes a highly successful synthesis of pessimism with optimism: in the general assessment of earthly life, taken separately, both of them completely agree with each other.” Right review 1875. vol. II p. 75. The following information convinces us of this. In the dissertation and articles of A.F. Gusev, only the following references are found: 1) to the patristic works and 2) facts of Christian asceticism; Clement of Alexandria according to ed. Mign'a (Prospect. Review vol. II, p. 635). The writings of the apostolic men translated by the priest. Preobrazhensky (Pr. review 1876, vol. II, p. 71; ibid., p. 88; ibid. p. 101). Anthony V Fatherland, compiled by Bishop. Ignatius 1870 (Review 1875, vol. I, p. 246; ibid., p. 481; p. 498). Basil the Great. Ascetic charter. Russian translation 5 vols., 2 chapters, p. 392 (Prospect. Oboz. 1875, vol. I, p. 486); according to “Asceticism” Bp. Peter (ibid. p. 487); vol. 5, pp. 60–61 (ibid p. 502). Also, p. 397 (ibid. vol. II, p. 66, p. 67); vol. II, p. 108 (ibid., p. 71). according to “asceticism” Bp. Peter (Prov. Oboz. 78, vol. II, p. 617); vol. 5 p. 202 (dissertation, p. 221). Gregory the Theologian. Creations in Russian translation of vol. 2, p. 297 (Prospect Oboz. 1875, vol. I, p. 270); vol. I, p. 120 (ibid); 4 h. p. 15 (ibid. p. 482); 2 vols. pp. 7–8 (ibid., vol. II, p. 66); vol. IV, pp. 63 and 64 (ibid., p. 84); vol. I, p. 161 (ibid., p. 85); p. 231 (Prospect Review 1878, vol. II, p. 601). Gregory of Nyssa. Creation St. Father 1866, book. 2, pp. 379–380 (Pr. Review 1875, vol. I p. 487); also p. 311 (ibid., vol. II, p. 73). John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew, vol. I, p. 350 (Prov. Review 1875, vol. I, p. 486); Conversation on the epistle to Ephesus. 1858, p. 226 (ibid., p. 497; vol. II. p. 237); sent, to Philip, (vol. 1, p. 502); Conversations on the last, to Corina, (ibid., vol. II, p. 237), Conversations. Ev. Matthew, vol. 2. (dissertation, p. 227). Cyril of Jerusalem. Announcement 4. Russian translation pp. 73 and 74 (Pr. Review 1876, vol. I p. 486); will announce 18 (dissertation, p. 217). Gregory the Theologian. According to “Asceticism” Bp. Peter's in 1872 (Prospect. Review 1875, vol. I, 487). Macarius of Egypt. Sl. 7, ch. 14 (dissertation, p. 226). Isaac the Syrian. Quote from the book: “The Moral Teaching of St. our father Isaac the Syrian, 1874 (Prov. Obozr. 1875, p. 271; ibid., p. 480; ibid., p. 481; p. 483; 1878, vol. II, p. 460; ibid., p. 611; ibid., p. 620). Rules of the Ganges Council. 10, 12 (Review 1878, vol. II, p. 627). 2) The Life of Mary of Egypt in Menaion-Chetya on April 1 (Private Review 1875, vol. I, p. 483); Simeon the Stylite (without citation) (ibid., pp. 487–488 cf. pages 492); John Kushnik (ibid., pp. 491–492); John Chrysostom ibid); Macarius of Egypt. Menaion - Chetyi. under 19 Jan. (ibid., p. 501); Anthony V. Selected sayings of Bishop. Ignatius (ibid., p. 501); from “Essays on Moral Orthodox Christian Teaching” by Prof. – Prot. Favorova (ibid., vol. II, p. 79); Vasily Vel. Life under January 1 (ibid., vol. II, p. 84); Rev. Pimen, based on the book: “The School of Piety”, part 4, (ibid., vol. II, pp. 65–66. Here is an accurate and completely detailed list of all, if we are not mistaken, quotations from patristic and ascetic writing found in the dissertation and in the above-mentioned articles by A. F. Gusev. It should also be taken into account that these quotes relate not only to asceticism, but in general to the disclosure of moral Christian teaching. Of course, this does not mean that we value only the quantitative, so to speak, side of the matter; We understand very well that acquaintance with monuments may not necessarily be expressed explicitly, but nothing obliges us to admit that this study of the monuments being interpreted was expressed by A.F. Gusev and implicite. Right Review 1878 vol. II, p. 603. cf. 601. Dissertation, pp. 237; Wed Ave. Review 1878 vol. II, pp. 602, 612, 475. Right Review 1878. vol. II, p. 624. Christ. Thurs. 1873, vol. III, pp. 423–424. M8G. T.LXV, col., 989D. cp. Icuxia T. XCIII, col., 1504D. I. Cassian – Coli. I. s. VII, col. 490. True, a different opinion is expressed, for example, by Abba Dorotheus T. LXXXVIII, col. 1629 pp. Chr. Thurs. 1873, p. 409. Compare, for example, Athanasius A. Vita Antonii. With. 7. col. 863A. Gregory N. De beatit Og. V. col. 1256BC. Macarius E. Epistola, col. 421С and many others. etc. Although such an opinion is still found in ascetic literature, and not infrequently. See, for example. Efrem S. Institutio ad monachos T. III, p. 354C, Isaac S. Epist. IV. βελ 557. Cassian Praefatio, ad. Leontium ep. et Helladium col. 479B; Col. I. With. VIII, col. 493A. ibid. col. 490B-492A. Inst. lib.VIII, p. ХVII. col. 345B-346A; Lib. X, p. III, col. 368BC. Vasily. T. XXXI. col. 1328AB. Const. mon. With. I, § 1; I. Climacus. Gradus XXVI, col. 1072B. Maxim I – De charitate Π, 6. T. XC, col. 985AB. Rev. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) very successfully in this regard compares a monk with a greenhouse flower, and a layman with a field flower. Rules of external behavior for new monks. Op. vol. V, page 27. Strom, lib. VII, p. XII. T. IX, col. 497С-500А. Cp. I. Zlatoust. De sacerdotio, lib. VI, p. 6–7 T. XLVIII. col. 682, 683. I. Kaccian Col. XXIII, VI. T. XLIX, col. 1252B-1253A. Wed. for example, Isaac S. “In order to lay the foundation of virtues, it is best for a person to keep himself away from the affairs of everyday life.” (Then F εΐναι F εμέλιον τής αρετής οΰοέν ν . ρειττότερον τοΰ έπισχεΐν , τινά εαυτόν έν τή απαλλαγή των τοΰ ίίου πραγμάτων . Reg. fiis. interr. XXXI, col. 925A. Cp. eg Isaac C. Αογ. V, σελ 488–491. The main, main idea, the general theme of this section is that “running away” and moving away from everything that leads to a vicious life helps a person a lot in ascetic struggle (πάνυ οη Ф οΰσιν εις τόν ασκητικόν άγώνα ). σελ. 490. The following passages are specifically devoted to clarifying this idea, for example: Αογ. VI. σε ).. 45–46; Αογ. V. σελ. 26–27. See, for example, Vasily V. T. XXXI, col. 628B., col. 920CD, col. 960V; Anthony V. T XL, col. 1046AB; col. 1079–1080; Isaac C. Αογ. LXXXV, σελ. 495; Abba Isaiah Or. XVI, T. XL, col. 1142D-1143A; I. Cassian. Coli X,c. VI. col. 827. Coli. XIX. With. VIII. col. 1388B-1139A. coli XIV, p. IX. col. 906B; I. Zlat. Ad Theodorum iapsum. II, p. 5, T.XLVII, col. 314–315; De sacerdotio lib. VI, p. III. T. XLVIII,col. 680; Adversus appugnatores vitae monasticae lib. 1, p. 7. T. XLVII, col. 328. Nile of Sinai col. 777C-780B; col. 1073BC; col. 1084D-1085A., col. 1149C; col. 1149D, etc. The Path to Salvation, page 265. Cor. VII, pp. 32–38. Ep. Feofan. Nacher. Christ. Moral., page 392: “For life in God, it is best for those who are willing, able, and called to choose a special kind of life, monastic or hermit.” Gregory Palamas. De mentali quietudine (ad Xenam) T. CL, col. 1056A. ibid. Cp. En. Feofan. The Path to Salvation, page 265. Gregory Palamas. Decalogus christianae legis. T. CL, col. 1097B: εί χωρεΤς παρ Ф ενίαν άσκησον , ΐνα δυνη & ής οΛος γενέσ & α : του Ф εοδ , καί οι᾿ αγάπη " τελείας αυτω προσκολλη & ηναι , αυτφ προσεδρεύων διά βίου, καί μερίμνων άπερισπάοτως αεί τά του Κυρίου, καί προκαταλαμβανων τήν μέλλου – σιν ζωήν , καί ώς άγγελος γης πολιτευόμενος ). Cp. Προφ. Λ. Λ .Bronze. Morals Theologian in Russia during the 19th century, p. 272. Right Review 1875 II, p. 93. Wed. Prof. M, A. Olesnitsky. Introduction to the history of morality and moral teachings. Proceedings of the Kyiv Spirit Acad. 1880 Oct., p. 199.