And if one sought to fulfill this duty in the form in which it was usually fulfilled in secular life, it meant to renounce practically the basic principle of monasticism – the denial of the right of private property in the monastic community – and to introduce into the monastic life a great temptation to justify the passion of covetousness by referring to the duty to give alms, as the ascetic writings clearly speak of this temptation. It is this aspect of the matter, namely, the reconciliation of the universality of the duty to do alms with the monastic vow of renunciation of property, that seems interesting, in fact, to emphasize in the ascetic teaching, since the other questions about the motives for almsgiving, its properties, etc., are also resolved in ascetic writings in essentially the same way as the general church view of the subject.

It would hardly be a mistake to call St. Isaac of Sarsky as the most brilliant preacher of contemplative asceticism. It is impossible to emphasize the significance of perfect silence and complete renunciation of communion with people for the soul's conversation with God more strongly than it was done by St. Isaac. And yet, in his own instructions we find a very definite indication of the universal significance of the duty to do almsgiving; and moreover, the meaning of alms is characterized literally in accordance with the teaching of the great preacher of the Christian community, St. John Chrysostom. "If you have something superfluous for your daily needs," advises St. Isaac, distribute this to the poor and go boldly to offer your prayers, that is, converse with God as a son with a father. Nothing can bring the heart so close to God as almsgiving, and nothing produces such silence in the soul as arbitrary poverty." "Do you want," asks the abba in another of his words, "to be in communion with God with your mind, having accepted into yourself the feeling of this delight, not enslaved by feeling? Serve almsgiving. When it is found within you, then this holy beauty is depicted in you, by which you become like God. The comprehensiveness of the works of almsgiving produces in the soul communion with the Divinity without the intermediary of any time to union with the glory of light"[935]. "I give you, brother, this commandment: let alms always prevail from you, until you yourself feel the alms that you have for the world. Let our mercy be a mirror, so that we may see in ourselves that likeness and that true image which is in God's nature and in the essence of God. By this and similar things let us be enlightened, so that we may be moved with enlightened volition to live according to God. A heart that is cruel and unmerciful will never be cleansed. A merciful person is the physician of his soul, because it is as if with a strong wind from within his heart he disperses the darkness of the passions. This, according to the Gospel word of life, is a good debt, given by us to God in return"[936]. At the same time, St. St. Isaac characterizes Christian alms as an expression of the good mood of a philanthropist, and his value is not in money, which a monk may not have, but in one or another manifestation of charity. "When you give," teaches St. Abba, — give with generosity, with tenderness on your face, and provide more than you asked. For it is said: "Put your bread on the face of the water, and it will not take long for you to find recompense." Do not separate the rich from the poor, and do not try to distinguish the worthy from the unworthy: let all people be equal for you for a good work. For in this way you can attract even the unworthy to good, because the soul is soon attracted to the fear of God by means of the body. And the Lord shared a meal with tax collectors and prostitutes and did not separate the unworthy, so that in this way He would draw everyone into the fear of God, so that through the bodily they would draw closer to the spiritual. Therefore, by charity and honor, make all people equal, whether anyone be a Jew, or an infidel, or a murderer, all the more so since he is your brother, of the same nature as you, and has not gone astray from the truth with knowledge. When you do good to someone, do not expect recompense from him; God will reward you for both. And if it is possible for you, do good, and not for the sake of future recompense"[938]. "If you impose on your soul your rule of poverty," says St. Isaac, — and, by the grace of God, you will be freed from cares, and in your poverty you will become above the world, then see that you do not love the acquisition of poverty, for the sake of almsgiving, do not plunge your soul into confusion by what you will take from one and give to another; do not destroy your honor by your subordination to people and, asking them, do not lose your freedom and nobility of mind in caring for the things of life... If you have possessions, squander them suddenly. But if you have nothing, do not desire to have it." "For to give to the poor out of one's possessions, to clothe the naked, to love one's neighbor as oneself, not to offend, not to lie, — this was also proclaimed by the old law; And the perfection of the Gospel economy commands thus: "Thou shalt not torment him who asks Thy wife, and give to everyone who asks." And one should gladly endure not only the taking away of some thing and other external things, but also lay down one's very soul for one's brother. He is merciful, and not he who only shows mercy to his brother by alms! But he is also merciful who hears or sees anything that grieves his brother, and burns his heart, as well as he who, if he is stabbed by his brother, does not have so much shamelessness as to answer and grieve his heart."

But if, therefore, it is equally necessary for a monk to do almsgiving, then the practical question arises: how can a monk fulfill this duty after renouncing his property? The holy ascetics dealt with this question quite a lot in their instructions, and both pointed out the true understanding of this duty in the conditions of the monastic order of life, and they also denounced the incorrect or hypocritical idea according to which, for the sake of fulfilling the duty of almsgiving, one can violate the vow of complete non-acquisitiveness.

In the first case, the ascetic fathers pointed out and emphasized the fact that, on the one hand, the amount of alms does not depend on the amount of alms given, and on the other hand, that money is not needed in order for alms to be pleasing to God.

"Let us examine ourselves, beloved," advises St. Abba Isaiah, whether each of us fulfills the commandments of the Lord according to his strength or not; for we all have a duty to fulfill them according to our strength: the small according to his smallness, the great according to his greatness. Those who swept their gifts into the keeper's keeper were rich, but the Lord rejoiced more than the poor widow for the sake of her two mites, because God looks at our will. Let us not give room in our hearts to despondency (which is not much we can do), so that envy of others does not separate us from God, but let us fulfill our services according to our poverty... For He (the Lord) has no hypocrisy toward the small or the great, neither the rich nor the poor, but He seeks good will, and faith in Him, and the fulfillment of His commandments, and love for all." And not a single monk is so poor that he does not have the opportunity to fulfill the duty of doing almsgiving, since its essence is in the merciful heart. "No one can say, according to the words of St. Abba Dorotheus, "I am a beggar, I have nothing to give alms from"; but if you cannot give as much as these rich men who put their gifts into the treasury, then give two mites, like that poor widow, and God will accept it from you better than the gifts of these rich people. If you do not have even this, you have strength and can show mercy to a weak brother by service. Can't you do that? You can comfort your brother with a word; Therefore, show him mercy with a word, and hear what has been said: A word is good more than a giving. If you cannot help him with a word, then you can, when your brother is grieved with you, show him mercy and endure him in his time of confusion, seeing him tempted by the common enemy, and instead of saying one word to him, and still more embarrassing him, keep silent; by this you will show him mercy, delivering his soul from the enemy. You can also, when your brother sins against you, have mercy on him and forgive his sin... And so you will show mercy to the soul of your brother... And thus, having nothing with which to show mercy to the body, you have mercy on its soul. And what mercy is greater than that to have mercy on the soul? And just as the soul is more precious than the body, so the mercy shown to the soul is greater than that shown to the body" [941].

As we can see, St. Abba Dorotheus looks at alms more broadly than only material help. And this is the usual ascetic point of view[942]'''. "It is said in the Prophet Daniel," writes, for example, St. Mark the ascetic, "atone for thy sins with almsgiving, and thy iniquities with the mercies of the poor"[943]. "But perhaps you will say: I have no money, how can I be generous to the poor? You have no money, but you have desires; renounce them and do good by means of them. Can't you do good with your hand bodily? Do good by righteous will: if your brother sins against you, leave him according to the word of the Lord, and this will be a great alms for you... It is a great thing if a man, having money, gives alms to the poor; and to have mercy on our neighbors in their sins (against us) as much more in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, as the soul is by nature more honorable than the body" [944]. In Blessed Diadochos we also find an indication of a type of material almsgiving that was also available to monks who renounced property, namely, abstinence in food in order to donate its surplus to the poor. "Abstinence in food," says the blessed one, "should be observed in this way... so that, removing ourselves from many and useful foods, we proportionately bridle the inflammable carnal limbs, and then, our surplus will be a sufficient saving for the beggars, which is precisely the sign of sincere love"[945].

And when the holy ascetics insisted that the duty to give alms was binding on a monk as well, then, as we said earlier, they also envisaged possible reinterpretations of this duty in the direction of the possibility of not fulfilling one's vow of non-acquisitiveness as one should, under the pretext of almsgiving. In many ascetic fathers there are very definite indications of how human hypocrisy and covetousness did not even stop at perverting the word of God "for the sake of the passion of love of money." Prep. St. Mark the Ascetic, for example, seeks to prevent possible reinterpretations of the universality of the duty to give alms in monastic life by pointing out that the commandment of almsgiving, as part of the more general commandment to give away one's entire wealth, is fulfilled by the monk in its entirety in the distribution of one's possessions at once and by acknowledging the vow of renunciation of property. "Commandments," the monk argues, "are some of them more general, which contain many of the particular ones and cut off many parts of vice at once... For example, the Scriptures say: "Give to everyone who asks you"... and "To him who wants to hide from you, do not turn away"; these are private commandments. And the general one, which includes them: "Sell thy possessions, and give to the poor, and take up thy cross, come after me," meaning by the cross the patience of the sorrows that befall us. For he who distributed everything to the poor and took up his cross fulfilled all the above-mentioned commandments at once" [946]. And we have already seen that St. Mark understands the duty to give alms much more broadly than just giving money to those who ask. He dwells in particular on the incorrectness in the understanding of some of the universality of the duty to do alms.

John Cassian, affirming himself on the experience of the sad reality of his time, when they did not even hesitate to pervert the true meaning of Scripture for the sake of the love of money. "No one can serve God and mammon," says St. John, — and no one who has put his hand to the plough, and looks back, is trustworthy for the Kingdom of God. Such people try to find for themselves a reason for their former greed in the witness of the Holy Scriptures. In a perverse sense, they try to pervert the saying of the Apostle, or rather the Lord, and to adapt it according to their own desire; not adapting his life or mind to the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, but making a stretch of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, according to the desire of their passion, want it to be in harmony with their opinions, and say that it is written: There is more bliss in giving than in taking. By misinterpreting this, they think to weaken the following saying of the Lord: "If you want to be perfect, go and sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and receive treasure in heaven, and come and follow me." They think that they should not leave their wealth under this pretext, precisely because they consider themselves more blessed, if... from its abundance they give to others... Such people must know that they are either deceiving themselves and have not renounced this world in any way, relying on their former wealth, or, if they want to fulfill their monastic vows by their very deed, rejecting and squandering everything... with the Apostle they will be glorified in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness"[948]. "And so, if we wish to follow the commandment of the Gospel and to be imitators of the Apostle and of the entire primitive Church, or of the Fathers, who in our times have followed the virtues and their perfection, then we must not rely on our own opinions, promising ourselves the perfection of the Gospel from this cold and miserable state; but, following in their footsteps, we must try not to deceive ourselves, and in this way let us fulfill the monastic order and decree, so that we may truly renounce this world." The same is affirmed by Blessed Diadochos and St. John Climacus. The first gives the following instructions: "It is very proper and completely useful for us, who have learned the way of piety, to immediately sell everything that we have... and not to disobey the Saving Commandment under the pretext of a constant desire to fulfill the commandments... The Lord, of course, will demand of us an account of almsgiving, since we have. Therefore, if I have given what I have had to give for many years, through the fear of God I usefully squander in a short time, then I am having nothing, for what else will I be condemned? But someone will say: whence will the poor, who are constantly accustomed to support themselves from our insignificant possessions, receive alms? Let such a person learn not to blaspheme God under the pretext of his own love of money. For God does not cease to arrange His creation as from the beginning" (950).

Prep. St. John of the Ladder also points to the hypocritical basis of monastic speeches about the duty to give alms. And he commands: "Do not say that you collect money for the sake of the poor; for the widow's two mites bought the kingdom of heaven... The love of money begins under the guise of giving alms, and ends with hatred of the poor. A lover of money is merciful as long as he collects money, and as soon as he has accumulated it, he has clasped his hands" [951]. "The demon of the love of money, according to the conviction of the monk, struggles with the non-acquisitive, and when he cannot overcome them, then he presents them with the poor, and then by the appearance of alms he exhorts them, so that they should again become material from the immaterial" [952].

We will not dwell in detail on the teaching of the holy ascetic fathers about the properties of truly Christian almsgiving, since in general in the ascetic instructions little attention was paid to the teaching about almsgiving and they did not say anything new in this regard. Let us only quote the words of St. Abba Dorotheus about the complete unselfishness of Christian almsgiving, words distinguished by rare expressiveness. "It is acceptable (the will of God) when one gives alms, not from any human motive, but for the sake of good, out of compassion alone: this is pleasing to God. Perfect (the will of God) is that when one does alms not with avarice, not with sloth, not with contempt, but with all his strength and all his will, giving as if he himself had received it, and doing good as if he himself had received a good deed; then the perfect will of God is fulfilled... But one must also know the very good of almsgiving, and its very grace: it is so great that it can forgive even sins... The Lord Himself said: "Be merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful." He did not say: "Fast, as your heavenly Father also fasts"; He did not say: "Be not acquisitive, even as your heavenly Father is not acquisitive." But what does he say: "Be merciful..."; for this virtue especially imitates God and depicts Him. Thus, one should always look to this goal and do good wisely, for there is a great difference in the purpose of almsgiving. Someone gives alms so that his field may be blessed, and God blesses his field. Another gives alms so that his ship may be saved, and God saves his ship. A man gives it for his children, and God saves and preserves his children. Another gives it in order to be glorified, and God glorifies him. For God rejects no one, but gives to each one what he desires, provided it does not harm his soul. But all these have already received their reward, and God does nothing to them, because they have sought nothing for themselves from Him; and the purpose they had in mind had nothing to do with their spiritual benefit. Thou hast done this that thy field might be blessed, and God might bless thy field; thou hast done this for thy children, and God hath preserved thy children. You did it to be glorified, and God glorified you. So, what does God owe you? He gave you the wages you made for. Some give alms in order to be delivered from future torment; this one gives it for his soul, this one gives it for God's sake. Yet he is not as God wills, for he is still in the state of a slave, and the slave does not voluntarily do the will of his master, but fears to be punished; likewise this one gives alms in order to be delivered from torment, and God delivers him from it. Another gives alms in order to receive a reward: this is higher than the first, but this one is not as God wills, for he is not yet in the state of a son, but, as a hireling, does the will of his master, in order to receive from him both payment and profit: in the same way this one gives alms in order to obtain and receive a reward from God. For in three ways, as St. Gregory says, we can do good: either we do good, fearing torment, and then we are in the state of a slave; or in order to receive a reward, in which case we are in the disposition of a hireling, or we do good for the sake of good, and then we are in the rank of a son; For the Son does the will of the Father, not out of fear or because he wants to receive a reward from Him, but because he wants to please Him, to honor and calm Him. In the same way, we should give alms for the sake of the very good, having compassion on one another as our own members, and please others as if we ourselves were receiving services from them; give as if we ourselves were receiving, and this is reasonable almsgiving; thus we come to the state of a son"[953].

Western church thought of the fourth and early fifth centuries elucidated the questions of almsgiving, in general, in accordance with the principles laid down in the basis of the understanding of Christian teaching by the great teachers of the ancient Church. But such an agreement in principle did not, of course, prevent the fact that in the West the question of alms was considered from a somewhat different point of view than in the ancient Christian East.

Let us confine ourselves to a few names: Lactantius, St. Ambrose, Blessed Augustine, and Blessed Jerome.

Lactantius examines the Christian teaching on alms in a very interesting apologetic elucidation of this teaching, comparing it with the negative views on the duty of charity of a certain part of Roman philosophical thought. And in this case, Lactantius asserts the debt of almsgiving, first of all, on the basis of a natural feeling of compassion, and then on the demand for true justice, as the rational principle of human relations. "We all," says Lactantius, "are united by kinship, because we are descended from the first man.... We are all brothers, because our souls are the creation of one and the same God. This union is much closer and holier than our union with the body; and Lucretius was not mistaken in saying that we are all born of heaven and all have one Father. Consequently, it is necessary to consider as ferocious beasts those who, having rejected all feeling of humanity, rob people, torture them and kill them. God wants us to preserve this fraternal union among ourselves religiously, that He forbids us to do harm to anyone and commands everyone to do good. He explains it this way: it is proper to help the brethren in need and to provide them with means of subsistence when they are in poverty. That is why God commanded that we live in society and see ourselves in each person... I intend here to refute the fallacy of those who think that it is not necessary to give anything to anyone... It is necessary to have the feelings of humanity if we want to retain the name of man. What else does it mean to have the feelings of mankind if not to sincerely love people, because their nature is the same as ours? Nothing is more contrary to human nature than disagreement and strife. The words of Cicero are very true that a person who follows the feelings of nature is not able to harm another person. If it is contrary to nature to harm man, then it is in accordance with nature to help him. Whoever does not fulfill this duty renounces the quality of man. I would ask him who asserts that a wise man ought not to have compassion: If he saw someone bearing a weapon, from whom another, in the clutches of a beast of prey, would ask for help, does he think the former should help the latter or leave him? It is difficult for him to have so much shamelessness as not to fulfill the duty of mankind in such a case. If a man were to burn in a fire, or groan under the ruins of a house, or fall into a river or into the sea, would he not confess that mankind demands help here? He would not have been a man if he had not confessed it, for there is no one who could not be exposed to such danger. He will certainly agree that a man who has a heart will do all he can to save the perishing man.

Guided by this feeling, Plautus uttered the following abominable words: "He who gives alms to the poor does evil; for besides being deprived of the money given, he, prolonging his life, continues his misery." However, Plautus can also be excused for putting these words into the mouth of such a person to whom they are befitting. But how to justify Cicero, who in his book on offices advises not to give anything to anyone? Here is how he says: "Generosity given out of one's own possessions exhausts capital, and thus generosity destroys itself, so to speak; for the more often it is fulfilled, the more it deprives us of the opportunity to fulfill it." After that, he adds: "Can there be anything more insane than to make oneself unable to do what we do with pleasure in the future?" This is how this professor of wisdom turns people away from the duties of mankind, and how he warns them to be more concerned about the preservation of their property than about the observance of righteousness. He himself, it seems, was so convinced of the incorrectness and cruelty of this advice, that in another place he seems to renounce it, expressing himself in the following way: "It is necessary, however, sometimes to give, giving a part of one's property to capable people." But who are capable people if not those who can appreciate good deeds? If Cicero were still alive, I would say to him: you are mistaken about this; Thou hast deprived people of righteousness, basing on interest the duties of philanthropy and mercy. It is not necessary to help those who are able to give thanks, but those who are not able to give thanks; for by helping them, without hope of gratitude, you will fulfill the duty of truth, mercy and love for humanity. This is the true truth, of which, in the opinion of many, we have no idea. You, Cicero, say in many places of your creations that virtue acts without interest, and in the book of the laws you confess that generosity is generous and does not require reward. "It is known," you say in one place, "that a generous and beneficent person seeks only glory for his deeds and does not think about the benefits that he can receive from it." Why do you say elsewhere that you will lend only those who are capable of appreciating a favor? Is it not the same that you want to receive a reward for it? Following your advice, we will allow a person to die of hunger and cold when we see that he is unable to appreciate the help we give him. Should not a person who is in abundance and luxury help another person who is in the most extreme need? You say that virtue expects no reward and deserves to be sought by men for its own sake. Judge of truth, this first virtue and as the mother of all other virtues, not according to your own interest, but according to her own dignity, and put your blessings into the hands of those who can never repay you anything. Why do you choose faces? You must consider all those who have recourse to your aid in the hope that you have love for mankind to be the same people. Observe the truth and flee the shadow of remark. Let the blind, the lame, the crippled, those who are deprived of help and in danger die without your help. If they are useless to men, they are not useless to God, who allows them to enjoy life. Do everything that depends on you to save their lives. Whoever has the opportunity to help a person who is in danger of dying, but does not help, will be the cause of his death. Those who renounce the senses of nature and do not know what reward will be for good deeds, lose their property, fearing to lose it. They are exposed to what they wanted to avoid, that is, they are either spent without any benefit, or, if they receive any benefit, it is for the shortest time... Those who give generosity to their fellow-citizens and friends undoubtedly do better than those who give games and battles to the people, because what they spend is not entirely lost; but after all this, their distributions are improperly made. In order to distribute well, it is necessary to do good to the poor and needy. Everything that is distributed to those who have no need of anything, or to people from whom one can expect a return, is misused. These distributions are not made in truth, because even if they were not made, they would not offend the truth. The only duty of truth and generosity is to use one's property to feed the poor who are in extreme need."