An Inquiry into the Old Believer Schism

An Inquiry into the Schismatic Bryn Faith, Their Teachings, and Their Deeds, and a Demonstration That Their Faith Is False, Their Teachings Are Harmful to the Soul, and Their Deeds Are Not Pleasing to God

Let us consider: by what means can we recognize schismatic teachers?

By the words with which they extol their faith,

from their blasphemous teachings, and

From their hypocritical way of life.

To the prudent reader

If this humble work of mine should have the honor of reaching any of the prudent and God-fearing readers, I beg you, not to be surprised by the plain language and unpolished composition here, for these were not written for the wise or those skilled in the Divine Scriptures, but for the simplest of people, who do not understand the power of Holy Scripture, to whom even simple speech is barely comprehensible. It was to such people that the ancient Holy Fathers and teachers adapted their discourse to the vernacular, as did Saint Chrysostom, who at first was accustomed to composing his words with great wisdom; but having been admonished by a woman, he set aside his eloquent rhetoric and spoke in simple language. For once, while he was teaching the people in church, a certain woman from the congregation called out, saying: “Spiritual teacher—or rather, John Chrysostom!—you have delved deep into the wellspring of your holy teaching, but our minds are limited and cannot grasp it.” He, however, reflecting within himself that it was not beneficial to present intricate words to the people, took care from then on to adorn his discourse not with elaborate rhetorical flourishes, but with simple, moralizing words, so that even the simplest listener might understand and derive benefit. Likewise, the holy martyr Alexander, Bishop of Comana [1] (as is written in his life): He did not concern himself with the beauty of the words in his sermons to the people, but was concerned with the benefit of their souls, and many of his discourses were simple—spoken for the sake of the simple, yet very beneficial to the soul. And when he was mocked by a certain young Attic philosopher for his plain speech, the philosopher had the following vision: He thought he saw a flock of white doves, most magnificent, shining with a wondrous radiance, according to the words of the Psalmist: “The wings of the dove are silvered, and her breast glows with gold” ([2] ), and a voice spoke to the beholder, saying: “These are the words of Bishop Alexander, at whom you have mocked!” The philosopher, however, springing up from the vision, was ashamed of his sin. But Christ Himself—our Savior—when He spoke to the learned, to the wise Jewish teachers, extended to them the words of God, filled with wisdom, citing evidence from the books of the Prophets: but when He spoke to the common people, He explained His message about the Kingdom of Heaven to them through simple parables, saying: “For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a householder, and like a man who sowed good seed in his field, and like a merchant, and like a mustard seed, and like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until the whole was leavened [3] .” And since I am humble, to whom the simple people have been entrusted as a flock, it is my duty to offer simple words of exhortation to those who are straying into schismatic error. Christ has sent me (as I say with the Apostle) to preach the gospel not in the wisdom of words[4] .

Preface

Two excellent books, written by the former Most Holy Patriarchs of Moscow together with the Holy Synod, provide a sufficient response to schismatic obstinacy; the titles of these books are: The Rod of Governance and Spiritual Admonition. And there is no need for better responses to the objections raised by the foolish reasoning of the Holy Church’s adversaries; but since I do not know whether those books can be found anywhere in our Rostov Diocese—and they are scarcely to be found—for the hateful hand of the schismatics is destroying them. For this reason, I have written this brief booklet, * *, in accordance with my duty; for when a wolf is among the flock, it is not fitting for a shepherd to be overcome by sleep.

The humble bishop Dimitri, by the grace of God, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl

To the Most Reverend Archimandrites, Abbots, and the entire monastic order,

and to the honorable priests, deacons, and church servants residing in all the cities and villages of our diocese,

And to all the orthodox Christian people of the Diocese of Rostov, of every rank and age, my beloved brothers and spiritual children,

Blessing and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ.

* * *

It is not enough for our humility toward you, O beloved, to communicate only through spoken words; it is also fitting to offer edifying counsel in writing. For spoken words are heard only nearby, but those committed to writing reach even to the ends of the universe. A spoken word is quickly forgotten by human memory, but what is written remains unforgettable. Therefore, I have spoken these words and taught them to you, and I have decided to commit them to writing and send them to the Diocese; for it is impossible for me, due to certain circumstances, to travel throughout our flock and teach God’s people everywhere, both verbally and in person. Let this letter of mine, in my stead, travel through the cities and villages of our diocese, teaching and exhorting you not to be led astray by schismatic false teachings, but to stand firm in the Orthodox faith, holding fast to our Mother, the Holy Ecumenical Apostolic Church.

First of all, I declare to you my sorrow and the anguish of my soul for you, for I hear that fierce wolves are entering among you[5] , coming from the oak groves and deserts of Bryn, and are luring Christ’s sheep—with their false words and secret whispers (just as the serpent deceived Eve) Christ’s sheep—not toward salvation, but toward destruction; and they torment God’s flock, teaching unorthodox doctrines and leading ignorant souls astray; they devour and consume them with their heresies, and cast them down into the insatiable belly of hell. But even from among you yourselves (as I hear), men have arisen speaking perverse things, seeking to lead the disciples (I speak of the simple people) astray after themselves[6] . This causes me no small sorrow and grief, just as it did for David, who lamented over such people and said: “I am grieved by the sinners who forsake your law”[7] .

Having declared this, I speak to you in the name of Christ my Savior: beware of false prophets[8] —that is, beware of false teachers. For in ancient times, teachers were called prophets. Just as the Apostle mentioned in his Epistle to Titus regarding the Cretans, saying: “Some of them call one of their own a prophet,” “The Cretans are always liars”[9] . Their prophet was (according to Chrysostom) Epimenides the Cretan, who was a poet, a philosopher, a pagan priest, and a teacher of Hellenic laws among the Cretans. For when Christ the Lord exhorts those who follow Him to beware of false prophets, He is exhorting them to beware of false teachers, such as those from the schismatic hermitages of Bryneki, which are like demonic nests. Beware of them, O beloved! Beware of those who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves[10] .

But you may ask: “How can we tell if someone is a wolf or a good person?” Christ answers, saying: “You will know them by their fruits; just as a tree is known by its fruit.” A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit; nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. So also, I say, these false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, are recognized by their fruits[11] , for they are, as the Apostle says: a withered, barren tree, twice dead[12] , stripped of fruit and leaves, having fallen away from faith and the hope of salvation, uprooted from the Church, bearing no good fruit—only evil fruit, like the apples of Sodom.

St. Chrysostom writes that in that land, where Sodom once stood, trees grow and bear fruit[13] . But the fruit of God’s wrath is a reminder. For there stand wild apple trees, appearing bright and beautiful, and offering the uninformed much hope through their taste. But if they are taken in the hand, they are found to be rotten; for they bear no fruit, but reveal within them much dust and ashes. Such are the trees of the schismatic teachers, and such are their fruits, which outwardly appear to be beautiful and beneficial to the soul through their alluring teachings; but when their teachings are broken open by reason and scrutiny, one will find, just as with the apple of Sodom, that they are full of dust, lies, and the stench of spiritual corruption. And thus you will know them by their fruits.

As proof of this, let us present here the three principal fruits of those trees from Bryn’s garden—that is, the schismatic teachers:

Their faith,

Their doctrine, and

Their deeds,

and we will investigate them thoroughly, test them rigorously, and, through sound reasoning and examination, see what is within them.

Here, too, the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH will be briefly presented in the first part.

Part I. On the Schismatic Faith

To begin with, the first fruit of the schismatic garden: let us examine their faith, which they adorn outwardly with their false words, telling the ignorant common people that their faith is the true one, their faith is the ancient one, and that the only true faith is found in the Brynsk hermitages: but in the cities, in the churches, among the bishops, and among the priests, there is no true faith; they have changed the faith, they have distorted the faith, and a new faith has arisen.

Let us therefore examine these two points:

I. Is their faith the true faith?

II. Is their faith the old faith?

Article One. Is their faith the true faith?

As we begin our first inquiry into the Bryn faith: Is their faith the true faith? To begin with, I pose the question:

Chapter 1. What Is Faith?

Let all the schismatic teachers—those who come to you secretly from Bryn and whom you harbor in your underground hideouts—gather together and answer this question:

What is faith?

For everyone says: Faith is believing in the one God glorified in the Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—as is written in the Creed: “I believe in one God,” and so on.

This is a good confession of faith, spoken with the mouth; for as the Apostle says, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness,” and “with the mouth one confesses unto salvation” ([14] ); but I am not asking about this—in whom and how you believe, or whether you believe in the one God. For it is evident that all who have been enlightened by holy baptism believe in the one God in the Trinity; but my question concerns this: what is faith? I ask only about this one word (name), “Faith”: what is the meaning of this word? By what is faith called “faith”?

I know that you will not answer, for you do not know: you teach about faith, but you do not know what faith is; for you are unable to explain the very meaning of the word “faith.”

Learn, then, from the Holy Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 2, verse 1, which says thus: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” ([15] ). Saint John of Damascus interprets these words of the Apostle as follows: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” ([16] ). And Saint Chrysostom says this: “For faith is the vision of the unknown, bringing the invisible into the realm of the visible” ([17] ).

Do you understand the power of these words, O Brynyan? Is it clear to you that faith is knowledge, or (according to Damascene), the hypostasis of invisible things? If you do not understand, listen to this brief but clear explanation from the theologians, who say: What is faith, if not believing in what you do not see? This is the explanation of the word “faith”: to believe in what you do not see; for this reason, faith is called “faith,” since it believes in what it does not see. Is it still unclear to anyone? Then let them hear a more detailed explanation of this.

Chapter 2. Faith Is That Which the Eyes Do Not See and the Hands Do Not Touch

Faith is that which your physical eyes do not see, nor your hands touch, but which your heart and your mind affirm without a doubt, that it is so and not otherwise: that is Faith.

We do not see God, for “no one has ever seen God” ([18] ), as John the Theologian says; yet we believe without a doubt that God exists: this is Faith.

We do not see the three Persons of the Trinity within the one Godhead, nor can we comprehend how the Trinity is in the One, and the One in the Trinity; yet we believe without a doubt that there is one God in the Trinity: this is Faith.

We have not seen, nor can we comprehend with our minds, the Incarnation and Nativity of Christ—how the Word of God became flesh in the Virgin’s womb, and how He was born incorruptible, preserving His Most Pure Mother as a Virgin before, during, and after His birth—yet we believe this to be so without doubt: this is Faith.

We have not seen, nor do we see with our physical eyes, the two distinct natures—divine and human—in the one indivisible Person of Christ; yet we believe without a doubt that this is so: this is Faith.

We do not see our Savior, seated in His glorified body on the divine throne in heaven in unapproachable glory, reigning with His Father and the Holy Spirit; yet we believe without a doubt that this is so: this is Faith.

We do not see with our physical eyes our God, who is everywhere present and yet present among us; yet we believe that this is so: this is Faith.

We do not see the Holy Spirit descending in holy baptism or in the other sacraments of the Church; yet we believe that the Holy Spirit does descend and that He performs all the sacraments: this is Faith.

In the most pure Mysteries of Christ, under the appearance of visible bread, we do not see the true human body of Christ, and under the appearance of visible wine, we do not see His true human blood; yet we believe that the true body of Christ is truly present, concealed in the appearance and taste of bread; and the true blood of Christ is present, concealed in the appearance and taste of wine: this is Faith.

Let us also add this:

We do not see with our physical eyes the Most Holy Lady, our Mother of God, who reigns in heaven with her Son and God, and who intercedes for us, her sinful servants; yet we believe that she reigns with Christ and intercedes for us: that is Faith.

We do not see the holy saints of God, who stand above the throne of God in the triumphant Church and pray to God for us; yet we believe that they stand there and pray: that is Faith.

We do not see the holy guardian angel of each of us, yet we believe that a guardian angel, given to each of us at baptism, is with us: this is Faith.

We do not see the crowns of heavenly glory prepared for those who love God, nor do we see the fierce, eternal torments of hell prepared for unrepentant sinners; yet we believe that there will be a good reward for the good and an evil one for the wicked, each according to their deeds: this is Faith.

We do not see the dead rising from their graves, yet we believe and look forward to the resurrection of the dead on the last day: that is Faith.

And to put it briefly: Faith is that which we do not see, yet believe without a doubt. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for [19] .

Chapter 3. Everything that the eyes see and the hands touch is not faith

On the contrary.

Everything that our eyes see and our hands touch is not faith, but visible, tangible matter, as the Apostle says: “Hope that is seen is not hope; for whoever sees what he hopes for [20] ?”

And since what is visible and tangible is not faith, but substance, it is clearly evident from this, as the Apostle says: “Now we see (God) as in a mirror, dimly; but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love [21] .

Take heed: love is greater than faith and hope. Why is it greater? Because love (according to the words of that same Apostle) never fails[22] . Take heed to these words: love never fails; love will never cease to love.

Will faith, together with hope, ever cease? It will cease in every way. Understand what I am saying: as long as we are alive on earth, as long as we do not see God face to face, as long as we do not see and have not received the blessings prepared in heaven for those who love God—which the eye has not seen; until then, faith and hope remain within us, for the time being. We believe that in the life to come we will see God, and we believe until such time as we see Him. We hope to receive the heavenly blessings; and we hope until such time as we receive them. For faith and hope remain until we see the Beloved with our own eyes, until we receive what we hope for; but love never fails. For when we are deemed worthy to be in the kingdom of heaven (if God deems anyone worthy), and we see God there, then faith will cease to exist: for we will already see face to face the One in whom we have believed. Hope will also cease to exist, for we will already have in our hands the very thing we hoped for. But love will never cease; for there we will love God and His saints, and one another, for all eternity. Do you accept the faith I am speaking of? I think you do not. Therefore, do not place your faith in me, but in Saint John Chrysostom, who says this: “For faith and hope cease when the good things we have believed in and hoped for have come to pass”[23] . And demonstrating this, Paul said: “Hope that is seen is not hope; for whoever sees what he hopes for[24] ?” And again: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Therefore, these will cease when they are revealed; but love will then be heightened all the more and become even stronger. Up to this point, Chrysostom. From St. Chrysostom it is clearly shown that faith and hope in the future life—that is, in the heavenly kingdom—will cease; only love will remain, unchanging for all eternity. Why, then, will faith and hope cease? Because what we now believe, we will see with our own eyes there; and what we now hope for, we will receive there.

From the aforementioned passage from the Apostle’s epistle and from Chrysostom’s interpretation, it is clearly known to us that faith is that which is not seen with the eyes but believed in the heart: faith is the assurance of things hoped for [25] . However, whatever is seen with the eyes and touched by the hands is not faith, but visible, tangible matter; and anyone who believes in visible, tangible matter does not possess true Christian faith, nor does he share in the fellowship of the faithful, but his portion is with the idolaters; for they believed in what is visible and tangible, deified the work of their own hands, and worshiped what is visible and tangible as if it were God.

Here we shall proceed to examine the first article.

Chapter 4. Heretical Faith in Visible and Tangible Things

Is the heretical faith a true faith?

The teachers of Bryn profess faith in one God, yet they seek the Divinity in visible and tangible matter, and they base their faith on visible and tangible things.

An old icon—that is their faith.

The eight-pointed cross—that is their faith.

The seven prosphora in the Liturgy—that is their faith.

The old books—that is their faith.

The way they fold their fingers according to their custom—that is their faith.

O foolish, blind, and misguided ones, whose minds are darkened by the soot of ignorance! Is an icon God? Is the number of the cross’s arms God? Is the number of prosphora God? Is the antiquity of the books God? Is the way you fold your fingers God?

The holy icon is venerable, but it is not God. The holy cross is venerable, but it is not God. The prosphora, marked with the sign of the cross, are holy, but they are not gods. The books of Holy Scripture are venerable, but they are not gods. Honorable, too, are the fingers that form the image of the cross, however they may be arranged, but they are not gods. All that is visible and tangible—but not gods.

And since they are not gods, there is no faith in them.

Unless, perhaps, you are referring to the tradition of the Fathers, which commands the faithful to honor holy things with reverence—but not faith itself, for which there is no other basis than the one invisible God.

And as many old icons, as many eight-pointed crosses, and as many other visible and tangible objects in which you believe, so many gods and faiths do you have. You no longer place your faith and hope for salvation in the invisible God, but in visible and tangible objects; and in vain, O Brynyan, In your confession of faith, you say: “I believe in one God.” You ought to say: “I believe not in one, but in many gods: in ancient icons, in eight-pointed crosses, in the seven prosphora, in old books, and in the folding of fingers according to the Brynsky custom.” But even in that multitude of visible and tangible things, you do not find your true faith: for you yourselves have no faith in your own faith, disputing and arguing, “Is it this way or that?” And there are already some among you who wish not only to worship new icons but even to worship old ones, or to place the sign of the cross upon themselves, acting foolishly and contradicting themselves. For one teaches this, and another teaches that; yet none of them know how, or in what they believe, or what they are teaching. Of such people the Apostle spoke: “Having strayed from the truth, they have turned to empty talk; desiring to be teachers of the law, yet understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm” ([26] ). For how can they understand, not knowing the Scriptures or the power thereof? Even if someone reads them, he is perplexed; and even if he interprets them, he does so incorrectly. For it is difficult for an uneducated person, unenlightened by the light of scholarly understanding, to grasp the depth of Holy Scripture and to interpret its unfathomable mysteries, relying only on the belief that he knows black from white and wanders through the pages of books: But the mysteries of Holy Scripture are as visible to him as the sun’s rays are to a blind man.

Behold, my beloved, we have broken open with our reasoning the first fruit of the Bryn Garden, seeking their faith—if indeed it is true? And we have found it, outwardly adorned with its own deceitful flattery, like a woman painting her face, but within it is, as mentioned earlier and described in Chrysostom’s sermons, the apple of Sodom, which appears red on the outside, but within is filled with stinking dust and ashes: and like a whitewashed tomb, it is full of stinking bones [27] .

Let the inquiry of this first article conclude with the following clear argument:

Anyone who believes not in the one invisible God, but in many visible and tangible things, believes wrongly.

And since the schismatics do not believe in one invisible God, but in many visible and tangible substances—in ancient icons, in eight-pointed crosses, in the number of prosphora, in old books, and in the arrangement of their fingers according to their custom—

therefore their faith is not the true faith, but a false one, seeking the Divinity in visible and tangible things.

Here, in contrast to the schismatic and erroneous nature of this faith, let us briefly present the true righteousness of our Holy, Immaculate, and Orthodox Faith.

Chapter 5. The Righteousness of the Orthodox Faith Concerning the Icons of the Saints

As for our true Christian faith—which we did not learn from the Bryn rebels, mere peasants, but from Christ our Savior Himself, who instructs us in the Holy Gospels, and which we received from His holy Apostles and were confirmed in by the seven Ecumenical Councils— that faith believes in one invisible God, and does not seek the Divinity in visible and tangible things.

We honor the holy icons, kiss them, and bow before them, but we do not deify them; we do not say that an icon is God, but rather that it is an image representing the likeness of Christ, or of the Mother of God, or of a particular saint. To put it more clearly, in the words of St. John of Damascus: an icon is a narrative about Christ the Lord and His Saints, told through the art of painting, just as it is told through the written word. Thus does that Saint say in his sermon for Orthodox Sunday: “Both writers and painters record—the former by adorning the word, the latter by depicting it on panels” ([28] ). For the writer wrote the Gospel, and everything he wrote in the Gospel—the entire earthly life of Christ—he handed down to the Church. Likewise, the painter created, by depicting on a panel the splendor of the Church from the first Adam all the way to the Nativity of Christ, as well as the entire incarnate life of Christ and the sufferings of the Saints, and handed this down to the Church as well. Therefore, all the more so, both have recorded a single narrative and teach us. Thus far, Damascene.

We, however, heeding his words, see that iconography is just as much a form of scripture as written scripture. For not everyone knows how to read what is written in a book, since many Christians are illiterate; but what is depicted on an icon is understood by everyone, even an illiterate simpleton. For he recognizes the icon of Christ, and the depiction of His most holy Nativity, and His Circumcision, and His Baptism, and His Transfiguration, and His other miraculous deeds, and His voluntary suffering for our sake, His crucifixion and burial, and His Resurrection, and His second, dreadful coming—about which much would need to be said: but by gazing with one’s eyes upon the depictions, one immediately comprehends, understands, and recognizes all of this; and pictorial art is the swiftest, clearest, and most intelligible narrative, even more so than written stories.

Likewise, everyone recognizes the icon of the Most Pure Virgin Mary, holding the Eternal Infant Christ in her maternal embrace, and understands the deeds of her most pure life, beginning with her birth, her entry into the Lord’s Church, the Annunciation, and how she swaddled the Son of God born of her in swaddling clothes, laid Him in a manger, and, holding Him in her arms, nursed Him at her breast. How, when Christ was crucified, she stood by the cross weeping and wailing; how she laid Him in the tomb; how she saw Him rise from the dead; and how she watched Him ascend into heaven with loving eyes; how she herself later passed away to her Son and God, and now stands in heaven at the right hand of God’s throne.

Likewise, the deeds of any of the saints, as depicted in iconography, are understandable to all: Peter’s repentance, Thomas’s doubt, Stephen’s stoning, Saul’s calling by Christ on the road, and so on. And just as we honor and kiss the account of Christ’s life written in the Gospel; so too do we venerate and kiss the face of Christ depicted on the icon, bowing our heads not to the material form but to the narrative, according to the words of the same Saint John of Damascus, who says this: “Tell me, whom do you worship in the Gospel—the bread (the material form), or the story?” You will surely say to me: ‘To the narrative of Christ’s appearance.’ Thus I do not venerate a piece of wood, nor a wall, nor the material of the icon itself, but the image of the body (of Christ) and the Lord’s appearance. Thus far Damascene [29] .

For when we bow before a holy icon, we do not bow to a piece of wood, nor to paint, nor to a translation, nor to something old, nor to something new; for we do not seek substance in the icon, nor do we venerate substance in the icon; but we gaze upon the holiness, we venerate the holiness, and we bow before the image that is depicted. Our worship, according to the teaching of St. Basil the Great, ascends to the Original, to Him Who is in heaven.

For when I stand before the icon of my Savior and wish to worship, my mind is immediately lifted up to Christ Himself, my Savior, who reigns in heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and I worship Him before His icon; and thus the honor I bestow upon the Savior’s icon ascends to the original, that is, to the Savior Himself, reigning in heaven.

Likewise, when I come before the icon of the Mother of God and wish to worship, I first lift up my mind to the Most Pure Mother of God herself, who reigns in heaven with her Son and God, and I worship her before her icon; and the honor I bestow upon the icon ascends to its original model, which is the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God, standing at the right hand of God’s throne in heaven.

Likewise, whenever I wish to venerate the icon of any saint, I first lift up my mind to that very saint, who stands before God’s throne on high and prays to God on our behalf; and thus the honor the icon I create, ascends to its original model, to that very Saint whom I contemplate with my mind, and to whom I bow. But whoever seeks in an icon the old and the transitive seeks matter and worships matter, not Him who is in heaven; and such a person is like one who bows down to the work of human hands, since he deifies matter. Such worship is impious, not pious, and was condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, at which the pious veneration of holy icons was established. And the Holy Fathers of that Council imposed a special anathema on this: let anyone who does not venerate holy icons be anathema; likewise, let anyone who deifies holy icons be anathema. And the Church makes this clear in her hymns, teaching that her orthodox children, while honoring holy icons with pious veneration, do not deify them. Thus, on the first Sunday of Great Lent, during Great Vespers in the Slavnik, she sings: “To us, the image of the Incarnate One is a source of glory, to be venerated with piety, but not deified.”

And in the canon, before the rite of cursing the heretics, in the fifth ode, verse 2, it reads as follows: “Beholding the icon, venerating the Crucifixion, we kiss Christ with love, and that sign, and we worship them, not as gods.”

And in the Synaxarion for that week, in the Matins service, these words are written: “If anyone does not venerate these (holy icons) and does not kiss them—not as an act of worship, not as gods, but as images, out of love for the originals—let him be accursed.” Pay attention to these words: “not as an act of worship”—and understand that worshipful veneration, called “latria” by the Greeks, is to be rendered by an orthodox person only to God Himself, and not to any created being or visible, tangible object. For when the Church commands us to venerate icons not in a servile manner, not with the bow of “latria,” it clearly teaches us not to deify the icons of the saints, but only to honor them as holy objects. For the pious veneration of holy icons consists in bowing before an icon as a sanctuary of God, and not as God Himself. To God Himself, however, we bow during worship with divine veneration, called “latria,” lifting our minds to Him and beholding the Invisible One with the spiritual eyes of faith. Worship of holy icons that is ungodly, however, consists in deifying the icon and perceiving the material elements within it—such as paint and canvas—as if one were bowing down to God Himself. We, however, as we have said, when we bow before a holy icon, lift up our minds to Him who is in heaven, whose face is depicted on the icon. And in bowing in this way, we do not worship the material substance of the icon, which is visible and tangible, but the face that dwells in heaven, which is invisible to us. Just as in the Old Testament, the people of God honored the Ark of the Covenant and the objects contained within it: the golden jar containing manna, Aaron’s rod, the tablets of the covenant, and the cherubim of glory overshadowing the altar—and in worshiping these, they did not worship the material objects themselves, but God Himself, honoring the invisible One through these visible holy objects. Thus, in the new grace, we worship the holy icons, honoring the Invisible One through visible holy objects.

And just as in the Old Covenant, when Solomon built a temple for God, he fashioned new cherubim and placed them above the Ark of the Covenant together with the ancient cherubim made by Moses; the people of Israel who were living at that time did not reject Solomon’s new cherubim, nor did they say, “We do not wish to venerate the new cherubim, but we hold fast to the old ones of Moses”; they did not say this, but venerated Solomon’s new cherubim just as they had venerated the old ones of Moses. Likewise, we do not distinguish between old and new icons, but we venerate the new ones just as we do the old ones; for, as I said before, we do not seek the material substance in the icon, nor do we worship the material substance in the icon, but the holy image. Just as Saint John of Damascus wrote in his homily for Orthodox Sunday on the veneration of icons of Christ: “I do not venerate the board,” he said, “nor the wall, nor the plaster, but the image of the body (of Christ) and the gaze of the Lord [30] .” Likewise, regarding the icons of God’s saints, he says in the same sermon above: “I venerate and kiss those holy icons, not as idols, but as much as is possible through writing, and through stories to recall their sufferings, which they endured [31] .” Thus far, Damascene.

This is our Orthodox Faith, and not like that of Bryn, which believes in the substance of old icons and worships old icons as if they were God.

Chapter 6. On the Holy Cross

We also venerate the Holy Cross of the Lord—or rather, the image of that cross upon which Christ was crucified. For the very cross upon which Christ was crucified cannot be found; it has been broken into pieces and distributed among the faithful throughout the world for blessing and healing. Now, however, only a likeness of that cross is made or painted. Nevertheless, we venerate it as the very true cross, though we do not claim it to be divine; for that very cross of Christ was not God, but a tree and an instrument of execution for evildoers. We venerate the cross not because of the number of its ends, but as a remembrance of the Lord’s suffering; nor do we regard it as having eight ends, nor merely four: for we do not worship the material cross, nor the Wood, nor merely the four ends, nor the eight ends, but Christ our Lord, remembering His crucifixion on the cross. For it is not the cross, but Christ, crucified on the cross, who has saved us; and we are not called Christians because of the cross, but because of Christ Himself; and God is not the cross to us, but Christ is our God. For this reason, we place no faith whatsoever in the ends of the cross, but in Christ God Himself. As for the cross itself, whether it be four-pointed, eight-pointed, or even one with many more points, we honor it equally. For you honor the cross not for the sake of the cross itself, but for the sake of Christ Himself, who was crucified on the Cross, and you place your hope of salvation not in the material cross, but in Christ crucified on the Cross. Let us listen, then, to the holy teacher John of Damascus, who says: “We bow before the image of the honorable and life-giving cross; even if it is made of another material, not the material itself—let it not be so—but the image[32] , as the symbol of Christ.” For He said to His disciples, giving them a commandment: “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens—the cross,” He said. Thus far Damascene. Here let everyone heed these words of that teacher: we bow down before the image of the cross—not the substance itself, that is, not honoring the substance—but the image of the cross, as a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion. And again, in another place, he says: “Having seen the image of Christ’s crucifixion and having been reminded of His saving suffering, we fall down and worship not the material substance, but that which is represented[33] .” Thus far he. Pay close attention to these words: “not the material object, but the image,” that is, not the physical cross, but the image of Christ’s crucifixion represented by the cross.

This is our Orthodox Faith, not like that of Bryn, which believes in an eight-pointed cross and worships the cross itself as if it were God.

I hear the schismatics opening their blasphemous mouths, barking like dogs at the four-pointed cross of Christ, calling it the seal of the Antichrist and the Roman cross. Their wicked blasphemy is sufficiently refuted in another part of this book.

Chapter 7. On the Prosphora

As for the prosphora, we say that the sacrament is not performed in five prosphora nor in seven prosphora, but in a single one, from which the Lamb is taken. For the Church of Moscow and all of Great Russia, together with the Greeks, affirms that the particles taken from the prosphora for the living and the departed are not transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, but only the one Lamb is transubstantiated. But if the particles are not transubstantiated, but only the one Lamb: for the sacrament is performed on only one prosphora—on the one Lamb, I say—and not on five or seven prosphoras, from which particles are taken out only for the sake of remembrance of those being commemorated, and not for the sake of transubstantiation. It is indeed strange, then, that a dispute arises among the schismatics regarding the number of loaves. For in the early Church, in the days of the Apostles, the Liturgy was celebrated on a single loaf, just as it was handed down by Christ the Lord Himself at the Last Supper. Later, however, others were added to the single prosphora for the sake of commemorating the names for whom the bloodless sacrifice is offered.

Chapter 8. On Old and New Books

As for the old books and the new books, we declare that they are one and the same, just as the old and new icons are one and the same. Any changes in certain matters in the books do not constitute a change in the faith: for the new books teach us to believe in the same God as the old ones; and the new books contain the same dogmas of the faith as the old ones. The new books command us to pray to the same God as the old ones; they teach the same good deeds as the old ones; and there is no contrary teaching in the new books, just as there is none in the old ones. And those who have altered certain phrases have not distorted them, but corrected them. For many errors crept into the ancient handwritten books due to unskilled copyists, even before the printing of books existed in Russia. For the printing of books began in Moscow in the year 7061 of the world [34] , during the reign of the first Tsar of Moscow, John Vasilyevich, under Metropolitan Makarii of Moscow; but later, during the sacking of Moscow by the Poles, the printing house, along with all its equipment, was destroyed.

It was restored during the reign of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, toward the end of his reign, under the patriarchate of His Holiness Joseph, and the building that stands today is the result of that restoration; and book printing resumed in the year 7152 (1644), and books have been coming off the press ever since. Previously, there had been no book printing in Russia: all books were handwritten, beginning with the baptism of Vladimir. For from the very beginning, the Greeks who came to Russia with Vladimir from Cherson, having learned the Russian language but not yet fully mastering it, translated their own books into Russian. Likewise, the Russians, having learned the Greek language but not yet fully mastering it, began to translate Greek books into their own Russian language. At first, the Greek translators, having an imperfect understanding of certain Russian expressions, rendered some passages differently from the Greek; likewise, the Russian translators, having an imperfect grasp of certain Greek expressions, rendered some passages differently from the Greek. Later, through numerous copies, various errors and additions crept in—as can be seen in all ancient manuscripts, from which the first printed books, now called “old” by the schismatics, were printed. At first, they were printed exactly as they appeared in the manuscripts, not very accurately. Later, however, with closer examination, they were corrected based on the Greek texts: just as our faith is in agreement with that of the Greeks, so too will our books be in agreement with theirs. In correcting the textual expressions, they did not alter the faith; for certain textual expressions—whether old or new—do not constitute the faith, but are merely expressions, as was stated earlier.

Chapter 9. The Holy Fathers Were Not Saved by the Scriptures

And as for what the schismatics say—that the holy fathers were saved by the old books—they lie out of their own ignorance; for the holy fathers were not saved by literary expressions and words, but by their virtuous lives. And there were many among them who did not even know the alphabet, much less reasoned in literary terms. For it is not writing or any kind of scholarly discourse, but a life pleasing to God that saves.

If, however, salvation were to be found in the ancient books of the holy fathers, then they ought to have sought salvation not in printed books but in manuscripts; for manuscripts predate printed books, dating back from the time of Vladimir all the way to the Moscow Tsardom. And all the Russian holy fathers, in the days of the grand princes—who preceded the tsars of Moscow—read not from printed books but from manuscripts, since printed books did not yet exist in Russia. And if the salvation of the holy fathers had depended on those ancient books, apart from their virtuous lives, then even now it would not be proper to pray according to printed books, but according to the old manuscripts.

And if the salvation of the holy fathers had been preserved in the books of antiquity, it would have been so despite the many errors and omissions in those books; for those ancient manuscript books are full of them, of which I shall mention just one or two here. On the 1st day of October, during the service for the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos, after the Polyeleos, the old manuscripts read as follows: “Your most honorable omophorion, shining brighter than an elector”; in others, however, it is written, “shining brighter than an alektor”; while in printed editions it was corrected by the Venerable Maximus the Greek to read “shining brighter than the elektra.” And the foolish and ignorant murmured against Maximus, calling him a heretic, saying, “ (they said), you heretic, how dare you alter the words by which our holy fathers were saved?” We, however, will examine the meanings of “elektor,” “alektor,” and “elektra.” “Elektor” means “elector,” one who elects something or someone; “alektor” means “rooster,” as it is written in the Gospel: “Before the rooster even crows, you will have denied Me three times” ([35] ); and “elektra” signifies the brilliance of pure gold. Let us consider, then: to which of these things is it more fitting for the omophorion of the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God to be likened—to the “elector,” to the rooster, or to the brilliance of gold? Truly, it is more fitting to liken it to “elektr”—the brilliance of gold—than to “alektor”—the rooster—or to “elektor”—the “elector.” For, according to the opinion of foolish ignoramuses, the holy fathers were saved by those ancient sayings—about the elector and the rooster—as if salvation were to be found in the ancient written sayings.

Another point: on the 19th day of June, in the great handwritten Menaion of the Four, which is kept in the great Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow, in the life of the Venerable Paissius, on folio 459, it is written that the holy prophet Jeremiah often appeared to the Venerable Paissius. In that passage, the following description is found: “And with impure thoughts, that mind strove for the desired blessings”; instead of “secret thoughts,” it is written “impure thoughts.” Could the holy Prophet have stirred up impure thoughts in the venerable one? By no means. Listen carefully here: if the salvation of the holy fathers were found in the ancient written sayings, then even in that description—in the “wicked thoughts”—salvation would be found; but this is not the case. For their salvation was not found in the ancient written sayings, nor in the descriptions and errors of the manuscripts, but in their virtuous lives.

For those who say that the holy fathers were saved through the old books are lying: for no one is saved by the old sayings of the books, nor by the new ones, but by their own good deeds and unblemished faith.

Chapter 10. The New Books Have Not Changed the Faith

And since the schismatics slander us, as if we had altered the faith with the new books, we reply: the holy Apostle James, the brother of God, appointed by Christ Himself as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, wrote the holy Liturgy. That Liturgy of his was used in all the Eastern churches for nearly four hundred years. Likewise, Saint Basil the Great, pillar of the Church and teacher of the universe, having set aside James’s Liturgy and composed his own, handed it down to the churches. Here I ask the sophists of Bryn: Did Basil the Great alter the old faith by composing a new liturgy? Following him, Saint John Chrysostom composed his own liturgy—which is still celebrated to this day—and handed it down to the churches: did Chrysostom alter the faith?

Chapter 11. On Ancient Church Customs

What, then, shall we say about the ancient customs and rites (ceremonies) of the Church, and about the holy ecumenical and local councils? Do we not find in them many things that have been changed, some that have been corrected, while others have been largely abandoned, as is written in the book *The Guide*, in the canons of the Council of Laodicea, under Canon 11 [36] : “There were,” it says, “in ancient times certain customs practiced in the churches; some of these were forgotten over time, others ceased entirely, and still others were abolished by the canons.” Thus ends the Helmsman; we, however, will recall a certain matter. In ancient times, some bishops were laymen and married, as can be seen in the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in Canon 12 [37] ; for the Apostle also said: “A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife”[38] . Such was Herimon, Bishop of Nilopolis in the land of Egypt, about whom Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and an ancient chronicler of church events who lived during the reign of the great Emperor Constantine, wrote [39] : Likewise, the later historian Nikephoros Kallistos, the author of the synaxaria found in the Triodion, both agree in their accounts that this Bishop Herimon, being advanced in years, fled together with his wife to the Arabian Mountains to escape the persecutors during the time of persecution under the reign of Decius [40] .

Furthermore, some of the lay presbyters and deacons were unmarried, as can be seen in the tenth canon of the Local Council of Agkir and in the sixth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council [41] . In the ancient manuscript , an ancient book of canons, it is written that from the very beginning, the Holy Liturgy was celebrated after the meal. This is also attested to by Sozomen the Greek, an ancient chronicler of church events who lived during the reign of Theodosius the Younger. In the seventh book of his work, in chapter 19, he writes that in his day, in the lands of Egypt, many cities still observed this custom: that the Liturgy should take place after the meal, followed by the reception of the Divine Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. They did this in imitation of the Lord’s Supper, at which our Lord Christ, after eating, gave His most pure Body and Blood to His disciples. Theodosius the Younger ascended the throne four hundred years after the Nativity of Christ, and that custom was still observed in certain cities of Egypt. The same practice was observed in other countries as well: the priests would eat while celebrating the Liturgy, and the people would partake of the Eucharist after eating, especially on Holy Thursday of Passion Week. For the local council of Carthage (held during the reign of Honorius in Rome and of Theodosius the Younger in Constantinople) forbade priests from celebrating the Liturgy and the people from receiving Communion throughout the entire year, except on Holy Thursday. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, however, decreed that on Holy Thursday, priests should not celebrate the Liturgy after eating, nor should the people receive Communion after eating, as is written in the canons of that Sixth Ecumenical Council, in Canon 29, in the book *Kormchiya*, on page 186. Furthermore, an ancient authoritative manuscript states that during the days of fasting, Christians initially ate cheese, milk, and eggs, until they were fully established in their observance of fasting. And it is written that in ancient times, women also held a certain rank of service in church liturgies, similar to that of deacons; which is why they were called deaconesses; their ministry was most active at the time when women and maidens converting from paganism to Christ were being baptized, as can be seen in the lives of the saints: when Saint Cyprian was ordained bishop, he ordained the maiden Justina as a deaconess [42] . Saint Non, Bishop of Heliopolis, when he baptized the harlot Pelagia, had the deaconess Romana receive her from the holy font [43] . Saint Chrysostom, as he was leaving for his final exile, summoned the blessed deaconess Olympias along with others and exhorted them to remain steadfast in the Orthodox faith [44] . Blessed Theozwa, the wife of Saint Gregory of Nyssa, was a deaconess [45] . And many of the maidens and widows were deaconesses; regarding their order, see the canons of the Holy Fathers: the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 19, in the book *Kormchiya*, page 40, and the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Rule 15, in the book *Kormchiya*, page 99 on the reverse, and the Local Council of Carthage, Rule 6, page 120 on the reverse, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Rule 14, page 181 on the reverse. And it is well known that, in the early days, Holy Communion was not administered to the uninitiated with a spoon, but rather the Body of Christ was given separately into the hand (as the antidoron is given today), and the Blood of Christ was given separately from the chalice. (St. Chrysostom, however, established that the Body and Blood of Christ should be administered together with a spoon into the mouth, and not the Body separately into the hand. See the entry for the 9th day of November, in the life of the Venerable Theoktista of Lezvia), and later all of that, along with many other practices, was abolished at the Councils, and especially at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Here I ask: when the holy fathers set aside those ancient customs, did they alter the old Orthodox faith? By no means; for customs are subject to correction and change, but the faith remains unaltered in the Church of Christ.

Chapter 12. On Newly Introduced Practices

And just as certain ancient traditions were corrected, and others were set aside, so another new one was introduced into the Church: what is it, then? Listen. Two Greek historians from Constantinople, George Kedrin and Nikephoros Kallistos, who lived in their respective eras, recount that in the ancient churches there was originally no blessing of the waters on the eve of the Epiphany. This custom was first established in the days of Zeno, the Greek emperor in Antioch, by the heretical patriarch Peter, who was also called Knafeus and Fullo; the Church itself rejected him as a heretic, but accepted his tradition as sound. Zeno ascended to the throne in the year 474 A.D., and it is evident that even in the days of the great universal teachers—Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth century A.D.—there was no holy water on the eve of Theophany. Those great and ancient saints did not establish this practice; rather, it was established by the latter, unholy, and unorthodox bishop, and his decree was accepted by the Church and is still observed to this day. That same Peter , the heretical Patriarch of Antioch (as the aforementioned historians attest), also instituted that the Creed—“I believe in one God”—be recited aloud in the church every day; whereas previously it was recited aloud only once a year, on Good Friday, when those who had been catechized were being baptized. Later, in the Church of Constantinople, the loud recitation of “I believe in one God” every day was adopted by Patriarch Timothy of Constantinople, as Theodorus, the reader of the Church of Constantinople, writes. Furthermore, from the beginning, this hymn was not part of the Divine Liturgy: “Only-begotten Son and Word of God”[46] , and the rest; but during the reign of Justinian the Great, it was added by the emperor himself. Furthermore, George Kedrin of Constantinople writes in his *Synopsis of Histories* that during the reign of Justinus, who ascended the throne after the great Justinian [47] , it was established to sing the Cherubic Hymn during the Liturgy, which had not been sung previously. Likewise, on Holy Great Thursday, it was established to sing: “Thy Mystical Supper today, O Son of God”[48] , which had not been sung before. It is also said that the hymn to the Most Pure Theotokos, “The Most Honorable Cherubim,” was composed by Bishop Cosmas of Maium, a contemporary of Damascene, and handed down to the churches; and before Cosmas of Maium, that hymn did not exist. Cosmas and Damascene lived in the seventh century after the birth of Christ.

Here I ask: when these new hymns—which had not previously existed in Orthodox churches—were introduced, did the Orthodox faith change? By no means. What, then, shall we say about the many church hymns (songs) that have been added in recent times—such as the Octoechos of Damascene, the Triodion of Theodore the Studite, the Canons of Mitrophan, Cosmas, Joseph, and others? And what of the services composed in Russia for new saints, which did not exist in ancient times: have all these additions altered the faith?

I have heard certain ignorant people say: it is not proper to introduce anything new into the Church; for it is written at the end of the Apocalypse: “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” ([49] ). I reply: It is not proper to add to the dogmas of the faith, nor to take anything away from them; but as for the correction of church rites and statutes and the increase of God’s praise, it is proper and necessary, just as David says to God: “I will add,” he said, “to all Your praise”[50] .

Chapter 13. On the Disagreement Among the Holy Evangelists

But once again I address those who await and revile the new books. If by altering certain statements from the old books in the new ones they have altered the faith—for, according to your reasoning, one might say that even the holy Evangelists, having written certain statements and deeds that are inconsistent, created a different faith among themselves. Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel eight years after Christ’s Ascension [51] ; Saint Mark, ten years later; Saint Luke, fifteen years later; and Saint John, thirty-two years later. Let us now examine their discrepancies in certain sayings and narratives. In the Lord’s Prayer, the “Our Father,” Matthew wrote: “Give us this day”[52] ; while Luke wrote: “Give us daily.” Matthew says: “Forgive us our debts”; while Luke says: “Forgive us our sins”[53] . Matthew says: “as we forgive”; while Luke says: “for we ourselves forgive.” Matthew says: “to those who owe us”; while Luke says: “to every one who owes us.” Matthew wrote: “for thine is the kingdom and so on,” but Luke does not mention this. Here I ask: Did Saint Luke alter the faith by writing the Lord’s Prayer in different words after Matthew? Was Matthew’s faith one thing, and Luke’s faith another? There is another passage regarding Christ’s commission of the Apostles to preach. Matthew wrote that when Christ commanded the Apostles to take nothing for the journey, He said: “neither sandals nor a staff”[54] ; but Mark wrote: “only a staff and sandals”[55] . Again, Matthew writes: “As Jesus was leaving Jericho, two blind men were sitting by the roadside”[56] ; but Mark wrote of a single blind man, namely Bartimaeus[57] : did Mark perhaps differ from Matthew in his faith, having written of one blind man rather than two? Again, Matthew recounts: when Jesus came to the region of the Gerasenes, two demon-possessed men met him[58] ; but Luke speaks of a single demon-possessed man[59] . Furthermore, they wrote about the Beatitudes inconsistently. Matthew wrote of 9 Beatitudes [60] , while Luke wrote of only 4 [61] .: Did Luke change his mind, writing differently from what Matthew had written before him? Again, regarding the thieves crucified with Christ, Matthew and Mark write that both thieves reviled Him; but Luke says: one reviled Him, while the other prayed, “Remember me, Lord, when You come into Your kingdom.” Furthermore, regarding Christ’s resurrection from the dead, Matthew and Mark wrote that a single angel appeared to the myrrh-bearers at the tomb; Luke and John, however, recount that two angels appeared. Luke also says of those two angels that they were standing: “Two men stood before them in dazzling garments” ([62] ); John, however, says that they were sitting: “Two angels in white garments were sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” ([63] ). Such are the many and numerous differences in statements and narratives found in the Gospel books, yet the faith of the Evangelists is one and remains unchanged.

The teachers of Bryn are lying, and like dogs they bark at the Church of Christ, claiming that certain statements altered in the new books have changed the faith. It is from such barking dogs that the holy Apostle commands us to beware, saying: “Beware of the dogs”[64] .

Chapter 14. On the Lord’s Prayer

Moreover, the wretched ones slander the holy church because in the Jesus Prayer, instead of “Son of God,” we say “Our God,” as if we had set aside the prayer of the Son of God. O foolish ones! What dishonor is there to the Son of God when we call Him God in prayer? The Son of God is called God—is that so bad? Which title is greater and more honorable: “Son of God” or “God”? Every Orthodox Christian is called the Son of God, just as God Himself says in Scripture: “I will receive you, and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters” ([65] ). And again, Saint John the Theologian says in the Gospel: “He has granted us the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” ([66] ). Thus every Christian is called a child of God—not by nature, but by grace—just as Saint Basil the Great is called a child of God in the church hymns on January 1, in the stichera of the Praises, where it is written thus: “Having become a son of God by grace, through the rebirth of divine baptism,” and can anyone be called God? For when we call the Son of God “God,” we do not exclude Him from prayer, but rather keep Him within it, addressing Him by the greater and more honorable title of “God.” Have you ever heard of the Arian heresy, which called Christ our Lord the Son of God but did not confess Him to be God? The Arians said that the Son of God is the Son of God, but not God; He is not equal to the Father, not consubstantial, not co-enthroned, not of the same essence, and not the Creator, but a creature; He is honored only because He is called the Son of God, not God. Thus did the Arians blaspheme. For the Fathers, having judged this, commanded the Orthodox people to call the Son of God “God,” saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us!” For when we call the Son of God “God” in prayer, we orthodoxly confess that the Son of God is God. The schismatics, however, not wishing to call the Son of God “God,” are aiding the blasphemous Arians. But is not the Lord’s Prayer written in the old books as follows: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God”? Do you not, O Brynyan, refer to the so-called “old book” mentioned by you—the work of Cyril of Jerusalem—which was printed in Moscow in the year 7152 of the world, during the reign of the Pious Tsar and Grand Prince Michael Feodorovich, and during the patriarchate of Patriarch Kirill Joseph of Moscow? At the end of that book is an explanation of the Jesus Prayer, which begins on the reverse side of folio 552 and extends to the end of folio 556. Look in that explanation to see how the Jesus Prayer is set forth—is it not thus: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God”? Why, then, do you cling to the old books yet fail to heed the old book that teaches you to say: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God”? Oh, your folly and stubbornness! However, in my diocese I do not forbid praying in this manner: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us!” Provided only that no one harbors in their heart the accursed Arian heresy. It is also permissible for those who so desire to combine both—the Son of God and God—saying thus: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, our God, have mercy on us!”

Let us also cite here the “Limonar” of the most holy Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, as testimony to the prayer of Jesus, the Son of God, whom he calls God. It is written in that book of Sophronius, in chapter 51, that the Most Holy Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch [67] , in order to convince a heretical stylite, cast his omophorion into the fire and prayed, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God,” and so on. And in Chapter 44: A certain elder prayed for his negligent disciple who had died, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, reveal to me the fate of my brother’s soul.” And in Chapter 155: Abba Jordan, having seen three Saracens holding a young man captive, and wishing to ransom him from them, found that they would not accept a ransom for him, saying that they had promised to offer him as a sacrifice to their priest; then the elder, kneeling on the ground, began to pray to God, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, save Your servant from these godless barbarians!” And immediately all three Saracens flew into a rage and, drawing their swords, cut each other down; and the young man, having been set free, followed the elder.

This clearly shows that even the holy fathers of ancient times prayed the Jesus Prayer, saying, “Our God.” Why, then, do you rage, O adversaries of the Holy Church, grumbling against us because of the Jesus Prayer, since we call the Son of God “God”? Do not grumble against us, but against those ancient saints—if you are not ashamed and do not fear the wrath of God; rail against them, for they prayed thus: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God!”

Chapter 15. On the Name of Jesus

And the schismatics also slander us, as if we had altered the Savior’s name, writing “i҆i҃s” instead of “i҆s҃,” and they despise that most holy name “i҆i҃s,” and the icon of Christ; if they see “i҆i҃s” written on it, they do not worship it, but revile us, saying, “In them is ‘i҆sꙋ̀s.’” Thus these schismatics blasphemously interpret that most holy name “i҆i҃s” as “i҆sꙋ̀s.” And seeking, as it were, to expose us, they say: “When Christ was circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law of Moses, they gave him the name ‘i҆s҃,’ the name given by the Angel, even before he was conceived in the womb[68] .” The angel gave the Son of God a name before His conception, but they—having set aside the name the angel had given—gave Him another name of their own, i҆i҃s, and thus “in i҆sꙋ̀s” came to be among them.

We, however, exposing the folly of their reasoning, ask them: Tell us, O foolish “wise men” and blasphemous slanderers! When the Angel announced to the Most Pure Virgin the conception of the Son of God, in what language, in what tongue did he speak to her—Russian, or some other? And in what language did he name the Savior—in Russian, or in some other language? If the Angel spoke to the Most Pure Virgin in the Russian language, then your claim is true—that he named the Son of God “Iesus”; but if the Angel did not speak in the Russian language, then you will be found to be liars.

Open the eyes of your blinded minds, and see for yourselves: of what race and language was the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God, where did she live, and in what language did the Angel speak to her at the Annunciation? For she was a maiden of Jewish descent and language, not Russian; she lived in the land of the Jews, not in Russia: for the Angel spoke to her—who was a Jewish maiden—in the Hebrew language, not in Russian.

Here again we ask you: that most holy name, which according to Greek custom is written as the abbreviation ί҆σ҃ under the title, is called Jesus—how is it pronounced in the Hebrew language? Tell us, if you know. But we know that you will not say it, for you do not know. Therefore, you who are ignorant, take heed and understand, if you are able to understand.

Those who are literate in the Hebrew language say that the Savior’s name was pronounced in various ways according to the customs of the Jewish lands.

Some called Him: IOSVA.

Some—IESVA.

Some called Him — — — IESKVA.

All of these, however, have a single meaning: Savior.

And Saint Basil the Great (whom we ought to follow above all others) states in his grammar that the name ι҆ι҃ς is derived from the Hebrew word Yeshua, which signifies salvation; but I believe rather (says Basil) that it comes from ΙΑὨ, that is, “whole,” the future tense being ΙΑΣΩ, hence “Jesus.” Thus far Basil. Basil’s grammar can be found in the third volume of his works, printed in Greek and Latin in Paris in the year 1638 A.D., on page 595 of that volume. For “Jesus” is interpreted from the Hebrew as “Savior,” and from the Greek as “Healer.” This can also be seen in the book of Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the fourth treatise against Apollinaris, where he says as follows: “Jesus is called from ‘Iasato,’ that is, ‘he heals the afflictions of his people.’ He healed them when he deigned to take on the form of a servant.” Thus far Saint Athanasius. It is evident that he, like Basil the Great, derives the most holy name “Iisus” from the Greek word Ἰάω (“I heal”), the future tense being Ἰάσω (Iaso), and the imperative Ίάσατο (Iasato), hence Iasous. And when the Angel announced to the Most Pure Virgin the conception of the Son of God, speaking to her in Hebrew, he named (according to the accounts of Baeliel and Athanasius) the Son of God “Jesus” (and not the Russian “і҆sꙋ̀ s”). Likewise, regarding the evangelist Matthew, who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language (for he alone wrote the Gospel in a Hebrew dialect), it is to be understood that he wrote the Savior’s name in Hebrew as Iasous (according to the account of Basil and Athanasius the Great); and not in the Russian form, і҆сꙋ̀с.

Why, then, is that most holy name not written or pronounced as “i҆asꙋ̀s” in the Hellenic-Greek language, but rather as “i҆i҃s”? This is because, among the Helleno-Greeks, the grammatical rules of the most ancient Ionic dialect dictate that the letter A, when it follows the letter I in the decimal alphabet, is always changed to the octal I, as in the following example: Iatír (physician) is rendered there as Iítír. Hermias (Hermes) is rendered as Hermies. Thus, Jesus, a Hebrew name, is rendered by them as i҆is, having changed the “A” to an “I.” And this is not a distortion or defacement of the name, but a grammatical rule of the Hellenic language, as has been stated. For when the four holy Evangelists wrote their Gospels about Christ the Lord, Matthew, who wrote in the Hebrew language, wrote the most holy name of the Savior (according to the account of Basil and Athanasius) as “Jesus”; Mark, who wrote in the Roman language, wrote “Iesus”; For the Romans replace the letter “A” with “E” according to the grammatical rules of their language, just as the Greeks replace it with “I”; Luke and John, however, who wrote in Greek, wrote it as “і҆i҃с.” From these Greeks, we Russians have adopted the practice of writing and pronouncing that most holy name, together with the Greek Orthodox faith.

Know also this: in the Hellenic-Greek language, the Savior’s name is written in two ways—either in full, using all letters without a title, or in an abbreviated form, under a title. When written in full, it is “Isous”; the abbreviated form is “і҆и҃с,” and the even shorter form is “і҆с҃.” Although they sometimes write that name using the shortest abbreviation—covering only the first and last letters with an accent to form “i҆s҃”—they never say “Jesus,” but always say and sing “Iisous.”

For even among us, that Most Holy Name is sometimes written in full without the title, as can be seen in the book of John Chrysostom’s homilies on Paul’s epistles, on page 1374, where it is written thus: “For if anyone comes preaching another Jesus[69] ,” and so on. It is more common among us to write it with the title “і҆с҃,” though it is proper to say it as the Greeks do—not “Jesus,” but “Iisus”—even if they sometimes write it more abbreviatedly as “і҆с҃.” And since our Russian people are unskilled—unlike the Greeks, who pronounce the name with the extended form even when writing it in its abbreviated form—they pronounce it in the abbreviated form just as they write it. They write “і҆s҃” and say “Jesus”; for this reason, it is better for us to write “і҆i҃s” rather than “і҆s҃,” so that the full name of the Savior, as among the Greeks, is pronounced in three syllables and not just two. For sometimes it is written as “i҆i҃s,” and sometimes as “Jesus.” “i҆i҃s,” as we said before, is translated from the Hebrew as “Savior,” and from the Greek as “Healer.” As for what “Jesus” signifies, listen carefully. In Greek, “Isos” means “equal”; “Ous” means “ear.” When these two words are combined, they form “Isous,” which means “equal-eared.” But let us not call our Savior Christ by such a name. For this reason, it is better to write “і҆и҃с” rather than “і҆s҃,” and to pronounce it in three syllables, signifying our Savior and Healer, Christ , rather than in two syllables, signifying “equal-eared.” For all four Evangelists, in three languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Latin—wrote the Lord’s name in three syllables, not two, as we have said. In Hebrew, it is “Yeshua”; in Latin, “Iesus”; and in Greek, “Iisous,” signifying our Savior and Healer. In the Russian language, however, the schismatics, pronouncing it with only two syllables—"Iisus"—do not confess the Savior and Healer of our souls. Indeed, “Jesus” is within them: for they do not confess the true Iisus, the Savior and Healer, but some other “Jesus” of the same sound. And they slander the Angel the Herald, who announced the conception of the Son of God to the Most Pure Virgin, as if he had named Him “Jesus.” But now their lie has been exposed, and their foolish reasoning has been put to shame; and the blasphemy that came from their rotten mouths against the most holy name of Jesus will return upon their own heads. For in them is found Jesus, the so-called “equal-eared”; but in us there is only one, who was before, is now, and will be forever, Jesus, who is called the Savior and Healer of our souls, Christ the Lord, who, although written in the Gospels using the most abbreviated Greek form under the title “і҆s҃,” is nevertheless pronounced “І̑исоу́с” with three syllables, not two.

In the tsar’s library, located at the Printing House in Moscow, there is a handwritten Greek Gospel in Kharatei script. And as was written 1,100 years ago and more, as is also mentioned in the book titled *Uvet Duhovenny*, on page 32, on the reverse side. In that Gospel, before the Gospel of Saint John the Theologian, the most holy name of the Savior is written in the shape of a cross as follows:

In Greek, ΙΗΣΟΓΣ ΣωΣΟΝ

In Slavonic, І̑исоу́се спасѝ

It has thus become evident that, for the sake of us Russians who are uneducated, it is better to write the Savior’s name as “і҆i҃s” rather than “і҆s҃,” so that it is pronounced in three syllables rather than two.

As for the placement of the fingers in the sign of the cross, enough has been written on this in the Book of Psalms, which begins with a preface; let those who wish read it there: but those who do not understand the meaning should simply listen.

It is now time for us to examine another article.

Article Two. Is Their Faith the Old Faith?

Chapter 16. What does the Old Faith consist of?

The old faith consists of two things:

1) In the Orthodox dogmas, confirmed by the holy Apostles and the Ecumenical Councils:

2) And in the ancient traditions of the Church, which the holy Apostles and the holy ancient Fathers handed down to the faithful to uphold in the Orthodox faith.

Let us explain this simply for the sake of the laity: here in Russia, the Old Faith is the one that Saint Vladimir, the Great Prince, when he was baptized in Cherson, received from the Greeks and brought to Russia, and by which he enlightened the Russian lands, and the Russian Church was established in those Orthodox dogmas and church traditions brought by Vladimir from the Greeks, and even to this day remains in them—that is the old faith.

Let us therefore examine both the dogmas and the ecclesiastical traditions brought by Vladimir from the Greeks, and let us consider, in light of both, whether the Bryn faith is the old faith.

An Examination of the Old Faith in Light of Orthodox Dogmas.

In the beginning,

Chapter 17. On the Most Holy Trinity

To believe and confess that God in the Trinity is one—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who are distinct in person but indivisible in the essence of the Godhead: this is the old faith brought to Russia by Vladimir from the Greeks.

The Brynians, however, do not confess a single Divine essence in the Trinity, but divide it into three and into four, as we shall soon hear.

For their faith is not ancient, but new. And since the Brynians do not profess a single Divine essence in the Trinity, but divide it into three and into four, we shall clearly see this from their very letters.

Recently, by God’s providence, copies of letters from the renowned schismatic teacher Avvakum—a former protopope who was defrocked and excommunicated, yet whom the Brynyans venerate as a saint, calling him a new passion-bearer, painting his icon, and worshiping him—have come into our possession. In those letters, we include here his reflection on the Holy Trinity, as found in his epistle to the Solovetsky elder Ignatius.

Habakkuk says:

Behold, Ignatius of Solovetsky, and believe in the Triune Trinity.

Listen, Orthodox believers in the consubstantial Trinity: who has ever heard of a tri-substantial Trinity? Did not the holy Apostles and the holy Fathers teach us to confess a single essence in the Holy Trinity? There is not enough time for us, who write briefly, to cite all the Orthodox dogmatic writings and teachings of each of them; let us mention only one, St. John of Damascus, who, in the Octoechos, in the third tone, at Great Vespers, sings thus: “I glorify the power of the Father and the Son, and I sing of the authority of the Holy Spirit, the indivisible, uncreated Godhead, the consubstantial Trinity, reigning from age to age.”

This is the consubstantial Trinity, not the tri-substantial one, which we confess in the Orthodox faith.

But among the schismatics, a certain new confession has arisen—not Orthodox, but heretical—in which they confess a Trinity of three distinct persons.

For their faith is not the old faith, but a new faith—a new, contrary doctrine that has never existed before, invented by Vladimir and not brought from the Greeks.

Again, Avvakum:

Do not fear this division into three, for there is one essence and one nature, divided into three persons.

Listen, Orthodox believers: is this not heresy and blasphemy against the Holy Trinity—dividing the one essence of God and the one nature into three? Is this the old faith? Did the Church receive such a faith from the holy Apostles and the holy Fathers? Did Saint Vladimir bring such a faith from the Greeks to Russia? By no means. In the days of Vladimir, along with the accepted holy faith, church books translated from Greek into the Slavonic language also came to Russia; from among these, let us now open one, called the Octoechos, and let us look at the first tone, in the canon to the Most Life-Giving Holy Trinity, sung at the weekly Midnight Office, composed by Mitrofanov, in the sedalion of the sixth ode, and let us read and see how the consubstantial Trinity is confessed. It is written there as follows: “To the Most Holy Trinity, indivisible in essence, consisting of three Persons inseparably united, and abiding indivisibly in the essence of the Godhead, we earth-born beings bow down.” Herein lies the Orthodox confession concerning the Holy Trinity: the Holy Trinity is indivisible in nature; the Persons are distinct, yet inseparable, and remain indivisible in the essence of the Godhead.

But the schismatic teacher Avvakum Rospopa teaches his disciples in Brynyan to divide the one essence of God into three essences and to separate the one nature of God into three natures. When has such a wicked faith and blasphemous heresy ever existed in Russia? Did it exist in the days of the holy fathers, the Russian miracle-workers? By no means, never; but it is a recent phenomenon, introduced in our time by the insane reasoning of Avvakum and his disciples.

For the Bryn faith is not the old faith, but a new faith, which divides and separates the indivisible Divine nature and essence of the Trinity into three, something that has never before existed in Russia.

Again, Avvakum:

The source of Divinity flows in three; do not say, as Arius did, that there are three unequal natures, but rather three equal natures or beings—that is enough; do not go any further.

Oh, Avvakum, not a theologian but a babbler, who with this wicked dogmatization of yours has clearly shown himself to be a fool! First, though he pretends to be a teacher, he does not know what the Arian heresy is; for Arius did not say that there are three divine natures, but only one in the Father alone: he did not confess the Son to be God, but only the Son; and he said that the Son is not God by nature, but by grace. Second, Abbaqum is foolish, for he divides the nature and essence of the Godhead into three. Is there not an equal evil in failing to confess the Holy Trinity, as Arius did, and in dividing the divine nature and essence into three, as Abbaqum does, who, while fleeing the Arian heresy, has invented a heresy no less grave, and has become like a bewildered man fleeing a flame, yet throwing himself into a fiery furnace, and, while fleeing a foreign weapon, slaying himself with his own sword in his madness?

But Avvakum further explains his heretical reasoning, saying thus:

“Each has a separate seat—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the three Heavenly Kings sit there, not hidden.”

Who among the orthodox would not laugh at such a mad teaching of the infamous schismatic teacher Habakkuk, as if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each sat separately in heaven? Do not the three Hypostases of the Trinity reign in the unity of their Divinity?

It is well known that Abakum, during his time as a priest, did not read the Lenten Triodion—the works of Saint Theodore the Studite—during Holy Lent, or, if he did read them, he did not understand them. In it, on the first Sunday of Lent, in the canon for the condemnation of heretics, in Ode 9, the Triodion reads as follows: “I glorify the Divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one essence in three Hypostases, an indivisible being, distinct in persons, one in sovereignty, omnipresent.” Thus, Saint Theodore the Studite, together with the entire Orthodox Church, confesses the Holy Trinity as one in sovereignty, not three in sovereignty; whereas Avvakum blasphemously claims it to be three in sovereignty, not one in sovereignty. When has there ever been such a foolish conception regarding the Holy Trinity in the Church of Christ, such as this schismatic conception? Never: this is a new blasphemy against the Holy Trinity invented by them.

For their schismatic faith is not the old faith, but a new faith, the inventor of new heresies.

O foolish Avvakum! You should have been chopping wood in your own home with an axe, rather than meddling in matters not your own, and using your peasant-like reasoning to divide the consubstantial Trinity into three.

Even the most skilled theologians, who have studied theological doctrine for many years, speak with caution when they discourse on the Godhead: yet you, having never heard of theology, nor even knowing what theology is, have dared to open your boastful mouth to dogmatize about the Godhead; and though you sought to appear as a theologian, you have revealed yourself to be a blasphemer, a heretic, and a slanderer of the Holy Trinity. You should have read in the *Margaret* the words of St. John Chrysostom on the Incomprehensible, and from there you should have learned to honor the Most Holy Consubstantial Trinity more through silence than by uttering senseless, verbose discourse about Her.”

Again, Avvakum says:

Christ sits on a separate throne, reigning equally with the Holy Trinity.

Let heaven hear, and let the earth take note, of this new heresy, unheard of since the beginning of time: that Christ is distinct from the Holy Trinity. For the schismatics, this is no longer a Trinity, but a quaternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with Christ as the fourth person. Where has such a belief ever been heard? When has such a belief ever existed in Russia? Is this not a new heresy, dividing the Son of God into two—the Son of God as one, Christ as another—so that (according to their heresy) there are now two Sons of God the Father, and thus a quartet has been formed?

Is this the true faith? Is this the old faith? Did Vladimir bring this from the Greeks? Is this the Orthodox confession? Is this pious Christianity? Is this not a pernicious heresy, contrary to the old holy faith, abominable to God, and a source of joy to the devil?

O utter madness and delusion! How dare you, wretched schismatics, call your faith the “old faith,” when you have invented and embraced such fierce heresies for yourselves? No, truly no—your faith is not old, but new, filled with new heresies.

Chapter 18. On the Incarnation of Christ. Avvakum’s Faith

I, Avvakum, thus confess and believe: the nature of God is unchangeable; yet God poured out the Word into the Virgin’s womb, endowing it with natural power—that is, perfect grace—for power is subject to God’s will, since He willed and poured Himself out in an ineffable manner, while His very essence remains utterly unalterable.

What foolish reasoning from a peasant! Did he even realize what he was rambling about? Are not these words of his darkness, gloom, and utter delusion?

First, he says that the attribute of the Son is not immutable; yet he does not explain—nor does he even know—what the Son’s attribute is. He also calls this attribute “essence,” not knowing that there is another attribute in the Holy Trinity, one that is distinct and separate for each Person, as Saint Mitrofan confesses in the Trinitarian Canon, saying: We proclaim the single image of the Godhead, in the three hypostatic and distinct attributes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [70] :

For it is the attribute of the Father to beget the Son and to send forth the Spirit.

The property of the Son is to be begotten by the Father, but not to beget another Son from Himself.

The attribute of the Holy Spirit is to proceed from the one Father. These are the attributes of the Persons of the Trinity.

But the divine essence is common to the three Persons, and is one and indivisible.

Habakkuk also says that God the Word poured out into the Virgin’s womb not Himself, but the natural power of His essence. And he interprets that power as the grace of perfect being, while the divine essence of the Son itself is as if it were by no means inaccessible from heaven. And thus, according to his reasoning, there came to be two Sons: one with the Father in heaven, and the other incarnated in the Virgin’s womb, sent by that Son who is with the Father in heaven.

He expresses this heretical confession of his own in other, even clearer words as follows:

“I confess the power of the Godhead in the Virgin’s womb, but not the Divine Being Himself, as proceeding from the Most High, but rather an inexpressible providence.”

And again he speaks of the same:

Having descended from heaven by the power of His grace to us, wholly into the most pure Virgin: in His essence He is wholly good, but in His being He is wholly one with the Father, indivisible. Thus far Abbaqum on the Incarnation of Christ.

He also taught his disciples to reason in the same way, and one of them, named Erofey Andreev, wrote the following in his letters:

The Son was incarnated through goodness and providence, apart from His essence.

Oh, this new Nestorius, Habakkuk, with his disciples! This wicked teacher, through the confession of his harmful faith, teaches in the manner of Nestorius, as if the Son of God Himself had not become incarnate in the Virgin’s womb, but had merely poured out His power or grace into her, and that His power or grace had, as it were, become incarnate in the Virgin’s womb, and as if the Son of God Himself had not come down from heaven to earth. For the Most Holy Theotokos (according to Avvakum’s heresy, as well as according to Nestorius’s perverse reasoning) is not the Mother of God, but merely the Mother of Christ; since she did not give birth to the Son of God Himself (as they falsely blaspheme), but only to a certain power or grace called Christ. But let us, the orthodox, not even entertain this heresy in our minds; for we believe and confess that the Most Pure Virgin is the true Mother of God, who gave birth to the true God the Word, just as the holy fathers taught us to believe at the Third Ecumenical Council, convened in Ephesus against the wicked Nestorius. And Saint John of Damascus, in Book 4, On the Faith, Chapter 15, writes: “The Mother of God is and is called so in a sovereign and true sense.” And again: “The Son of God was born of her, not a god-bearing man, but God incarnate [71] .” And Saint Mitrophan, the composer of the canons, in Tone 3, in the Triune Canon, at the weekly Midnight Office, in the 5th ode, in the Theotokos’s hymn, says: “From you was born Christ, in His essence and will, in a unique manner.” For the divine nature of God, united with human nature in the Virgin’s womb into the one Person of Christ, and from that very moment when Christ was incarnated, God was perfect, and so was man; and man was perfect, and so was God, in distinct natures yet united in a single, indivisible person. For even though the Son of God was incarnated in the Virgin’s womb by His divine nature, He was not separated from the Father—unlike what Habakkuk and his disciples reasoned, namely, that if the Son of God Himself had descended into the Virgin’s womb by His divine nature, He would no longer have been in heaven with the Father, but would have been cut off from Him. O folly of the foolish, who do not understand the indivisible Divine Being! For even though the Son of God was on earth in His hypostasis, He was not separated from the Divinity of the Father reigning in heaven; and at the same time, He was in Hades with the soul, in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father, just as, while in the Virgin’s womb, He did not depart from the Father, and while living among men, He did not depart from the Father—as the Holy Church proclaims in the hymns of the Feast of the Ascension during Great Vespers in the Slavnik: “Do not depart from the Father’s bosom, O sweetest Jesus, , even as You lived on earth as a man.” And in the Irmoses of the seventh tone, in the fourth song: “Do not leave the Father’s bosom, O Christ God, even as You descended to earth.” But Christ our Lord Himself, when asked by Saint Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” replied: “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father; do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?”[72] . Behold this, O Brynyans! For the true Son of God, by His divine nature, was incarnated in the womb of the Most Holy Theotokos, and did not send any other from Himself to be incarnated; and the true Theotokos is the Most Pure Virgin Mary, who conceived and gave birth to the ineffably true God. Cursed, therefore, be Nestorius, cursed also be Abbaqum, both along with their like-minded followers, blasphemers of the Incarnation of God the Word, and likewise of the Incarnation of God through the true Mother of God.

Hear, O orthodox believers, what kind of teacher the schismatics have for themselves; from him, too, their other teachers have sprung. They have as their teacher Abbaqum the heretic, a companion of Arius in blaspheming the Holy Trinity, and a like-minded follower of Nestorius in blaspheming the Incarnation of God. They divide the indivisible Divine Trinity, splitting it into three and four, as you have heard; nor do they confess that the Son of God was truly incarnated in the womb of the Most Pure Virgin, but only that He sent His grace into her. Is this the old faith? Is their schismatic faith “old” simply because they have revived the old heresy of Nestorius?

Chapter 19. On Christ’s Descent into Hell

What does that schismatic teacher Avvakum say?

He claims that Christ’s soul ascended from the cross to heaven to the Father; but after rising from the tomb, Christ descended into hell with His body following His resurrection from the dead.

Hear, O faithful, what that mad teacher is raving about—he was a protopope, yet he either did not read the services for the Glorious Resurrection or, having read them, did not understand them, for there it is written: in the tomb in the flesh, but into Hades with His soul as God. This is the Orthodox confession of the holy ancient faith concerning Christ’s descent into hell: that Christ our Lord lay in the tomb in the flesh, but with His most holy soul, by the power of His Divinity, He descended into hell to bring up from there the souls of the holy forefathers. And Saint John of Damascus speaks of this as follows: “The deified soul (of Christ) descends into Hades, so that just as the sun shines upon those on earth who are righteous, so too does the light shine upon those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death beneath the earth [73] .” Thus far, Damascus. Thus, having been separated from the flesh, the soul of Christ immediately goes to Hades to deliver the souls of the saints from there; but Avvakum says that the soul of Christ first goes from the flesh to the Father, and then returns from the Father to the flesh to revive it, and thus Christ, after His Resurrection, descended into Hades with His flesh. For the faith of Habakkuk and his disciples, the Brynians, is not the old faith, but a new one, a faith contrary to the old holy faith.

Here again I say to the Brynyans:

If you, O Brynians, consider it a great sin that certain old expressions have been altered in the new books (alterations made not in opposition to the holy faith, but as textual corrections), then judge for yourselves: which is the greater sin—to alter a certain textual expression, or to corrupt the dogmas of the faith? And which distorts the faith more: a certain altered phrase in a book, or the heretical Nestorian doctrine that you yourselves have devised? In Moscow, certain passages in the newly corrected books—which were outdated and in need of correction—have been corrected; yet you, by refusing to accept the newly corrected books, have rejected the old Orthodox faith and invented for yourselves a new, blasphemous faith. Who, then, has sinned more: those who corrected the books, or those who rejected the Orthodox dogmas of the Orthodox faith? And by what do you hope to be saved? By the old books, or by faith? If by the books, then you have no need of faith; but if by faith, then why have you fallen away from the old Orthodox faith? Which is greater: the old books, or the old faith? We know that you boast as if you were upholding the old faith; but this has clearly exposed the novelty of your faith, not its antiquity, and you no longer hold to a single faith, but to many: for we hear that there are as many faiths as there are hermitages in the Bryneki forests. Is this not so? Examine this for yourselves.

Chapter 20. On the Names of the Bryn Hermits

In the past year of 1708, in the month of November, a Black Priest named Joasaph, the builder of the Spasskaya Roevskaya Hermitage in the Balakhonsky District, visited us in Rostov; he gave us small booklets containing the text * *—a response to the schismatics—though the author’s name is not mentioned. In that text, the names of the Brynsk Hermits are listed as follows, and I record them here:

The names of the Brynsk hermits:

Christ-worship, or rather, Antichrist-worship.

Iconoclasm.

Priest-worship.

Anti-priesthood.

Sensualists.

Heretics.

Anufriyevism.

Efrosinovism.

Iosifovism.

Kalinovism.

Kipreyanovshchina.

Ilarionovshchina.

Serapionovshchina.

Kozminshchina.

Volosatovshchina.

Isakovshchina.

Stefanovism.

Avvakumovshchina.

The Burners.

The Morelites.

And other such groups, named after their teachers; and all these wretched deceivers are at odds with one another, despise one another, and neither drink, nor eat, nor pray together, and call one another heretics. Thus far in those notebooks regarding the names and disagreements of those Brynsk hermitages.

In the present year of 1709, in the month of March, on the first Sunday of Great Lent, we had among us certain men who had been in the Bryn forests and lived there, namely the following: Peter Ermilov of Yaroslavl, and Elder Andronik from the Borisoglebsky Monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky; and after them came Elder Pakhomius, who had been taken as a child from the Poshekhonsky District to those forests, grew up there, and was rebaptized by the schismatics twice after his true baptism here. We asked them about the aforementioned Brynsk hermitages: are they indeed what they are said to be? They told us that not all the hermitages are now called by those names, though they were so called before, for some hermitage leaders have passed away, while others have moved to other countries, and many have gone to Poland; for there, as they say, many of them have settled in certain places, while here others have taken their place.

And as for the sketes now found in the Bryn forests, they told us this about them, as far as they know:

This movement is called “Christendom” because they have as their teacher a certain man named Christ, and they pray to him as if he were the true Christ.

The Iconoclasts, who reject all holy icons, both old and new.

The “Priestless” sect, which accepts fugitive priests and performs certain church sacraments according to the old books.

The anti-priestly sect, which completely rejects all sacraments and accepts no priests whatsoever.

Sensualists claim that the Antichrist has already come into the world in a tangible form, but they do not reveal his true identity.

The “Misinterpreters.” All their heretical sects are so named because they all misinterpret the Holy Scriptures.

There is also the Anufrians, as well as the Avvakumites; for the hermitages of a certain Archpriest Avvakum uphold his teachings.

There is also the Serapionite sect, as well as the Morelites, who starve themselves to death (as if for Christ); but Serapion himself has already died, though his teaching has not yet perished.

There is also the Volosatov sect, as well as the “Burners,” who persuade many to commit self-immolation as if for Christ’s sake, while taking the remaining possessions of those who have been burned for themselves.

The Ilarionites. In their sketes, unordained laymen act as priests, and they claim that the Eucharist and chrism were consecrated before Patriarch Nikon.

The Fedosian sect. They despise lawful marriage, calling it fornication. They revile the priesthood but do not adhere to the anti-priesthood movement.

The Josephites reorder the clergy according to their own peasant-style hierarchy.

The Efremovites do not reject the four-pointed cross, but they revile all church rites.

The Jacobites. Their leader is Jacob, nicknamed Zubov. Like the other schismatics, they reject the four-pointed cross, yet they have nuns living with them in the same cells; the same is true in other hermitages.

The Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath according to Jewish custom.

And many others say that there are, in those forests, hermitages—both large and small, for men and for women—whose beliefs are diverse and whose practices are strange; some of these are mentioned in the third part of this book, where the schismatic acts that are contrary to the Holy Church are to be revealed in order to expose their errors.

Here, however, it is stated precisely that all their hermitages are at odds with one another in their beliefs; they agree on only one thing: they unanimously blaspheme the Church of Christ, the holy sacraments, and us, the orthodox believers. Just as Pilate and Herod were at enmity with one another [74] , but when the time came to kill Christ, they joined forces: so too the Brynians, though they do not agree in their beliefs, are hostile toward one another; yet they join forces to blaspheme the Church of Christ, and in unison, as with one mouth, from their malicious hearts, they utter fierce blasphemies too terrible for the ear to bear.

Are not all these discordant beliefs of theirs simply new beliefs that did not exist before? And is not the Bryn Desert, with its beliefs, like a chimera—a beast or a specter—breathing fire from its nostrils, as is told, with the head and chest of a lion, the belly of a goat, and the tail of a serpent [75] ? For the Bryn Desert breathes its malice upon the Church of God like fire, roars with blasphemies like a lion, and grazes self-destructively, without a shepherd, and lawlessly like a goat; and just as the serpent seen in the Apocalypse swept away a third of the stars of heaven with its tail and cast them to the earth[76] : Thus the Bryn Desert sends forth its serpent-like tails—teachers (I say) who are serpent-like—into cities and towns, casting off the souls of Orthodox Christians from the heavenly realm of the Church as if they were stars, and hurling them into its own abyss. For there is no Bryn faith, no old faith, but a new faith, a new chimera.

Chapter 21. On Church Traditions

An Examination of the Old Faith in Light of Church Traditions.

From the beginning, the holy faith has been established not only by the Gospel and Apostolic writings, the teachings of the great teachers, and the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, but also by their traditions. This is evident from the words of the holy Apostle Paul, who says to the Corinthians: “I commend you, brothers, that you remember all that I taught you, and that you hold fast to the traditions just as I handed them on to you” ([77] ), and to the Thessalonians he says: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by our letter” ([78] ). Regarding this passage, St. Chrysostom writes as follows: “From this it is evident that the Apostles did not transmit everything through their epistles, but much was transmitted without writing”[79] ; “yet both those and these are trustworthy.” Therefore, we consider the Church’s tradition to be trustworthy, and thus St. Chrysostom proclaimed:

“Tradition is all there is; seek nothing more.”

Traditions are of two kinds: one pertaining to the dogmas of the faith—such as the seven sacraments and the pious veneration of God’s holy relics—and the other pertaining to church rites and ceremonies, such as the celebration of feasts , the observance of fasts, the commemoration of the departed, and other church rites and statutes—which, though not written in the Holy Gospel or the Book of the Apostles, nor are they faith in and of themselves, such as faith in the one invisible God—nevertheless, since they are part of church tradition and a known sign of the true faith of an orthodox person; therefore we are bound to preserve them, as St. Chrysostom exhorts: “Tradition is enough; seek nothing more.”

It is up to us, however, to examine which traditions of the holy faith Saint Vladimir brought from the Greeks to Russia; and whoever preserves those traditions brought by Vladimir along with the faith possesses the old faith; but whoever does not preserve them does not possess the old faith, but has invented some new faith for himself.

From the very beginning of the faith in Russia, our Russian Orthodox Church has upheld all the sacraments of the Church in their entirety, unshakably, according to the rites and rituals established from ancient times and brought to Russia by Vladimir along with the faith: for our faith is the old faith.

The Brynians, however, do not observe the sacraments of the Church but despise them; for their faith is not the old faith, but some new one.

And as the Brynians do not observe the holy sacraments, this is known to all.

They do not practice holy baptism as it is performed according to church rites.

There is no anointing with chrism, which is performed at baptism.

They do not have the Eucharist, the communion of the true Body and Blood of Christ.

They have no priesthood.

They have no sacrament of penance or absolution of sins.

They do not practice lawful marriage, for they live together without a wedding ceremony; and even if they do marry, it is done improperly—by self-appointed priests who are not ordained, or by fugitives who are excommunicated. This is because many among them have revived the Nicolaitan heresy, which permits men to have multiple wives, as discussed in the third part.

Nor is there any anointing of the sick among them.

And since all the holy mysteries, preserved by the Holy Church from ancient times and brought to Russia together with the Faith by Vladimir, the Brynians have rejected them: for they have rejected the old faith and invented a new one for themselves; and how is it that they are not ashamed to call their old faith “the faith,” having rejected all the ancient traditions of the Church and possessing not even a trace of the old faith within themselves?

From the very beginning of the faith in Russia, churches of God began to be built, holy liturgies were celebrated in them, and sacrifices and offerings were made for the living and the departed.

The Brynians have none of this: for they have no old faith in them.

From the very beginning of the faith in Russia, both old and new icons were equally venerated; for at that time, the Russian land could not be content with the icons brought by the Greeks alone, but also began to paint new ones of its own.

But now the Brynians venerate only the old icons and reject the new ones: for they do not hold to the old Russian faith, but to some new faith.

From the beginning of the Christian faith in Russia, both four-pointed and eight-pointed holy crosses were equally venerated, as clearly evidenced by the four-pointed cross brought by Vladimir of Cherson, which to this day stands visible in Moscow, in the Great Cathedral, on the altar behind the throne.

The Brynians, however, accept only the eight-pointed cross and reject the four-pointed one; for they do not hold to the old Russian faith, but to some new faith.

Chapter 22. On the Veneration of the Holy Gospel

From the very beginning of the faith in Russia, we have followed the church tradition of honoring the Holy Gospel, which is carried out from the altar to the people during Sunday Matins after the reading of the Sunday Gospel, so that the people may bow down and kiss it.

The Brynians, however, teach that one should not worship the Holy Gospel; for they do not hold to the old Russian faith, but to a certain new one.

And that the Brynians teach not to worship the Holy Gospel is evident from the letters of Avvakum’s disciple, Erofey Andreev, and his companions, who wrote as follows: “To worship the Gospel—a text written in ink—is a Tatar custom.”

Hear, O orthodox believers, the words of that schismatic, mad “sage”—words worthy of ridicule. He claims that bowing to the Holy Gospel is a Tatar custom. Has there ever been a Gospel in the Tatar faith to which the Tatars would bow? Is it not clear that this schismatic is lying and raving, condemning us as if we were bowing to the ink with which the Gospel was written? But, O accursed heretic, deprived of sound mind and true faith! Do you know how the orthodox Christians honor the Holy Gospel? If you do not know, listen carefully:

When we bow before the Holy Gospel, we do not bow before the physical object itself, nor before the boards inlaid with silver or gold, nor before the paper, nor before the ink, but before the Word of God written in the Gospel. Just as when we bow before holy icons, we do not bow to the boards, the paint, the brushstrokes, or the material itself, but to the image of the saint’s face; and just as when we bow before the cross, we do not bow to the material itself—neither to the wood nor to any substance from which the cross is made; nor do we look upon a four-pointed or eight-pointed cross, but when we see any cross, we remember the Lord’s suffering, and we bow down to the Lord’s suffering: so too, when we bow down to the Holy Gospel, we do not honor the material substance, but the Word of God.

You, wretched Brynians, by rejecting veneration of the Holy Gospel, will reject veneration of the Word of God, which the Holy Church has always held in honor. And since you reject this ancient, pious ecclesiastical custom, there is no ancient Russian faith in you, but rather some new one.

Chapter 23. On the Unordained Who Perform Sacred Rites

From the beginning of the faith in Russia, priests have performed sacred rites in the Church of God; but the unordained are not only forbidden to perform sacred rites, but are not even permitted to touch the holy objects of God.

But among the schismatics, unordained men and women perform sacred rites, as has become known in certain places within our diocese.

In one town (I will not name it), a certain unordained man—who was literate—called himself a priest and, hiding in the basements of schismatic houses for a long time, celebrated the Liturgy while remaining unordained, administered Holy Communion to those who secretly followed the schism, and performed all the sacraments for them. But what is the validity of such actions, what is their power, and what is the sanctification when an unordained man performs them?

It is told among us in Rostov that in the days of the late bishop, of blessed memory, His Eminence Jonah, Metropolitan of Rostov, not far from the city on the other side of the lake, in a certain village, a young woman came from a heretical and wicked sect and, hiding in the cellar of a peasant’s house, secretly performed a heretical liturgy, heard confessions, and administered Communion—not only to ordinary people but also to priests; for some foolish priests would secretly come to her for confession and receive ungodly Communion from her hand. What utter madness! What sort of service is that? What sort of Communion? What sort of absolution from sins? What sort of performance of all the other sacraments, administered by a woman? Is this the old faith? Did such things ever happen before, in the days of our holy fathers in Russia? By no means.

For the schismatic faith is not the old faith, but a new faith—or rather, superstition, not faith.

There are indeed ordained priests among them, but they are homeless fugitives—either excommunicated from the priesthood by their own bishops for some offense of their own, or having themselves fallen away from the pious faith—and these perform certain sacraments in the Bryn settlements. This is strange to us, for the people of Brynya do not accept newly printed books, yet they accept newly ordained priests; they despise the new books but love the new priests. If you reject the new books, O people of Bryn, then you ought to reject the newly ordained priests as well; but if you accept the newly ordained priests, then you must also accept the new books.

Chapter 24. On the Gospel of Avvakum

From the beginning of the faith in Russia, only the Four-Column Gospel of Christ, written by the holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, has been accepted, and no other Gospel besides Christ’s has existed to this day.

Among the Brynians, however, a certain other new Gospel was found—not Christ’s, but Avvakum’s: For Avvakum, a false teacher renowned among the schismatics, wrote his own book, filled with heretical reasoning, and called it *The Eternal Gospel*, claiming, “It was not written by me, but by the finger of God.”

And since they have, in addition to the old Gospel of Christ, another new one—Avvakum’s, not Christ’s—their faith has also become new, not the old one.

We do not know exactly what that new evangelist—who is not Christ’s but Satan’s—wrote in his Gospel; since we have not yet received that very book of his; however, from copies of his letters it is evident that he wrote nothing else but, according to his malicious heretical reasoning, blasphemies against the Holy Trinity, against the Incarnation of the Son of God—as we have explained above—and blasphemous slander against the Church of Christ.

Chapter 25. On Fedka the Deacon

Let us also recall something else from the copies of his letters. Avvakum writes to Fyodor the deacon, his disciple, about the Holy Trinity as follows: “Fyodor, oh Fyodor! According to you, there is only one person and one image; oh, son of a whore, one-eyed dog, foolish sufferer! If you don’t know the power of the books, then ask a peasant woman: ‘Tell me, madam, about the Holy Trinity—what is the Trinity?’ And she will answer you and say: ‘And you, Fedka, bow your head—son of a whore—to that peasant woman on the ground.’ It’s a wonder even to me, a sinner, how well that old woman answered. Ask her the same thing: “What is the essence of God?” And she’ll answer you and tell you.”

Listen, true believers, to what a fine composition of words this schismatic false evangelist has produced, and make use of it. Are not his words worthy of ridicule? How could he not be ashamed to write such things? And how can schismatics today not be ashamed to regard his ravings as a gospel? Is this the kind of discourse found in the Gospels of Christ—in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Oh, the mind of a peasant!

Chapter 26. On Avvakum’s Leadership

And furthermore, that same false evangelist raves the following in his letters:

“And when we rise from the dead, then the Lord will make me an ataman.”

The ravings of that empty-headed fool are truly laughable! Who has ever heard of the rank of “ataman” among the ranks of the saints? We hear of the rank of the Prophets, the rank of the Apostles, the rank of the Martyrs, the rank of the Holy Hierarchs, the rank of the Venerable Ones! And other ranks of the saints: but we have never heard of the rank of “ataman” among the saints.

This new rank was invented by Avvakum the heretic, and their faith is indeed new, not old.

Chapter 27. On Avvakum’s Vision

That same false evangelist and schismatic false teacher, Avvakum, confirms his insane teachings with a certain miraculous vision he had, about which he writes as follows:

“I fasted for 14 days during Great Lent, and I saw myself—my hands, my feet, my teeth—spread out across the entire heavens; and then God placed within me the heavens, the earth, and all creation.”

O wondrous vision! O true miracle-worker! He devoured the heavens, the earth, and all creation; he swallowed them with his throat and contained them in his belly! He must have starved himself considerably; after 14 days of fasting, he desired to eat so much that he devoured not only stones but also the entire earth, the heavens, and all creation. How could his belly not burst! And it is strange that he did not devour his disciples. I suspect, however, that he had long since devoured their souls and cast them into the depths of hell.

That false miracle-worker became a great giant; was he not the very brother of that giant whom the venerable Anthony the Great once saw, of whom he himself tells, saying: “Sometimes a demon would knock at the monastery gate, and when I went out, I saw a man of immense stature, raising his head even to the heavens, and when I asked him, ‘Who are you?’ he replied: ‘I am Satan’[80] .’

But Abbaqum was greater than that Satan; for he spread out across the entire heavens and encompassed all creation within his bosom. This new miracle-worker is a schismatic: we find not a single one like him among the ancient miracle-workers; for their faith, too, is new, not old.

Chapter 28. On the Acephalites

If, however, one were to call the schismatic faith the “old faith,” it is old only insofar as they have revived old heresies. They have revived the heresy of Nestorius, which blasphemes the Incarnation of God, as we have exposed above. They have revived the heresy of the Acephalites, which originated with the headless Severus; concerning this, on the 30th day of August, in the life of Saint John of Cappadocia, Patriarch of Constantinople,[81] it is written as follows:

From the accursed Severus arose the heresy of the Acephalites, that is, the “headless ones,” so named because they did not wish to be subject to orthodox bishops who preside over the churches, just as the head presides over the other members; but they made themselves their own leaders and teachers, following the deluded reasoning of their own minds, and under their unorthodox bishop and presbyter, they did not observe the customary church rites of baptism or the Divine Liturgy. They partook of the Body of Christ, the Lamb, which had been prepared and preserved for a long time, gathering on the days of Holy Pascha and breaking it into the smallest pieces; and then each one, as he pleased, devised for himself a false faith, and, assuming the authority to teach of his own accord, taught others according to his own vain imagination, and from many of them other heresies sprang up, one of which was opposed to the Friends; concerning them, Nikiforos Kallistos, the Greek ecclesiastical historian, writes in Book 18, Chapter 45.

Hear and take heed, O people of the Orthodox faith! Is not the schismatic Bryn faith similar to that headless heresy? Truly it is similar, and not merely similar, but is in fact that very same heresy; for they have neither churches, nor priests, nor the Divine Liturgy, nor the Holy Communion of the sacraments, nor baptism according to the church rite, nor do they obey Orthodox bishops, but are utterly leaderless, just like the ancient Acephalites. Therefore, as a revival of ancient heresies, their faith may be called an old heretical faith, and not Orthodox.

Behold, O beloved orthodox people, true sheep of Christ’s flock, and sincere children of His Holy Church! We have, through sound reasoning, exposed the first fruit of the Brynsky Garden—their heretical faith—and through thorough investigation have ascertained two things:

Is their faith the true faith?

And is their faith the old faith?

And we found in that fruit, just as in the crimson apple of Sodom, not a sweet taste, but foul dust and ashes; I say, their faith is not the true faith, but a false faith; and their faith is not the old faith, but a new faith.

Chapter 29. Schismatic Faith in Customs

For how can there be a true and righteous faith among them, when they do not even know what faith is? For we often hear from the simplest of people that they call not only their customs and traditions—which are not merely bad—but even the very worst deeds “faith.” Ask a commoner: Why do you steal, pilfer, and commit robbery? He replies: “That is our faith.” Why do you revel excessively, get drunk, use foul language, quarrel, and fight? “That is our faith.” Why do so many injustices occur among you—why do you deceive one another, lie to one another, and slander one another? Such is the faith. Why are vile and abominable deeds committed among you—adultery, fornication, and other abominations too hideous for the ear to bear? Such is the faith.

O holy faith! O most exalted and honorable name of faith! O faith, resting in the one and only invisible God! To what depths of dishonor have you sunk among simple folk, since they not only attribute you to visible and tangible things, but also to their lawlessness, their theft, their drunkenness, their injustices, and their vile way of life. How, then, can a good faith be found among such people?

Chapter 30. The Righteousness of the Orthodox Faith

We, however, as Orthodox Christians, guided by the grace of Christ our God, know what faith is, and we hold fast not to a new faith but to the ancient, godly faith—the faith that Christ the Lord entrusted to His holy disciples and Apostles, which the holy Apostles preached throughout the world, which the great teachers of the Church taught, which the Ecumenical Councils confirmed, which Saint Vladimir brought from Greece to Russia, and in which the great lamps of the Church and lights of the world, the holy Russian Fathers and miracle-workers, shone brightly.

We believe in the one invisible God, glorified in the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Holy Trinity, we do not divide the divine essence, nor do we merge the Persons; but we hold with Saint Andrew of Crete, who sings thus: “I confess to you, O Triune God, the one Divine Nature, indivisible in essence and unmerged in Persons, as co-reigning and co-throned”[82] . And just as we believe in our hearts, so do we confess with our lips, glorifying the Holy, indivisible Trinity every day and saying:

Glory to the Holy, Consubstantial, Life-giving, and Indivisible Trinity, always, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages.

We truly believe in and confess the Incarnation of the Son of God, that He, by His very Divine Hypostasis, was incarnate in the womb of the Most Pure Virgin, without being separated from the Father. We do not divide the Son into two sons, but we declare Him to be the same one, both in the Virgin’s womb and with the Father in heaven; for the Godhead is not defined by place.

We truly confess the Most Pure Virgin to be the Mother of God, not merely the Mother of Christ, but she who, by her very essence, gave birth to the Word of God incarnate within her, in two distinct beings and natures—divine and human—which are unmixed, yet indivisible in the single person of Christ.

We do not separate Christ from the Son of God, nor do we seat Him on a separate throne beside the Holy Trinity, as Abbaqum and his disciples do, nor do we make the Trinity into a quaternity; but we believe and confess that the Son of God and Christ are one and the same, who is called both the Son of God and the Son of Man. The Son of God by the nature of the Godhead, the Son of Man by the nature of humanity; yet not two Sons, but one Son, as the Church dogmatically sings in the Octoechos, Tone 6, at Vespers, saying: “Not divided into two persons, but known without confusion in two natures.”

Our faith is not new, but ancient: we hold fast to that holy faith without fail, accepting no innovations or heresies. We confess it, we embrace it, and by it we hope to be saved without a doubt, through God’s grace and help.

In addition, we observe all the holy sacraments, all the rites and ceremonies, and all the church customs according to the tradition and statutes of the Holy Fathers, steadfastly and unalterably, just as Saint Vladimir the Greek brought them to Russia, and so we continue to observe them to this day by the grace of Christ.

But it is now time to proceed to the next Inquiry.

Part II. On Schismatic Doctrine

Having examined the first fruit of the schismatic Bryn garden, and having thoroughly investigated their heretical faith, we now turn to another of their fruits—like another Sodomite apple—to put to the test their doctrine, which they, as enemies of Christ’s Church, spreading from the satanic nests of Bryn, sow it secretly among the orthodox in cities and towns, like weeds among the wheat.

The Brynians claim that their teaching is beneficial to the soul.

Let this inquiry, therefore, be based on the following principle:

A teaching is beneficial to the soul if it contains no falsehood, no heresy, and no blasphemy against holy things.

But if in any teaching there is found falsehood, heresy, and blasphemy against holy things, then that teaching is not beneficial to the soul, but harmful to it.

Let us therefore examine these three points regarding the schismatic teaching of Bryn:

1) Is their teaching free from falsehood?

2) Is their teaching free from heresy?

3) Does their teaching contain blasphemy against holy things?

First Article

Chapter 1. A teaching must come from a teacher who is not false

A teaching that is not false is one that comes from the mouth of a teacher who is not false, but true.

A true teacher is one who does not assume the office of teacher on his own, but is appointed by the Church of God through the grace of the Holy Spirit and is sent out to preach, just as in the days of the Apostles, teachers were sent out by the Church through the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, where it is written thus: “To those who were serving the Lord and fasting,” said the Holy Spirit, “set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, after fasting and praying, they laid their hands on them and sent them off. Having been sent by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia [83] . And again in chapter 15 it is written: “It has been decided by us (the Church of Jerusalem), having gathered together with one accord, to send chosen men to you (to the Church of Antioch) with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: for we have sent Judas and Silas, who also speak the same message. For it has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by us [84] , and the rest as written there.

Following the holy Apostles, the office of teaching is assumed by bishops, priests, and others who belong to the consecrated order of the Church. They assume this office by the will of the Holy Spirit, since they are appointed through proper election and consecration.

Such teachers are true and not false, and the teaching of such teachers is true and not false, for it is spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Let us consider this: by whom are the schismatic teachers of Brynski sent? By the Holy Spirit? Or by the Church of Christ? By no means. They have no church; they have rejected the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, bestowed at baptism through chrismation, calling it the seal of the Antichrist, and they do not partake of the other sacraments performed by the Holy Spirit. Since they do not possess the sacraments, they do not have the Holy Spirit, who descends upon the sacraments; and since they do not have the Holy Spirit, they are neither ordained nor sent by Him to preach and teach. Since they are not sent by the Holy Spirit or by the Holy Church, they are not true teachers, but false ones, who have usurped the office of teaching for themselves. For their teaching is not true, but false. It is of such teachers that God speaks in the prophecy of Jeremiah: “I did not send these prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied” ([85] ). But the Apostle also says: “How can they preach unless they are sent?” ([86] ). If, then, false teachers are not sent by God, by whom are they sent? Truly, by no one else but Satan himself, who is the father of lies and the source of all unrighteousness; and it is not the Holy Spirit who speaks through their mouths, but a spirit of falsehood—the same spirit that spoke long ago through the mouths of false prophets in the time of the holy prophet Micah, to deceive Ahab, king of Israel—as one may see in the Book of 1 Kings, chapter 22, and in the Book of 2 Chronicles, chapter 18.

Chapter 2. Teaching Should Come from a Skilled Teacher

Again:

True teaching is that which comes from the lips of teachers who are skilled in the Holy Scriptures and filled with teaching wisdom, who understand the power of the Holy Scriptures and are able to interpret them correctly. For a teacher ought not only to be consecrated and appointed by the church through the Holy Spirit to the office of teaching, but also to be wise, possessing a sound mind, in accordance with the words of God Himself spoken in prophecy: “Keep the priest’s words in mind, and seek the law from his lips” ([87] ).

Schismatic teaching, however, does not originate from such prudent lips, for their teachers are not only not ordained by the Church through the Holy Spirit to the office of teacher, but are also unversed in the Divine Scriptures, neither possessing the ability to understand them nor being able to interpret them correctly, but are very simple men, among whom many of their teachers are found, who do not even know the alphabet. Not only these men, but even women teach among them, though they ought to remain silent according to the apostolic command: “Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak (that is, to teach), but to be in subjection[88] ; and again: ‘Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection’; but I do not permit a woman to teach[89] .” But in the heretical faith of Bryn, they do not heed that apostolic command, and women usurp the office of teacher. For their teaching is not true, but false.

For it is impossible for an uneducated commoner not only to teach others correctly about the dogmas of the faith, but even to walk the right path himself, relying on his own unlettered, simple-minded understanding while despising true teachers. Hence heresies, strife, and schisms have arisen, for the ignorant dare to examine and teach matters of faith. As Saint Anastasius of Nicaea and Saint John Chrysostom rightly say: it is a great evil not to know the Scriptures, and to be like senseless beasts; for countless evils arise from ignorance of the Scriptures. From this sprang the great harms of heresies, from this came a careless way of life, useless labors, spiritual blindness, and the devil’s deception. For just as those who are blind in their physical eyes cannot walk the right path, so too those who do not know the Divine Scriptures, nor look toward those rays, stumble [90] .

As for the people of Brynya, even though they do not know the Divine Scriptures, they nevertheless consider themselves wise and believe they are walking the right path of faith, and they dare to teach. And those among them who can read and write, upon whom a small glimmer of understanding has shone in their minds, set themselves up as great theologians and, in their pride, boast of being unsurpassed teachers of their faith. But those who are truly theologians and true teachers—those who have devoted their lives to study from their youth, to whom the mysteries of the Divine Scriptures have been revealed, and upon whom the perfect light of reason has shone—they call these men heretics, those who have gone astray, and those who do not know the true path. The blind say to those who see, “You do not see”; and those who are astray say to those walking the true path, “You are walking wrongly”; and the foolish harass the wise, saying, “You know nothing.” But consider, I beg you, who sees more light: the one who looks out through a crack in a dark temple into the courtyard, or the one who has opened a window and gazes upon the light? Who can better teach the light of holy faith and the righteous path of true piety: the one who merely knows how to read a book but understands little of what is read, or the one who not only reads but also fully comprehends what is read and grasps the depth of Divine Scripture? Is an uneducated and self-proclaimed teacher a better instructor than a learned one—one who did not call himself a teacher but was appointed by the grace of the Holy Spirit?

I hear some say: “Christ the Lord gathered a group of unlettered apostles—simple, uneducated men—and called them to Himself not from books but from a fisherman’s net, and through them He enlightened and taught the whole world.” To this I reply as follows: He gathered the unlettered, but sent the learned; He called the simple and the ignorant to Himself, but sent the wise theologians to the ends of the earth, opening their minds to understand the Scriptures [91] —He gathered them as a teacher gathers His disciples, and for more than three years He led them with Him, teaching and instructing them, and did not send them out to preach until until I had thoroughly instructed them and given them knowledge of the Scriptures; and when He had enlightened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and filled them with the Holy Spirit, and taught them to speak in foreign tongues—then I sent them out into the world to preach the Word of God.

But you, O people of Bryn, uneducated teachers, illiterate sages, tell us: when did you walk with Christ? When did you receive the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire? When did you learn to speak in foreign tongues, just as the Apostles did? Has your mind been opened to understand the Scriptures, just as the Apostles’ was? Be ashamed, then, O teachers of Bryn, you simple men and women who have usurped the office of teacher—you who ought to be disciples rather than teachers, and to learn from the orthodox teachers of the Church, rather than to teach others yourselves and invent new and varied beliefs for yourselves.

Chapter 3. A Teacher’s Teaching Must Be Consistent with a Blameless Life

Again:

True teaching must come from a teacher who is not only well-versed in the Holy Scriptures but also blameless in conduct, as the Apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “Be an example in all things— —in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity” ([92] ). Let us pay attention to these first two words of the Apostle: “Be an example,” he says, “in speech and conduct,” from which it is clearly evident that a teacher’s duty is, first and foremost, to be wise in speech and blameless and holy in conduct; for “teach, but do not practice what you preach, for you are like a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

As for the way of life of the schismatic teachers, God alone knows; we do not investigate it; however, we will mention here the intellect and deeds of one of their teachers, who called himself an apostle, as we have found written by others.

In the imperial city of Moscow, at the printing house, in the library, there is a written booklet titled “Refutation of the Solovetsky Petition,” which was composed in Siberia by a certain Yuri the Serb, under the Siberian Bishop, His Eminence Cornelius. In that booklet, in Chapter 5, Yuri writes the following about Lazar, the schismatic teacher and apostle, a priest:

"This city (Tobolsk) knows of Lazar, for there was a time when the streets were too narrow for him, and people had to lead him by the arm (when he was drunk) because he could not make his way home on his own. And once, when Lazar was sitting with guests at my house, he began to recount old women’s fables and riddles—such as how a certain old woman, though she wished to grow young again, crawled backward on her hands and knees along the road, and so on. The guests, however, frowned and were ashamed to hear such talk from a priest; and he, noticing this, said to me: “Yuri! How is it that we always begin with spiritual matters but end up acting in a worldly manner?” And I, after the guests had left, reminded him: “Father Lazarus! Consider what state the Church of Christ has come to, and how wretched its condition is!” If it is our duty to reform it, I say, we ourselves are so corrupt, and we even tell shameful tales, and the streets are too narrow for us when we are drunk: these are not the marks of the apostles, nor of teachers sent by God to reform the Church; and among other things (says Yuri), I quoted to him this saying of Augustine, the Western teacher: “Outside the Church and in schism, a person may possess every kind of holiness, but he cannot possess salvation.” But Lazarus replied with a contrary argument: “What good, then, is it to Nikon and his like-minded followers, even if they hold the episcopate and possess all the sacred objects, if they cannot have salvation?” I answered him: “His Holiness Nikon has not departed from the Church; but you, Father, having separated yourself from it, are causing schisms, and Augustine’s words apply to you. So much for Lazarus. But here, Fathers of Solovki (says Yuri), do not condemn us, as if I were revealing the sins of a sincere man out of malice. For I myself, being a great sinner, do not expose the secret sins of the sincere, nor do I speak out of malice toward a brother; but because Lazarus, having made himself an apostle, has blasphemed the Apostolic Church, and has caused discord and sedition regarding the faith among you and throughout the people: for this reason, not out of malice but out of brotherly love for the faithful, I remind you of that wondrous apostle—of whom this city bears witness—and I do not take offense at him in this matter, nor do I slander him without cause or in vain. For it is fitting and necessary that all may know of the deeds and life of that glorious teacher, to whom all wish to entrust their souls, upon whose teachings they base their salvation, and by whose doctrine they condemn the entire Apostolic Church.” Thus far from the book of Yuri the Serb. From this account, however, the mind of that schismatic teacher and “apostle” Lazarus—who is skilled in shameful fables (and not in Holy Scripture)—has become clear to us, and his debauched conduct has been revealed. It is fitting not to count such an “apostle” among the ranks of the apostles, nor to heed his teachings, unless he belongs with the pseudo-apostles and has a place among the false teachers. Nor do we consider other schismatic teachers to be any better than Lazarus; the third part of this treatise will demonstrate this.

For it is not fitting for such people to be teachers.

Chapter 4. The true doctrine is preached openly, not in secret

Again:

The true, unadulterated doctrine is preached openly everywhere before all, fearing no one, just as the Apostolic doctrine was preached with all boldness and without hindrance[93] ; but whatever teaching is proclaimed in secret, hidden away in secluded places, is not true, but is full of the stench of falsehood.

As for the schismatic teaching, it is not preached openly anywhere, but is taught in secret, hidden away in basements, not even daring to show itself to our faces; and just as bats (winged mice) flee from the light of day into crevices, so do they, in secret places, hiding from us, teach—or rather, deceive—the simple people.

For their teaching is not true, but false.

Chapter 5. The Schismatic Lie About the Antichrist

Again:

True doctrine must by no means contain any falsehood whatsoever; but if falsehood is found in any doctrine, that doctrine cannot be called true, but false.

The Bryn doctrine, however, is filled with lies and falsehoods, as is clearly evident from the following.

ON THE ANTICHRIST.

They reason and teach that the coming of the Antichrist will not be a physical event, but will only reign in the world in spirit, and that the person of the Antichrist, as it were, does not actually exist; and they say that the Antichrist has already long since reigned in spirit, from the time when the book reform took place in Moscow; and as if Moscow were Babylon and the throne of the Antichrist’s kingdom; and as if the time of Christ’s second, dreadful coming and the Day of Judgment were already at hand, and they watch for it all night long, and some of them, having lit a candle, wait without sleeping even until the cock crows. Their reasoning and teaching are entirely false, contrary to Holy Scripture and the holy Church Fathers, the interpreters of Scripture. His Eminence Bishop Stephen, Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom, has sufficiently and truthfully refuted their false teachings with the irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture in a small book—though filled with great prudence and spiritual wisdom—which he titled: The Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist and the End of the Age, which was printed in Moscow by order of the Great Sovereign in the year 7212 since the creation of the world, and in the year 1705 since the birth of God the Word in the flesh.

But since that book is rarely found in our diocese, and is found by almost no one: it is therefore our duty to refute that schismatic and false teaching briefly here, drawing from the same Holy Scriptures, against the schismatics and schismatic teachers found in our diocese, who hide from us in the homes they have corrupted and secretly sow the chaff of their heresy among the simple people.

We declare that all such schismatic reasoning and teaching concerning the Antichrist, Babylon, and the Second Coming of Christ is entirely false, that is, upon examination of all the circumstances evident in Holy Scripture and as demonstrated by the interpreters of Holy Scripture.

1) From the person of the Antichrist himself.

2) From the place from which the Antichrist will come and where he will reign.

3) From the number of years he will reign.

4) From the deeds he is to perform.

But first, let the schismatic and ignorant teachers, and their disciples who listen to them, be made to understand this: that the name “Antichrist,” which means “adversary of Christ,” is specifically understood in Holy Scripture (as His Eminence Bishop Stephen has explained figuratively in his treatise, and this is appropriate, analogous, and essential; to put it more clearly: both by analogy and in reality, in the very act of the one who seeks to be the Antichrist.

Figuratively or by analogy, the name “Antichrist” is commonly applied to many; but in essence, in reality, and in deed, it pertains solely to the one Antichrist who is to come at the end of the world. Do you understand, O false teachers? No. For the name of Christ is to be taken as a figure and an example.

This most holy and honorable name of our Savior, Christ, is commonly applied—whether figuratively or by analogy—to all of God’s anointed ones, the Christian kings, just as in the Old Testament, King Saul of Israel was called “Christ” by David, who said: “Let me not lift up my hand against him, for this one is the Christ of the Lord” ([94] ), that is, “this one is the Lord’s anointed.” For this is the interpretation of the name “Christ”: the anointed one. And David himself called himself the Christ when, having been delivered from the enemies who were pursuing him, he gave thanks to God, saying: “Now I know that the Lord has saved his Christ”[95] . But in essence, in reality, and in deed, this holy name belongs only to Christ.

And again: this honorable title, “Son of God,” is common to all Christians; for every believer may (as we said before) be called a son of God by grace, since God Himself says : “You shall be My sons and daughters”[96] . But this is essential, by very nature, and is proper only to Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Thus you should understand the title “Antichrist.”

For there have already been many antichrists, opposed to Christ and His truth, and there are many now, as Saint John the Theologian says: “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard, the Antichrist is coming, and now there have been many antichrists[97] .” And again he says concerning the same: “Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (just as the idolaters and unbelieving Jews did not confess Him then, and just as the Turks, Tatars, and those same Jews do not confess Him now, and all those under heaven who do not know God), is not of God; and this is the antichrist, of whom you have heard that he is coming, and is now already in the world[98] . St. John the Theologian declared even during his lifetime that the antichrist was already in the world. How, then, was the Antichrist in the world during the days of the Apostles? This is to be understood (according to the exegetes) to mean that he was not present in his own person, but in his forerunners, such as Simon the Magus, who claimed to be the Christ, and other similar forerunners of the Antichrist. For the spirit opposed to Christ the God, who is to act in the true Antichrist, was active then and is active now in his precursors; and for this reason it was said then, and is said now, that the Antichrist is already in the world in a figurative sense, not in a literal one.

For in those former times there were antichrists—namely, sorcerers and magicians who claimed the name of Christ—and persecutors and tormentors of Christians, such as Nero, Diocletian, Maximian, Julian the Apostate, and others like them: these were also heretics, opponents of the truth of Holy Scripture, some of whom blasphemed the divinity of Christ, such as the Arians; others rejected the incarnation of the Son of God, such as Nestorius; and still others invented heresies contrary to orthodoxy (as the Brynians do today): these were antichrists, opposed to Christ, whom we customarily call the forerunners of the Antichrist. And now, in our own time, those similar to the first antichrists are found; for they are apostate magi who have given themselves over to demons and act in opposition to Christ alongside them; they are also persecutors of the Church of Christ, like the Agarians; and they are those who have strayed into various heresies, like the heretics and the Brynians. All of these are antichrists, precursors of the one who desires to be the Antichrist himself, and enemies of Christ. For whoever opposes the Holy Church opposes Christ; whoever persecutes Christ’s Church persecutes Christ; whoever blasphemes the Orthodox dogmas of the faith and the traditions of the Church blasphemes Christ and is like the Antichrist.

The Antichrist himself is to appear before the end of the age, no longer in the persons of his precursors, but in his own true person.

The same applies to Babylon, as is clearly understood in Holy Scripture: both in a figurative and a literal sense. In a figurative sense, any city filled with lawlessness may be called Babylon; in a literal sense, however, there is only one city of Babylon mentioned in Scripture, which is in Chaldea, where the throne of the Persian Empire was located. Thus writes Saint Andrew of Caesarea in his commentary on the Apocalypse, regarding these words: “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots, and so on; and again, I saw a drunken woman, and so on,” he says: “Thus was ancient Babylon named, the harlot of joy—that is, the city of harlots rejoicing in their harlotry, the mistress of sorcerers and magicians; and ancient Jerusalem (which in Jeremiah’s prophecy is likened to Babylon in her fornication), your face was that of a harlot[99] ; and ancient Rome is called Babylon in Peter’s epistle [100] . But primarily (and this is essential), the one who holds power among the Persians, as well as Babylon and the harlot, and every other city that rejoices in murder and bloodshed, is called [101] . Thus far, Saint Andrew of Caesarea. From his words it is clear that, by analogy, both ancient Jerusalem and ancient Rome, as well as any city filled with lawlessness, are called Babylon: but in a sovereign or essential sense, there is only one Babylon—the Chaldean Babylon, which is also the Persian Babylon—in which King Cyrus the Persian, following Darius the Mede, established the Persian monarchy.

Having offered this explanation of the name of the Antichrist and Babylon to the uninformed for their understanding, let us proceed to examine the aforementioned points, through which the false schismatic teachings concerning the Antichrist, Babylon, and the Day of Judgment will be clearly exposed.

First,

The first point concerns the very person of the Antichrist.

The schismatics teach (as we have said before) that the coming of the Antichrist will not actually take place, but only in thought (according to their reasoning) will he reign in that world, and that the person of the Antichrist, in essence, will not exist at all.

We, however, set against their falsehood the infallible teacher, the holy Apostle Paul, and the other holy teachers of the Church along with him.

The Holy Apostle Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: “Let no one deceive you in any way; for unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the son of perdition, the adversary and the one who exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship—so that he sits in the temple of God, presenting himself as God [102] .

Of this man the holy Apostle speaks, as the truthful witness and interpreter of Paul’s epistles, Saint John Chrysostom, declares, saying: “He speaks here of the Antichrist, and you are revealing great mysteries.” What is the apostasy? He calls the Antichrist himself “the apostasy,” for he is destined to destroy many and to lead them astray—so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect[103] —and he also calls him “the man of sin”; for he will commit countless evil deeds and incite others to commit wicked acts, and he calls him “the son of perdition,” since he too will perish. Who, then, is this? Is it Satan? By no means; but a certain man who takes on all his deeds. Thus far, Chrysostom, the interpreter of Paul. Likewise, Saint Ephrem says in his discourse on the Antichrist: Satan himself will not be born, but one who is utterly vile will come in his likeness, like a thief [104] .

Let the people of Brynya listen here and see: of whom are the Apostle Paul, John Chrysostom, and Saint Ephrem speaking when they speak of the Antichrist—of a spiritual being? Or are they speaking of a being that actually exists—not Satan, who is the invisible, conceptual Antichrist, but a man of the flesh, whom they call visible?

And Saint Hippolytus the Holy Martyr, in his homily for Meatfare Sunday [105] , and Saint Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in his commentary on the Apocalypse in Chapter 7, also state from which lineage the Antichrist is to arise—namely, from the tribe of Dan, which is of Jewish descent [106] . Saint Ephrem, in his aforementioned sermon, as well as Saint John of Damascus, also state this: that he will be born not of a lawful marriage, but of fornication, from a woman corrupted by fornication [107] . Likewise, the holy martyr Hippolytus testifies, saying: “The adversary will come forth onto the earth from an impure wife”[108] . From these testimonies, it is clearly evident that the Antichrist is not a conceptual entity, but a tangible, fleshly one, destined to appear at the end of the world.

Here, every orthodox believer should judge with sound reason whom to believe: the Bryn false teacher, who claims that the coming of the Antichrist will not occur in reality, but that he will reign only in the mind? Or should one believe the holy Apostle Paul, and his interpreter, St. Chrysostom, and the holy martyr Hippolytus, and Archbishop Andrew, and the venerable Ephrem and John of Damascus, who in every way affirm the existence of the Antichrist, and who describe his lineage and reveal the manner of his birth?

The mouth of Christ is the mouth of Paul; the mouth of Paul is the mouth of Chrysostom; and the mouth of Chrysostom, along with that of the other Fathers mentioned with him, is truly the mouth of Christ. Can any falsehood be found in such honorable and holy mouths?

But whose lips are those of the false teachers of Bryn? Truly, their mouths are the mouth of Satan himself, of whom our Lord Christ spoke in the Holy Gospel: “He has been a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him; when he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” ([109] ).

For the Brynians lie when they say that the Antichrist’s coming will not be a physical one, but only a spiritual one.

A second consideration concerns the location—the place from which the Antichrist will come and where he will reign.

They say—or rather, the schismatic Brynyans blaspheme—as if the Antichrist reigns in Moscow, and they call the reigning city Babylon, dishonorably reproaching it.

We, however, will consider this: whether the Antichrist—a tangible, physical human being (and not some invisible spirit)—is to be found, from whom Babylon is to arise, whether from the imaginary or from the real: if from the imaginary, then not only Moscow, but every city (as was said before) and every place where any form of lawlessness is committed is figuratively called Babylon; and a sinful soul is called Babylon, just as a righteous one is called Jerusalem. And Brynya, which claims to be holy, is not sinless: for the wombs of the maidens, women, and not-yet-old women returning from there bear witness that it may truly be called Babylon. For it is not known from which Babylon the Antichrist is to arise—from Moscow’s, or from Brynya’s?

But the Antichrist—the tangible one, not the imaginary one—must arise from the tangible, from the very real Babylon itself, which stands in the land of the Chaldeans (and not in Russia), standing on the Euphrates River (and not on the Moskva River)—for it was from there that Nimrod[110] , the builder of the tower and the first tormentor under heaven, began to extend his dominion. For just as Nimrod was the first tormentor, so too must the last tormentor, the Antichrist, come from there.

And as the Antichrist is to arise from Chaldean Babylon, so testifies the infallible Saint Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea (and not some man from Bryn), testifies in his commentary on the Apocalypse, in which, in chapter 9, he says thus: “It is a reference to the Euphrates, for the Antichrist will come from those lands”[111] ; and again in verse 17 he says: the Antichrist will come from the eastern lands of Persia, where the tribe of Dan—descended from the root of the Jews—lives; he will cross the Euphrates with other kings, and so on [112] .

Behold, listen to what is said here about Babylon! It is the one in Chaldea, between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, where, following the Assyrian monarchy, the Persian Empire began under Cyrus.

But it is also clear from the Book of Revelation itself, in which much is written about Babylon: and when the Book of Revelation was written, did the city of Moscow even exist at that time? For it is not the symbolic Moscow that is meant, but the very real Chaldean—and also the (former) Persian—Babylon that is described in the Apocalypse: for the Antichrist will arise from that Babylon, and not from Moscow.

Let us also be certain of where the Antichrist will reign, having come forth from that Chaldean Babylon.

Saint Hippolytus and Saint Andrew of Caesarea, both of them, along with the other Holy Fathers, declare that he will reign in Jerusalem, for it was there that the Kingdom of the Jews once stood, which he will restore; and he will build a temple in the likeness of Solomon’s on the very same site where Solomon’s once stood, and he will sit in it as a god [113] .

For the Brynians are lying when they say that the Antichrist’s kingdom will be in Moscow.

A third consideration regarding the duration of the Antichrist’s reign.

The Brynyans say that the Antichrist will reign in Moscow from the time when the rewriting of the scriptures begins.

Let us see when the liturgical reform began in Moscow. It began during the reign of the pious Tsar and Grand Prince Alexei Mikhailovich, of blessed memory, and during the patriarchate of His Holiness Nikon.

Nikon was deposed from the patriarchate in the summer of 7175.

The current year is 7217.

More than forty years have passed from Nikon’s deposition to the present year.

And regarding the reign of the Antichrist, Saint Hippolytus and all the other Holy Fathers say that it will last only half a year and a quarter, just as our Lord Christ, having appeared on earth, preached to the world [114] .

The Brynyans are lying, for they claim that the Antichrist has already been reigning in Moscow for more than forty years.

From the fourth section, we shall examine the deeds that the Antichrist is to perform.

Saint Hippolytus speaks of the deeds of the Antichrist, saying that he will perform wondrous deeds: for by God’s permission, and with the aid of demons, he will perform great miracles to deceive people, though these miracles will not be true, but illusory and deceptive. And Saint Hippolytus speaks of this as follows: “He will place mountains before the eyes of those who see; he will walk upon the sea with dry feet; he will bring down fire from heaven; he will turn day into darkness and night into day; for he will transform the sun as he pleases, and the moon likewise; and all the elements—the earth and the sea—he will show to be obedient before the onlookers by the power of his illusions [115] .” And again: “He will display demons as if they were angels of light and will bring forth incorporeal hosts, for they are innumerable, and before all he will show himself being taken up into heaven with trumpets and voices and countless sounds, and with a mighty shout, praising him with ineffable songs, and he will shine forth as the light that is the prince of darkness,” and so on [116] .

These are the deeds of the Antichrist. Let us see, then, who is now performing such deeds in Moscow or anywhere else? Who moves mountains? Who brings fire down from heaven? Who turns day into night and night into day? Who ascends into heaven in glory before all who see? No one.

The schismatic Brynyans are lying, claiming that the Antichrist is already reigning in Moscow.

Hence, their lie is exposed—the claim that the time of Christ’s second, dreadful coming and the Day of Judgment has already arrived. For all the Scriptures, both Old and New, teach, and all exegetes and teachers affirm, that the Day of Judgment will not come before the coming and reign of the Antichrist, but will occur after his reign and his ruinous end. How, then, are they not ashamed to lie, as if the time and day of Christ’s coming were already at hand, when the Antichrist has not yet come and the three and a half years of his reign have not yet been fulfilled? And even after the Antichrist’s ruinous demise, those who remain will be granted a certain time by God for repentance, as can be seen in the prophecy of Daniel, where the angel told Daniel the duration of the Antichrist’s reign, stating this number of days: 1,290 (of which half a year is comprised), adding the words: “Blessed is he who endures and reaches the 1,355 days”[117] . For when one counts from the end of the first number to the second, there are 45 days more than the first number. For the interpreters of Divine Scripture say that after the Antichrist’s demise, there will be a period of 45 days until the dreadful Day of Judgment. As for the times that have not yet passed or have yet to come, how can one believe in Bryn’s opinion and teaching regarding the present Day of Judgment?

As for us Orthodox Christians, it is incumbent upon each of us to await the unknown hour of our death every day and every night, and to be ready for the end; for each of us has our own terrible judgment before the general, terrible judgment of all, and we must not speculate about the exact time of the most terrible Day of Judgment itself. We are bound to believe that it will come and that it is near, but not that it has already arrived; and as for when it will be, we must not be curious about it, but listen to the words of the Lord, who says: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven[118] .” And if even the holy angels do not know the day or the hour of God’s dreadful judgment, how then did the Brynians come to know it, claiming that the time of the dreadful judgment has already come? Unless they themselves desire the Day of Judgment to come already, so that their false prophecy might be fulfilled. But St. Chrysostom, referring to Amos’s prophecy, says to them: “Woe to those who long for the day of the Lord”[119] . For the day of the Lord is darkness, not light—darkness, he says, because it is unknown.

In light of the examination of all the aforementioned points, the falsehood of Brynsky’s teaching becomes evident.

Furthermore:

The true doctrine is that which interprets the Divine Scriptures correctly according to the truth itself, and not according to falsehood.

The false teachers of Bryn, however, interpret the Divine Scriptures incorrectly rather than correctly, which is why they are called false interpreters.

For the Bryn doctrine is not true, but false.

And since the Brynians interpret the Divine Scriptures crookedly and falsely, this is evident from certain passages of the Divine Scriptures, which we will present here.

Chapter 6. Their Distorted Interpretation of the Holy Sacrifice

In the book of the holy prophet Daniel, in chapter 3, these words are written: “There is no ruler at this time, nor prophet, nor leader, nor burnt offering, nor sacrifice, nor offering, nor incense, nor a place to burn before You and find favor [120] .”

The Bryn heretics misinterpret this holy Scripture to apply to the present time, and they say that in the present time there are no longer sacrifices or offerings, churches are not churches, bishops are not bishops, priests are not priests, the Liturgy is not the Liturgy, and the sacrifice is not a sacrifice. Such is the Bryn interpretation.

O foolish Brynians, devoid of sound mind and utterly ignorant of the power of Divine Scripture! Open your eyes of understanding and examine these things for yourselves:

1) Who is the subject of the verb?

2) Where were they spoken?

3) In what years are they spoken?

4) For what reason are they spoken?

And when you have examined these things carefully, you will realize that your own interpretation is wrong.

1) Who is the subject of the verb?

The three holy youths—Ananias, Azarias, and Misael—spoke; they were friends of the holy prophet Daniel.

2) Where did they speak?

In Babylon, while in captivity, after having been cast into a fiery furnace.

3) In what years did they speak?

In the years preceding the Nativity of Christ, four hundred years before the Nativity of Christ and more.

4) Why did they speak?

This was because Jerusalem had then been laid waste by the Chaldeans, and they no longer had a ruler or leader; for Zedekiah, king of Jerusalem, had been blinded, bound in iron chains, and taken to Babylon. There were no Jewish burnt offerings or sacrifices, for the Jewish high priests and priests had been slain by the sword or taken into captivity. Nor was there a place to offer a sacrifice, for the Temple of Solomon had been burned and laid waste. Indeed, those three youths spoke these very words at that time: “There is no ruler at this time, no leader, no burnt offering, no sacrifice, and so on.”

You can see this for yourselves, O misinterpreters! For those words of the three Holy Youths are not appropriate for the present time, but for the time when the three youths were alive; and four hundred years after their death, Christ was born, and He became a sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf, suffering on the cross, and He became the ruler and leader, and the head of His holy Church, which He redeemed with His precious blood, and He instituted the bloodless sacrifice: His most pure Body in the form of bread, and His most pure Blood in the form of wine, commanding that this be performed through the sacramental rite, saying: “Do this in remembrance of Me” ([121] ). And following Him were the leaders of the Church—the holy Apostles; after the Apostles, the teachers, the holy bishops, and the priests, one after another; and the office of the holy bishops and priests has been handed down to us, and will continue through us until the end of the age. Likewise, the Lord has commanded that there be a bloodless sacrifice until His second, glorious coming, as the Holy Apostle Paul testifies, saying: “Brethren, I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you,” and so on; He also says: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes [122] .” And Saint John of Damascus, in his fourth book on the Faith, chapter 14, says: God said: “This is my body and this is my blood; do this in remembrance of me; and by His almighty command, it remains so until He comes.” This is clearly attested by the Apostle and by Damascene, that the sacred sacrifice will be performed even until the Second Coming of Christ, until He comes. In the present age , by the grace of Christ, there are leaders and guides who instruct others on the path to salvation: bishops, priests, and other members of the clergy; there is also a sacrifice, performed daily through the Liturgy; and there are places where the sacrifice is offered: the churches of God everywhere where Orthodox Christianity is found.

For the false teachers lie, misinterpreting the words of the Holy Three Youths, and claiming that there is no sacrifice, no offering, and no sacred order in these times.

Will not the people of Brynya wish to oppose this apostolic teaching until the Antichrist comes, and will they not heed the words of Saint Ephrem, who says that in the days of the Antichrist the holy sacrifice will cease, and the apostolic words will not be fulfilled; for Saint Ephrem says: “Then all the churches of Christ will weep with great weeping, because there will be no holy service at the altars, nor any offering [123] ?” Likewise, Saint Hippolytus says in his sermon that the churches will be deserted, and the offering will cease; for he says: “The holy churches will be like storehouses for fruit, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ will not be made manifest in those days; the service will cease [124] .” Thus far Hippolytus.

The Brynians say: “Will there be no sacrifice until Christ comes, or will it simply cease?”

I reply: The sacrifice will not be visible, but will be in secret; there will be no service in churches, but in hidden places; it will not be in cities and towns, but in the mountains, caves, and deserts: for the same Saint Ephrem says in that same sermon that many will then be found pleasing to God and able to be saved in the mountains, on the hills, and in desolate places, through many prayers and countless tears. But the Holy God, seeing them thus in boundless sorrow and in holy faith, will have mercy on them as a father who loves his children with all his heart, wherever they may take refuge [125] . And again further on: For many saints, whoever are gathered together at that time, having immediately heard of the coming of the wicked one, will shed rivers of tears with sighs to the Holy God, to be delivered from the serpent, and they will flee with great haste into the wilderness, and hide in the mountains and in caves in fear, and cover themselves with earth and ashes, praying with tears day and night, with great humility; and help will be granted to them from God, and He will lead them to designated places, and they will be saved by taking refuge in (earthly) chasms and caves [126] ” Thus far Saint Ephrem. (Saint Hippolytus also says the same in his sermon). In those very places designated by the holy priests, where those who take refuge there dwell, the sacrifice will not cease to be offered until Christ comes [127] . Moreover, we must place greater faith in the words of the chosen, holy, and preeminent vessel, the Apostle Paul, the teacher of the nations, who was caught up to the third heaven, and rely more firmly on his words than on those of Hippolytus and Ephrem. These are holy men, but that most holy one, called by Christ Himself, who traveled throughout the world, endured countless illnesses and hardships, and laid down his head for Christ by the sword. The words of these holy men—Hippolytus and Ephrem—are true, but Paul’s are the truest, as attested by Divine Scripture. The words of these saints will come to pass, for the sacrifice will cease in the visible churches; and Paul’s words will also come to pass, for the sacrifice will not cease until the Lord comes—and it will not cease, as I have said, in the deserts, mountains, and caves of the earth.

Chapter 7. Concerning Certain People

Even in the Epistle to Timothy, the Spirit clearly says that in the last days some will fall away from the faith, listening to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons[128] , and so on; and again in the Epistle to the Galatians: there are some who are troubling you and seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ[129] . But the Brynski heretics falsely turn these words against us Orthodox, as if we were those who have fallen away from the faith, and as if we were the ones causing confusion and distorting the Gospel of Christ.

But, O foolish Galatians—Brynians! Do you not remember yourselves, you who slander us with such blasphemies? Examine the matter yourselves and see who the wicked ones are: us, or you? Which is greater: the catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic Church that exists throughout the universe, or your Brynia? The Ecumenical Orthodox Apostolic Church (I speak not of walls and buildings, but of the multitude of the faithful) exists not only in the Russian state, but also in the lands of Greece, Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Serbia, Bulgaria, Dalmatia, and Moldavia, and simply consider the whole world: your Brynya is but a single corner of the Russian state, and it is as great in comparison to the entire Catholic Orthodox Apostolic Church as a single handful of water is in comparison to the great sea. The Ecumenical Orthodox Apostolic Church, with its pastors and teachers, is not hidden away; it does not shine in secret, but shines openly, as on a candlestick, throughout the entire universe: but you, with your hermitages, hide like beasts in oak groves and forests; and when you leave your dwelling places to go into cities and towns, you do not reveal yourselves, but hide like mice in the basements of the houses you have taken over.

For we, adhering to the catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church that exists throughout the universe, are not a few, but the entire Church together with the Church that is above: but you, having fallen away from the Church and existing outside of catholic Orthodoxy, are truly few; not many; for even if ten thousand or twenty thousand of you were to gather, you would still be less than one-thousandth of the entire universal Church—indeed, you are utterly insignificant, nothing more than a few. For it is of you, and not of us, that the aforementioned words of the Apostle were written: “Some will fall away from the faith”; and again: “There are some who are causing trouble, seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ.”

But you, by misinterpreting the Holy Scriptures, falsely construct your teaching, as false teachers and opponents of the holy truth.

Chapter 8. On the Gospel and Anathema

Again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, the holy Apostle Paul writes: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed[130] .” As we have said before, so now I say again: “If anyone preaches a different gospel to you than the one you received, let him be accursed.”

These apostolic words are misinterpreted by the Brynskians, leading to the alteration of certain old sayings in new Russian books, as if by changing the wording, they have begun to preach the faith differently than what was preached and handed down by the Apostles.

But they are foolish, having darkened minds, unwilling and unable to discern, see, and understand the power of Holy Scripture, just as the blind stumble everywhere. Understand, then, you foolish among the people, and you who were once foolish, become wise[131] , and consider these three things:

1) To whom did the Apostle write these words?

2) When did he write them?

3) What did he write about?

To whom was it written? To the Russians? By no means; but to the Galatians, who knew neither the Russian people nor Slavic books.

When was it written? During his lifetime, more than nine hundred years before the baptism of Russia, and even earlier.

What did he write about? Was it about old and new Russian books, or about the teachings of the old books, as adapted in the new ones? Not at all; for at that time not only were there no books whatsoever in Russia, but the Christian faith had not yet taken root there, and the name of Christ had barely been heard in these lands through the preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew long ago—and even then only in a few places—and the Slavic alphabet had not yet been invented. And how dare the Bryn heretics cite to us those words of the Apostles, which were not written for us, neither concerning our books nor concerning our sayings, whether old or new. For what did the Apostle write about? Listen:

In Antioch, a dispute arose among the believers in Christ—Jews and Greeks—regarding circumcision: some maintained that it was impossible for Christians to be saved without circumcision, while others regarded circumcision as a heavy burden [132] . For this reason, the holy Apostle Paul and Barnabas, who were in Antioch at that time, felt it necessary to go to Jerusalem to the leading Apostles and elders to inquire about circumcision: and also to report to them that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, a message that greatly rejoiced the entire brotherhood in Jerusalem. And after the apostles and elders had consulted together in a council in Jerusalem, they abolished the Old Testament practice of circumcision, deeming it unnecessary for the new grace; but they commanded only that they abstain from food sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality, and that they do not cause their neighbor to stumble in any way; and with this they sent Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, along with Judas and Silas. When they arrived in Antioch, they presented the apostolic council’s letter to the church in Antioch regarding the abolition of circumcision, and then went out to preach to the Gentiles. For Saint Paul, the most excellent teacher of the Gentiles, having come to Galatia and enlightened the Galatians with the faith of Christ, taught them the Christian law rather than the Jewish law, commanding them not to be circumcised, nor to observe the Sabbath, nor to adhere to any other Jewish rituals (ceremonies) of the Old Testament, but only to believe in Christ God with piety and to live in a manner pleasing to God. Having thus instructed the Galatians, Saint Paul departed for Rome. After his departure, however, some false brothers who had believed in Christ but were of Jewish origin came to Galatia; and they began to lead people astray, teaching that it was not enough to believe in Christ for salvation, but that one must also keep the Law of Moses—that is, be circumcised, observe the Sabbath, celebrate the new moons, and perform other Old Testament rites and ceremonies. When Paul, who was in Rome at that time, learned of this, he wrote a letter from Rome to the Galatians, saying: “Even if an angel from heaven were to preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” This is also made clear in the prefaces to the Epistle to the Galatians, and it is evident that the Apostle did not write these words to the Russians, nor did he refer to Russian books or written teachings; rather, he wrote to the Galatians concerning circumcision, forbidding them to follow Jewish practices.

For the Bryn heretics lie, using their own false interpretation of the Apostle’s words to turn them against us.

Chapter 9. On the Church Made by Human Hands

Furthermore, the schismatics misinterpret the words of the holy protomartyr Stephen, recorded in Acts of the Apostles, chapter 1, where Saint Stephen, speaking to the Jewish assembly, said: “Solomon built a temple for Him; but the Most High dwells in churches not made with hands, as the prophet (Isaiah) says: ‘Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: what kind of temple will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what place for My rest?’[133] ?” But the heretical Brynski interpret these words according to their own folly as follows: there is no need to go to churches to pray. The Most High does not dwell in man-made churches; the church is not in logs, but in the ribs (that is, not in the walls, but in the chest or heart); it is sufficient in itself for anyone to pray to God outside of a church.

In response to the absurdity of their reasoning and their erroneous interpretation, a theological explanation of God should be offered, clarifying that there is a material, visible, tangible place; and there is an immaterial, invisible, spiritual place. A material place is contained within itself, just as walls contain a city, a temple contains people, a chamber contains the things placed within it, and a garden contains the plants sown in it; whereas an immaterial, invisible, and intellectual place contains that which is immaterial, invisible, and intellectual; nor can an incorporeal, intelligent nature be contained or defined by a material place, unless it is itself intelligent. And since God, by His very nature, is incorporeal, immaterial, indescribable, and incomprehensible, immeasurable, and unfathomable—He is not confined or defined by any material place, but is everywhere, filling all things and containing all things, He Himself is not confined by anything—neither by the heavens, nor by the things beneath the heavens, nor by any temples. For He (according to St. Damascene) is a place unto Himself, and dwells within Himself, in His intelligent nature, in His incomprehensible Divinity [134] . And in accordance with this theological understanding, the holy protomartyr Stephen said to the Jews: “The Most High does not dwell in temples made by human hands.” He does dwell in those made by human hands, for He is everywhere and fills all things; yet not as He is in Himself, but as being outside His divine essence, sanctifying and filling the place consecrated to Him solely by His true grace, and being present there through His philanthropic mercy. Above all, the Lord God loves to dwell in the hearts and souls of those who love Him and faithfully serve Him, regarding them as His unmade church and the dwelling place of His presence. For this reason, the Apostle says to such people: “You are the living church of God, as God has said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them’[135] .” As for the holy churches built by human hands, which are not deprived of God’s presence, St. Damascene reasons as follows: “It is said that God is present in a material place, and it is said that a place is God’s where His revealed work takes place; for it is said that God’s place is wherever His work and grace are abundantly present: and the Church is also called the place of God, for we have designated it as a temple for His glorification, in which we offer prayer to Him.” Thus far Damascene;

This interpretation of the words of the first martyr would suffice; but since the heretics of Bryn have no spiritual understanding, but reason entirely according to the flesh, and interpret not according to the Spirit but according to the flesh, imagining God to be as if corporeal, confined and defined by a material place; and claiming that God is by no means present in man-made churches, and that it is not proper to go to churches to pray; For the Most High (they say) does not dwell in man-made churches: therefore, it is necessary to set forth such an interpretation against their wickedness that it might be like some visible and tangible substance, clearly exposing their folly.

Let us now examine the words of the First Martyr and investigate the surrounding circumstances as follows:

1) Of which churches is the holy First Martyr speaking?

2) Did the Most High ever dwell in those man-made churches of which the First Martyr speaks?

5) Since when has the Most High ceased to dwell in those churches of which the First Martyr speaks?

4) To whom was he speaking these words?

5) Why did he speak them?

6) When did he speak them?

Let us also consider whether the Lord God dwells in man-made Christian churches, built of stone or wood.

From this, the folly of schism will be clearly exposed.

(Here I use the terms “church” and “temple” interchangeably, not because I am unaware of the distinction between a temple and a church: for a temple is built with walls, while a church is composed of a gathering of the faithful; but since both Holy Scripture and people have come to call the temples of God “churches” because of the gatherings of the faithful within them [136] ; for this reason, the terms “temple” and “church” should be understood as one and the same here.)

1) INVESTIGATION

Of which churches does the holy protomartyr Stephen speak when he says that the Most High does not dwell in temples made with human hands?

He was speaking of the Jewish temples, recalling Solomon, and not of Christian churches; for in his day, Christian churches had not yet been built, and he had declared that the Most High does not dwell in Jewish temples.

You might say: “The Jews had only one church, not many.”

I reply: not one, but three, each in its own time.

The first church of theirs (after crossing the Red Sea) was in the wilderness, which Moses, by God’s command, made in the likeness of a tent, of scarlet, purple, and fine linen, and covered it with animal skins; this church the Holy First Martyr, in his same discourse to the Jews, calls the “tent of testimony” ([137] ). That tabernacle moved with the people of Israel as they journeyed, carried by the Levites; and it stood still when they stood still.

Their second temple was the one built by Solomon, which, many years later, was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

The third temple was built by Zerubbabel, a Jewish prince of the house of David and an ancestor of Christ, after the Babylonian captivity. For seventy years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple, when Zerubbabel, the prince, was sent from Babylon with many people to the ruined city of Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple of the Lord. Thus, the temple built by Zerubbabel, the forefather of Christ, stood in Jerusalem during the days of Christ and the Apostles, until later, when Titus, the son of Vespasian, came with Roman forces and razed it to the ground. For the holy first martyr said: “The Most High does not dwell in temples made with human hands,” he was referring to all three of those Jewish temples: that of Moses, that of Solomon, and that of Zerubbabel. We, however, take this to mean that he was speaking of the Jewish temples, not the Christian ones, which had not yet been built in the days of the First Martyr.

2) INVESTIGATION.

Did the Most High ever dwell in those temples of which the First Martyr spoke?

He did indeed dwell there, not by leaving heaven, but by dwelling within them with His divine essence, fitting Himself within their walls—He who is too great to be contained even by the heavens—but by looking down upon them from above, He was present to them through His grace, and He guarded them with His holy angels as long as He willed. In those Old Testament churches, God’s presence through His grace and that of the angels was made known by distinct signs.

God dwelt in the church of Moses by His wondrous grace, as signified by the cloud that covered the Tabernacle, the glory of the Lord filling the Tabernacle [138] , and the voice of God speaking to Moses from the altar, as it is written in the first chapter of Leviticus: The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tabernacle, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel”[139] . Likewise, when Samuel the youth was sleeping in the Tabernacle at night, the Lord called to him four times from the altar [140] .

God dwelt in Solomon’s temple by His loving-kindness, the sign of which was the cloud and the glory of the Lord, which filled the temple at its consecration; and the priests could not stand to minister before the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the temple [141] . Moreover, in a vision, God said to Solomon: “My eyes will be there, and my heart will be there all the days[142] .”

God dwelt by His miraculous grace in the temple, which had been restored by Zerubbabel, as evidenced by the sign of water turning into fire, as is written in the Second Book of Maccabees, chapter 1. For when water was poured out upon the sacrifices, flames of fire burst forth from the water. Furthermore, the angelic protection of that church was clearly manifested when the Lord’s angels mercilessly struck down the governor Heliodorus, who had sought to plunder the church [143] . And to Saint Zechariah, who was serving in the church according to his turn in the priestly rotation, the Angel Gabriel appeared at the altar of incense, announcing the conception of John. In the works of St. John Chrysostom, you will find a passage about the Most Pure Mother of God, in which it is written: when the Most Pure Virgin Mary, being twelve years old, was praying in the Lord’s church (built by Zerubbabel) before the altar, an indescribable light shone forth, and a voice was heard from the Holy of Holies: “You have given birth to My Son.” From these signs, it became evident that the Lord God was present in those Old Testament churches—those of Moses, Solomon, and Zerubbabel—with His grace, remaining there until He chose to depart.

3) INVESTIGATION

Since when has the Most High ceased to dwell in those Old Testament churches?

Human sins drive God’s grace and mercy away from themselves and from the holy places. For God ceased to be present by His grace in the temple of testimony at the time when, because of the sins of the sons of Eli, the Philistines captured the Ark of God and carried it to Ashdod; then the wife of Phinehas, as she was dying in childbirth, uttered these final words: “The glory of the Lord has departed from Israel, for the Ark of God has been taken[144] ; the glory of Israel is lost, for the Ark of God has been taken!” But in time, through the prayers of the holy prophet Samuel, the glory of the Lord returned to its place along with the Ark.

God dwelt in Solomon’s temple by His mercy until the kings and the people of Jerusalem turned to idolatry. For thus the Lord had spoken to Solomon in a vision: “I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, to place My name there forever; My eyes and My heart will be there all the days.” And if you walk before me as David your father walked—with a whole heart and with integrity—I will establish the throne of your kingdom forever. But if you or your children turn away from me and do not keep my commandments and my decrees, and if you serve other gods and worship them, I will uproot Israel from the land I have given you, and this temple, which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight [145] . Let us heed the words of the Lord: He promised to dwell in Solomon’s temple forever, but on this condition: that you and your children do not turn away from Me to foreign gods; but if you do turn away from Me, then I too will turn away from you, and I will cast out of My presence the temple consecrated to My name. And so it came to pass: the kings of Jerusalem and the people did not keep God’s covenant; and the Lord God did not keep His promise to them to dwell forever in their temple. For many years had passed, and iniquities had multiplied, so the glory of God was taken from Solomon’s temple before the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the Chaldean army; see the life of the holy Prophet Ezekiel, on the 21st day of the month of July [146] ; as well as in his prophetic book: chapters 8, 9, and 10.

In the temple restored by Zerubbabel, the forefather of Christ, God was present through His grace until that time, in which Christ our Lord deigned to suffer for us. For when the Jews did not accept the Son of God sent to them, but rather nailed Him to the cross by the hands of the lawless [147] : then God’s grace departed from their church, the sign of which was the church veil, torn in two from the top to the bottom. Thus Saint Theophylact says: “The veil was torn, revealing to God that the grace of the Spirit had departed from the Church.” Saint Ephrem, in his discourse on the Lord’s Passion, also relates this: “When the veil of the Church was torn, a dove flew out of the Church, which was a sign of the departure of the Holy Spirit”[148] .

4) SEARCH.

To whom did the holy protomartyr address these words: “The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands”?

He spoke to the unbelieving Jews, who did not accept Christ, the Son of God, the true Messiah sent to them; they did not believe in Him, but hated Him, and, slandering Him before Pilate as an enemy of Caesar and as a criminal, delivered Him up to death on the cross: But when Christ rose from the tomb on the third day, they sought to conceal His resurrection; and after His ascension into heaven, they did not wish to remember His name, and they persecuted those who believed in Him. The First Martyr spoke these words to them, not to orthodox Christians, nor did he speak of Christian churches, but of Jewish ones.

5) INVESTIGATION

Why did the First Martyr speak these words to the Jews?

For this reason, it is said that the Jews believed they could dwell nowhere on earth before the God of heaven except in their one church, which (as had been the case previously) was the only one they had: nor was there any other in all their land, nor was any church to be found under heaven, created for the God of heaven, while idolatry then held sway over the entire universe, except for that one in Jerusalem. (There was one similar to it in Shechem of Samaria, but it was defiled by idols; we will speak of it later.) And the Jews boasted of their church in Jerusalem with pride, exalting themselves above all under heaven, as can be seen in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, chapter 1, where their haughty boasting about the church is rebuked by the Lord with these words: “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord is[149] .’” And the Lord tells them in that chapter that they may dwell in that temple of theirs only as long as they do good deeds; but if they turn to wickedness, then He will reject both their temple and themselves. However, they did fall into corruption, and they did not cease to boast arrogantly about the temple of the Lord that was in Jerusalem; then the holy protomartyr spoke these words to them against their arrogant boasting: The Most High does not dwell in man-made churches; that is to say, God is not confined by the man-made walls of a church. He is everywhere—in heaven and on earth—and is not bound to any single place, being too vast to be contained by the heavens or the things beneath them. As long as you faithfully served God, He was with you, living among you through His grace in His holy temple. But since you have forsaken God and rejected the Son of God, God too has forsaken you and your glorious man-made church, saying: “Behold, your house is left to you desolate[150] .” Such is the power of the words of the first martyrs.

6) INVESTIGATION

At what time did the holy first martyr speak these words?

At the time when our Lord had already ascended into heaven, leaving the Jewish church empty, having withdrawn His grace from it because of their corruption and the evil they had done to Him, and already at that time the Most High was no longer dwelling with His grace in the man-made church of the Jews, which was in Jerusalem. And indeed, at that very moment, Saint Stephen said to them: “The Most High does not dwell in man-made temples—that is, not in your Jewish ones—but He dwells in the churches of the Christians.”

CONSIDERATION

Does the Lord God dwell in man-made Christian churches, built of stone or wood?

If God dwelt in the Old Testament churches by His grace—as we have heard—in which there were only foreshadows, types, and prefigurations of the New Covenant, how much more does He dwell in the churches of the New Covenant themselves, in which the Body and Blood of Christ are consecrated, all the Christian sacraments are celebrated, and the Holy Spirit descends upon the Sacraments being celebrated. Let us begin, then, with the first man-made Christian church:

The first man-made Christian church began in Jerusalem, in holy Zion, in that upper room, where Christ our Lord, about to undergo His voluntary Passion, ate the Passover meal with His disciples, and, consecrating Himself under the appearance of bread and wine, gave to His holy disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; this is My Body; drink from it, all of you; this is My Blood.” In that same upper room (according to the Synaxarion on Holy Wednesday), Christ’s female disciples were gathered there out of fear of the Jews, and Christ appeared to them through the closed doors and reassured Thomas. And again, after the Lord’s Ascension, the holy Apostles, having returned from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, went up to that upper room, and they were all together in one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brothers[151] ; and in that upper room the Holy Spirit descended upon the holy Apostles in tongues of fire [152] . And through a single sermon by the holy Apostle Peter, three thousand souls believed in Christ and were baptized; and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread (that is, the Body of Christ), and to prayers[153] . Did not the Lord God dwell invisibly by His grace in that first man-made Christian church, where the most pure Mysteries of Christ were celebrated, and where the Mother of God was present with the Apostles?

Later, when the holy Apostles had spread throughout the entire world, wherever they went—enlightening every city and country with the holy faith—they established churches of God, ordained bishops, and commanded the faithful to gather in God’s churches for prayer. I ask: in those churches of God established by the Apostles, was not the grace of God invisibly present?

To Saint Chrysostom, who had been ordained a presbyter by Patriarch Flavian of Antioch, a white and radiant dove appeared, flying above his head [154] ; likewise, to Saint Gregory of Akragas, who was ordained a bishop in Rome, a dove alighted upon his head: did not the grace of God dwell in those churches?

It is written in the Prologue for the 27th day of January: A certain sick man in Constantinople, in the church at the tomb of Saint John Chrysostom, was left lying there after the closing hymn; and as he gazed upon the icon of Christ the Savior, which was at the top of the church, he confessed his sins, and a voice came to him from the icon, saying: “Your sins are forgiven,” and immediately the man was healed: was this not a clear sign of God’s presence in the church?

Mary of Egypt, in Jerusalem, until she came to her senses and repented, could not enter the church with those who were entering, but was held back from the church doors by an invisible force, as is written in her life story at [155] : Was this not a sign of God’s presence in that church?

When Alexius, a man of God, passed away in Rome, a voice was heard in the church from the altar: “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest”; and then a second voice: “Seek the man of God in the house of Euthymian.” Was not that voice a clear sign of God’s presence in the church?[156]

Again, in the Prologue, it is written on the 5th day of March: While Priest Ammonius was celebrating the Liturgy in the church, he saw an Angel standing to the right of the altar, who was writing down the names of those entering the church and erasing the names of those leaving before the dismissal; was this not a sign of the Angel’s presence in the church by the grace of God?

Furthermore, in the Prologue for the 30th day of September, it is written about a certain brother who was led astray regarding the most pure Divine Mysteries of Christ, as if they were not the true Body and Blood of Christ; and how a terrifying revelation came to him during the Holy Liturgy: he saw the church veil parted, the heavens opened, fire descending with a multitude of angels, a little boy being slaughtered atop the holy table, and his blood flowing into the chalice—a matter about which Saint Ephrem also writes in his 86th homily. Similarly, on the 3rd day of April, the Prologue recounts this, and it is also written in the Life of Saint Arsenius the Great:[157] .

Is all this not a clear sign that the Lord God lives through divine mysteries and His grace in the man-made Christian churches, and that He visits them through His angels?

And countless other miracles and wonders are found in the church books—those that have occurred and continue to occur in the churches of the saints—which cry out louder than trumpets that God is present in His temples, built and consecrated for the honor and glory of His most holy Name.

Here, indeed, the folly of the schismatics is clearly exposed—those who claim that as if God Almighty does not dwell in man-made churches—and their false teaching is refuted, which forbids entering the church to pray.

Behold, O foolish heretics! From the very beginning of the Christian faith, people began to build the Lord’s churches, starting with the Council of Constantinople, from which Christian law emanated, from the Apostles, and through them from their successors, as well as from great kings and princes. Emperor Constantine the Great built a church in Rome; his blessed mother Helena built a church in Jerusalem; Emperor Justinian built the Church of the Wisdom of God in Constantinople; Grand Prince Vladimir built the Church of the Tithes in Kyiv, and after him his sons built fine churches in their respective principalities; and now the faithful are building them everywhere, and not a single one has ever said, as you say, that God does not dwell in the man-made Christian churches. Moreover, the saints shone not only in other lands but also in our Russia; and not a single one ever taught, as you do, that one should not enter the temples of God to pray. Did not the Russian miracle-workers themselves build man-made churches in Russia? Saint Peter, Metropolitan of All Russia, built a church in the imperial city of Moscow; Saint Sergius the Wonderworker built a church in Radonezh; Saint Zosimus on Solovetsky Island; and others in various other places. But you, O opponents who reject the temples of God, are either holier than all the holy builders of God’s temples—which cannot be—or you are more accursed than all heretics: for even those who have departed from Orthodoxy build temples to God according to their own faith and gather there for their own prayers; but you utterly reject the structure of the church, and the prayers offered in churches; instead, you regard your own cellars and basements—where you gather for your prayers—as more honorable than the churches of God, and you say that the Most High does not dwell in man-made temples. Has He perhaps taken up residence in your cellars and basements? Are not your huts also man-made? If (according to your words) God is not in the churches, how then does He dwell in your huts? Truly, He is present everywhere: but differently in His holy church; differently in the dwellings of sinners, just as differently in heaven, and differently in hell; for it is said that God’s presence is even in hell, as it is written in the Psalms: “If I go down to hell, You are there[158] ,” reigning in heaven, while in hell He torments the demons and prepares torments for the enemies of God. In this way, He is different in His holy Church, where He accepts the prayers and supplications of the faithful; but He is different in your cellars and underground chambers, where He despises your services, which you perform in secret, in opposition to and in schism against His holy Church.

And when you say that the church is not in logs but in ribs—that is, in the human heart—I reply: It is true that every orthodox person who truly pleases God and has Him in his heart is a temple of God, according to the words of the Apostle: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” ([159] ). But tell us: do you know that God’s Spirit dwells in your ribs? If you know that God’s Spirit dwells in you, why then do you not enter the holy church, but rather despise it? Does the Spirit of God not command a righteous person to go to church? Does He not even more strongly urge a person to come to the temple of God? Have you not heard in the Holy Gospel about Saint Simeon the God-Receiver, who was filled with the Spirit and came to the church[160] ? It is the Spirit of God who leads the righteous man to the church. And were not the holy Apostles the temples of the Spirit of God ? They did not flee from the church of God, but rather clung to it, as is written about them at the end of the Gospel of Saint Luke: “And they were in the church, praising and blessing God”[161] . But you flee from the church and despise it: for it is evident that the Spirit of God is not in your hearts, and the church of God is not in your hearts; but your hearts are a den of robbers, a dwelling place of an unclean spirit that deceives you and leads you to destruction.

You say: “Didn’t the desert dwellers without churches attain salvation, such as the great Onuphrius, Paul of Thebes, Mary of Egypt, and others like them?”

I reply: They were saved without churches because in those deserts where they dwelt, there were no churches, and their own inner church sufficed for them, as you say: not in timber, but in their very bodies; But for those who live in cities and towns surrounded by many churches, yet shun them—how is it possible for them to attain salvation? Is it not written in the book, as the Helmsman says, in the canons of the local council held in Haggra, Canon 5: “If anyone teaches that the house of God—that is, the church—should be neglected, and that one should not care for it or gather in it at the time of prayer for singing, let him be accursed [162] .” “And Rule 6 states: ‘If anyone gathers on his own apart from the cathedral church, and without consulting the church, yet wishes to conduct church services, the presbyter shall not cooperate with him according to the bishop’s will; let him be accursed.’ For according to these rules, schismatics are accursed, as is evident from the Scripture: “The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands”; they shun the churches of God and hold their own private assemblies in secret, unconsecrated places of worship.

Chapter 10. On the Cell

I still hear the misinterpreters wrongly explaining these words of Christ: “But when you pray, go into your inner room, and having shut the door, pray to your Father in secret” ([163] ); and from these words of Christ they derive their false teaching that people should not go to church for communal singing, saying: Christ commands us to pray in secret, shut away in a room; therefore, it is not fitting to go to churches to pray, where many gather to sing.

We, however, will examine these four points:

1) For what reason did Christ utter those words?

2) Did He forbid people from coming to church to pray with those words?

3) In what kind of room is it most fitting to pray?

4) Is it beneficial to go to church to pray?

1st CONSIDERATION

For what reason did Christ utter those words?

During the days of Christ’s earthly ministry, there were certain people in Jerusalem known as hypocrites—or, as we say, “holier-than-thou” types—who, wishing to appear holy in the eyes of others, multiplied their prayers beyond those offered in church, and prayed hypocritically throughout the city with prolonged prayers, standing in the streets and at crossroads, dividing into groups of two, three, and four, so that they might be seen by people coming from here and there and be honored as saints—though their hypocritical prayer was not pleasing to God, but only to people. For this reason, Christ our Lord admonished each of His followers, saying: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to pray standing in synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others; “Amen, I say to you, they will receive their reward[164] ” (by “reward” He means vain human glory, for that is the reward of the hypocrites): “But when you pray, go into your inner room,” and so on. This clearly shows why the Lord spoke those words; He spoke to warn against hypocritical, feigned prayers, rather than the communal prayers of the church, which are established by the canons. For the Bryn heretics and false teachers lie when they teach the simple people to shun the communal singing and prayers of the church, but to shut themselves away in their cells to pray.

2nd CONSIDERATION

Did the Lord, by those words of His, forbid people from coming to church to pray?

He did not forbid it, for He did not call church singing “hypocritical prayer,” but rather the practice outside the church, in the city streets, done for the sake of showing off to people; nor did He forbid church prayers, but rather those performed outside the church by hypocrites before the eyes of the people—He taught us to avoid such things; As for coming to church to pray, our Lord Himself set an example for all, for from His infancy and youth He began to go to the church in Jerusalem, as is clearly shown in the Holy Gospel; Forty days after His birth, He was brought by His sinless Mother, the Most Pure Virgin Mary, to the church in Jerusalem, and the elder Simeon took Him into his arms [165] . Upon their return from Egypt, His parents (the Most Pure Virgin and Joseph, His foster father) would journey (from Nazareth) every summer to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover [166] ; and they would go to the Church of Jerusalem to pray. And when the boy Jesus was twelve years old, He remained in Jerusalem and was found in the temple, sitting among the teachers. As He grew older, the Gospel testifies how often He was found in the temple. In Matthew, chapter 85: Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling there, and said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves.” And the lame and the blind came to Him in the church [167] . In Chapter 85: When He came into the church, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached Him, saying, “By what authority are you doing these things?”[168] . In Chapter 108: “Every day I sat with you in the church teaching, and you did not arrest me”[169] . In Luke, chapter 98: He taught daily in the synagogue[170] . In chapter 108: By day He taught in the synagogue, but at night He would go out and stay on the Mount of Olives[171] . In John, chapter 26: On the middle day of the festival, Jesus went up to the temple[172] . In Chapter 27: Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, and the next morning He came again to the temple, and all the people went to Him[173] . In Chapter 37: There was a festival in Jerusalem, and Jesus went to the temple[174] . Now, if the Gospel testimonies state that Christ our Lord Himself loved to come to church, how could He forbid others from coming to church to pray? For the false teachers lie when they say that Christ does not command us to go to church, but only to pray in a closed cell. St. John Chrysostom also exposes their falsehood in Homily 19 on Matthew, on page 240, saying: “Go into your closet”—for, he asks, is it not fitting to pray in church? And it is very fitting, but with such a disposition (without hypocrisy); for God seeks the minds of those who are present everywhere. Likewise, Saint Theophylact, in his commentary on the Gospel, regarding the same words of Christ, “Go into your closet,” says: “What then? Shall I not pray in church?” “All the more so (I will pray): but with a pure heart, so as not to appear to be doing it for the sake of people; for it is not the place that matters, but the thought, the mind, and the deed: for many who pray in secret do so merely to please people.” Thus far Theophylact.

3rd CONSIDERATION

In which kind of cell is it most fitting to pray?

Man has two kinds of cells for prayer: the physical and the spiritual. The physical cell is made of wood or stone; the spiritual cell, however, is the human heart or mind. Thus, Saint Theophylact, interpreting Christ’s prophetic words, says: “The cell is a secret thought.” The physical cell remains in one place; the spiritual cell, however, accompanies a person everywhere. Wherever a person may be, his heart is always within him; there, gathering his thoughts, he can withdraw into himself in contemplation, lift his mind to God, and pray in secret, even while among people. Thus Saint Ambrose teaches: The Savior says, “Enter into your cell, not one enclosed by walls, in which your limbs are shut in, but into the cell that is within you, in which your thoughts are shut in. “That prayerful cell is with you everywhere, and it is secret everywhere; no one sees it except God alone.” Thus far Saint Ambrose. In this spiritual cell, which is carried everywhere with you—that is, in the heart—it is more fitting to pray than in a physical cell, which stands in one place; with this spiritual cell , one ought to come to church and offer prayers raised to God by the mind from the secret recesses of the heart; but do not pray in the cell of your heart with prayers raised to God by the mind, even if you shut yourself away in underground chambers for prayer, or even if you enter earthly caves to pray; he does not pray, but engages in idle talk, and his prayer is a sin... For the false teachers lie, teaching that one should shut oneself away to pray only in physical cells, neglecting the church and the prayers offered there from the heart to God.

4th CONSIDERATION

Is it beneficial to come to church to pray?

To this, let one (instead of many)—Saint John Chrysostom—answer, in the book called *Margarit*, in Sermon 5, on the Incomprehensible: that sermon was addressed to the people while he was still a presbyter in Antioch, in which he rebukes the people for being too lazy to attend the Holy Liturgy; but when his sermon—which took place after the Liturgy—began, they would rush to attend with great eagerness, leaving everything behind and even pushing one another aside. For he said to them: “What is this infirmity? A countless multitude (of people) has gathered here now, listening intently to my words with such great reverence; yet at the most solemn hour (of the Liturgy), I could not find you among the crowd, and I lamented greatly.” For when I, your humble servant, speak to you, there is great diligence and sustained zeal, with you encouraging one another and remaining until the very end of the sermon; yet when you wish to appear before Christ in the sacred mysteries, the church is empty despite your diligence [175] . But what is this common response of many: “I can pray at home,” they say, “but it is not possible to receive sermons and instruction at home.” You are deceiving yourself, my friend: for it is indeed possible to pray at home, but it is not possible to pray there as one does in church, where there are so many fathers and where a united cry is sent up to God. One is not heard as well when praying to the Lord alone as when praying with one’s brothers. For here there is a multitude of things: unity of mind and harmony, the bond of love, and the prayers of the clergy. For this reason, the priests stand before God, so that the people’s prayers—being weaker—may, together with these stronger (priestly) prayers, ascend to heaven[176] . Thus far, Chrysostom.

Here, let everyone listen carefully and understand these words of Chrysostom: it is possible to pray at home, but it is not possible to pray there as one does in church; and furthermore: you are not heard as readily when praying to the Lord alone as when praying with your brothers; and furthermore: for this reason, the priests stand before Him, so that the people’s prayers—which are the weakest—may, together with the strongest priestly prayers, ascend to heaven; and see how beneficial it is to come to church to pray.

And again, that same great teacher, in the very same passage below, says: At that time, beloved, (that is, during the Liturgy,) it is not only people who raise that most awe-inspiring cry, but the angels also prostrate themselves before the Lord, and the archangels pray; for they have a time that is favorable, an offering that is helpful. Just as people, having cut off olive branches, come before kings, reminding them of the garden, mercy, and love for humanity: so too do the angels at that time, instead of olive branches, offer the very Body of the Lord, They pray to the Lord for the human nature, saying not merely, “We pray for these, whom You Yourself have loved in this way beforehand, just as You gave Your soul for them,” but “We pour out our prayers for these, for whom You shed Your blood; we pray for these, for whom You consumed Your body [177] .” Thus far, Saint Chrysostom.

For the heretics lie when they say that there is no benefit in coming to church to pray.

Will not these blasphemers against the churches of God, in support of their blasphemies, cite the words of the same Saint John Chrysostom, who, in his 56th homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, says: “In those days (during the time of the Apostles), there were also houses of the church; but now the church itself is a house, and indeed there is no difference between it and any tavern or inn, which are like our churches. So much laughter, so much disorder, as in bathhouses, as in marketplaces, with people speaking, everyone saying, ‘[178] ’?”

I reply: St. Chrysostom does not disparage the temples of God, but rather those who enter the church without the fear of God, and who do not show reverence while standing in the church, but talk instead of praying, and discuss worldly matters instead of listening to the church hymns; it is them he rebukes, while he extols the house of God with high praise, saying there: “The church is not a barber’s shop, nor a shop selling ointment, nor any kind of marketplace, but a place of angels, a place of archangels, the kingdom of God, heaven itself.” And in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in the 50th homily, he says: “Let us kiss the church’s threshold and entrance, kissing one another.” Or do you not see that the women and the threshold of this church are kissed?[179] . Thus far, Chrysostom. This clearly shows that this holy teacher does not condone blasphemers against the church, for he does not disparage the church itself, but rather those fearless people who stand and speak irreverently within the church.

For the slanderers lie greatly and rage with their malice, reviling the temples of God and forbidding people from coming into them to pray.

Chapter 11. On Worship

It has recently been reported to us that some men and women in our diocese, having been taught by false teachers and heretics who secretly visit them, and are teaching others like themselves not only to refrain from coming to church to pray, but also to refrain from praying at home with the reverent worship befitting God before the holy icons—that is, bowing their bodies and heads to the ground—but rather to pray only in their minds. To confirm their false teaching, they cite Christ’s words spoken in the Gospel to the Samaritan woman: “True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” ([180] ); and they misinterpret these words, saying: “It is not proper to bow one’s body and head to the ground; Christ does not command this, but only in spirit, even while lying down. And they refer to the book known as the Sunday Gospel, in which, on the Sunday concerning the Samaritan woman, those words of Christ are interpreted thus: “True worshippers worship the Father not in body but in spirit”[181] . Oh, the utter folly of these mad false teachers and heretics! They slander the Lord’s words—pure words—as if they did not command us to worship God with bodily prostration to the ground. Instead of deriving benefit from these words, they bring harm upon themselves through their foolish interpretation of Christ’s words. Their false teaching is like this: when a flower is watered by the morning dew, a bee flies in and gathers the dew from it; likewise, a spider crawls up and gathers the same dew from that same flower; but the dew they gather is not transformed into the same substance: in the bee it is transformed into honey, but in the spider into deadly poison. Thus, from the flowers of God’s words, the orthodox and virtuous men, like bees gathering honey, gather sweet nourishment for the soul; while from those same words of God, like spiders, they receive the harm of heresy. St. Dorotheus speaks well: “A soul with an evil disposition is harmed by every thing, even if that thing is beneficial” ([182] ). Let us not fail, therefore, to respond to their folly and to expose their false teaching; let us consider Christ’s words in this way:

1) For what reason did the Lord Jesus speak these words to the Samaritan woman?

2) Does He forbid people through these words from bowing down to God with their bodies?

We will also seek to understand: what does it mean to worship in spirit and in truth?

But first, I will briefly present the history of the schism or division between the Jews and the Samaritans, so that what we propose to examine may be more easily understood by the simplest of the uneducated.

From the death of Solomon, and from the beginning of the reign of his son Rehoboam, a division began to arise among the tribes of Israel, and between Jerusalem and Samaria (about which it is written at length in the Third and Fourth Books of Kings), even until the Babylonian Exile [183] . Upon their return from Babylon, the division between them arose again, especially from the time when the Jewish high priest, named Jadda, the brother of Manasseh, having been expelled from the priestly service because of his marriage to a foreign woman—namely, the daughter of the prince of Samaria—went from Jerusalem to Samaria to his father-in-law (this took place in the days of Alexander the Great). That Manasseh, in Samaria on the highest mountain, called Gerizim (at the foot of which lay the city of Shechem, later called Sychar), with the help of his father-in-law, built a temple in every respect similar to the temple in Jerusalem, and became the first high priest there. From that time on, the schism between the Jews and the Samaritans became firmly established. For the Samaritans, though they were of the Israelite stock, did not go to the church in Jerusalem to worship, but in their own church on Mount Gerizim, they offered sacrifices to the God of heaven, and they preferred their own church to that of Jerusalem, even though the latter later came to house idols: For Antiochus, known as Epiphanes, king of Syria, had set up an idol of Zeus there. And there was great hatred between the Jerusalemites and the Samaritans, and they despised one another so much that they would neither eat nor drink nor converse with one another; for this reason, the woman said to the Lord Jesus: “How is it that you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?”

Moreover, they did not enter one another’s cities. The people of Jerusalem did not enter the cities of the Samaritans, regarding them as Gentiles—that is, as pagans. For this reason, the Lord Jesus, yielding to the malicious Jewish disposition, commanded His disciples to avoid the Samaritans, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any Samaritan city” ([184] ). The Samaritans, in turn, did not enter the cities of Jerusalem and were excluded from fellowship with the Jews. And the Samaritans were so hated by the Jews that even the mere mention of the name “Samaritan” was an abomination to them. And when they sought to rebuke our Lord, they said, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan?”[185] . They also had constant complaints about their synagogues. The Jews said: “We have a place where it is fitting to worship the God of heaven, in our temple in Jerusalem; for the law went forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” as the prophet says [186] ; and another: “The Lord will call out from Zion and make His voice heard from Jerusalem”; and God Himself said: “I am the Lord your God, who dwells in Zion, on My holy mountain, and Jerusalem shall be holy” ([187] ). “For God dwells only among us,” (said the Jews), “and it is fitting to worship Him and offer sacrifices to Him here; and there is no other place under heaven chosen for His dwelling and worship except our church in Jerusalem.”

The Samaritans, however, who do not accept the prophetic books except those of Moses, spoke in opposition, saying that it is fitting to worship the God of heaven with sacrifices on their mountain and in their temple, for the following reasons: that Abraham, coming from Mesopotamia (the land between the rivers) to the land of Canaan, first arrived at Shechem and there built his first altar to God, offered sacrifices, and received a promise from God [188] ; Likewise, Jacob, having returned from Mesopotamia with his wives and children, established his dwelling here in Shechem, having purchased a portion of land from Emmor, the father of Shechem, and Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, who, with their bravery, slew the men of Shechem for the defilement of their sister Dinah; and the bones of Joseph, brought from Egypt, were laid to rest here, according to Joseph’s own command; for Jacob, as he was dying, gave him that place as an inheritance [189] . Here, too, Joshua, after crossing the Jordan and destroying Jericho, and after defeating King Gaius, built the first altar to the Lord God of Israel, just as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded him: and he inscribed the law of God on stones and read it aloud to the entire assembly of the children of Israel, and here he first blessed the people of Israel [190] . For here (said the Samaritans), it is fitting to worship the God of heaven, and there is no other place under heaven chosen for dwelling and worshiping Him except this mountain and this church of ours.

Thus, the Samaritans and the Jews, as people of the flesh who are ignorant of spiritual matters, argued among themselves, each designating their own place as God’s dwelling: some believing that God dwells only in their places; others, in their own place, not realizing that He is everywhere present and fills all things.

Here we shall proceed to our examination.

1st CONSIDERATION

For what reason did Christ the Lord speak those words—“true worshipers,” and so on—to the Samaritan woman?

He spoke these words for the following reasons:

1) To reveal their erroneous view of God, as if God were confined to a single place on earth and bound to a single temple; for this reason He said: “You worship what you do not know.” You do not know, He said, that God is not confined to any place or temple, but is everywhere, indefinable and immeasurable.

2) To humble the arrogance of the Samaritans and the Jews, who take pride in their temples, and to prophesy their destruction; for this reason He says: “The hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father— ” That is, both the temple in Jerusalem, of which the Jews are proud, and your temple, of which you are proud, will be destroyed in due time; your lands will be laid waste, and your sacrifices will cease.

3) May He remove from them enmity and senseless strife, and bring them into loving harmony, so that the Jews and the Gentiles may form one church; for this reason He also calls upon the Father, that He may create children of God, establish brotherhood among them, and reveal the true worshippers from among the Jews and Gentiles who believe in Him.

4) May He expose their false worship of God, which was performed only according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit; for this reason He says: “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, and not merely with fleshly worship and animal sacrifices.”

2nd CONSIDERATION

Does the Lord Jesus Christ, by these words, forbid people from bowing down to God with their bodies and foreheads to the ground?

By no means. For if He had forbidden it, He would not have accepted, while still in swaddling clothes, the worship offered with the whole body by the shepherds and by the three kings of Persia, who fell down and worshiped Him. If He had forbidden bowing down to God with one’s body, He would not have allowed the sinful woman to touch His feet [191] , to wash them with her tears, to wipe them with her hair, and to kiss them. Nor would He have allowed the leper who bowed down to Him, saying, “Lord! if you are willing, you can make me clean[192] ; and a certain ruler came and bowed down to him, saying: “My daughter is dying now, but come, lay your hand on her, and she will live”[193] ; and Christ’s disciples, who were in the boat after Peter had been saved from drowning, came and bowed down to him, saying: “Truly, you are the Son of God”[194] . And the Canaanite woman, falling down, worshiped him[195] ; and Mary, the sister of Lazarus, seeing Jesus, fell at his feet, saying, “Lord! If you had been here, my brother would not have died[196] . If Christ, as a man, had forbidden bowing down physically to God, He Himself would not have knelt in the garden while praying to God the Father, nor would He have fallen to the ground, prostrating Himself face down in prayer before His Father. If He had forbidden bowing, how could He not have forbidden it to His disciples when, after His resurrection, He came to the mountain in Galilee and appeared to them? When they saw Him, they bowed down to Him[197] . And when He was ascending into heaven, did they not bow down to Him[198] ? Furthermore, in heaven, a form of worship of God was shown to Saint John the Theologian in the Book of Revelation, in the twenty-four elders who fell down before the One seated on the throne and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever [199] . But leaving aside the scholarly arguments, let me put it very simply: Did not the venerable Russian fathers perform physical prostrations in their prayers to God? And do not those who now care for their salvation do the same? For the false teachers lie, having invented something new, teaching people not to bow with their bodies, and slandering Christ Himself, as if He did not command us to bow with our bodies, but only in spirit.

An Explanation of Christ’s Words.

To better understand worship of the Father in spirit and truth, we must first examine how the Jews and Samaritans worshiped God. Let us therefore examine that same book, known as the Sunday Gospel of Instruction, a book which, as we have said before, is subject to misinterpretations—such as the teaching that one should not bow down with the body, but only in spirit—and let us read the interpretation in that book.

It is written there as follows: “He calls those who believe in Him true worshippers: those of us who are members of the Church, who truly honor God, and do not bow down to a mere shadow, as the Jews and Samaritans do: for every Jewish sacrifice was a shadow and a foreshadowing of the truth; but true worshippers worship the Father not with the body, but in spirit—that is to say, not with bodily sacrifices, but with spiritual ones”[200] —this is the interpretation up to this point. Behold, how this book interprets itself: not in the flesh—that is, not through the physical sacrifices of the Jews and Samaritans—but in the Spirit, that is, through spiritual Christian sacrifices. It does not speak here of the human body, as if a person were not to worship God with the body, but speaks of the Old Testament sacrifices; for that was the Old Testament form of bodily worship—the offering of the bodies of animals, lambs, calves, and goats as sacrifices to God. The Jews and Samaritans also worshiped with their bodies, but they did not know how to lift up their spirit—that is, their mind and their thoughts—to God and to direct them toward Him. The Psalmist says: “A broken spirit is a sacrifice to God” ([201] ); but with the sacrifices they offered to God, they did not offer a broken spirit; therefore, their worship was carnal, not spiritual. They offered sacrifices, but they did not lead pure and God-pleasing lives; therefore, their worship was not true before God. From this, it is clearly evident to us what it means to worship in spirit and in truth: not merely with the body, but also with the spirit—that is, with the mind and thoughts directed toward God—so that the body may bow its head to the ground, just as the deacon’s proclamation in the church commands: “Again and again, with knees bent, let us pray to the Lord”; and may our mind, through prayerful thought, ascend to heaven and stand before God; and again: we are not to worship only in spirit, but also in body, as the holy Apostle Paul did. He, writing first to the Romans, said: “God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit” ([202] ); and he also writes to the Ephesians: “I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” ([203] ). This Apostle bows before God both in spirit and in body, and not as the heretics teach—that one should bow only in spirit, without bowing one’s body in worship before God.

True worship, however, consists in leading a life that is pleasing to God—a life that is pure, righteous, and diligent in serving God; for this is why we say of a virtuous person that he is a true servant of God, when we see him laboring in good deeds and pleasing God through a righteous and godly life. For we do indeed worship the Father in spirit and with a God-minded mind, but not without bodily worship in prayer, as we have said. We worship in truth through a virtuous, diligent life, concerned for our own salvation. The essence of these words is a spiritual interpretation, but it is not clear to the common people, as follows: it is fitting that we worship the Father in truth—that is, in His only-begotten Son, who is the Truth—and in the Holy Spirit, who instructs us in every virtuous truth, that is, we must worship the one God in the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—with zeal for God and by living according to God’s will, in the warmth of the Spirit and in the practice of Christian truth.

For the heretics lie, having invented a new, never-before-heard interpretation, as if by these very words of His, Christ the Lord does not command people to bow to Him with their bodies and heads to the ground, but only in spirit—that is, in mind—even while lying down.

Chapter 12. On Holy Icons

In the past year of 1708, after the glorious Resurrection of Christ, at the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, located in the Rostov settlement, Father Anthony reported to us about one of his parishioners, a man from the settlement, Trophimus, who shunned the holy church and did not venerate the holy icons, having been deceived and led astray by certain secret heretical schismatics. That man was summoned to us, and when questioned about his schism, he proved himself to be such in both deed and word. In deed, for when he entered the bishop’s chamber of the Cross, he did not make the sign of the cross, nor did he venerate the holy icons. He also proved himself to be a schismatic in word, for he began to speak blasphemously against the holy icons, just as he had been taught by the heretics: For he himself is unlettered; yet, recalling certain words from the Divine Scriptures and interpreting them incorrectly—as he had learned from false interpreters—he spoke to us in the heretical spirit of the Lutherans and Calvinists, as well as in the Jewish spirit, contrary to the Holy Scriptures. It is written: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath [204] ”; and he said again: “Icons are like idols, the work of human hands; they have mouths but do not speak, eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear; may those who make them and all who trust in them be like them[205] . Having said this, he asked us: Who commanded us to worship icons—some prophet? Or Christ? Or an apostle? If neither a prophet, nor Christ, nor any apostle commanded it, then why should we listen to anyone else who teaches us to bow down to icons? In response to these schismatic words of his, we, with humility, answered him sufficiently, and exhorted him to obey the Holy Church and to join her in confession, Holy Communion, and the veneration of holy icons.

We have decided, for the sake of others, to write this down here and briefly explain the difference between idols and holy icons. We will demonstrate this through the following considerations:

What is an idol?

And what is a holy icon?

And what is the difference between them?

When did idols first appear?

When did icons first appear?

Who worshiped idols?

And who was the first to venerate icons of the saints?

Why was idolatry forbidden?

And for what reason is the veneration of holy icons not only permitted but even encouraged?

Who instructed the churches to venerate the icons of the saints?

And who began to reject the veneration of icons?

1st CONSIDERATION

What is an idol?

An idol is an image of a person who is vile, ungodly, and abominable to God, who spent his days in sinful depravity, perished wretchedly, and is now held captive in hell with the demons; or the likeness of some animal, carved from wood, hewn from stone, fashioned from copper, silver, or gold, or painted on a board: such a likeness—whether human or animal—is worshiped by pagans as a god, even though it is not God, and is honored with sacrifices as if it were God: this is called an idol, and is the image or likeness of a false god.

What is a holy icon?

A holy icon is a depiction of Christ our Savior, the true God, in human form, who lived among people on earth; or of the Most Pure Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; or of some holy servant of God who lived a righteous and pious life, was deemed worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven, and now dwells with the angels.

What is the difference between an idol and a holy icon?

Although both—the idol, I say, and the holy icon—are the work of human hands, there is nevertheless a great difference between them, as great as that between something dishonorable and something honorable: as great as that between mud and gold, between soot and snow, between darkness and light; and as great as that between wicked and virtuous people: between evildoers and those honored with the royal purple; we despise evildoers, but we honor kings; we burn the former, but we worship the latter: such is the difference between the idols of evil gods and the icons of holy persons: as Simeon Metaphrastes also explains in the Life of Saint Andrew of Crete—who suffered for the sake of holy icons and is honored on the 17th day of October—writing as follows: Where a thing is evil, harmful to the soul, and forbidden, there the icon of that thing is also evil, harmful to the soul, and forbidden; but where a thing is good, beneficial, and not forbidden, there the icon of that thing is also good, beneficial, and not forbidden [206] . The pagan gods are evil, harmful to the soul, and it is forbidden to worship them; therefore, their icons are also evil, harmful to the soul, and the law of God forbids their veneration. Our Lord God Jesus Christ is good, and His servants are good, and they are very beneficial to our souls; and it is not only permissible but also commanded that we honor the Lord and His saints, as David said: “Your friends, O God, were very precious to me”[207] . For both the icon of the Lord and those of His honorable companions—to whom the Lord says, “You are my friends” ( ) ([208] )—are good and very beneficial to our souls, and we are bound to honor them, knowing that the honor given to icons passes over to the very person depicted in the icon.

Furthermore, the distinction between idols and icons is clearly demonstrated by the words of St. John of Damascus, with which he sternly rebukes the heretics, saying: “For what reason, lawless heretic, do you accuse me of serving an idol? “Before which idol do I bow down? Tell me: is it before the perished Apollo, or before the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, who teaches me to recognize His human form?” Tell me, you who pride yourself on your wisdom in Judea, to which idol do I bow: to Artemis, or to the image of our most holy and pure Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ? Tell me, heretic, to which idol do I bow: to Zeus, or to the image of Saint John the Forerunner and Baptist? Which idol do I worship: Zeus, or the images of the holy Apostles and martyrs, and of all the saints who have pleased the Lord from of old? And who would dare, through idolatry, to defile this narrative (depicted in painting) and dishonor the sufferings of Christ and His saints, or those who have handed down to us the holy Church of God? For thus have we received it, adorned by the holy fathers [209] .” Thus far Damascene. For the images of Apollo, Artemis, and Zeus are abominable idols; but the image of Christ, of the Most Pure Virgin Mary, and of God’s holy saints are holy icons. For abominable idols are despised by Christians, while holy icons are venerated.

2nd CONSIDERATION

From what time did idols come into being?

Some claim that idols originated with Serukh, the forefather of Abraham, but this is not so: for Serukh was not the inventor of idols, but rather a craftsman who worked with those already invented, as this was his trade, by which he earned his livelihood. Idols, however, originated with the Chaldean king Ninus, son of Vilov, who ruled over Assyria and Babylonia: for he, grieving and mourning the death of his father, had a carved likeness of him made, set it upon a pillar in the center of the city in memory of his father, and commanded the people to worship it as if it were alive. And this was the first idol under heaven, worshiped as God by people who did not know the true God. In the lands of Egypt, too, the following occurred at the beginning of idolatry: a certain renowned nobleman named Syrophanis, weeping and wailing over his deceased son, and seeking solace for his grief, fashioned an idol in the likeness of his son, placed it above the coffin of the deceased, and, gazing upon it, found some comfort for his sorrow. The people under his rule, wishing to please their lord, began to honor that idol with worship and sacrifices. St. Chrysostom also mentioned this in his homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians [210] .

From what time did holy icons begin?

Holy icons began at the time when God, speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai and giving the Law, commanded that the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of Testimony be made from curtains of blue and purple fabric, and that two cherubim, cast in gold, be placed above the Ark of the Covenant [211] . On the curtains, they were to depict the likeness of the cherubim in embroidered work, and the image of that tabernacle and the cherubim was revealed to them in a cloud on Mount Sinai. From that time onward, they began to depict holy icons, for God commanded that the likenesses of the holy cherubim be depicted there. From this it is clearly evident that some are idols, likenesses of wicked pagan gods, abominable and hateful to God; while others are holy icons, likenesses of God’s servants standing before the throne of divine glory. For God forbade the making of idols, saying: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above [212] , that is, the sun, the moon, or the stars”; for the Israelites had become accustomed to serving these in Egypt. And whatever is on the earth below: for they had learned from the Egyptians not only to deify wicked men, but also various animals. Having forbidden this wicked idolatry, the Lord commanded that holy icons of the holy Cherubim be depicted in His holy temple, and that they be held in honor, not in contempt.

3rd CONSIDERATION

Who worshiped idols?

Those who worshiped idols were people who did not know the true God, who were led astray, who did not hope for eternal salvation, and who did not even know whether there is another life after this one: people deceived by demons, who had given themselves over to sorcery, and who led wicked lives—these were the idolaters.

Who were the venerators of the icons of the saints?

Moses and Aaron, holy men and true servants of the living God; and all the people of Israel, who were called God’s people. When they entered the Tabernacle of Testimony and gathered around it, they worshiped the heavenly God; they worshiped before the Ark of the Covenant and before the cherubim set above the Ark, as well as those depicted on the curtains, honoring them as holy icons. As the holy Apostle Paul also recalled, saying: “They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly ones” ([213] ), (that is, the images of the cherubim), just as it was said to Moses when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See,” He said, “that you make everything according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain.” Thus, their service and worship of the Lord God, performed before the Ark of the Covenant and the Cherubim, was not only not regarded as idolatry—the worship of the work of human hands— but was also regarded as a great act of piety, and the glory of God shone upon them, and God spoke to them through His angel from the tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies, which was behind the second veil. Saint David also honored these same icons and images of the cherubim, saying in the Psalms: “I will enter Your house; I will worship toward Your holy temple in Your sanctuary” ([214] ). Let everyone take note here: when David entered the temple of the Lord and worshiped God, was he not worshiping before the Cherubim icons? And Solomon, having built a temple for God and adorned it with golden Cherubim, when he stood before the altar of the Lord and raised his hands toward heaven in prayer; was he not praying before the images of the cherubim [215] ? But did not the Most Pure Virgin Mary, raised in her childhood in the Holy of Holies and praying day and night behind the second veil, also honor the images of the cherubim that were there? Truly, she did not despise them or regard them as nothing, but honored them as images of God’s holy intercessors. For when she prayed to God, bowing down to the ground before the altar, before her stood the Ark of the Covenant and the Cherubim of glory, overshadowing the altar. For he bowed down before the presence, not to the material substance of the altar, nor to that of the Ark, nor to that of the cherubim; rather, from these visible substances he lifted his mind to the invisible God; and he revered these substances as the sanctuary of God. Just as we now pray before holy icons, we do not worship the visible material of the icons, but with our minds we gaze upon the immaterial and invisible; and we honor the holy icons as images of the saints.

4th CONSIDERATION

Why is idolatry forbidden?

Idolatry is forbidden for the following reasons:

1) Because an idol is not God, but an idol, which is nothing, as the Apostle says: “Know this, that an idol is nothing in the world” ([216] ), and the worship of idols was ungodly and abominable to God.

2) Because demons have taken up residence in idols to deceive people.

3) For by gazing upon the abominable idols of the pagan gods—which were their idols—people were reminded of their way of life, of unnatural sexual acts, and of other abominations. And by recalling these things, human minds were corrupted by evil thoughts, desiring the very same lawlessness that their vile gods had committed.

4) For on the idolatrous feasts, in their temples, abominable lawlessness took place: gluttony, drunkenness, fornication—committed openly without shame—and murder.

5) For the ungodly slaughtered not only animals but also their own children as offerings and sacrifices to idols, as is recorded in the Psalms: “They devoured their sons and daughters to the devil; they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they devoured to the Canaanite idols”[217] ; and again it says: “They feasted on their children and left the remains for their infants” ([218] ); that is, from the flesh of their own children—slaughtered and roasted as offerings to demons—the fathers and mothers themselves ate, leaving the remains for their other infants.

For such reasons, the law of God forbids idolatry.

Why, then, is the veneration of holy icons not only permitted but even enjoined?

For this reason: just as holy icons are images of the saints, they inspire us to lead a holy life. The icon of Christ our Savior, the true God, painted in His human likeness, when we gaze upon it, brings to mind His Incarnation, His ineffable and incorruptible birth from the Most Pure Virgin, and His labors—which He undertook from His youth, walking and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom: and His miracles, His powers, His voluntary suffering for our sake, His cross, His death, His burial, His resurrection, and His ascension into heaven—so that, as we remember these things, we may be filled with great gratitude, be inflamed with divine love, and worship Him humbly before His holy icon.

When we gaze upon the icon of the Most Pure Virgin, it brings to mind her most pure and most holy life—how, through the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived the Word of God in her womb, and remained a Virgin before, during, and after the Nativity. How, with her virginal breasts, she nourished the infant from time immemorial, the Nourisher of all. How she fled with Him to Egypt, and returned from there, and raised Him during His childhood until He came of age. How she stood weeping at the cross, gazing upon His great suffering for the sake of humanity, and washed His body with tears after He was taken down from the cross, and laid Him in the tomb wrapped in a shroud. How she was filled with unspeakable joy at His Resurrection, and how she watched with her own eyes as He ascended into heaven, and how, at her Dormition, she passed to be with her Son and God, and stood at the right hand of His throne, interceding for us sinners. Remembering this, out of love for her and for her Son, our God, we lift up our hearts, are moved to compassion, strive for a pure and holy life, and are strengthened in hope, for we have a mighty intercessor before God.

When we gaze attentively upon the icons of God’s other saints, they bring to mind their God-pleasing lives, their feats, and their labors, and they encourage us to imitate them.

For this reason, holy icons are not only not forbidden, but are also entrusted to us for veneration.

5th CONSIDERATION

Who instructed the churches to venerate holy icons?

It was Christ our Lord Himself who did so, when, having washed His most holy face with water, He wiped it with a cloth, and the most holy likeness of the Divine Face was imprinted on that cloth, and it became the image of Christ not made by human hands, which He sent to Abgar, Prince of Edessa: for a detailed account of this, on the 16th day of the month of August.

Following Christ the Lord, the Holy Evangelist Luke was handed down; and it is said of him in his life that he was the first painter of holy icons, having painted with artistic skill an image of the Most Pure Virgin Theotokos holding the infant, our eternal Lord Jesus Christ, in her arms, and having painted two other icons of the Theotokos, he brought them to the Mother of God, asking if they were to her liking. She, upon seeing these images of herself, spoke with her most pure lips thus: “May the grace of Him who was born of me and is mine be with these icons.” Likewise, Saint Luke painted images of the holy chief apostles Peter and Paul on panels, and from him began throughout the world that good and most honorable work of painting holy icons. Saint Damascene also mentioned Luke’s iconography, saying: “Behold, did not Luke the evangelist and apostle paint a venerable icon of the Ever-Virgin Mary, and send it to Theophilus [219] ?”

Furthermore, church histories recount another icon of Christ: the woman who was healed of her hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s garment carved an image of Christ’s physical form and age from stone, and in Phoenicia, in her homeland, in the city called Paneada, she placed it in a special spot: the grass growing beneath it healed former ailments [220] . That image of Christ stood in that place even until the reign of Julian the Apostate. Julian, however, tore down the image of Christ, set up his own image—or idol—in that very spot, and immediately, a bolt of lightning struck from heaven, shattering Julian’s idol to dust. This is recorded by George Kedrin, the historian of Constantinople, in his Synopsis of Julian’s Reign [221] ; by Nikephoros Kallistos in Book 10, Chapter 30; and by Hermias Sozomen, Book 5, Chapter 20. See also the life of the holy martyr Artemius, celebrated on the 20th day of October [222] .

But was not Peter’s canopy a likeness of Peter’s body, and did it not possess the same healing power granted to it by God as Peter himself did, as is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written: “They would carry the sick out on mats and lay them on beds and couches, so that when Peter came, at least his shadow might fall on some of them” ([223] )? What, then, is the icon of Peter or of any other saint today? Is it not like the shadow of his body, through which healing is not impossible by the faith of the believers?

What, then, is written in the Great Moscow Collection, in the passage read on Monday of the second week of Great Lent, and likewise in the elaborate Scroll regarding the icon of the Most Pure Virgin Mary, which, in her time, appeared on a pillar by an invisible hand in the church dedicated to the Holy Apostles Peter and John in Lida. See this in that book on pages 341 and 367; likewise in the printed Kiev edition of the Menaion, on the 26th day of June, on the reverse side of page 177.

Furthermore, in the life of the holy protomartyr Thecla, who was a disciple of the holy Apostle Paul, it is written that a sick pagan priest received healing from her icon. See this on the 24th day of September, on page 103.

From these true ecclesiastical accounts, it is clearly evident that in the early Church, the adornment of churches with icons and their pious veneration were handed down from Christ the Lord and from the holy Apostles.

In addition, let those who wish read the words of Saint Athanasius concerning the icon of Christ, which was desecrated and pierced by the Jews in Virite, causing it to bleed: see these words in the Prologue, on the 11th day of October; and in the printed Menaion, on the same month and day, on the reverse side of page 179 and on page 180.

Let us also recall this: before her baptism, a spiritual elder gave Saint Catherine the Great Martyr an icon of the Most Pure Virgin Mary, holding the Divine Infant in her arms, and commanded her to pray to it: and Catherine was granted a wondrous vision, and she tangibly received a ring from Christ the Lord as a betrothal gift. See the account of this on the 24th day of November at [224] .

In the *Limonar* of His Holiness Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in Chapter 180, it is written that a certain elder, Abba John the Hermit, great in virtue, lived within the boundaries of the village of Sekhusta, some twenty poprish from Jerusalem, and while he was still alive, kept in his cell an icon of the Most Holy Virgin Mary: and whenever he wished to set out on a long journey—whether to the distant wilderness, or to Jerusalem to venerate the holy places and the Divine Sepulcher, and to kiss the life-giving Cross, or to Mount Sinai for the sake of prayer, or sometimes to the holy martyrs far from Jerusalem—for the elder loved the victorious martyrs; and at times to Ephesus to the tomb of Saint John the Theologian, at other times to Saint Theodore in Euchantus, at times to Saint Thecla in Isauria of Seleucia, at other times to Saint Sergius in Sarafas; he would visit one saint one time and another saint another time. For when he left his cell, he would set up a lamp before the icon, light it, and after praying, he would depart; and when he returned from his journey, he would find the lamp still burning, even if he had been delayed on the way for a long time. Sometimes he would be gone for a month, and sometimes for two months, yet he would always find the lamp still burning.

Saint Mary of Egypt, while praying in the narthex of a church in Jerusalem before the icon of the Most Pure Virgin, was granted unhindered entry into the church, which she had been unable to enter at first, as an invisible force had held her back from the church doors; and after praying again before that same icon, she received divine help to reform her life, and departed for the desert [225] .

Saint John of Damascus, having suffered the severing of his right hand for the sake of the holy icons, was healed while praying before the icon of the Most Pure Mother of God; for his severed hand, having been placed upon his body, was reattached as it had been before, came back to life, and he wrote books beneficial to the Church. See more about this in his life, on the 4th day of December [226] .

But let us not fail to mention the most ancient example: Saint Sylvester, Pope of Rome, showed an icon of the holy chief Apostles Peter and Paul to Emperor Constantine the Great, who was ill and had not yet been baptized; and the emperor recognized the Apostles when they appeared to him in a dream. See more on this on the 2nd day of January [227] .

In the life of the Holy Great Martyr Mercury, on the 24th day of November, it is written [228] that after many years had passed since his martyrdom, and Julian the Apostate had ascended the throne and was persecuting the Church of God severely, Saint Basil the Great was praying in the church, in which an icon of Saint Mercury was depicted on a board, holding a spear in his hand; and in the space of an hour, the image on the board vanished, so that only the bare board remained visible; and after an hour, the icon reappeared on the board with a bloodstained spear. Soon afterward, news arrived of Julian’s death, and the orthodox Christians, having noted the time, discovered that at that very hour—the same hour when the icon of the martyr had become invisible—Julian had been pierced and slain by an invisible hand and an invisible spear. This is also recorded in the Life of Saint Basil the Great, on the 1st day of January, on page 219.

And who can count the countless other miracles that have occurred through the icons of the saints? Yet these schismatics, the so-called iconoclasts, do not accept the Church’s dogmas of faith and reject tradition; and, strangely enough, when Satan has taken up residence in them, they hate the veneration of icons exceedingly, as can be seen in the *Limonar*, in Chapter 45, where it is written thus: There was a certain hermit on the Mount of Olives who was being tormented by a demon of fornication. One day, as this struggle was becoming very severe for him, the elder began to weep bitterly and said to the demon: “How long will you continue to torment me? Depart from me already; you have grown old with me.” And behold, the demon appeared to him in plain sight and said, “Swear to me that you will not tell anyone what I am about to tell you, and then I will stop tormenting you.” And the elder swore to him, saying, “As I live in the heavens, I will not tell anyone what you are about to tell me.” And the demon said to him, “Do not worship this image, and then I will not fight you.” For the image was that of our Most Pure Lady, the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, holding our Lord Jesus Christ in her arms; and the hermit said to the demon, “Leave me, that I may reflect.” The next day, he reported these events to Abba Theodore Eliot, who was living at that time in the Pharan Monastery, and who, by God’s providence, had come to him at that very moment. Abba said to the hermit: “You have been greatly defiled, for you swore an oath to a demon, but you have done well to confess it; I say to you: it is easier for you not to enter a single place of debauchery in any city you may enter than to refuse to bow before the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Pure Mother of God.” After admonishing and strengthening the hermit with many words, the abbot allowed him to remain in his place. And the demon appeared to the hermit again, saying: “What is this, monk? Did you not swear to me that you would tell no one what I had said? And how is it that you told another who came to you?” “For this reason, as a breaker of your oath, you will be condemned on the Day of Judgment.” The hermit replied, “I know that I swore an oath, but I swore by my Lord, to whom, as my Creator, I will never cease to bow; but I will not obey you.” And the demon vanished from him.

From these true accounts, read at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and accepted by the Holy Fathers, it is clearly evident how much Satan hates the pious veneration of holy icons: for even the schismatics, who are of one mind with Satan, hate the holy icons, do not venerate them, and blaspheme against them.

Who was the first to reject the veneration of icons?

Regarding the beginning of iconoclasm in Constantinople, the Life of the Venerable Stephen the New, dated November 28, states as follows:[229] Not long before the reign of Leo the Isaurian, a few Jews from Laodicea in Phoenicia went to Isif, the prince of Arabia, and through false prophecies and sorcery promised him forty years of rule over the Arabians, provided that he would remove and destroy the holy icons from the Christian churches throughout his realm. Izif, having heeded them, immediately ordered that the holy icons be removed everywhere and consigned to the fire; but, struck by God’s punishment, he soon died, not having lived even a single year. His son succeeded him and sought to exterminate those Jews with a cruel and deadly punishment, calling them false prophets and sorcerers; but they, sensing the prince’s wrath and fearing the death penalty, fled to Isauria. And there, as they were resting by a certain spring, a young man from Isauria passed by; his name was Leo [230] (he was later called by this name, though his birth name was Conon), a tall and handsome young man, who, desiring to rest at that same spring, strayed from the path and sat down with those Jewish magicians. When they saw him, they began to prophesy to him that he would become king in Greece; but he denied it in every way, considering it an unfit thing for him, since he saw himself as of humble birth, simple, and poor, barely able to support himself—and that only through some meager manual labor (for he was a stonecutter) . But the Magi persisted, saying that he was destined to be king; they sought only one thing from him—that he promise them with an oath that, when he assumed the kingdom, he would grant them whatever they asked. So he swore an oath to them in the nearby church of Saint Theodore, and they departed. Shortly thereafter, the young man from the patrician family of Sisinias was enlisted into the military; before long, he was appointed spatharios, and was also appointed by King Theodosius as commander in the East. After Theodosius ascended the throne of the Greek Empire, he proved to be very pious at the beginning of his reign, but later became corrupt. For those Jews, who had prophesied his kingship through their sorcery, came to him and implored him to fulfill his promise, since he had sworn an oath to grant them whatever they asked. When the king asked them what they wanted from him, they—being enemies of Christ and Christian piety—did not ask for gold, silver, or any other treasures, but demanded that he remove the holy icons from the churches, and they said: “If you do this, O king! God will preserve your reign for many years; but if not, you will soon lose both your kingdom and your life.” He, however, reflecting that their first prophecy concerning the acquisition of the kingdom had come true, feared that the second prophecy—concerning his loss of the kingdom—might not also come true if he heeded them; and he immediately issued a decree that the holy icons be swept away from the temples of God and from all human dwellings and be trampled underfoot, calling them idols and labeling those who worshiped them as idolaters. And there was great turmoil in the Church of Christ: for some obeyed the emperor’s command and trampled upon the venerable icons, while others resisted fiercely and suffered many torments.

After the death of Conon or Leo the Isaurian, his son Constantine Copronymus ascended the throne—the worst offshoot of an evil root—and he greatly troubled the Church of God, persecuting and fiercely killing the orthodox believers. He convened a council of iconoclasts in Constantinople, at the Church of Blachernae. That council took place in the year 751 A.D., at which the wicked assembly declared the holy icons to be idols and condemned all who worshiped the holy icons; but that heretical council was later abolished. After the death of Copronymus and his son Leo, known as Khazar, Copronymus’s grandson Constantine, together with his mother Irene, ascended the throne, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Holy Orthodox Fathers was held in the year 787 A.D., at which the Holy Fathers abolished that previous heretical iconoclastic council and condemned it, while affirming the pious veneration of holy icons.

But later that heresy arose again, along with persecution of the Church, instigated by Leo the Armenian and Theophilus; and with their noisy downfall, and Michael, son of Theophilus, together with his wife Theodora, reestablished Orthodoxy; the iconoclastic heresy perished in both the East and the West, right up until the time of Luther and his companion Calvin, who, in the year 1,050 after the Nativity of Christ, began to spread their heresy and reject the holy icons. Likewise, in our own time in the Russian Empire, with the rise of many schismatics and schisms, this heresy has arisen from them—namely, not to venerate holy icons, but to regard them as idols.

Let the present schismatic iconoclasts, therefore, consider from whom they have sprung; and beginning here, let them ascend, as if by a ladder, through the names of their leaders and teachers. They derived that heresy from Calvin, from Luther, from Theophilus, from Leo the Armenian, from Copronymus, from Conon or Leo the Isaurian, from the Jews, and from Satan himself, who demanded of the hermit of Eleon that he not worship the icons of the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God, holding the infant Christ in her arms.

Here we shall recall a brief debate between two Holy Fathers and the iconoclasts: Saint Gregory of Omirus and Saint Stephen the New.

Chapter 13. The Debate of Saint Gregory of Omirus on the Icons of the Saints with Ervan the Jew

Saint Gregory, Archbishop of Omirit, venerated on the 19th day of December [231] , had a debate with Ervan, a most wise Jew. On the fourth day, during the fourth debate, Ervan began to rebuke the Christians regarding the icons of the saints, saying that they worshiped them; he called the holy icons idols, and those who worshiped them idolaters and transgressors of God’s law, and he said that God had commanded not to make any graven image or any likeness; then the Archbishop asked him: “During the Flood in the days of Noah, by what means was he saved?” Ervan: “By the ark, made of wood.” Archbishop: “Could God have saved him from the Flood without the wooden ark, or could He not? What do you think?” Ervan: I believe He could have, for it is written that all things are possible with God. Archbishop: If God could have done that, then why did He require an ark to save the righteous? Is it not fitting, after all , that Noah should give thanks to the ark for his salvation, rather than to God? Ervan: Let it not be so, but praise must be given to the Lord as the Creator, and not to a lifeless object. Archbishop: Yet you confess that God arranged salvation through an inanimate object—the ark; in the same way, He works through these visible icons for us, even though they are inanimate, they are nevertheless useful for our salvation; for by gazing upon them, we lift our minds to the original, and are drawn into divine desire and godly zeal. We depict not an idol, but our Lord Jesus Christ in His humanity, not in His Divinity, which is indescribable. And just as Noah gave thanks to God for the ark and his salvation by building an altar, so too do we give thanks to Christ God by painting His image, for through the visible sight of Him in the flesh we have been delivered from the delusional flood; and just as we regard His humanity as another ark, by which He bore our burdens, took away sin from among us, and, having quickened us with His divinity, ascended into heaven. We, who beheld Him with our physical eyes, depict Him on canvases, portraying the most pure likeness of His humanity; and within the shadow of this bodily likeness, we worship both His Divinity and, in Him, honor the Father and the Holy Spirit with due reverence. Ervan, however, still blaspheming against the holy icons, said: “I reject your Christian fables, which claim that God bestows His grace upon icons painted on walls and boards, even though they neither walked nor spoke?” The archbishop retorted: “Tell me, Ervan, why did God grant Elijah His grace, which He did not grant to Elisha, and why did He prefer the grace of a dead man over that of a living prophet? For the Prophet could not cross the waters of the Jordan on his own, but by that grace he parted them and crossed on dry ground; and what the living Elisha could not accomplish through his miracles, the grace of the dead accomplished. But even to Moses, who performed miracles in the land of Egypt, why did God not grant the power to work miracles to him, but rather to his staff, and through it turn water into blood, part the sea, and perform other awesome and glorious deeds? Furthermore, the Tent of Testimony and the Ark of the Covenant, the golden jar containing manna, the tablets, Aaron’s staff, the table, the censer, and the lampstand— did not all these possess God’s great grace, even though they were inanimate and made of visible, tangible materials by human hands? Yet they were illuminated by the Lord’s glory, filled and surrounded by a cloud, and were inaccessible and untouchable—except to the priests and Levites—because they were divine and holy. If this was so in the Old Testament, why are you surprised that the grace of the Lord is bestowed upon the holy icons in the New Testament? Ervan again: It is written in the Psalms: “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands” ([232] ); and your icons are idols, for they are the work of human hands. The Archbishop: I do not dispute this, for the idols of the nations—those who do not know God—are indeed idols; for they are like those who live godlessly in all manner of impurity—sorcerers, magicians, murderers, adulterers—who have perished from this life, and in whose memory some have made idols; But this last generation, deceived and blinded by Satan, has taken them as gods and worshiped them; And you have done the same, worshiping graven images and devouring your own sons and daughters to the devil[233] , shedding innocent blood—the blood of your sons and daughters—whom you have devoured to the Canaanite graven images; these are idols. But those we are now depicting—the likenesses of God’s saints—are not idols, but venerable icons. For we depict the likenesses of those who knew God, believed in Him, and pleased Him through righteousness and truth; they were honorable, holy, and beloved by God; and by the grace of God they performed many miracles: they raised the dead, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, restored the ability to walk to the lame, restored hearing to the deaf, lifted the paralytics from their beds, cleansed the lepers, and cast out demons from people. Their passing was honorable, and their memory is praiseworthy and eternal; for the death of His saints is honorable before the Lord, and the memory of the righteous is with praise, and the righteous will be remembered forever. Again, to Ervan, who was blaspheming, saying that icons differ in no way from idols, the archbishop said: “Your garment, Ervan, and the canopy of the tabernacle—both made of wool and linen—are they equal in strength?” Do your staff and Aaron’s staff, which remained green, share equal honor? Is the pot in your house and the jar containing manna equal in your eyes? Does your coffin, in which you have placed the remains of your body, share equal glory with the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant? Do the fire and oil that you kindle in your house for illumination compare to the seven-branched golden candlestick? Do you equate the house in which you dwell with the temple that Solomon built? By no means; but he honored them incomparably, since God’s grace sometimes came through them. In the same way, we must always distinguish: for one is an idol—the image of a perverse person who is plunged into hell—and the other is an icon of a holy servant of God, for from it the Lord’s grace is poured out upon us through the prayers of the one depicted upon it. Ervan then said , and concerning the angels, that they are incorporeal according to Scripture: “God created the angels as spirits”[234] ; yet Christians are not ashamed to depict them on icons and to represent spirits in corporeal form. To this the archbishop replied: “You have nothing to say, for it is from you yourselves that we have learned to depict the angels of God.” Ervan: “This practice has never come from us.” The archbishop: “You have disregarded the entire Old Law. Have you not even realized this?” Ervan: “May the Lord be my witness, I do not know of any time when images of angels were painted and venerated among us.” Archbishop: Truly, you have begun this practice: for when Solomon built the temple to the Most High God, did he not create cherubim of glory above the Holy of Holies, overshadowing the altar? Likewise, did he not place cherubim above the first doors of the sanctuary and above the second set of doors? And in the Tabernacle of Testimony, built by Moses, were there not images of cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant? Likewise, on the curtains, were not the faces of cherubim embroidered? And were not all those angelic images venerated by you along with the Tabernacle and the Temple? If, then, you have honored the incorporeal by depicting them, why do you reproach us for depicting and honoring the images of those holy men who pleased God while in the flesh?

Chapter 14. The Debate of the Venerable Stephen the New with Copronymus

The Venerable Stephen, known as “the New,” venerated on the 28th day of November [235] , was being led to be tortured by King Copronymus. On the way, he asked a certain God-loving man for a single coin bearing the king’s image, and secretly placed it in his cowl. When the king saw him, he began to cry out: “Oh, woe is me! Oh, misfortune! Oh, what I must endure! Is this man to blaspheme against my kingdom? Is he to dishonor me and regard my authority as nothing?” The saint, however, stood in silence, looking down, while the king, breathing fire in his rage, hurled many reproaches at him. He also said, “Will you not answer me, you vile wretch?” But Blessed Stephen began to speak gently to him, saying: “If you have resolved to kill me, O king, then kill me at once; but if you have brought me before you for the purpose of questioning me about something and hearing what I have to say, then it is fitting for you to set aside your anger and speak to me with kindness. “Put aside your anger, then, and ask me, and listen to me.” Then the king said to us, “Which of the traditions of the Fathers do we not obey, that you consider us heretics?” The venerable one replied, “The painting of holy icons, a practice handed down long ago by the God-bearing Fathers, has been wickedly cast out of the Church.” The torturer then said: “Do not call this the painting of holy icons, for it is not so, but rather the depiction of idols; and what communion is there between idols and the saints?” To this, the holy man replied: “By worshiping the image, we do not bestow honor or worship upon the material substance itself; for the honor of the image ascends to the original, as Saint Basil said.” The torturer then said: “Is it fitting to depict with material images the things spoken of by the Fathers—which are many and obscure, beyond the grasp of the mind, and cannot be explained by words? And is it right to worship in material form those whose nature is known to no one?” The reverend replied: “And who among people of sound mind would say that it is possible for images, made of created matter, to depict the immaterial nature of the Godhead—which surpasses every mind and whose form cannot even be described by the mind—much less that it is impossible to depict Him in an image?” But when we depict Christ in an icon, we do not depict the nature of His Divinity, but rather we portray His divine-human form, revealed in human likeness and touched by the hands of the apostles, as Saint John the Theologian said: “What we have seen, and our hands have touched” ([236] ). But if you present to me these words spoken by Moses: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath” ([237] ), I point out to you that Moses himself made an image of two cherubim of gold, about which the Divine Apostle testifies thus: “The cherubim of glory overshadowing the altar” ([238] ). But did not the altar itself, the Tabernacle, and the Holy of Holies represent heavenly forms, as the same Apostle again says: “They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” ([239] )? What, then, are we doing that is unlawful when we paint the human image of Christ on an icon and worship it? Do we really think that by bowing to the cross—which was made from some material—we are bowing to the material itself? But even the consecrated vessels, which we revere, do not cause any scandal to our conscience; for we know that they are consecrated by the invocation of Christ’s name . What more, then? Do you also reject from the Church the Holy Eucharist, which, in the form of bread and wine, mysteriously contains the Body and Blood of Christ—through which the very Body of Christ is represented, the same Body that suffered on the cross and now, without suffering, is in heaven; Do we not worship them, kiss them, and, by partaking of them, inherit holiness? Yet you, making no distinction whatsoever between the holy and the unholy, do not hesitate to call the icon of Christ—no different from the likeness of Apollo—and that of the Most Pure Theotokos, fashioned like a statue of Artemis, idols; and you have trampled them underfoot and cast them down. To this the king replied: “O you who are blinded in mind, and above all unworthy of remembrance! By trampling on these images, have we trampled on Christ?” Then Stephen, skilled in the works of God, following the custom of renowned warriors to strike the enemy with his own weapons and to defeat him with his own words, reached into his cowl and took out a crown bearing the image of that wicked king, which he had previously obtained from a certain man, and prepared it for that purpose; and showing it to the king, he questioned him with the words of Christ, saying: “Whose is this image and inscription, ‘[240] ’?” The king, however, was astonished and replied: “Whose else could it be, if not the king’s?” The saint asked again: “What would happen, then, if someone were to cast the king’s image dishonorably to the ground and trample it underfoot—would he not incur some punishment?” Those present replied: “Yes, such a person would be subject to a severe punishment, for he has dishonored the king’s image.” Then the reverend sighed deeply and, crying out with a heavy heart, said: “O great blindness and folly! If you say that a great punishment is due for defiling the image of an earthly, mortal, and perishable king, then what punishment do you deserve, you who have trampled upon the image of the Son of God and His immaculate Mother, and did not even fear to cast it into the fire?” Having said this, he spat on the icon, threw it to the ground, and began to trample it underfoot. Those standing by, seeing this, immediately rushed at him in fury, intending to cast him from the palace into the sea, for the palace stood overlooking the sea. The king, however, feigning humility and putting on a show of meekness—though rage was boiling in his heart—forbade them to do Stephen any harm, as if he had not been overcome by anger; yet he ordered him to be led away, bound, to the public prison, the praetorium, and confined there.

From these and so many other examinations and arguments concerning the pious veneration of holy icons, it is clearly evident that the heretical schismatics are lying and heretical, for they misinterpret the Holy Scriptures concerning holy icons, reject the pious veneration of holy icons, and ask us, “Who established the veneration of icons: was it a prophet, or Christ, or an apostle?” This seems sufficient proof that in ancient times God Himself, commanding the construction of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, established this practice: Moses and Aaron, together with all Israel, accepted it; David, Solomon, and the other holy prophets venerated them in the Church of Jerusalem; the Mother of God was raised in her childhood in the Holy of Holies, among the icons of the Cherubim. In the new era of grace, Christ Himself established this tradition by sending His image, not made by human hands, to Abgar; the Apostle and Evangelist Luke began to paint holy icons; the Most Pure Mother of God praised them; the early Church accepted them; the Holy Fathers loved and honored them, and many suffered for the sake of this honor. The Seventh Ecumenical Council confirmed this; Vladimir brought them from the Greeks to Russia, and even to this day they are preserved by us, the orthodox, and are reverently honored according to that ancient ecclesiastical custom, about which Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome, wrote in his second epistle to Leo of Isauria, saying: “And before us, the holy fathers carried icons when they came to councils, and none of these Christ-loving and pious men traveled without an icon, as good servants of God,”[241] Thus wrote Gregory.

But the new heretics of Christ’s Church, having rejected this ancient ecclesiastical tradition, have followed in the footsteps of Calvin, Luther, Leo the Armenian, Copronymus, Conon, or Leo of Isauria—in the footsteps of the Jews and of Satan himself, who forbade the hermit of Eleon to venerate the icon of the Mother of God. May they and their lot be with those for all eternity.

We, however, declare what the Holy Father Basil, Bishop of Agkir, read from a scroll at the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “Let anathema be upon those who do not venerate holy icons.” “Let anathema be upon those who call holy icons idols”[242] . “Let anathema be upon those who cite passages from Divine Scripture against holy icons.” Let anathema fall upon those who reject the traditions of the Holy Fathers, just as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus rejected them; and upon those who refuse to accept those traditions which are not explicitly shown to them in the Holy Scriptures. Let anathema fall upon those who say that holy icons were not handed down by the Holy Fathers. Those who say that the Catholic Church accepts idols are anathema.

Chapter 15. On the Relics of the Saints

Not only Holy Scripture, but also the books of the Fathers, are misinterpreted by the heretics of Bryn. For I have recently heard of a certain false teacher and corrupter of God’s people, who secretly teaches that the relics of the saints should not be venerated. To support his false teaching, this heretic cites the words of St. Chrysostom from his Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 34, where on page 428 it is written as follows: “Just as demons flock to tombs, so too would the souls of many of those who sit at tombs in devotion always welcome demons,” and so on. And that false teacher, interpreting this passage, says: “Why should I venerate the relics of the saints and come to their tombs to worship, when Chrysostom calls me a demon for doing so?”

In response to his twisted interpretation, I offer the following considerations:

1) Of which tombs and relics did Chrysostom write the aforementioned words?

2) Are the tombs and relics of sinners the same as the tombs and relics of the saints?

3) What is the difference between the tombs and relics of sinners and those of the saints?

4) Is it proper to venerate the relics of the saints, and for what reason should they be venerated?

5) How long ago did the veneration of the relics of the saints begin?

1st CONSIDERATION

About which tombs and relics did Chrysostom write the words mentioned above?

St. Chrysostom wrote this exhortation for those who weep immeasurably over the death of their beloved friends, acquaintances, and relatives, and who, coming to their graves, weep and beat their breasts: but not over the relics of the saints, for no one weeps over them because of the saints’ death, except to glorify God for His glorified saints and to pray for salvation through their intercession.

Open your foolish mind, O perverter of the truth! and understand what that holy teacher says in that sermon. First, he teaches us to disregard death—that is, not to be troubled or weep over the fact that we die and our bodies decay in the graves—but to rejoice, for we are passing on to a better life; unless, of course, you were to weep for someone you knew who had departed into eternal torment. He also explains that if our bodies did not decay in the graves, there would be sevenfold harm from this; but through this decay, we receive sevenfold benefit.

First. If our bodies did not decay after death, we would be lifted up into great pride. For even with bodies that decay, many in this world have presumed to be gods (such as Nebuchadnezzar and those like him); what pride would there not be in a body that remains incorruptible? But through this decay, our arrogance is humbled.

Second. If our bodies did not decay, we would not believe that we are of the earth; but through this decay, we know that we are mortal.

Third. We would love our bodies very much, and we would be most attached to the flesh; we would be more inclined to cling to the graves and bodies of our relatives and friends, were it not for the fact that the physical form is subject to decay. But seeing this decay, we are turned away from our love of the flesh.

Fourth. We would not have come to love the future so much.

Fifth. Those who say that the world is immortal—that is, infinite—would have been even more firmly convinced of their opinion, nor would they have said that God is the creator of the world.

Sixth. They would not have recognized how much the soul is superior to the body.

Seventh. Many of those who have lost their loved ones—that is, their father, mother, wife, children, and so on—having left their homes, would wish to live among their dead if their bodies were incorruptible; they would build shrines for them and summon demons through sorcery, so that they might enter those bodies and speak through them, just as there are some today who practice sorcery with the dead; and from this would arise a great evil of idolatry. But God, taking all that away, has ordained that the bodies of our beloved ones who are dying should decay before our very eyes, so that even one who has loved a beautiful young maiden will flee from her rotting and foul-smelling corpse.

He is also the Holy Teacher of those who mourn their dead with boundless sorrow, weeping at their graves and beating their chests against them—a practice He does not commend—and, turning them away from this unwholesome custom, likens such people to a demon who loves to dwell in Greek tombs, just as the demoniac in the region of Gadara, who did not dwell in the temple but in the tombs[243] .

Such is the power of Chrysostom’s words, and such is the explanation of his moral teaching.

For you lie, O foolish perverter, twisting the words of the teacher—words spoken concerning the bodies of sinners—and applying them to the holy relics of the saints; and while he does not praise those who weep excessively for their dead, you use those very words to rebuke the orthodox believers who piously venerate the relics of God’s saints.

2nd CONSIDERATION

Are the tombs and relics of sinners truly comparable to the tombs and relics of the saints?

Although it is true that, according to God’s righteous judgment, there is but one death for all people—that the soul be separated from the body—as the Apostle says: “It is appointed for man to die once” ([244] ); just as countless sinners have died, so too have countless saints: for it is fitting that the human body, taken from the earth—whether of a sinner or a righteous person—should return to the earth and remain in the decay of the grave until the Day of Judgment; yet the death of a sinner is not the same as the death of a righteous person. The death of the righteous is honorable, according to the Psalter: “Honorable in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” ([245] ); but the death of the sinner is dishonorable and painful: “The death of the sinner is bitter” ([246] ). When the righteous Lazarus died, he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; but when the rich man died, he lifted up his eyes in Hades, being in torment ([247] ).

For just as the death of a sinner is not the same as the death of a righteous person, so too the tomb and the remains of a sinner are not the same as the tomb and the remains of a righteous person.

The people of Israel provoked God’s wrath in the wilderness by despising the manna and craving meat; and they wept, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat?”[248] ? The Lord fed them with quail that rained down from the clouds; and while the meat was still in their mouths, God’s anger flared up against them, and He struck down many of them[249] , and that place was called the Grave of Craving, for there they buried the people who had craved meat. Afterward, Moses, the servant of the Lord, died in the land of Moab by the word of the Lord; and they buried him, and no one knows the location of his grave to this day[250] . For he was buried not by human hands but by angelic hands, as is evident from the words of the holy Apostle Jude, who says: “Michael the Archangel, when disputing over the body of Moses” ([251] ), and elsewhere. Here, O perverse one, have you equated the tomb of those who desired flesh and were struck down by God’s wrath with the tomb of the Lord’s servant, the holy prophet Moses, who was buried by angels? The holy forefathers of Christ have passed away: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David—and Joachim, also known as Eliakim, king of the Jews, who was likewise a forefather of Christ, whose mortal end the Lord Himself foretold in the prophecy of Jeremiah, saying: “He shall be buried like a donkey, stinking and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” ([252] ). Here, O schismatic, do you equate the foul remains of this sinful donkey with the remains of those righteous men?

The holy prophets, slain by the Jews, have died, and so have those who slew them. Here, O false teacher, do you equate the graves and corpses of the murderers with the graves and relics of the slain prophets?

Saint John the Forerunner of Christ, beheaded by Herod at the instigation of Herodias, has died, and Herod and Herodias have also died. Do you, then, compare the bones of Herod and Herodias to the relics of the Lord’s Forerunner?

Judas, the false apostle and betrayer of Christ, will die by strangulation; and the holy Apostles, the true servants of Christ, have died by various martyrdoms for Christ. Can you, then, compare the bones of Judas to the relics of the holy Apostles?

The holy chief apostles Peter and Paul died, condemned to death by Nero; and Nero, who killed them, also died. Can you compare Nero’s corpse and tomb with the relics and tomb of the apostles Peter and Paul?

And countless other holy martyrs suffered various deaths for Christ; and those who tormented them—Diocletian, Maximian, Julian the Apostate, and other persecutors—also died. Are the bones of these wicked persecutors truly comparable to the bones of the holy martyrs?

Saint John Chrysostom died after being exiled by Queen Eudoxia; Queen Eudoxia, who had exiled him, also died, and her tomb trembled for 32 years. And who would dare to equate Eudoxia’s tomb with that of Chrysostom?

For the tombs and relics of sinners are by no means comparable to the tombs and relics of God’s holy servants.

3rd CONSIDERATION

What is the difference between the tombs and relics of sinners and those of the saints?

The difference is this: a sinful person, having been an enemy of God, has sinful bones, whereas a holy person, having been a friend of God, has holy bones. Concerning the bones of sinners, the psalmist says: “Their bones are scattered in Hades” ([253] ); that is, they are near the torments of Hades: having been reunited with their souls at the general resurrection, they will immediately go to Hades for eternal torment. But concerning the bones of the righteous, the same psalmist says: “The Lord preserves all their bones; not one of them shall be broken” ([254] ); as if they were some precious treasure, hidden in the earth to be preserved, though in due time they will be brought into the heavenly treasuries. The human body in this life is like clothing for the soul: just as the body is covered by clothing, so the soul is covered by the body; and just as a person, going to sleep at night, takes off their clothes, so the soul takes off the body when a person departs to eternal sleep. And when the soul of a sinful person departs from the body, the body lies cast upon the dungheap like the ragged garment of a beggar; but when the soul of a holy person departs from the body, the body is like the royal purple—precious and honorably preserved—in which he will be clothed again, to reign with Christ in the heavenly kingdom. Just as there is a difference between the ragged clothes of a beggar and the royal purple, so too is there a difference between the corpse of a sinner and the relics of a saint.

Demons dwell among the coffins of sinners, just as they dwelt in the Greek cemeteries, as can be seen in many places in the lives of the saints. The Venerable Alipius the Stylite settled in a desolate place where there were many ancient Greek tombs, and legions of unclean spirits dwelt there; for this reason, that place was feared by all, and no one could pass through it because of the great terror caused by the demons [255] . Something similar is written in the life of the Venerable Falaleus: twenty stadia from the city of Sir, known as Gaval, there was a certain large tomb, with a dilapidated demonic shrine upon it, a Greek daytime cemetery, and a multitude of demons dwelling there. That place was terrifying to all who passed by; for the demons not only frightened people with dreams and apparitions, but also attacked and struck down many people and animals in a murderous manner; having heard of this, the Venerable Falaleus went there and settled down [256] . The Venerable Macarius of Egypt, coming from a hermitage in Terinuf, after supper entered the Greek cemetery to sleep; there were old Greek bones there, and he took one and placed it under his head. When the demons saw his boldness, they were enraged at him and sought to frighten him; they cried out in a woman’s voice, saying, “O woman, go to the bathhouse to wash yourself.” Then another demon, from the dead bone lying beneath the elder’s head, replied, “I have a stranger lying on top of me, and they cannot come.” But the elder was not afraid; boldly striking that bone, he said: “Arise and go, if you can [257] .” Another holy man, Macarius, known as the Alexandrian, when he approached the burial ground of the ancient Egyptian magi, Iannias and Iambrias, as many as seventy demons in various forms fled toward him, shouting with great anger: “What do you want here, Macarius? “Why have you come to us? Why have you come to our place [258] ?”

From these accounts, it is evident that demons take up residence in the graves of sinners, among their bones.

But demons fear the tombs and relics of the saints and flee from them. Near the city of Antioch there is a place called Daphne, where, in the days of idolatry, there was a pagan temple, and a demon dwelt within the idol, giving answers to people who asked it about anything. But when, in the days of King Constantius, the son of Constantine, the relics of the holy martyr Babylus were transferred to that place, the demon was immediately terrified and fled from there, and the idol fell silent [259] .

Likewise, near Alexandria there was a place called Manufin, where there had been an ancient temple and a dwelling place of demons, and that place was terrifying, for many unclean spirits dwelt there. But when Saint Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, brought the holy relics of the holy martyrs Cyrus and John to that place, the demonic power immediately fled from there [260] ; and this is not surprising: for at the tombs and relics of the saints, the grace of God, which illuminates all, abides, and the angels of God visit them.

When the relics of the Holy First Martyr Stephen were being transported from Jerusalem to Constantinople, the voices of angels singing God’s praises were heard in the air above the relics, and a great fragrance emanated from the reliquary. The voices of demons were also heard from afar, crying out: “Woe to us, for Stephen is coming, and he will strike us.” But at night, a light appeared above the saint’s relics [261] .

At the tomb of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki, two angels of God appeared, conversing with the martyr [262] . At the tomb of Saint Peter, Metropolitan of All Russia, a candle lit itself of its own accord before all who were watching, as a sign of God’s grace, shining upon the tomb of His beloved servant. When the relics of the Venerable Theodosius of the Caves were discovered, a dawn-like light was seen shining over the cave at midnight, and many candles were burning [263] . Thus does God glorify the relics of His saints!

Just as great as the difference is between the unworthy and the honorable, between a denizen of hell and a citizen of heaven, between a dark demon and an angel of light—so great is the difference between the coffins and relics of sinners and the coffins and relics of God’s holy saints.

Moreover, there is a great difference in this as well: the graves of sinners are full of stinking bones and all manner of uncleanness; whereas the tombs of the saints are pure, containing incorruptible remains, emitting a sweet fragrance, and some even exuding myrrh, as in the ancient times of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius the Myrrh-Giver and the Holy Great Martyr Euphemia the All-Praised [264] ; and in Russia, in the royal city of Kazan, the relics of Saint Gury, a disciple of Christ, exuded myrrh; and in the Holy Caves of Kiev, one can see myrrh-streaming skulls [265] . The bones of sinners possess no healing powers whatsoever; but the bones of the saints bestow healing upon the faithful, as can be seen in the lives of the saints in many places; and what is so wondrous? For not only the living hands of the holy Apostle Paul, but also his handkerchiefs and the sweat from his head, when placed upon the sick, healed their ailments [266] ; how much more, then, after death, are his relics—and those of every servant of God—powerful to bestow healing. Do we not read in Holy Scripture that when the corpse of a certain dead man was cast into the tomb of the holy prophet Elisha, and touched Elisha’s bones, that very dead man who had been cast in came to life, stood up on his own feet[267] , and went home alive? But what of the bones of sinners—where is such a thing heard of? Is there not, then, a great difference between the graves and bones of sinners and the relics of the saints? The ultimate difference between them is this: on the last day, when the voice of the Archangel’s trumpet rouses all who have been dead since the beginning of time from their mortal sleep, then the bodies of the righteous, having come to life, will rise for the resurrection of life, while the bodies of the sinners will rise for the resurrection of judgment. The bodies of the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of heaven; but the bodies of the sinners will be blackened like black coal, soot, pitch, and the Ethiopian of hell. Who, then, would now dare to equate the bones of sinners with the relics of the saints, or to regard the relics of the saints as if they were those of sinners? Only a heretic and an adversary of the Holy Church, a son of the devil and an heir to hell.

4th CONSIDERATION

Is it proper to venerate the relics of the saints, and for what reason should they be venerated?

It is fitting to venerate the relics of the saints:

1) Because they are reunited with their holy souls, are alive, and reign with Christ. Just as we not only honor the king greatly while he is awake, but also do not consider it improper to honor him while he sleeps, knowing that he will arise from sleep and converse with us—so too must we honor the holy servants of God, who desire to be Christ’s co-rulers but now sleep in their bodies, we must hold in honor; for they will arise from mortal sleep, and we wish to be deemed worthy of their fellowship.

2) It is fitting to honor the relics of the saints: for God Himself honors them, as was said earlier, guarding them with His angels, illuminating them with His grace, and bestowing healing power upon them.

3) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the Saints: for their mortal bodies will be clothed in incorruption, and their mortal bodies will be clothed in immortality, and they will be raised from the earth to heaven with glory, amid shouts of joy.

4) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the Saints; for they are to be the abodes of heavenly glory, the vessels of their glorified souls, stars shining in the firmament, suns most radiant, unfading, and undiminished, abiding forever in the fullness of God’s inalienable grace and glory.

5) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the Saints: for, having been united with their souls, they are to be fellow citizens with the Angels, companions of the Archangels, likenesses of the Cherubim and Seraphim, radiant crown-bearers, most honorable, most glorious, standers before the throne of divine glory, companions of God, beloved sons of the Heavenly Father, and heirs of eternal life.

6) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the Saints, to whose souls—rested in places of light and standing before God—we pray, that they may intercede for us before the Lord; and we believe that they do intercede, and for this very reason they ought to be venerated by us, since they intercede for us. We are assured of this by Holy Scripture, in the Second Book of Maccabees, chapter 15, which relates that Judas Maccabeus had a vision of the holy prophet Jeremiah—who had passed away many years earlier—appearing to him together with Onias the high priest; of this it is written as follows: He (Judas Maccabeus) had this vision: Onias, the former high priest—a good and kind man, modest in appearance, gentle in manner, and eloquent in speech, who from childhood had devoted himself to all that was good—raised his hands and prayed for all the Jewish people, and beheld[268] . Then another man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and glory, and a great radiance surrounded him; and Onias said: “This is the brother-lover, who prays much for the people and for the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.” Then Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave Judas Maccabeus a golden sword, saying: “Receive this holy sword—a gift from God—with which you will crush your enemies.” From this vision it is clear that God’s holy saints, after their passing, pray for us to God and come to our aid, just as Saint Jeremiah helped Judas Maccabeus against his enemies. We must therefore honor their holy relics as our intercessors and those who pray for us before God.

7) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the saints: for their holy souls know and see the honor we bestow upon their holy relics, and for this reason they intercede for us before Christ our Lord, as is known from the holy martyr Uar, whose feast day is celebrated on the 19th of October, who appeared to the blessed Cleopatra, a lover and venerator of his relics, and said: “Have I perhaps forgotten the virtues you showed me in Egypt and along the way? Or do you think I did not hear when you took my body from among the carcasses of beasts and laid it in your bed? Do I not always heed your prayers, and do I not pray to God for you? For I first implored God on behalf of your family—with whom you laid me in the tomb—that their sins might be forgiven; and I sang of your son to the heavenly King in the heavenly host: “[269] ,” and so on.

8) It is fitting to honor the relics of the Saints, for some of them shed their blood for Christ, while others, mortifying themselves daily, became voluntary martyrs without shedding blood, and still others pleased God through their righteous deeds. We, too, now, gazing upon their holy relics, recall their feats and labors and all the good deeds by which they pleased Christ God in this life; and we derive great benefit for our souls from the godly accounts of their lives, and are inspired by their example to please God.

9) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the Saints as God’s honorable friends, of whom David speaks to God: “Your friends, O God, were very dear to me[270] !”

10) It is fitting to venerate the relics of the saints, so that God Himself—who is glorious in His saints and is glorified through them—may be glorified by us in them.

5th CONSIDERATION

How long ago did the veneration of the relics of the saints begin?

There is a plausible account by James of Edessa, who was the teacher of Saint Ephrem, that Noah, upon entering the ark before the Flood, took the holy relics of Adam from the tomb and brought them into the ark with him, hoping through their prayers to be saved from the Flood. After the Flood, he divided them among his three sons; to Shem, his eldest son, he gave the most honorable part—Adam’s forehead—and instructed him to settle in the land where Jerusalem would later be founded. Shem, by God’s providence and through the prophetic gift given to him by God, buried Adam’s forehead on a high place, not far from the site where Jerusalem was to be built, and having built a great tomb over the forehead, he called it the Place of the Forehead, from Adam’s forehead buried there, where later our Lord Christ chose to be crucified. From this account it is evident that the veneration of the relics of the saints began with the righteous Noah.

We know, moreover, that the relics of the noble Joseph, who died in Egypt, were greatly venerated by the Israelites; for they brought them with them from Egypt to the Promised Land and laid them to rest with honor in the village of Jacob, called Shechem (later known as Sychar). Let us consider, then, how many of the people of Israel perished in Egypt, yet only Joseph’s relics were brought out from there; for he alone was righteous and holy, and a great servant of God, as his life testifies.

And were not the relics of the holy prophet Elisha—by whose touch a dead man was raised to life [271] , as we said earlier—honored by the Israelites?

And the Gospel records that in Jerusalem, in the days of Christ, the tombs of the prophets were built, and the tombs of the righteous were adorned in honor of their holy relics. You might say: Did not Christ the Lord praise the people of Jerusalem for such deeds, but rather rebuke them, for He said to them: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the tombs of the righteous[272] , and so on.” Saint Theophylact responds to this, saying: He rebukes them not because they build the tombs of the prophets—for this is a good deed—but because they did so out of hypocrisy. Thus far Theophylact. Listen, then, to why the Lord rebukes and condemns the people of Jerusalem—not for adorning the tombs of the prophets, which was a good deed, but for their hypocrisy and the malice they harbored toward Christ the Lord, and for their blatant lie, for they said, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have killed the prophets.” They spoke these words, yet they were training themselves to kill, seeking a way to slay the very Son of God, of whom the prophets had spoken; for this reason the Lord said to them: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.” It is clear to us, however, that even in Christ’s day the relics of the saints were honored in Israel.

But in the new era of grace, after Christ’s Resurrection, when the holy Evangelist Luke, preaching Christ and traveling through many cities and regions, came to the city of Sebaste, where the relics of Saint John the Baptist were kept, and from there, intending to go to his homeland of Antioch, he wished to take with him and transport there the body of Saint John the Baptist the Forerunner, which was incorrupt and whole [273] ; but this proved impossible, since the inhabitants of Sebaste, who greatly revered the relics of the Forerunner and guarded them jealously, would not yield them. Thus, the holy Evangelist Luke took only the right hand from that holy body—the hand that had baptized our Lord Jesus Christ— was taken by the Holy Evangelist Luke and brought to his city of Antioch, as if it were some precious treasure, as a gift to the city in gratitude for his upbringing there; and from that time onward, the holy hand of the Forerunner was kept in great veneration among the faithful of Antioch; for no small number of miracles were performed through it. Simeon Metaphrastes writes about this in his sermon on the transfer of the Forerunner’s hand.

As for how the holy relics of the First Martyr Stephen were discovered, what miracles were performed through them, and how the faithful venerated those holy relics, see the entry for the 2nd day of the month of August at [274] .

And countless accounts of the miraculous and healing relics of the Saints, and of the veneration of those relics, are found in the Lives of the Saints; there is not enough time here to recount them in detail. May the reader consult for information on: the miraculous relics of Saint Nicholas, the Holy One of Christ [275] ; the healing relics of Saint Mina the Martyr [276] ; the venerable relics of Saint Demetrius the Great Martyr [277] ; and Saint Euphemia the Great Martyr, the All-Praised, to whom the faithful from all over the world gathered to worship [278] ; and regarding the relics of other saints, long revered with piety by the faithful, you will find them everywhere in the books of church rites.

For that misinterpreter lies, who twists the words of St. Chrysostom—spoken concerning the graves and corpses of sinners—to blaspheme the relics of the saints and to cause distress to those who venerate them, calling them demons; he himself is a demon in the flesh and a fellow-conspirator of demons.

Chapter 16. On the Last Days

It has also come to our attention that the false teachers of Bryn, misinterpreting the teacher’s words and declaring the present time to be the very last days, are preaching in secret among the common people that in the present time it is no longer possible for anyone living in cities and villages to be saved, except in their own Bryn deserts. Their false teaching has come to our attention as follows:

A certain wolf from the Bryn deserts, disguised in sheep’s clothing, entered Rostov, though according to his custom, he secretly sought to snatch away the spiritual sheep of Christ. And coming to a certain pious and honorable person, hoping to find much money there, and desiring to entice and lead him away to his own dwellings, he said: “There is no salvation for you who live here in the cities, for the end times have already come, and the Antichrist already reigns in the world, and the dreadful Day of Judgment is already at hand, and the churches are like stables, and the priests are like wolves, while your prayers are an abomination before God; for God has already turned His face away from you; He neither hears your prayers nor accepts your fasting; and even if you were to cut off your own limbs, living an austere life and striving in every way, you could not please God, for all that you do is already displeasing to Him. God dwells only in our deserts and hermitages; there He has turned His face, and there alone does He hear those who pray to Him and save them.

Thus he deceived that person; yet the one who was deceived, being protected by God, remained undeceived; and later this was reported to us, but by then that wolf had already vanished without a trace. Afterward we learned that wolves were also emerging from the Bryn deserts into other cities and villages of our diocese. With such false teaching, they deceive and carry off the sheep of Christ. To support their false teaching, they cite the words of Saint Hippolytus, interpreting them incorrectly.

Saint Hippolytus, in his homily for Meatfare Sunday, says: “The churches of God will be like mere temples, and ecclesiastical corruption will be everywhere; the Scriptures will be neglected, and so on [279] ”; and further down: “Shepherds will be like wolves, and priests will love falsehood”; monks and nuns will covet worldly things, and so on; and again much further on: many will flee from his (the Antichrist’s) deceptions; for they will understand the snare of his slander and the pride of his flattery, and they will escape from his hand, and hide in the mountains and in caves, and with tears and a contrite heart they will pray to the God who loves mankind, and He will snatch them from his snares, save them from his fierce temptations, and invisibly shield with His hand those who humbly and righteously take refuge in Him. Do you see how the saints of that time were to fast and pray? Let those living in cities and villages take heed, for how fierce the times and days will be [280] . Thus far Hippolytus.

They interpret the words of Saint Hippolytus thus: since we are now in the very last days and times—for the churches are no longer churches, but mere shrines and stables; the shepherds and priests are not shepherds or priests, but wolves; in the cities and villages, the times and days are fierce; for God has turned His face away from the cities and villages: God saves those who take refuge and pray in the mountains, in the deserts, and in caves; for those who do not take refuge in the mountains, deserts, and caves, but live in the cities and villages, are not saved; For God dwells only in our desert hermitages, hears only our prayers, and saves only us; but you who dwell in the cities and villages are utterly lost; for God neither hears your prayers nor accepts your deeds.

Such is the interpretation of Hippolytus’s words given by the false teachers of Bryn, who attribute all the power of ecclesiastical disorder, the corruption of the clergy, and the state of spiritual ruin among all who dwell in cities and villages to the sole belief that the end times have already come. And on this single point, as if on a foundation, they build their false preaching, claiming that the last days have already come; as if all that is happening were not by God’s decrees and permission, but by the so-called “last days”; and as if it were not God who brings about all that He brings about, but the “last days”; and as if it were not God who saves or does not save whom He wills, but the “last days.”

Therefore, so that their flimsy foundation may be destroyed, and their false interpretation may be exposed and put to shame, let us consider the following:

1) What is time, and does time itself do anything?

2) Does the so-called “last time” turn the churches of God into mere temples and stables?

3) At what time do the churches of God become mere temples?

4) Has the time already come in the Russian state when churches in cities and villages are to be mere temples and barns?

5) In these last days, which shepherds have become wolves?

6) Because of these last and terrible times, does God turn His face away from the faithful people in the cities and villages?

7) Does God dwell only in the deserts at this time, and does He accept prayers only from the desert, and does He save only the desert dwellers?

8) Is the salvation of human souls determined by time and place?

1st CONSIDERATION

What is time, and does time act of its own accord?

Time is the measure of this visible world, of our lives, and of all that takes place under heaven according to God’s order, measured in days, months, years, centuries of hundreds, and millennia. Time is divided into three parts: the past, the present, and the future. We know the past as having been, but it has already passed and perished, for it will never return. As for the future, we await it, but we do not know what it will be like. As for the present, we imagine we possess it, yet we possess nothing of it except for a single brief moment called “now”; it is now, and immediately it is no more, for it has passed. Again, something else comes into being now, and that, too, passes: just as in the hours that are made and arranged, the minutes follow one another without pause; and just as in a moving chariot the wheel does not remain in one place, but flows unstoppably from place to place: so is the present of our life now—it does not stand still, but flows ceaselessly—and our “now” is like a boundary between the past and the future, bringing the past to an end and beginning the future. And just as in a book there is a period, separating one sentence from another, ending one and beginning the next; but while a period remains in one place, our present moment—the “now”—cannot remain still, but flows outward, like a drop falling downward, leaving a trail behind it and extending forward until it dwindles and dries up.

Can this brief present moment of our life do anything of its own accord—create or destroy? Give something to someone, or take it away? Nothing at all, except perhaps constant illusions; yet these illusions are as fleeting as a bird in the air, as a ship on the sea driven by the wind, as an arrow from a drawn bow, or as a cannonball fired from a loaded gun—so does our time flow, without pausing even for the slightest moment. For how can the present moment—which does not stand still but flows ceaselessly—do anything on its own? Is it not God who does all things, acting whenever He wills, regardless of time? For all times—seasons, years, days, and hours—are in His divine hands. For this reason, when the Apostles asked the Lord Christ after His resurrection, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He answered them, saying, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed within His own authority” ([281] ). In vain, therefore, do the schismatics base their false teaching on the present time, which they call “the last days,” and thereby claim the authority to desecrate holy churches, to expel priests, and to deprive those living in cities and villages of salvation. Has God, who works in all things, changed with the times? Has the power of God, which saves the human race, grown weak with the times? Is time stronger than God, and does it dictate to God?

You will say—as the clergyman writes—that there is a time for everything under the sun: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot what has been planted; a time to tear down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to weep and a time to rejoice; a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them [282] , and so on. For everything done under heaven is done in its own time. I reply: Everything done under heaven is done in its own time; however, time does not act of its own accord, but God sustains and ordains all things, and human beings, created by God, perform their tasks at the appropriate time.

The time for plowing and sowing will come; does time itself plow and sow without people? The time for harvest and gathering the fruits will come; does time itself reap and gather, rather than people? And where there are no people, but the land is desolate, is there plowing and sowing and harvest there, even if the time for plowing, sowing, and harvest were to come? For it is evident that it is not time that acts of its own accord, but God; and according to God’s order, people act in their own time, for the Creator has appointed times for their lives and deeds.

But if it is not time that acts, but God, and since people are sustained by God, how then can the present time deprive the churches of their holiness, or prevent the priests from fulfilling their priestly duties, and prevent the people living in cities and villages from attaining their salvation, so that they might not be saved in the present time, just as the Orthodox Christians of former times were saved? Is the Apostle no longer read in the cities and villages, saying: “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” ([283] )? For anyone who is willing to be saved, every time is an acceptable time; every time is a day of salvation.

The Brynians are lying, attributing to the last days those things that are in God’s power and order, but in human free will.

The schismatics say: The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “For this is certain, that in the last days perilous times will come; for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, insolent, haughty, slanderers, slanderous, unrestrained, unmerciful, unloving, traitors, arrogant, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power [284] , and so on. For these are the last days, and the present time is wicked; it makes people in cities and villages evil, self-loving, lovers of money, boastful, proud, and so on. By making them such, it does not allow them to be saved; for there is no salvation now in cities and villages.

We, however, in discussing the words of the Apostles—that the times are evil and people are wicked, straying into corruption—will offer a thorough rebuttal against erroneous reasoning, which fails to recognize the power of the Apostles’ words.

On the times and on people.

Regarding the times, Saint John Chrysostom, the interpreter of the Apostles’ words, responds, saying: “Do not condemn the days,” says the Apostle, “nor the times, but the people living in those days; for it is our custom to speak thus: times are wicked or not wicked, depending on the events that occur in them, depending on the people.” Thus far Chrysostom. Pay attention to these words of Chrysostom: “not days, nor times, but people”—that is, Paul does not lay the blame on days or times, but on people. And on the margin of that book of Chrysostom’s discourse, contrary to that interpretation, it is written: “The days are good, but the wickedness of people is evil.” From this, it is clear to us that it is not the times that make people evil, but people who make the times evil and cruel; as the Apostle himself made clear; for when he said that cruel times would come, he pointed out the cause of their cruelty: “For,” he said, “people will be self-centered,” and so on. He did not say, “People will be so evil, for times of trouble will come”; but he says, “Times of trouble will come, for people will be evil.” He does not lay the blame for human wickedness on the times, but lays the blame for the times of trouble on people; for it is not the times that make people evil, but evil people who make the times fierce. For every time, created by God, is good and does no harm to anyone; but wicked people, by doing evil during their lives, bring disgrace upon good times, so that because of their wicked deeds, the time itself is called a wicked and terrible time.

It is well known that people—not only in our own time and in these turbulent times—are (according to the words of the Apostles) self-centered, greedy, arrogant, proud, and so on. But even in , in those earlier, more turbulent times that preceded us, there were many such people: and even in the very days of the Apostles, whom Paul commands Timothy to avoid: “Avoid these,” he said, “[285] .” For there were many heretics in the days of the Apostles, such as Simon the Magus, Menander, Carpocrates, Heres, the Gnostics, and others. Not only were there such fierce times in which the Apostles were persecuted, but even before the Nativity of Christ, were there not countless wicked people? As the Apostle himself makes clear in his epistle to Timothy, when he mentions the two Egyptian magicians, Jannias and Jambrius, who opposed Moses; regarding this passage, St. Chrysostom writes: “He shows this not only from recent times but also from the past; “In the same way,” he says, “Jannius and Jambrius opposed Moses” ([286] ). Why does he mention this? So that Timothy—and none of us—might not be dismayed when wicked men appear. For if there were such men in Moses’ day, and there will be such men in the future, it is no wonder that they should be among us as well. Up to this point, Chrysostom. Just as in the previous times of tribulation, even though there were many wicked people, there were also many good, godly, and holy men; so too in these present, final times of tribulation, among the many wicked there are also many good; for not all are self-loving, not all are greedy for money, not all are haughty, not all are proud, not all are slanderers, not all disobey their parents, not all are ungrateful, not all are unrighteous, not all are unloving, and so on. But even now there are many who are neither self-centered, nor greedy for money, nor boastful, nor proud, nor slanderers, nor the like: rather, they are humble, meek, unworldly, truly pleasing to God, pious in conduct and lifestyle, true servants of God, and worthy of eternal salvation.

For those who say that the last days and the fierce times brought about by wicked people prevent people from being saved in cities and villages are lying.

2nd CONSIDERATION

Does the so-called “last days” turn the churches of God into mere temples and stables?

If, according to schismatic false teaching, the “last days” are transforming the Church of God into mere temples and stables, then from the very beginning of the holy faith in Christ, from the days of the Apostles, there has not been a single Church of God under heaven, but only mere temples and stables; for the last days began even from the days of Christ’s sojourn on earth among men, and from the days of the Apostles.

The last days began with the days of Christ’s life on earth; the holy Apostle Paul testifies to this, saying: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His only-begotten Son, born of a woman[287] .” The end of the age—that is, the last days—is explained by Saint Basil the Great in his prayer before Communion, as he says to Christ: “Son, consubstantial with the Father without beginning and co-eternal with Him, out of abundant goodness You took on flesh and were crucified in the last days.”

The last days began in the days of the Apostles, as St. John the Theologian says: “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared”[288] ; and again he speaks of that Antichrist: “Of whom you have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world”[289] . It was this holy Apostle who, during his lifetime, wrote that the last days were already at hand and that the Antichrist was already in the world.

For, according to schismatic reasoning, from the days of Christ and the Apostles until now—some 1,700 years or more—the Antichrist has already been reigning in the world, and the churches of God have never been true churches, but have always been empty temples and stables; and the sacraments performed in them have never been true sacraments: for the last days have begun from the days of Christ and the Apostles right up to the present. But to reason and speak in this way is utterly foolish, soul-destroying, and heretical. For it is well known that from the days of the Apostles, the churches of God began to be built everywhere where the holy faith shone forth; and especially Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, having been enlightened and having enlightened his realm with the holy faith, greatly increased the building of God’s churches, erecting a church in Jerusalem over Christ’s tomb, in Rome over the tomb of the Apostles, and in other cities: the building of holy churches, which began at that time, continues to this very day by the grace of God in Christian lands, and no one has ever called the churches of God mere temples or stables, even though the last days are said to have come.

For the Brynians lie when they say that in these last days, God’s churches are being turned into empty temples and barns.

3rd CONSIDERATION

When do the churches of God become mere temples?

Any house may be considered as such when it either falls into ruin and collapses, or—even if it has not fallen into ruin—no one lives in it, nor is it locked, nor guarded by anyone, but is accessible to all passersby, both people and livestock; at that time, that house may truly be called, and is: but if a house has no one living in it, yet is locked and guarded so that no one may destroy it, that house is not to be called a house, but one that has a master.

Similarly, one must understand this regarding the holy churches of God: if any is so dilapidated that it is no longer possible to worship in it; or if any, though not dilapidated, is nevertheless deprived of the proper praise of God within it for some reason—whether due to neglect or poverty—yet is locked up and not allowed to fall into ruin: such a church may be likened to a simple chapel, yet it is not the simplest chapel, nor even a stable; for it is watched over and observed by God from above.

In the Russian state there are such churches; some of them, due to their severe dilapidation, are deprived of the proper glorification of God, while others, though not dilapidated, remain without singing due to the poverty of the people and the clergy; for in our diocese there are certain villages from which, by the sovereign’s decree, the people have been relocated to other districts; the clergy, having no one to support them, have abandoned those churches, yet those churches remain locked up and are left to fall into ruin: those churches are now like simple places of worship, standing without singing, yet they are not the simplest of places of worship; for every church and place consecrated to God possesses, from the day of its consecration, a certain grace of God present within it. For in the Old Testament, there is that place where Saint James, having fallen asleep while traveling, saw a wondrous dream—a ladder reaching to heaven with angels ascending and descending upon it; that place possesses the grace of God, for when James awoke, he was filled with awe and declared: “This is a dreadful place; this is not (a mere place), but the house of God, and these are the gates of heaven” ([290] ): how much more so in the New Covenant, where places and temples consecrated in the Church of God, even if there is no singing, are nonetheless not without the presence of God’s grace. We find this account in the book of Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, titled *Limonar* (that is, *The Flower Garden*), in which, in Chapter 4, it is written as follows: Abba Leontius, abbot of the monastery of our holy father Theodosius, told us, saying: After the expulsion of the wise men of New Lavra, the wise men of Origen, the Orthodox fathers settled in that New Lavra, and I, too, settled in that same New Lavra with them. One Sunday, I went to church to receive the Holy Mysteries; and upon entering, I saw an angel standing to the right of the altar, and, overcome with great fear, I returned to my cell, and a voice came to me, saying: “Since this altar has been consecrated, I have been charged to remain by it.” We take note: even though the Origenist heretics dwelt there before the Orthodox Fathers and performed their heretical services, the altar—consecrated to God by the Orthodox from the very beginning—has never been without the presence of God’s Angel. Again, in the same book, in chapter 10, it is written about Abba Barnabas the hermit, who lived in the caves of the Jordan and who built an altar in his cave and consecrated it; After remaining there for several years, he moved to the Lavra, known as Pirgia (he moved there because of an illness in his leg; a thorn had pierced it, causing a severe ulcer, and his leg was rotting). After he had left the cave, another hermit, wishing to take up residence in his cave, entered and saw the Angel of God standing at the altar. The hermit said to the Angel, “What are you doing here?” The Angel replied, “Since this place has been consecrated, it has been entrusted to me by God.”

This shows that even if a church, for some reason, is without singing, it nevertheless has God’s grace present within it and an Angel who never leaves it, guarding it. It is possible, indeed, to liken a church, emptied of singing, to a simple sanctuary; but to equate it with the simplest sanctuary is not without sin, much less is it a sin to call it a barn. For below, Saint Hippolytus called the churches of God that had been emptied “barns,” but he merely likened them to simple shrines, using the phrase: “The churches of God,” he said, “will be like simple shrines.” The schismatics, however, hating the churches of God, out of their malice applied the term not as a comparison but as a definitive label, calling them “barns,” saying: “The churches are barns.” And it would not be so surprising if they called those churches “barns” that stand without singing; but it is surprising how they are not ashamed. For they do not even fear to call not only simple churches, but also the churches of God—in which daily praises to God are offered, the bloodless sacrifice is celebrated, and all the Christian sacraments are administered—stables; the schismatics call these churches “stables” above all else.

We know from the aforementioned book of Saint Sophronius that even the altars of God, standing without sacrifice or singing, possess a certain divine grace and angelic protection; how much more so are the churches of God, located in cities and villages—not empty, but filled daily with the glorification of God and the celebration of the Holy Liturgy—filled with God’s grace, and are not mere temples or stables, but the holy temples of the Lord, the dwelling places of angels, the gatherings of the saints, the refuges of the faithful, the healing places for the infirmities of the soul, the houses of God, and the gates of heaven.

For the schismatics lie when they call the churches of God, which are in cities and villages, mere temples and barns.

Again:

The churches of God then become like mere temples when, by God’s permission, either persecution befalls the church of God and the altars of God are desecrated by heretics, or when foreign invaders ravage and lay waste to cities and towns; at such times, the churches of God—plundered and devastated—truly become mere temples; they even become like stables or places where horses are kept. For the Agarians, to the chagrin of Christians, bring their horses into the temples of God and defile them with all manner of filth. Then the words of the psalm are fulfilled: “O God, the nations have come into Your inheritance; they have defiled Your holy church” ([291] ).

4th CONSIDERATION

Has the time already come in the Russian state when churches in cities and villages are to become mere shrines and barns?

We say that the desolation of the Lord’s churches occurs either because of heretics who persecute and oppress the Church of God, or because of invasions by foreign tribes who lay waste to everything.

In the Russian state, from the beginning of baptism until now, there has never been such a heretical force or such a rebellion against the Church of God that they might prevail over Orthodoxy and desecrate the Lord’s altars; except that certain heresies have made a slight appearance, blaspheming the holy churches and calling them mere temples and stables—such as the Strigolniki from Pskov, about whom more will be said below. From the great city of Novgorod came new Jews—now known as the Brynyans—who blasphemed against the churches of God and taught the people not to attend church for prayer.

There were also invasions by foreign tribes into the Russian state: during the time of Batu Khan, and subsequently, the Agarians repeatedly and unexpectedly invaded Russian lands; likewise, there was an invasion by the Poles into the kingdom of Strigino, and later. In those evil times in Russia, in certain places, the churches of God—mere sanctuaries and stables—were ravaged and desecrated by foreign invaders.

In the present day, however, within the Great Russian State, protected by God’s mercy, we have not yet seen such churches of God ravaged by foreign invasions, though we do hear of wars; God alone knows what the future holds. If, however, by God’s permission—due to our sins—such a thing were to happen even now, not all churches everywhere would be empty, nor would it be constant; rather, it would occur only in certain places and at certain times, just as a storm cloud, accompanied by thunder and lightning, passes in certain places and at certain times. May the Lord preserve His holy churches everywhere from all destruction.

But since the schismatics do not speak of the desolation of God’s churches—which sometimes occurs either through heretical violence or through foreign invasion—but rather invent some other evil through their malice, calling the Lord’s churches—which are not desolate but filled with the praise of God—mere temples and stables. It is therefore incumbent upon us, in refuting their malice, first to demonstrate the severity of the persecution to which the Church of God is subjected, and also to counter their blasphemies.

The Church of God, which is spread throughout the universe, suffers persecution in many ways: at times only in certain parts, and at other times in its entirety. It suffers persecution in part when, in one country, it is persecuted, while in another it remains at peace; in one kingdom it is oppressed, wronged, and diminished, while in another it flourishes freely and multiplies. This is what is happening in these times: the Church of God is persecuted in the Greek lands, oppressed by the Turks, while in the Russian lands, thank God, it does not yet suffer persecution.

The entire Church suffered persecution in its early days, during the time of the Apostles and thereafter, even up to the Enlightenment of Constantine, for some three hundred years; for throughout the entire world at that time, the Church of Christ was persecuted, oppressed, maligned, and stained with the blood of countless martyrs, in the east and west, in the north and south. The entire Church will again have to suffer such persecution at the end of the world, in the days of the Antichrist; for throughout the whole earth, true Christians will be persecuted and killed by the Antichrist’s followers, and the temples of God will be laid waste: but in the present time—though it is called the last—there is not yet such persecution against the entire Church of God throughout the universe, except only in part, in certain countries (such as Greece); for the time of the Antichrist’s actual coming has not yet arrived.

To the schismatics, however, who claim that the coming of the Antichrist is already at hand, and who call the churches of God—which have not yet been desolated—mere temples and stables, and who cite the words of Saint Hippolytus as evidence for their own false blasphemy, I reply:

The true meaning of the words of Saint Hippolytus is that there will come a time when, in cities and villages, the churches of God will be desolate, like mere temples, deprived of services and offerings; Saint Ephrem also foretold this. But you, the perverse interpreters of Bryn, who misinterpret the words of the Fathers, are lying and betraying the faith of those holy Fathers upon whom you rely and whose teachings you expound; for they clearly and plainly state that the coming of the Antichrist will be perceptible to the senses, as was first made known by them; yet you speak contrary to them, claiming that the Antichrist will not be physically present but will exist only in the mind, and you already say that he has come and is reigning in Moscow. The holy fathers Hippolytus and Ephrem say that in the days of the Antichrist’s physical presence, the churches of God will be emptied and will become mere temples; yet you say that even now (though the Antichrist has not yet come in the flesh), the churches of God are like mere temples. Judge for yourselves, then, whom it is better to believe: the holy Fathers, who speak the truth, or you, who lie and oppose the truth as one would oppose a torch? For even though you see that the churches of God are not empty, nor mere temples, nor stables, but the temples of the Lord, filled with the praise of God and invariably containing the bloodless sacrifice, you are not afraid to call them mere temples and stables. You see, yet you lie, not believing your own eyes; for your malice has blinded you, so that though you see, you do not see, and though you hear, you do not understand, and in your heretical malice you will perish.

We, however, say that even though these are the last days, and even though the end of the age is drawing near, the time of the age’s final end has not yet come for us, but only certain signs foretelling it have appeared, as can be seen from the words of the Lord Himself, in the Gospel of Matthew, at the beginning of chapter 98: while He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.” You will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not troubled; for all these things must take place, but the end is not yet[292] . In Mark, at the beginning of verse 58: Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be terrified; for these things must take place, but the end is not yet [293] . In Luke, at the beginning of chapter 105: “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and ‘The time is near’; do not follow them.” When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be afraid; for these things must take place first, but the end is not yet [294] . Pay attention to these words of the Lord: wars and disturbances must come first, but that is not the end, not the end, not yet the end. For wars and disturbances already exist, and they were before us; but the very end has not yet come; it is not the end; those days have not yet arrived in which the churches of God throughout the universe will be persecuted and laid waste, for the Antichrist has not yet come in the flesh, as was foretold, and Christianity, preserved by God’s mercy, has not yet been destroyed. For will the churches of God be emptied only when the Antichrist comes and crushes Christianity? for he will kill those who do not bow down to him, while others will have to flee to the mountains, deserts, and caves; and still others, having witnessed the Antichrist’s miracles, will be deceived and join him: then the churches of God will be laid waste, and in they will be turned into mere temples and stables. But now, by the grace of Christ, His holy churches in the Russian state are not yet desolate, nor have they been turned into mere barns; services are still held in them, the bloodless sacrifice is offered, and all the Christian sacraments are performed without change; nor is anyone eradicating the name of Christ from the lands of Russia, nor is anyone persecuting or tormenting Russians for Christ’s sake, nor is anyone forbidding church services, nor is anyone preventing the Christian sacraments from being performed; the Christian faith still flourishes in this Russian state, and Christ, our true God, is glorified, and His most holy name is honored among Christians, and the Word of God is preached unhindered in all churches. And Saint Hippolytus clearly states: that when the Antichrist takes his rightful place on the throne, then the churches of God will weep with great lamentation, for neither the offering nor the incense will be performed in them, nor will there be any service pleasing to God; then the holy churches will be like storehouses for produce, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ will not be made manifest in those days (of the Antichrist); the service will cease, and the reading of the Scriptures will not be heard [295] . Thus far Hippolytus. Likewise, Saint Ephrem says that all this is to take place in the days of the Antichrist, and not before the coming of the Antichrist: for when he comes, he will begin to desolate the holy churches and turn them into mere shrines; therefore, until he comes, the time has not yet come when the churches of God in cities and towns throughout the world will become empty, mere shrines, and stables [296] .

Thus, the falsehood of the Brynski heretics has been clearly exposed; they now claim that the time has already come for the desolation of the churches and their transformation into mere places of worship and barns—unless, in their madness, they imagine: For in us, the churches of God are like the Garden of Eden and heaven on earth; while standing there in the flesh, we imagine ourselves to be standing in heaven with our minds, our hearts lifted up to our Lord.

5th CONSIDERATION

In these last days, why have some shepherds become wolves?

And these words of Saint Hippolytus—that “shepherds will be like wolves”—are true; for during his lifetime he foresaw the future and prophesied about the times to come after him: and his words have already come true regarding certain shepherds, though not all; and now they are coming true regarding certain ones, though not all; and in the future they will come true regarding certain ones, though not all.

The words of Saint Hippolytus have come true regarding certain wolf-like shepherds, for during his lifetime there were many heretical bishops and priests: Eudoxius, the Arian Patriarch of Constantinople, Macedonius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, a spirit-fighter, and others in various sees were bishops and priests: some were Eutychians, some were Dioscorian heretics, and others of the clergy who held heretical views; these shepherds were wolves.

However, in those same times there were also pious shepherds; and great saints, such as Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Saint Spyridon, and others, who shone like lights in the world—these shepherds were not wolves, but true shepherds, laying down their lives for their sheep.

Even now, the words of Saint Hippolytus are coming true regarding certain wolf-like shepherds. Who, then, are they? Listen to those who either neglect the sheep entrusted to them, or who, by the example of their own wicked and depraved lives, lead their sheep astray, or who deliberately teach evil, and are thus guilty of the destruction of their sheep; or who fall into heresy and separate themselves from the Church of Christ, leading others into heresy, just as the leaders of the schisms were: Capito, Abakum, Lazarus, Nikita the Hypocrite, and others with them. And even now there are many such people; among them are some priests who, having abandoned their churches and homes, go to the dwellings of the schismatics, while others, though they live near their own churches and hypocritically claim to be orthodox, nevertheless conspire with the schismatics and agree with them, and conceal and condone the who have been deceived by the schismatics, they hide them and indulge them; these shepherds are truly wolves who tear apart the flock of Christ and devour the souls of Christ’s sheep.

However, not all who are pastors in cities and villages are like this; not all are negligent, not all lead astray, not all teach evil, and not all are heretics; but the vast majority are true shepherds, concerned for the salvation of human souls, who instruct through both word and the example of a virtuous life, who preserve the pious faith without blemish, who do not conciliate heretics but rather cut them off—like a rotten limb—from the body of the Church; these shepherds are not wolves, but true shepherds.

Likewise, the words of Saint Hippolytus will come to pass in the days to come: that there will be shepherds like wolves, but not all; for even in the very days of the Antichrist, just as among the common people, so also among the clergy, some will be deceived and follow the Antichrist, while others will not be deceived but will stand firm against him, exhorting others and strengthening them in the holy faith: for those among the clergy who, having been deceived, join the Antichrist will be shepherds who are wolves; but those who stand for Christ even unto bloodshed will prove to be true shepherds. The confessors of Christ’s name and the martyred priests—of whom Saint Hippolytus speaks: “Blessed are those who then stand up against the tormentor, for they will appear greater, more glorious, and higher than the first martyrs”; for the first martyrs defeated those servants (of the Antichrist), but these will overthrow the very Son of Perdition himself and will be victorious [297] . Thus far Hippolytus.

For the words of Saint Hippolytus concern certain (and not all) wolf-like shepherds. But the false teachers and heretics of Bryn, who call the entire clergy “wolves,” lie as sons of the father of lies, the devil; for if, according to their blasphemous words, the entire clergy were wolves, then there would be no sheep of Christ left in the world, nor would Christ have His Church on earth—of which He Himself is the Head—and that Head would be without its members, without the body of His Church, that most important part, the clergy, which they have transformed into wolves. But this is not so, nor will it ever be; for until the end of the age, both Christ’s flock and the shepherds of Christ’s flock will remain, even though many will fall away and be separated from the wheat like chaff, but not all: the chaff will be blown away by the wind, but the wheat will remain on the threshing floor; just as it was in the days of Christ: many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life[298] .”

6th CONSIDERATION

Does God turn His face away from the faithful, both in cities and in villages, because of the coming time of the end and the time of tribulation?

To understand this more clearly, let us first examine the concept of “time”: what is meant by “time,” and what is this “time of tribulation”?

We must understand the “time of wrath” in two distinct ways:

The first “fierce time” is that which wages war against Christ God Himself and against His holy Church, redeemed by His precious blood.

The second time of tribulation is that which will wage war not against God Himself, but against people alone—though not without provoking God’s wrath, since it goes against God’s commandment not to harm one’s neighbor.

The first time of tribulation will hate the name of Jesus Christ, persecute His holy Church, and torment and kill those who believe in Christ—a time of which Christ foretold: “Before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, handing you over to assemblies and prisons, and bringing you before kings and rulers for my name’s sake; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” ([299] ); and again: “They will hand you over to tribulation and kill you” ([300] ).

Another time, however, is a time of fierce persecution—not for Christ’s sake, but for the sake of temporal goods; for everyone seeks his own interests and desires to be more glorious, honored, powerful, and wealthy than others; for this reason, nation rises against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and civil wars break out. In that other time, there is hardship for the people, oppression of the poor, persecution of the innocent, and there are many acts of theft, plunder, violence, and injustice; and for this reason, such a time is a time of tribulation.

The first of these fierce times, which rose up against Christ God and the Church of Christ, has already come to pass in the days of the former fierce persecutors: Diocletian, Maximian, and others; and this will be renewed again in the days of the Antichrist, who is to come in the flesh in reality (and not, as the Brynians claim, merely in a spiritual sense); then again the name of Christ the God will be hated, and His Church persecuted, and the faithful killed; But at present that time has not yet come for us, except in those Christian lands that have been taken over by the Agarians. And in the Russian state, by God’s grace, the holy faith is not yet being persecuted; no one tortures or kills for Christ’s sake, no one compels anyone to renounce Christ, but we all unanimously glorify Christ our God, who reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever.

But there is another, cruel time, which rises up against one’s neighbor in defiance of God’s commandment, stirring up wars among people, finding pretexts to fight one another, imposing hardships on the people, oppressing the poor, embittering the innocent, plundering, kidnapping, and committing injustice and violence—that cruel time is now, as we see, is upon us, and this is no surprise: for it is fitting (according to the words of Christ) that these things should come first, but not the end itself [301] .

Here we turn to the words of Saint Hippolytus.

Saint Hippolytus says in his aforementioned sermon: “Let those who dwell in cities and villages be aware of how fierce the times and days will be [302] .”

Based on these words of Saint Hippolytus, the heretics of Bryn, through their own fabrications, apply to the present time what Saint Hippolytus did not write; for they say: “In the cities and villages, the times are now fierce”; for God has turned His face away from the cities and villages, and there is no longer salvation in the cities and villages.

We, however, as the faithful, conducting a genuine investigation into this matter, will consider that first time of tribulation, when war was waged against Christ God Himself and His holy Church. Did God turn His face away from the cities and villages at that time—that is, from the faithful people dwelling in the cities and villages? If He turned His face away from the faithful then, surely He turns it away from us now as well; but if He did not turn it away then, surely He does not turn it away from us now either.

As for the early, primal Church of Christ—how fierce those times were, with the persecution of those who believed in Christ—who does not know this? Let anyone who does not know this read the Acts of the Apostles and the accounts of the martyrs, and he will learn. In those terrible times, many would have said, following Brynsky, that the Lord had turned His face away from those living in the cities and villages, since they had not fled to the wilderness; but this was not so. Let us consider the feat of Saint Stephen, the first martyr, in Jerusalem: as he was being stoned by the Jews, he saw the heavens opened, and the Lord Jesus standing in the opened heavens, looking upon his feat [303] . Thus the Lord looks upon His servant in that time of tribulation, as he suffers in the city of Jerusalem; and as He looks upon him, He looks at the same time upon the murderous city of Jerusalem—the city that stoned the Prophets, that delivered the Son of God to death, that killed the Apostles. Yet He looks upon the city not because of its wickedness, but for the sake of His faithful servants who are suffering there; nor does He turn His face away from His servants because, in that fierce time, they did not flee to the mountains and deserts, nor hide in caves; but rather, He looks upon them with a merciful face, just as He looked upon the first martyr being stoned, who, without hiding, boldly stood against a hundred Jews for the sake of his Lord. What, then, are we to think when Saint Peter was cast into prison; when the Apostle James was slain by the sword of Herod; when the other James, called the brother of the Lord, was cast down from the roof of the Church—did not the Lord look down from the heights of heaven upon these events unfolding in Jerusalem? And as He looked upon them, He also looked upon the entire city, upon all the faithful and the unfaithful; upon the former as His servants, upon the latter as His enemies; loving the former, and sparing the latter with His long-suffering; not avenging Himself or destroying them, but awaiting their conversion. Likewise, did not Christ the Lord, at that time, look down from on high upon the other cities and places where countless martyrs suffered for Christ, strengthening them in their sufferings and preparing for them the heavenly crowns of glory? Likewise, when that same fierce time returns with the coming of the Antichrist in the flesh, will not the Lord, with His merciful face, look upon the cities and villages—that is, upon His servants in the cities and villages—who are enduring tribulations for Christ’s sake? Will He look upon only those who flee to the mountains and deserts and hide in caves? But what of those in the midst of the cities and villages who boldly confess Christ and lay down their lives for Him—will He despise them? Will He forsake them? Will He turn His face away from them? By no means; but He is even more merciful, more loving, and more attentive toward those who suffer openly for His sake, turning His most radiant face and most loving eyes toward them, than toward those who hide in the mountains and deserts to escape suffering. For a warrior is more pleasing to his commander when he fights bravely against the enemy than when he flees from battle and hides. And to Christ our Lord, the martyr is more pleasing—shedding his blood for Him—than the ascetic laboring in the desert; for this reason, the image of the martyr in heaven is higher, brighter, and more honorable than that of the ascetic.

Having considered this—that just as in that first time of tribulation, when war was waged against Christ Himself and His Church, and as it is to be renewed under the Antichrist—Christ did not turn away, nor will He turn away, His face from the cities and villages, that is, from His servants who dwelt in the cities and villages: we say with confident assurance that even in this second time of tribulation, when people rise up against their neighbors in defiance of God’s commandment, causing strife and disorder, and oppressing and tormenting the poor, the Lord God does not turn His face away from the cities and villages, that is, from His faithful servants who dwell in the cities and villages, who are afflicted by misfortunes, tormented, and burdened; but He looks upon them with even greater mercy than upon those who do not take refuge in the wilderness and who do not endure any misfortunes or torments.

An example of this is the people of Israel in Egypt. It was a time of great hardship for God’s people there; for the Egyptians oppressed the children of Israel with hardship and made their lives miserable with harsh labor[304] , and the children of Israel groaned under their labor. Because of the severity of that time, did God turn His face away from His people? Did He not rather turn His merciful face toward them, as He said to His servant Moses: “I have seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have heard their cry”[305] .

If you, O Brynyans, in your desert hermitages, live quietly and in silence, unoppressed by anyone, unharassed, and unoffended, hope to have God’s face turned toward you, how much more do we, who are suffering in cities and towns, oppressed and maligned, not despair of God’s mercy, but hope without a doubt that God also looks upon us and sees all our distress and sorrow, and has mercy on us, like a loving father who, in these harsh times, disciplines those he loves and chastises those he accepts.

But you, who are outside the Orthodox Church, fleeing the communion of Christ, and who despise the Body and Blood of Christ as if they were some abomination, yet boast that Christ God lives within you; how much more so are we, who are within His holy Church, partaking of His most pure Body and His life-giving Blood through Holy Communion, confident of His presence among us, and believing that He has not forsaken us, nor will He forsake us in the future, according to His unfailing promise: “I will not leave you, nor will I forsake you,” He said [306] ; and again: “Can a mother forget her infant, or have no compassion on the child of her womb? Even if she should forget, I will not forget you,” says the Lord [307] . Such are the promises of God in Holy Scripture that we, the faithful, have; they firmly confirm us in our hope that God will not forsake us in times of tribulation. But if, according to your blasphemy, God were to forsake us, His faithful servants, then the words of God—which promised not to forsake us—would not be true; yet it is more convenient for you to lie than for God not to be true. You are lying, and you continue to lie, just as you have learned from the father of lies; but our God, who is true, does not forsake us in our distress.

But once again, you who have turned away from God in our time of dire distress, yet boast when addressing you—judge for yourselves whose crowns are more glorious: those who are at ease, dwelling peacefully in the quiet of the wilderness, or those who, in cities and villages, endure tribulation and persecution in this time of distress, giving thanks to the Lord? Do you know what this present time of distress is like in cities and villages? There is a furnace or crucible in which God tests and purifies His spiritual gold, speaking of His servants as it is written: “God tested them and found them worthy of Himself, for He tested them as gold is tested in a crucible” ([308] ). You, however, who dwell in the deserts, mountains, and caves, even if you imagine yourselves to be gold, are not yet gold itself, but rather gold ore, hidden in the depths of the earth—which is not yet perfect gold, but merely gold ore lying in the earth’s secret places: but we, who are oppressed and embittered by harsh times in cities and villages, are like pure gold, tested and refined by the fire of trials in the crucible; and we hope that the Lord has not turned His face away from us because of these harsh times, but rather has turned His face toward us and sees our patience and our thanksgiving. Do you not know that the Holy Church flourishes like a lily in times of persecution and tribulation? For every faithful person who endures with thanksgiving the tribulations and hardships sent by God—and brought about by these trying times—is great before God and flourishes in the courts of our God. For whoever endures to the end will be saved; and those who now sow with tears will reap with joy there. Do you know why God allows times of tribulation to come upon His faithful servants, who dwell in cities and villages? He allows them not to turn His face away from them, but to prepare a better salvation for them. For through the trials of these difficult times, the sins of God’s servants are cleansed— —and are removed like chaff from wheat; and the brightest crowns are woven for those who suffer and endure hardship. For the Lord, looking down from on high upon the suffering and affliction of His servants and seeing their endurance, prepares for them a greater reward than for those who neither suffer nor are afflicted. Do you think that in these times there are no martyrs in the cities and villages, just as there were in ancient times? How many even now suffer unjustly, held in chains, tortured, maltreated, killed, and beaten to death in courtrooms; all of these, in their innocence, are martyrs of Christ; even if they do not suffer for Christ’s sake, they are nevertheless dear to Christ because of their very innocence, and are deemed worthy of the martyr’s crown from Him; just as the holy passion-bearers of Russia, Gleb and Boris, and Saint Dimitri the Tsarevich, were deemed worthy—for though they did not suffer for Christ, they were nevertheless glorified among the holy martyrs: so too are these, who even now suffer unjustly, martyrs. Does the Lord God, then, turn His face away from these and from similar servants of the Lord who dwell in cities and villages amid tribulations? And does He not look upon us as well, who sympathize with our neighbors, and who sigh and pray for them? Truly, He looks upon us, and just as He has mercy on those who suffer unjustly, so too does He have mercy on those who sympathize with the suffering.

For your interpretation of Hippolytus’s words, O Brynyan, is false, inventing what Saint Hippolytus did not write—as if, because of the severity of the present times, God had turned His face away from the cities and villages.

7th CONSIDERATION

In the present time, does God dwell only in the deserts? Does He accept prayers only from the desert? And does He save only the desert dwellers?

Saint Hippolytus, speaking of the time of the Antichrist, says that faithful Christians, who will escape the hand of the Antichrist, will hide in the mountains and in the caves of the desert, there they will pray to the merciful God with tears and a contrite heart, and He will snatch them from his snares, save them from his fierce temptations, and invisibly shield them with His hand.

From these words of Hippolytus, the Bryn heretics draw the following conclusion for our present time and for us: God will save those who take refuge and pray in the mountains, in the deserts, and in the caves; but He will not save those who do not take refuge in the mountains, deserts, or caves, but who live in cities and villages; for God dwells only in our desert hermitages, hears only our prayers, and saves only us.

Here the misinterpreters lie twice:

First, they claim that Saint Hippolytus wrote not about the present time, but about the very last days, which are to come in the days of the Antichrist; yet they apply this to the present time, in which Christ’s aforementioned words are still being fulfilled: “not the end”[309] , “not the end at all”[310] .

The second falsehood is that, since Saint Hippolytus did not write this, they attribute it to him through their own twisted interpretation. For Hippolytus did not write that in the last days only those living in the deserts would be saved by God, nor that He would save only the souls of those who hide in the mountains, deserts, and caves, while those who do not hide but remain in cities and villages would not be saved: he does not write about this; rather, this is a fabrication of schismatic false teachers. Understand, then, of what kind of salvation Saint Hippolytus writes: for there is, on the one hand, the eternal salvation of the soul from eternal torments, from the hands of demons—now invisible to us—who wish to torment sinners for endless ages; and, on the other hand, there is the temporary salvation of the body from temporary torments, from the hands of a visible, temporary tormentor. And when Saint Hippolytus speaks of the salvation of those who, in the days of the Antichrist, will hide in the mountains, caves, and deserts, he proclaims their salvation from temporal torments, from the hands of the visible tormentor, the Antichrist, who would wish to torment their flesh and strike their bodies. This is clearly shown in Hippolytus’s aforementioned words, which we will repeat here again; listen to them with discernment. Hippolytus says: Many will flee from his (the Antichrist’s) deceptions, for they will discern the snare of his slander and the pride of his flattery; they will flee from his hand and hide in the mountains and in caves, and with tears and a contrite heart they will pray to the God who loves mankind, and He will snatch them from his nets, save them from his fierce temptations, and invisibly cover them with His hand [311] . Thus far Hippolytus. It is evident here that the Saint speaks of temporary salvation, or the deliverance of the body from the hands and torments of the visible tormentor —the Antichrist—who seeks either to entice God’s elect into fierce, sinful temptations and into worshiping him, or to torment and destroy them.

This is also evident from the words of Saint Ephrem, who says as follows: For many saints, when they find themselves gathered together at that time, having heard of the coming of the wicked one, will shed rivers of tears with sighs to the Holy God, seeking deliverance from the serpent, and will flee with great diligence into the deserts, and hide in the mountains and caves [312] . Thus far the words of Saint Ephrem. Pay attention to these words of Ephrem: “to be delivered from the serpent”—that is, from the hands of the Antichrist. This is clearly evident from the words of Hippolytus and Ephrem, for both of these teachers speak not of the torments of hell, but of the tormenting hands of the Antichrist; and not of that salvation from the invisible hands of demons, of which salvation those saints, by their blameless faith and God-pleasing life, will be assured: but they (Hippolytus and Ephrem) speak of a temporary deliverance from a visible tormentor and visible torments—that is, deliverance from the serpent, from the Antichrist—so as not to be tormented by him and not to be compelled to renounce Christ God. For God’s chosen ones, who fear these torments and flee to the deserts, the mountains, and the caves, the desert, the mountains, and the caves will be their temporary salvation or deliverance for their bodies, where they will be saved from the Antichrist who kills the body but cannot kill the soul; but for other chosen ones of God, who will fearlessly subject themselves to suffering for Christ’s sake, will not receive temporary salvation or deliverance for their bodies from temporary torments; they will be put to death. But their eternal reward will be multiplied many times over, and they will be glorified even more than those who hid in the deserts, in the mountains, and in the caves; for there will be those in the cities and villages who will not flee to the mountains, to the caves, or to the deserts to hide, but will boldly stand up for Christ their Lord, laying down their souls for His sake.

You will say: Saint Ephrem says: “The mountains and hills, and the trees of the field, will weep; and the two heavenly bodies with the stars will also weep for the human race, for all have turned away together from the Holy God, the Creator of all things, and have abandoned the ladder of faith [313] ,” and so on. For in the days of the Antichrist, no one in the cities and villages will stand for their Lord, nor will anyone save their soul through eternal salvation; for, according to the words of Ephrem, all will turn away from the Holy God, but only those in the deserts will be saved.

I reply: Those who are not steadfast in the faith, nor possess true love for Christ the God, will all turn away from the Holy God; but those who are steadfast in the faith and are true lovers of God will not turn away from Him; and since there will be more who turn away from God than those who do not, and the number of those who perish will be greater than those who are saved; therefore it is said that all will turn away: this saying is in the manner of the Psalmist, who said: “All have turned away; together they have become worthless” ([314] ), and so on. This means: “All have turned away,” yet at the same time there were those who did not turn away from God, such as the prophet Nathan, the psalmist David himself, and other hidden servants of God, without whom no age has ever existed nor will ever exist—just as in the days of the holy prophet Elijah, who said, “I alone am left”[315] ; But the Lord said to him that He had seven thousand of His hidden servants who had not bowed their knees to Baal[316] ; all were said to have turned away from God, yet many were found who had not turned away. Likewise, Saint Ephrem says that in the days of the Antichrist, all will turn away from the Holy God—all, because of their innumerable number; but the smaller number of those who do not fall away is not counted among the multitude of apostates; for all will turn away, except for a few who will not. For if there were not such steadfast followers of God in the cities and villages at that time, then to whom does Saint Hippolytus refer in those words we mentioned above: “Blessed,” he said, “are those who at that time will stand up against the persecutor (that is, the Antichrist), for they will be shown to be greater, more glorious, and higher than the first martyrs [317] , and so on.” If there were not, in the days of the Antichrist, such servants of God in the cities and villages who would stand firm for their Lord and lay down their lives for Him, then whom would the angels mark with the seal of the living God—that is, the holy cross on their foreheads [318] , so that they may be recognized as God’s servants and distinguished from the servants of the devil and the worshippers of the Antichrist? It is well known, for it is revealed, that in the days of the Antichrist there will be many in the cities and villages who are God’s chosen servants, pleasing their Lord, striving for His holy name, and saving their souls through eternal salvation.

But if, even in the most terrible time of the Antichrist’s reign, there will be chosen servants and those pleasing to God in the cities and villages, saving their souls through eternal salvation, then who will forbid us, in this present terrible time—which is not yet the time of the Antichrist, but the time preceding the Antichrist, from being, likewise, in cities and villages, chosen servants and saints of God, concerned with the salvation of their souls? For man, a rational creature created in the image of God, is sovereign in the choice of his own salvation; just as he was sovereign before, so he is sovereign now, and will continue to be sovereign in the future.

8th CONSIDERATION

Is the salvation of human souls determined by time and place?

Since the Brynians assert through their false teaching that salvation is available to those living in the deserts in these present last days, but that there is no salvation for us who dwell in cities and villages, it is necessary to investigate whether human salvation is determined by time or place.

It happens that sometimes both time and place contribute to salvation: if the time is peaceful and the place is quiet; yet salvation does not consist in time or place; for even in peaceful, quiet times many perish, and in quiet, deserted places many fall into great sinful ruin. In what, then, does our salvation consist? In the heart and in God. In the heart that wills, that takes the initiative, and that turns to God; and in God, who helps, cooperates, and ultimately brings about the good.

For if salvation of the soul were determined by a particular time, how could the African martyr, commemorated on the 8th of December in the Prologue, after his suffering—endured for Christ at the hands of the Arians—have fallen into carnal sin and been deprived of God’s grace? For he did not provoke Christ God to anger during the time of persecution and suffering. Even though he was compelled to provoke His wrath, when a time of calm and peace came, he provoked Christ through his fornication; and he who spoke clearly after his tongue was cut off became mute after his fall, having been forsaken by God’s grace. A time of tribulation did not persuade the martyr to sin; yet a time of peace and tranquility did not prevent him from living a sinless life. For salvation of the soul does not depend on the times; nor can anyone say that salvation existed in former times but is absent in the present, and will not exist in times to come; Who would dare to say such a thing? Is it not because they do not believe that God, the Savior of the human race—who was before, who is now, and who will be the same in the future—is the one and only God forever? For He who saved many of His servants in times past—can He not save us in the present as well? Who can now take away from God the power to save human souls, since He previously saved whomever He willed without hindrance?

But if salvation of the soul were determined by one’s location, how could Lot have sinned in the wilderness, when he did not sin in the midst of the abominable city of Sodom? And did not the first man, Adam, transgress God’s commandment in the Garden of Eden? We read in the church books that many who had lived contentedly in the deserts for years, and who, by God’s grace, were deemed worthy to perform miracles, yet—having been tempted by the enemy through God’s permission—fell into a terrible sinful downfall, and scarcely any of them rose again through repentance, while others perished, having been deprived of salvation. On the contrary, many were found living amidst the cares of worldly life in cities and villages, and yet attained complete salvation for their souls. For just as salvation is not determined by time, so too is it not determined by place. We read in the Psalms concerning time: “I will bless the Lord at all times; His praise shall ever be in my mouth” ([319] ); for if we bless the Lord at all times and pray to Him, we believe that our salvation from God is prepared for us at all times. Again, we read in the Psalms concerning place: “In every place of His dominion, bless the Lord, O my soul” ([320] ); for we are free to bless Him and pray to Him in every place; for it is not forbidden for our salvation to be prepared in every place. For although one can truly be saved and find a place conducive to salvation even in the midst of cities and villages, one who cares little for his own salvation will not find a place of salvation even in the midst of the desert. For it is not the place that sanctifies and saves a person, but the grace of God, which cooperates with human will, and human will, which cooperates with the grace of God. And just as God is everywhere, so too is salvation ready everywhere for the person who wills it. God is in the deserts, and salvation is in the deserts for those who choose it; God is in the cities and villages, and salvation is in the cities and villages for those who choose it; will you find any place where God is not present? There, too, there can be no salvation for man. But where and what place is there without God? The psalmist says: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I descend to Hades, You are there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand will guide me, and Your right hand will hold me fast [321] .”

For the false teachers and heretics lie when they say that God is not present in cities and villages at this time, but only in their desert hermitages; they lie when they say that God does not accept the prayers of those who pray to Him in every place in cities and villages, but accepts only the prayers of those in the desert; they lie when they say that God does not save those who live in cities and villages, but saves only the desert dwellers.

We, however, do not believe those who determine human salvation by time and place. We do not believe those who boastfully claim that only their own desert prayers are heard by God. We do not believe those who claim that God is found only in desert hermitages; for Christ Himself, God, warning us not to believe such things, says: “If they tell you, ‘He is in the desert,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it [322] .” Saint Theophylact, explaining these words of Christ, says: “If deceivers come and say that Christ has come and is hiding in the desert, or in some temple, or in cells, which are the innermost places—hearing all this, do not be deceived.”

Chapter 17. On Faith on Earth

The schismatics also lie, claiming that in these last days there is no longer any faith on earth, as if faith had already perished from the earth. They imagine they have proof for this falsehood in the words of Christ, who says in the Gospel: “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth[323] ?” And they argue: since the end of the world is at hand, and Christ’s second, dreadful coming is already near, and we await it every day and every night—for there is no longer any faith on earth; for when the Lord comes, He will find no faith.

But before we even seek an interpretation of Christ’s words, we ask you, Brynyans: tell us, O misinterpreters, do you know for certain that the time of Christ’s second, dreadful coming has already arrived? And who has revealed to you that mystery, which no one knows—not even the heavenly angels—but only the Father alone[324] ? We await the Lord’s coming to us day and night, at every hour, but not yet that dreadful coming, by which He will come to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his deeds; nor do we yet await at every hour that time when (according to the words of the Apostle Peter) the heavens will pass away with a roar, the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works on it will be burned up[325] ; but we await our own hour of death, at which time God’s judgment will come to take the soul from the body, and at that hour each person will face their own particular punishment for their deeds; We await that hour with anticipation, just as the Lord Himself, watching over us, teaches in the Gospel: “Be ready,” for “at that hour you do not know, the Son of Man will come”[326] . We also await the general and dreadful judgment, which will be the second coming of Christ, though not in our days, not in the time of our present life; unless we are roused from our graves by the Archangel’s trumpet. For even if that night should come (I speak of the eighth millennium), in which the Bridegroom’s coming is foretold by the holy fathers, we have not yet reached midnight (the middle of the eighth millennium); but the Holy Gospel proclaims that the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and He is free to delay His coming even past midnight; yet we who are now alive cannot await that time and hour, except while lying in the grave. But you who now claim that the second, dreadful coming of Christ is already taking place in our lifetime, and that for this reason there is no faith left on earth, consider this for yourselves: if, in your opinion, there is no faith on earth for this reason, since Christ’s second, dreadful coming is drawing near. For even from the days of the Apostles, faith has never ceased to exist on earth; for the Apostle Paul himself said and wrote: “The Lord is near; do not worry about anything” ([327] ). Explaining this passage, St. Chrysostom says: “Judgment has already come; they will not be required to give an account of their deeds” ([328] ); and again: “Do not worry about anything, for the time of reckoning has already come.” You see how long the Lord’s imminent and dreadful coming has been preached, yet the holy faith has not been eradicated from the earth; for even Saint Paul , proclaiming the Lord’s imminent coming, spread the holy faith to the ends of the earth, and Saint Chrysostom, speaking of the coming judgment and retribution, did not say that there is no longer any faith on earth, but rather taught people the true faith and a blameless life. But from where have you taken this notion that there is no longer any faith on earth, simply because the day of the Lord’s coming is drawing near? Are you wiser than the Holy Apostle Paul and Saint John Chrysostom? Has God revealed His mysteries more abundantly to you, the peasants of Bryn, than to those great servants of His and teachers of the universe? While preaching about the Lord’s second, dreadful, and imminent coming, they do not uproot the holy faith from the earth, but rather plant it more deeply and multiply it; yet you, because of Christ’s approaching Second Coming, are sweeping faith away from the entire earth, preaching among the common people that there is no longer any faith on earth; for God’s judgment is at hand.

Therefore, we ask: tell us, O Brynyan, is there no faith now throughout the entire earth—that is, under heaven—or only in certain places? If there is no faith throughout the entire earth, then there is none in you either; for you, too, do not live in heaven, but on earth. But if you think you have faith in your deserted places, what then prevents faith from existing in our places as well, in the cities and villages? For if you, who are outside the Church, who shun the sacraments of the Holy Spirit, who despise the body and blood of Christ, and who flee from the fellowship of the Church, think you have faith; how much more do we, who are within the Church, nourished by the sacraments through the Holy Spirit, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, and holding fast to the holy Church as members of the Body, which is enlivened by Christ as its Head, confidently hope to possess the holy faith that justifies and saves us. There is no faith in those who do not believe in Christ the God, such as the Turks, Tatars, Jews, and idolaters, and such as heretics and false Christians—just as you, who are called by the name of Christ alone but shun Christ Himself; for whoever shuns the Church of Christ shuns Christ. Truly, there is no faith in you, just as there is none in other unbelieving and heretical peoples; yet there is no lack of faith throughout the whole earth; for not the whole earth is filled with Turks and Tatars, nor with Jews and idolaters, nor with heretics and false Christians of Brynya; but there are many Christian cities in Great Russia, and in Little Russia, and in other lands, where people believe rightly in Christ God and truly serve Him. You lie, therefore, O schismatics, when you say that faith no longer exists on earth today.

We ask again: Why do you say there is no faith on earth? Does faith perhaps walk visibly among people on earth? Is faith not a mystery of the human heart, just as hope, love, and other inner virtues hidden in the heart—which no one knows except God, the sole Knower of hearts? For who among men knows the human heart—whether it believes in God or does not believe? And if it believes, how does it believe—rightly or wrongly? And if it does not believe, for what reason does it not believe? Only God, who searches the hearts and minds, knows this. But you, O Brynyans, are human beings, not gods; how do you know what is in our hearts, and yet claim that we have no faith? Show us at least one sign by which we might know that there is no faith in us. We have learned from the holy Apostle Paul how faith is recognized in a person; namely this: if one believes in the heart, he also confesses with the mouth; for with the heart one believes unto righteousness (says the Apostle), but with the mouth one confesses unto salvation[329] ; and where there is no verbal confession of faith, there it is known that there is no faith in the heart. Do you not hear in us the confession of the Orthodox faith? Are you deaf, that you do not hear in us, throughout all the cities and towns, in all the holy churches, the Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one God—being confessed and glorified with piety? You have ears but do not hear, and even when you hear, you plug your ears like deaf vipers, so as not to hear our Orthodox confession of the holy faith, spoken from the heart through our lips; and it is hard for you to hear our true confession of the faith. And you would very much like to uproot the faith from us, just as Satan sought to do to Peter; but God will not allow you to do this to us, just as Christ did not allow Satan to do this to Peter, for He said: “Simon, Simon! Satan has asked to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail[330] .

But concerning you, we can truly say that you have no faith, for we see clear signs of your unbelief: namely, that you shun the Church of Christ and all the sacraments of the Church; and that you confess the Holy Trinity incorrectly and heretically blaspheme the Incarnation of Christ, as was clearly shown in the first part, in , the second article, and your countless other disputes and schisms, your erroneous speculations, false teachings, and twisted interpretations reveal and expose you as lacking faith, having fallen into many heretical forms of unbelief.

But regarding these words of the Lord, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?”[331] —this saying: the Lord did not say that when He comes, He will certainly not find faith on earth; but will He find it? That is, (according to Theophylact’s interpretation) he will find little, since the faithful will be diminished by the Antichrist’s persecution. But we, accepting Theophylact’s interpretation of faith as better than your schismatic, perverse interpretation, say with boldness: You lie, O perverse interpreters, claiming that at the Lord’s coming there will be no faith whatsoever on earth; how much more so do you lie by failing to acknowledge that faith exists among us now, when the Antichrist has not yet come in the flesh, Christianity has not yet been diminished, and the day of the Lord’s coming has not yet arrived.

Chapter 18. On the Image and Likeness of God in Human Beings

And let us recall yet another passage from Holy Scripture, which is misinterpreted by the schismatics: in the first book of Moses, chapter 1, it is written: “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and in our likeness’[332] .” Out of their own ignorance, these schismatics apply this Scripture to the physical form of man, as if God were human-like, possessing a head, a beard, eyes, a mouth, ears, hands, feet, and other features of the human body; and therefore, as if in His own image, He created man in His likeness, possessing a head, a beard, and other bodily members.

To counter their erroneous interpretation, let us present here the correct interpretation of these words of God, as given by the Holy Fathers:

The image and likeness of God are not formed in the human body, but in the soul; for God did not have a body: God is an incorporeal Spirit, and He created the human soul incorporeal, in His own likeness, self-governing, rational, immortal, a participant in eternity, and He united it with the body, as Saint Damascene says of God: “You have given me a soul through Divine and life-giving inspiration, having formed my body from the earth [333] .” The soul, then, is the image of God, for it possesses a triune power yet a single nature. The powers of the human soul are these: memory, reason, and will; in memory it resembles God the Father, in reason God the Son, and in will God the Holy Spirit. And just as in the Holy Trinity there are three Persons, yet not three Gods, but one God: so too in the human soul, although there are three (as has been said) powers of the soul, yet not three souls, but one soul.

The Holy Fathers distinguish between the image and the likeness of God in the human soul: Basil the Great in his *Hexaemeron*, in discourse 10; Chrysostom on *Genesis*, in discourse 9 [334] ; and Jerome in his commentary on the prophecies of Ezekiel, chapter 28. The soul receives this distinction—the image of God—at the time of its creation by God, while the likeness of God is perfected in it through baptism; the image in the intellect, the likeness in the will; the image in self-mastery, the likeness in virtues, just as Christ says in the Gospel: “Be like your Father who is in heaven”; and be like Him in meekness, goodness, lack of malice, and so on.

Thus Basil the Great reasons: “Let us make man” (says God) “in our image and in our likeness”: the former, then, we have as God’s creation; the latter, however, we perfect through our own will. In the original creation, we are to be in the image of God; but through our will, we perfect ourselves to be in the likeness of God. And again: God has left me to be in the likeness of God; for I have the image to be a person of the Word; and in likeness, to be a Christian [335] . “Be perfect,” said Christ, “just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Do you see where the Lord gives us the likeness? There, where we are like Him who causes His sun to shine on the wicked and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous[336] . If you hate deceit, yet are not vindictive, nor do you dwell on yesterday’s enmity; if you are brotherly and compassionate, you have become like God; if you forgive your enemy from the heart, you have become like God; if God is toward you, a sinner, as you are toward your brother who has sinned against you, through your kindness you have become like God; therefore, since you have the image (of God) —not merely in word, but in deed—you have become like Him through your acts of kindness. Thus far, St. Basil the Great.

Let us know, then, that the image of God is present even in the soul of an unbeliever, while the likeness is found only in the virtuous Christian; and when a Christian commits a mortal sin, he is deprived only of the likeness of God, not of the image; and even if he is condemned to eternal torment, the image of God remains in him forever, while the likeness can no longer exist.

In ancient times, there were certain heretics known as anthropomorphites (those who liken God to man), of whom Saint Epiphanius speaks, interpreting God’s words: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” they interpreted in the same way that schismatics interpret it today, claiming that God has the likeness of a human body and is human-like, having a head, a beard, hands, feet, and all other limbs; and that He created man in His own likeness—just as the Jews interpret it. But just as the anthropomorphites of that time were considered mad, regarded as heretics, rejected by the Church, equated with the Jews, and condemned to anathema: so too are these people foolish today, and they are heretics, and they resemble the Jews, and are worthy of excommunication from the Church, their lot being with the Jews and the anthropomorphites (those who ascribe human form to God), who have been condemned; for they do not believe that the Head of God, and His hands and feet, were not material or fleshly, but immaterial and spiritual—which are His divine omnipotence, authority, power, the source of all things, His omnipotence, and His omnipresence.

God is entirely the Head, for He is the Beginning of all, the Ruler of all, and the Governor of all; He is entirely the Eye, for He sees all; He is entirely the Ear, for He hears all; He is entirely the Hand, for He holds all; He is entirely the Foot, for He is everywhere, and fills all things with His presence.

St. Basil the Great rebukes the anthropomorphists in his *Hexameron*, in Discourse 10 [337] , saying to them thus: “In what way were we created in the image of God? Let us purify our ignorant hearts, our untrained minds, and our uneducated notions about God.” If we were made in the image of God, is God then like us? Does God have hair, ears, and a head? Does He have hands and a seat upon which He sits? For it is written in Scripture that God sits; does He have feet with which He walks? Is God like that? Cast aside the absurd fantasies of your heart; reject from yourself thoughts that are unworthy of God’s majesty. God is formless, simple, without grandeur, and beyond measure in age; do not imagine a form for Him, nor deprive yourself of the great Jewish wisdom; nor shall you encompass God with bodily thoughts, nor describe Him with your mind, for His majesty is immeasurable. Think of the great, and ascribe to the great something far greater, and to the far greater something even greater still, and admonish your mind that it cannot comprehend the infinite: do not conceive of an image, for God is understood by His power. There is nothing in God that is like what is in us; for we are not made in the image of God in the form of our body; for in a perishable body, the image is destroyed, but in the imperishable, the imperishable is formed; the body grows, shrinks, ages, and changes: it is one way in youth, another in old age, another in prosperity, another in suffering, another when fearful, another when joyful, another in peace, another in war, one state for the one who is awake, and another for the one who sleeps, For how can that which is changeable be likened to that which is unchangeable? And when it is said, “Let us make man in our image,” it refers to the inner man, of whom the Apostle also speaks: “Though our outer man is decaying, the inner man is being renewed day by day” ([338] ). For we have a man within us, and we are not merely a body; and what is said is true, that we are within. For I am the inner man; the outer man is not I, but my essence; for I am not the hand, but I am the verbal expression of the soul, while the hand is a part of man. For the body is the soul’s instrument, while man is lordly by virtue of the soul itself. And again it is said: “A woman is to be in the image of God just as a man is, of the same nature, though weaker in the flesh, yet powerful in the soul, since she is of the same nature as the image of God”[339] . Thus far, Basil the Great.

From these words, today’s new anthropomorphite schismatics can clearly understand and know that the image of God is not in the face, eyes, lips, beard, or other visible parts of the body, but in the invisible soul—verbal, rational, self-governing, and immortal.

Chapter 19. On Beards

Here we shall consider the matter of beards, about which there is much controversy among our Russians, who regard the beard as a great law of God and a means of salvation, while considering the shaving of the beard a grave and unforgivable sin leading to eternal damnation.

In the summer of 1705, while I was in the city of Yaroslavl during the months of June and July, on a certain Sunday, after I had left the cathedral following the Divine Liturgy and was on my way to my residence, two bearded men—though not old—approached me and cried out, saying: “Holy Lord! As you command, we are ordered by the Tsar’s decree to shave our beards; but we are ready to lay down our lives for our beards; for we would rather have our heads cut off than have our beards shaved.” I, however, was taken aback by this unexpected and sudden question, and could not immediately answer with a passage from Scripture; so I countered their question, saying, “Which will grow back—a severed head or a shaved beard?” They hesitated, paused briefly, and replied, “The beard will grow back, but the head will not.” I then said to them: “Surely you would rather spare your beards—which will grow back even if shaved ten times over—than lose your heads, which, once severed, will never grow back, except at the general resurrection of all the dead.” Having said this, I went to my cell. Many honorable citizens accompanied me, and they entered my cell with me, and we had a lengthy discussion about shaving and not shaving. And I realized that many who had shaved off their beards by the sovereign’s decree doubted their salvation, as if they had lost the image and likeness of God, and were no longer in the image and likeness of God because they had shaved their beards. I, however, exhorted them not to doubt, saying that the image and likeness of God do not reside in the beard or the visible human face, but in the invisible soul; furthermore, for this very reason, no one should doubt their salvation, since shaving the beard is done not of one’s own free will, but by the sovereign’s decree. It is fitting, then, to obey the commands of those in authority in matters that are not contrary to God nor harmful to public order.

As for the rest, let us dispel this doubt: we must investigate the matter of beards in the Old Testament and the New. And to begin with the Old Testament, having arranged our examination as follows:

1) Who in the Old Testament was not commanded to shave their beards?

2) For what reason were they not commanded?

3) Was beardlessness ever practiced among the Jews?

In this investigation of beards, the first consideration should have been whether a beard is the image and likeness of God. But since it has been shown above, based on St. Basil the Great, that a beard is not the image and likeness of God, let us now examine the other question we have raised.

1st CONSIDERATION

To whom in the Old Testament is it forbidden to shave the beard?

Although the commandment not to shave the beard was given by God to all the Jews, it was especially the clergy, the priests and Levites were bound by it [340] , as can be seen in chapter 21 of the Book of Leviticus, where the Lord God said to Moses to command the sons of Aaron, the priests, not to shave their beards, adding: “For they themselves shall offer the Lord’s offerings, the gift of their God.” “Let them not shave their beards,” He said, “for this reason: that they themselves may offer sacrifices to God” ([341] ). The word “themselves” signified the service of the priests and Levites. For who, after all, offered sacrifices to God with their own hands? Only the priests and the Levites. As for the other tribes, even though they offered sacrifices to God, they did not place them on the altar with their own hands, but through the priests and Levites; whereas the priests and Levites themselves offered the offerings to the Lord with their own hands. For when the Lord God forbade shaving the beard and commanded that it remain unshaven—so that they themselves might offer the Lord’s offerings—He clearly showed that this commandment regarding the unshaven beard was given especially to the priests and Levites. The same commandment was given to the Nazirites, as is seen in the Book of Numbers, chapter 6, and in the Book of Judges, chapter 13, and in the First Book of Kings, chapter 1; and although the laity—that is, the other tribes of Israel—observed this commandment not to shave their beards, yet at times they were not forbidden to shave, and indeed were even commanded to do so at certain times, as we shall see in the third discussion.

Second Discussion

Why was shaving the beard not commanded in the Old Testament?

Shaving in the Old Covenant was not evil in and of itself; for the beard is not the image and likeness of God, as has been clearly explained earlier: rather, it became evil only because of some sin. For if shaving were evil in and of itself, it would not have been commanded that those being cleansed from leprosy shave their beards and all the hair on their bodies [342] ; if having a beard were evil in and of itself, those entering the Levitical priesthood would not have been commanded to shave their entire body—that is, their head, beard, and the rest [343] —nor would Jews have been permitted to let their beards grow during times of deep mourning [344] ; if shaving were evil in and of itself, God would not have commanded the prophet Ezekiel to shave his head and beard [345] . But that is discussed below. Here, however, we examine why the Old Testament did not command the shaving of beards.

The reason for that commandment was as follows: the pagan priests—and especially those who served the goddess known as Isis, the ancient queen of Egypt, would offer defiled sacrifices in their temples and make ungodly supplications to their idols; they had a custom of shaving their heads and beards. The holy prophet Baruch denounced this custom, recalling: “In their temples the priests sit, their garments torn, their heads and beards shaved; and they wail and cry out before their gods [346] .”

For this reason, the Lord God, having brought His people out of Egypt and having appointed the priests and Levites to their service, commanded them not to imitate the idolatrous priests whom they had seen in Egypt shaving their heads and beards; and He gave this commandment: “You shall not cut the hair of your heads, nor shave your beards” ([347] ).

Furthermore, it was the custom of the idolaters, who mourned for their dead, to shave their heads and beards and to scratch their faces and bodies until they were wounded and bled; Therefore, the Lord commanded His servants to guard against such practices, lest they become like the wicked, and He said: “Do not let your heads grow long for the dead, nor let your beards grow long, nor make cuts in your flesh” ([348] ).

For these reasons, shaving was considered evil, and God forbade it to the Jews in the Old Testament, especially to the priests and the Levites.

3rd CONSIDERATION

Was shaving ever practiced among the Jews?

It did occur at times. In the beginning: when they were being cleansed of leprosy, they would shave the hair from their entire body; thus, in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 14, it is commanded: “Let all his hair grow out—his head, his beard, his eyebrows, and all his hair shall grow out” ([349] ).

Furthermore: when those from the tribe of Levi were appointed to the Levitical service, the following rite was performed upon them: first, they were brought before the high priest and sprinkled with the water of purification; then all the hair on their bodies was shaved off, as it is written in the Book of Numbers, chapter 8: “Let the shaving cover their entire body, and let them wash their clothes, and they shall be clean” ([350] ); then, after bringing them before the Tabernacle of Testimony with the sacrifices, the sons of Israel laid their hands upon them. We note, however, that the shaving covered the entire body of the newly ordained Levites; if it covered the entire body, then it also covered the beard; and once ordained, they no longer shaved the hair of their bodies until their death.

Furthermore, upon the completion of their Nazirite vow, the entire head was shaved, for there were two kinds of Nazirites among them: some who had dedicated their entire lives to God in a life of abstinence and purity; others who made a Nazirite vow for a limited time, for only a few years, and not for their entire lives. The Nazirites were so named from the Hebrew word *nazir*, which means “set apart” or “consecrated,” for such people set themselves apart from the worldly and pleasure-seeking life of mankind, devoting themselves to an austere, self-denying way of life, and did not shave or cut the hair of their heads or beards throughout the entire duration of their Nazirite vow. For those who had been Nazirites until the appointed time, when that appointed time was fulfilled, would come with an offering to the temple of the Lord; and the hair that had grown, they would shave it off at the gates of the Temple of Testimony and place their shorn hair on the fire of the Lord’s altar, in honor of God and in thanksgiving, for the Lord had enabled them to fulfill their vow: this is written in the Book of Numbers, chapter 6 [351] .

Furthermore: For the lay people among the Jews—those who were not of the Levitical order—it was not forbidden to shave during times of mourning and sorrow: for it is written in the book of the holy prophet Jeremiah that when, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Gedaliah was left in the land of Judah to rule over the few survivors, a certain Ishmael the Judean, who was of royal descent, came and killed Gedaliah; Then eighty men came from the surrounding regions of Palestine, with unkempt hair and torn garments, weeping over the desolation of Jerusalem [352] . Someone says: “Here in the Book of Jeremiah, it speaks of the head, not of the beard.” I reply: In the Slavonic Bible it says “head,” while in other translations it says “beard,” and when the Slavonic translation says “head,” it is to be understood to include the beard as well; for in times of sorrow and distress, the head is shaved along with the beard, as can be seen from the words of God in the same prophetic Book of Jeremiah, where it is written: “Every head shall be bald (that is, shaved), and every beard shall be cut off”[353] .

Again: to the holy prophet and priest Ezekiel, who prophesied concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the ruin of the Jewish people; the Lord commanded him to shave his head and beard, and, having divided the shaved hair into four parts, to burn one part with fire, to cut another part with a sword, to scatter another part to the wind, and to put the smallest part into his garment ([354] ), signifying that one part of the Jewish people would perish from famine and pestilence during the siege, another part will be cut down by the Chaldean sword, a third part will be scattered throughout the world, and the fourth, very small part will remain in its place.

We reason as follows: if shaving were evil in and of itself (and not due to the evil sin of idolatry), then God would not have commanded the prophet Ezekiel to shave his beard; the Jews would not have been permitted to shave their entire heads in times of distress and sorrow; nor would Nazirites have been commanded, upon the completion of their Nazirite vow, to shave the hair of their entire head and offer it as a burnt offering to God; nor would it have been prescribed by law for those entering the Levitical ministry to shave their entire body; nor would those being cleansed from leprosy have been commanded to shave off their beards.

For in the Old Testament, it was not a sin to shave one’s beard; rather, it was a sin to imitate the customs of the ungodly idolaters by shaving one’s beard.

Having thus examined the matter of beards in the Old Testament, let us now turn to the New Testament of grace and examine the same issue with the following considerations:

1) Is there any legal provision regarding beards for Christians?

2) Who started the practice of shaving beards?

3) Is shaving a sin against God?

4) Is there salvation in not shaving?

1st CONSIDERATION

Is there any law regarding beards for Christians?

Great Russian Christians are accustomed to justifying their practice of not shaving by citing the Old Testament commandment regarding beards, mentioned above, which was given by God through the Levites: “You shall not shave your beards” ([355] ), and they say: Christ Himself fulfilled the Old Testament commandments; for He said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”[356] . And if Christ fulfilled the Old Testament commandments, then we Christians are also bound to fulfill them, and not to shave our beards according to the Old Testament commandment, for Christ did not shave His beard, nor did the Apostles who walked with Him.

On this basis, let those who advocate not shaving be presented first with the following knowledge regarding God’s Old Testament commandments:

The commandments in the Old Testament were of three kinds:

Spiritual,

Physical,

Judicial;

to put it more clearly:

Divine,

Official,

Civil;

even more clearly:

Those appropriate to faith and the worship of God;

That which is appropriate for church rites (ceremonies) and for human earthly life;

Such as is fitting for justice.

These threefold commandments are clearly seen in God’s words to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 5, where it is written: “Stand with me, that I may speak to you all the commandments, statutes, and judgments”[357] ; and again in chapter 6: “These commandments, statutes, and judgments, which the Lord your God has commanded”[358] .

Let us pay attention to these three statements:

Commandments,

Ordinances, and

Judgments.

God’s commandments, at the beginning, teach knowledge of God, faith in Him, and reverence for Him: “I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before Me” ([359] ) and so on; and these were the commandments concerning God—divine and spiritual.

The regulations concern rituals and church ceremonies: how to offer sacrifices, how to purify oneself from defilement, how to sprinkle oneself with the blood of a goat and a heifer and with the ashes of a calf [360] ; what to eat and what not to eat; when not to shave one’s hair and when to shave it; and many other similar matters, as described in the books of Moses. And these commandments concerning the flesh were given for two reasons: first, that the flesh of speechless animals might be offered as a sacrifice to God; and second, that they might be taught by what rites to govern their own flesh in this life. This discipline of the flesh was clearly described by Saint Chrysostom as he interpreted these words of the Apostle concerning the priesthood of Christ: “He was not a priest according to the law of fleshly commandments” ([361] ) and so on. “He,” he said, “was a priest not according to the law of fleshly commandments; for that law was unlawful in many respects; and he rightly called it a fleshly commandment.” For everything it prescribed was carnal. For to say: “Circumcise the flesh, anoint the flesh, wash the flesh, purify the flesh, trim the flesh, bind the flesh, nourish the flesh, celebrate with the flesh”—are not these words of mine carnal?[362] ? Thus far Chrysostom.

The laws, however, taught righteousness among people—not to wrong one another, not to bear false witness, not to covet one’s neighbor’s possessions, not to steal, not to murder; and they established civil justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth[363] ; and they shed human blood, for in its place his blood shall be shed[364] .

By these three commandments, the Israelites were bound to:

Serve God faithfully,

To govern themselves with order,

To treat their neighbor justly.

Of those threefold commandments (which were in the Old Testament), there are some that we Christians must keep, and others that we must not.

We must keep those that pertain to faith, the knowledge of God, and the worship of God, and those that pertain to righteousness and civil justice.

But as for the Old Testament rites and ceremonies in the temple, and as for the fleshly regulations, I am not only free from these obligations but am also completely liberated from them. For all the Old Testament fleshly regulations—that is, the rites and ceremonies—were types and shadows of Christ’s fleshly coming and His priesthood, as well as of the sacrifices and the sacraments of the Church that now exist in the new grace. But when Christ came and fulfilled all that had been foreshadowed and symbolized by His very presence, the foreshadowings and symbols were abolished: for when the fruit springs forth, the blossom falls away; and when the sun shines brightly, the stars fade; and with the advent of the new grace, the shadow of the Law ceased. For if those Old Testament rites and ceremonies were still in effect today, they would be false, since they were types and shadows of Christ; for they would still be pointing to Christ, who was to come in the flesh, though He has already come; for this reason, they have been completely set aside from us, and we have been made free from them, as will be explained more clearly below.

And as Christ the Lord said, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it,” this is to be understood as follows: Christ fulfilled the law of the Old Testament rites: He was circumcised, presented in the Lord’s temple according to the law, ate the Passover as prescribed by the law, and, having performed the other Jewish rites, set them aside as a foreshadowing of those that were to come in the new grace; Having set aside the Old Testament law, He established the new law of grace; and thus the Old Testament law gave way to the grace that had come.

And here is another interpretation: Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, which was incomplete and imperfect; for the Law of Moses could not save a person from hell, not even a righteous man; but Christ, having come, filled the Law of Moses with the new, grace-filled sacraments of salvation, which save a person completely. And so Christ did not abolish the law concerning the knowledge of God and faith (and not that concerning the Old Testament rites [ceremonies]), but fulfilled it.

Here we will turn to the discussion of beards.

Let no one think, therefore, that we are teaching people to shave their beards, nor that we are condemning those who do not shave; rather, we are dispelling the doubt regarding the salvation of those who regard shaving as a grave sin and despair of their own salvation. Furthermore, we denounce the heresy of the anthropomorphites—that is, those who hold that the beard is the image and likeness of God.

Is the commandment regarding beards—which is found in the Old Testament, in the Book of Leviticus—one of those commandments? Is it among those that pertain to the knowledge of God and faith? Yet it is not found on the tablets of Moses among the commandments of God.

Is the transgression of the commandments—those pertaining to righteousness and civil justice—found among them? Yet we find no commandment regarding beards in those either.

From which commandments, then, does the prohibition against beards stem? From those commandments that were regulations—that is, Jewish rites and ceremonies—which, as St. Chrysostom clearly explained above from the words of the Apostles, are of a carnal nature, for Christ abolished them by His coming [365] .

For in vain do you assert your unworthiness on the basis of the Old Law, and in vain do you doubt your salvation, having been deprived of your beard by decree.

But since Christ and the holy Apostles with Him did not shave their beards, they did so in accordance with the law of the spiritual order, desiring to be the first priests of the primate Church; they did so also like the Nazirites, who let their hair grow long. And does not Scripture say of Christ the Lord: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” ([366] )? Even if they (the Apostles with Christ) let their hair grow long according to the Law of Moses, that Law of Moses is not imposed on Christians called from among the Gentiles; for the Apostolic Council has freed those who come to Christ from among the Gentiles from all Old Testament regulations, rites, and ceremonies, as is clearly seen in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, where the leading Apostles in Jerusalem wrote a letter to the people of Antioch—those who had turned from idolatry to Christ—as follows:

The apostles, the elders, and the brothers to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia—those from the Gentiles who rejoice in the Lord: Since we have heard that some who went out from among us have troubled you with their words, unsettling your minds by saying that you must be circumcised and keep the Law—which we did not command— It has been decided by us, having gathered together with one accord, to send chosen men to you, and the rest is written there; as follows: It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by us not to impose any further burdens on you, except these necessary ones: to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality; and whatever you do not want done to you, do not do to others [367] . And again, in the same Acts of the Apostles, in chapter 21, the holy Apostle James, together with the other elders in Jerusalem, said to Saint Paul, who had come to them: “We have decided that the Gentiles who have believed need not be burdened with any such regulations, but only to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality” ([368] ). Thus far from the Acts of the Apostles.

Here, let everyone listen carefully: the holy Apostles have freed the Gentiles—who have turned from idolatrous wickedness to Christ—from all of Moses’ Old Testament regulations, that is, from rites and ceremonies. “It is not necessary,” he said, “for them to observe any of these things; rather, they are to observe only those things that pertain to the knowledge of God and faith, and to do no harm to their neighbor: whatever you do not want done to you, do not do to others[369] .”

And since the Russian people were converted to Christ not from Judaism but from pagan idolatry, they are not bound by the observances, rites, and ceremonies of the Law of Moses, but are free from them by the judgment of the Apostles. For even regarding beards, the law does not bind them, but it is a matter of choice; and they should not doubt their salvation because of beards.

One of my opponents said to me: “Christ has replaced Old Testament circumcision with baptism, giving us baptism in place of circumcision; but what has He replaced beards with? What has He given us in the new grace in place of Old Testament beards?”

I replied to him: The Jews had the Old Law, which required them to be circumcised and not to shave their beards, and so on. For those who believed in Christ from among the Jews were given holy baptism in place of Old Testament circumcision; but we, being Gentiles, who were formerly in idolatrous wickedness, had no law of God. The Old Testament was by no means among us; Jewish observances, rites, and ceremonies were unknown to us. Circumcision and the practice of not shaving the beard were never even heard of in our forefathers’ generations, but there was only idolatrous wickedness. For we, who were called from the Gentiles to Christ, were given holy baptism by Christ—not in place of circumcision, which we never had—but in place of the idolatrous wickedness in which we were living; and He commanded us nothing concerning beards; nor did the holy Apostles command us to observe the Old Testament Jewish regulations, rites, and ceremonies. We (says the Apostle James) sent messengers to instruct them not to observe any such things[370] ; for they have set us free from the law concerning beards, leaving it to our own discretion; for there should be no doubt among the wise regarding salvation because of the shaving of beards.

There are, however, commandments regarding beards found in our Russian books, which we present here for discussion.

To begin with:

In the book known as *The Helmsman*, in Chapter 47 by Nikita the monk, presbyter of the Studite Monastery, nicknamed “Scythite,” in his address to the Latins, on page 388 on the reverse side, it is written as follows:

“As for shaving the beard, is it not written in the Law: ‘Do not shave your beards’; for this is fitting for women, but not for men, as God, the Creator, has decreed?” For He said to Moses: “Do not let the hair of your beards grow out,” for this is an abomination to the Lord; and since the time of Constantine, King of Kavala, a heretic, this has been made lawful; for everyone knew that those whose beards were shaved were heretical servants. But you, who do this to please men and go against the law, will be hated by God, who created you in His own image.

REFLECTION

Should one give credence to these words of Nikita?

Question:

To whom does faith come without a doubt?

Answer:

1) Anyone who is among the saints.

2) If one is among the orthodox teachers of the Church.

3) If someone speaks the truth in their words, then faith is granted to them without a doubt.

REVIEW

On Nikita.

Nikita, a monk of Studion—is he counted among the saints? There is no information on this, since he is not found in the Synaxarion.

He is not mentioned among the Orthodox Church Fathers, except in the Kormcha: he also appears to be a follower of the Anthropomorphite heresy in his words, stating that shaving the beard is abhorrent to God, who created man in His own image: as if God were human-like, with a beard, and as if He had created man in that very image.

The falsehood of this Nikita is clearly evident in the words he attributes to Holy Scripture, for it says thus: “Do not let the hair of your beards grow out”; for this is an abomination to the Lord.” For it is a commandment of the Lord, in the Book of Leviticus, chapters 19 and 21, that a Levite must not let his beard grow; yet these words (“for this is an abomination to the Lord”) are nowhere to be found in connection with that commandment of the Lord.

We must not, therefore, place our faith in the words of this Nikita; for he is not truthful, having attached false words to Holy Scripture, and he does not reason correctly about the image of God, nor is he held in high esteem among the saints.

From the Stoglavnik

In the year 7059, in the month of February, during the reign of the pious Tsar and Grand Prince John Vasilyevich, Autocrat of All Russia, under His Holiness Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, in the imperial city of Moscow, a council was held of the most reverend bishops, the most honorable archimandrites and abbots, and the entire clergy, concerning certain ecclesiastical reforms; At this council was present His Eminence Nikandr, Archbishop of Rostov and Yaroslavl, and a book was compiled regarding the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, titled *The Stoglav*, in which, in Chapter 10 concerning beards, it is written as follows:

From the Sacred Rules Concerning the Shaving of Beards

Likewise, the sacred canons forbid all Orthodox Christians from shaving their beards or trimming their mustaches; for such practices are not of the Orthodox tradition, but are Latin and heretical customs, originating from the Greek king Constantine Kavalin; and regarding this, the Apostolic and Patristic canons strictly forbid and reject them; The rule of the holy Apostles states as follows: if anyone shaves his beard and appears thus, it is not fitting to minister to him, nor to sing the Forty-Day Memorial service for him, nor to bring prosphora or candles for him to the church; let him be counted among the unbelievers; for they have adopted this practice from heretics. On the same subject is Canon 11 of the Sixth Council, held at Trullo, concerning the shaving of beards. As for the shaving of beards, is it not written in the Law: “You shall not shave your beards”; for it is fitting for women but unbecoming for men; God, who created them, has so decreed, and He said to Moses: ‘Do not let the hair of your beard grow out,’ for this is an abomination before God; for it was from Constantine, the heretic King of Kavalin; for everyone knew that his heretical servants were required to shave their beards. Thus far the Stoglavnik.

DISCUSSION

In these words, it is necessary to examine the following three points through reasoning: the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Fathers,

the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and King Kavalin.

We read the Apostolic Canons in the book *Kormchiya*, printed in the imperial city of Moscow during the reign of the pious Tsar and Grand Prince Alexei Mikhailovich, during the patriarchate of His Holiness Joseph, in the year 7161; in those Apostolic Canons, there is absolutely no mention of beards; unless there are other Apostolic Canons that have not been printed, which we have not seen. But know this: the holy Apostles did not write any canons; for their council, which took place in Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles converting from idolatry to Christ, wrote nothing else but these five commandments:

1) To abstain from idolatrous rites.

2) To abstain from sexual immorality.

3) To abstain from strangled meat.

4) To abstain from blood, that is, from murder that sheds human blood.

5) Not to do evil to one’s neighbor [371] . As for the laws of the Old Testament, that Apostolic Council made no mention of them; for it freed the Gentiles from all the rites and customs of the Old Law, just as Saint James said to Paul: “It is not necessary for them to observe such things[372] .” The holy martyr and Pope Clement of Rome, a disciple of Saint Peter, the chief apostle, wrote the rules after the holy apostles and called them the Apostolic Rules; but the book *The Helmsman* testifies that these rules have been corrupted by heretics and rejected by the council of the Orthodox Fathers. Thus, the *Kormchiya* states on page 17, under Rule 60, in its commentary: “Many books have been corrupted by heretics, to the detriment of the simplest people, such as the Apostolic Commandments written by Saint Clement, the bishop, which were therefore rejected by the council.” This is also attested to by the second canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council; see page 177 of the *Kormchaya*. If, however, there is anything written in those so-called Apostolic Canons regarding beards, it is not surprising; for those canons have been distorted by heretics, and one should not give credence to them; whereas in the printed Apostolic Canons (as I said before), nothing at all is found regarding beards.

The canons of the Holy Fathers from all the Ecumenical and Local Councils likewise say nothing about beards anywhere. If anyone lacks faith, let him examine all the councils and all the canons of the Holy Fathers; will he find even a single mention of beards anywhere? As for the Stoglav’s reference to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, specifically Canon 11, what is written there pertains to something else, not to beards. For that canon states: “The unleavened bread of the Jews is rejected; whoever calls upon their physician or bathes with them is rejected” ([373] ). This is Canon 11 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, to which the Stoglavnik refers. And it is clear to see that this canon does not deal with beards, but rather with the fact that Christians should have no communion whatsoever with the Jews, as is explained in the interpretation of that canon; let anyone who wishes read it there.

In what years did the Sixth Ecumenical Council and King Kavalin take place?

The Stoglavnik states that the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in its eleventh canon—which forbids shaving beards—was enacted in direct opposition to King Kavalin’s edict, which commanded that beards be shaved. We, however, observe that the Sixth Ecumenical Council took place in the year 680 A.D., while Kavalin was born in the year 719 and ascended the throne in the year 741; thus, 60 years elapsed between the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Kavalin’s reign. How, then, could the Sixth Ecumenical Council have decreed something contrary to Kavalin’s statute when Kavalin had not yet even been born? And how can one place faith in such a false writing?

From the Old Service Book.

In the year 7155, in the first year of the reign of Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, during the patriarchate of His Holiness Joseph, a Service Book was printed in Moscow; at the end of it is appended a teaching that Orthodox Christians should not shave their beards, and the following words of Saint Epiphanius are cited:

Likewise, Saint Epiphanius writes, rebuking the Euchite heresy, in his book *Ponaria*: “For it is foreign to the catholic Church to wear a beard openly and not to cut the hair, according to the teaching of the Apostles: ‘[374] .’” For a man, he says, ought not to let his hair grow long, since it is the image and glory of God; yet those who do the worst and act contrary to this cut off their beards. In the Apostolic Canons, the Divine Word declares: “Do not destroy the image of the beard, nor adorn yourselves in a lewd manner, nor out of pride.”

These words, by virtue of the very name of Saint Epiphanius, would be worthy of credence were it not for a certain doubt arising from them: the first point is cited as if it were apostolic testimony; for, he says, a man ought not to let his hair grow, since it is the image and glory of God. But in the Apostolic writings, in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 147, the passage reads differently. It is written there as follows: “A man ought not to cover his head, for it is the image and glory of God.” The Apostle is not speaking here of the hair on the head, but of covering the head; and thus the words attributed to Saint Epiphanius have become suspect, since they do not agree with the words of the Apostles.

Second: in the Apostolic commandments, as we have explained above, the Divine Word states that in the Apostolic commandments—which are printed in the Kormchaya—there is absolutely nothing mentioned regarding beards, neither to let them grow nor to shave them. And even if there are other Apostolic commandments found outside of the printed text, the Kormchaya testifies that they have been distorted by heretics and rejected by the Council, as we have previously explained ; Furthermore, the author of the text appended to that Service Book is full of inaccuracies regarding the teachings on beards, some of which will be revealed in the third discussion on beards.

For we honor the name of Saint Epiphanius, but we have doubts regarding the writings attributed to him; for many writings are attributed to the names of saints, yet were not composed by the saints themselves; but even if these words of Epiphanius are indeed genuine, it is not surprising, for he wrote from the Law of Moses, having been a Christian not of Gentile origin but of Jewish parents, as is written in his life. But for us, who have turned from paganism to Christ and have been freed from the yoke of the Old Law by the Apostolic judgment, those words of Epiphanius (if they are indeed his) are not binding.

From the Great Old Service Book.

In the year 7133 of the world, during the reign of His Majesty King and Grand Prince Michael Feodorovich, and during the patriarchate of His Holiness Filaret, a Service Book was printed in Moscow, containing the rites and regulations for the proper reception of those coming from the Latins to the Holy Eastern Church. In it is written as follows:

I curse the godless, fornication-loving delusion, the soul-destroying, darkened heresies—namely, the shaving of the beard—whose leader was the lawless Peter the Wicked, Pope of Rome. Among the rulers, the leader of that heresy was the infamous Constantine, the iconoclast; and in that heresy, the other Roman popes have also become mired, as have all the Latin bishops and priests, and many laypeople as well, having lost their reason, have fallen into such leprosy, destroying the goodness of their own faces—the image created for them by God, with which goodness God adorned man, in His own image and likeness. Thus far the Book of Liturgy.

Here let everyone listen and see whether the heresy of the anthropomorphites (those who liken God to a human being) is not exposed of its own accord—those who speak of God as human-like, and who claim that He created the human face in His own image, asserting that the image of God resides in the body, not in the human soul.

For those provisions in our Russian books regarding the prohibition of beards are not true laws; since they do not conform to the truth, they follow the anthropomorphists, and in vain do our Russian Christians uphold this prohibition, and in vain does anyone doubt their salvation for having been deprived of their beard by decree.

It is also remarkable that our Russians, who base their refusal to shave on an Old Testament commandment and regard shaving as a great sin, have no qualms about cutting the hair on their heads; yet God’s Old Testament commandment was given to both men and women alike, forbidding them to shave their beards and to cut their hair. Thus it is written in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 19: “You shall not round off the corners of your heads, nor shave your beards.” Our Russian brothers, however, strictly observe only one of God’s commandments—that they must not shave their beards—but they disregard the commandment not to cut their hair; for they cut the hair on their heads, and thereby prove themselves to be transgressors of those Old Testament commandments of God upon which they claim to rely; for they keep one but violate the other; and whoever sins against one is also in the wrong regarding the other. Did not the one and only God give both of these commandments? Is one greater than the other, or is one lesser than the other? Did not both of these commandments come from the one and only mouth of God? If you, Russians, keep the commandment of God by not shaving your beards, why then do you cut your hair contrary to God’s commandment? Are you not thereby opposing the one God whom you obey? For if shaving the beard is a great sin, since God has commanded it, then cutting the hair is also a great sin; for God has commanded both equally and without distinction. But if cutting the hair is not a sin, then shaving the beard (for laypeople) is not a sin either.

You say: The Apostle Paul says: “If a man lets his hair grow long, it is a disgrace to him” ([375] ). But I ask you: Are Paul’s words, which do not commend letting the hair grow long, in accordance with God’s Old Testament commandment—which commands not to cut but to let the hair grow—or not? You cannot say that they are in agreement; for God commands one thing, and Paul commands another. God commands: “Do not cut your hair”; but Paul commands: “Cut your hair.” If, then, Paul’s command does not correspond to what God has commanded, whom should you obey: Paul or God? If you obey God, why do you cut your hair contrary to God’s commandment? But if, for the sake of Paul’s commandment, you do not hesitate to transgress God’s commandment, why do you have so much doubt about beards, and despair of salvation because of shaving your beards? Understand, then, that the aforementioned words were written by Saint Paul not to those Christians who were of Jewish and Levitical descent and let their hair grow long, but to those who had turned from Greek idolatry to Christ: to the Corinthians, who had formerly been idolaters (just as our Russian peoples were once idolaters), among whom it was customary not to let their hair grow long; indeed, letting their hair grow long was considered a disgrace. Without altering their Hellenistic custom nor introducing Jewish customs among them, the Apostle’s judgment set the Gentiles free from the Old Testament Jewish rites (ceremonies), as we said earlier [376] , he writes to them, accommodating their ancient Hellenistic custom: “For you,” he said to the Corinthians, “who have been called from Hellenism to Christianity, it is a disgrace to let your hair grow long.” And Paul’s words are not contrary to God’s Old Testament commandment; for the Old Testament law was not intended to be observed by the Jews, but by the Gentile Greeks, who were enlightened by faith and not bound by Jewish Old Testament customs and rituals (ceremonies). For God gave that commandment—to let the hair grow—not to the pagan peoples, but only to the Jewish people. The pagan peoples, however, who worshiped idols, had a custom and a law not to let their hair grow, but to cut and shave their heads and beards for the sake of idol worship; and especially those who worshipped fire as a god—such as the people of Kyiv and Veliky Novgorod, who worshipped Perun, so named because of his fiery lightning—were required to come to worship him with their heads shaved, having no hair, as if scorched by a fiery flame. For the Jews, it was an honor to let their hair grow long, but for the Gentiles, it was a disgrace. And for this reason, Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians, who were Gentiles, said: “If a man lets his hair grow long, it is a disgrace to him.” And if Paul, writing to the Greeks of Corinth, did not hesitate to write contrary to God’s Old Testament commandment regarding hair, because of the ancient pagan custom: then why should the Russians—who are likewise not of Jewish descent but of a pagan people of idol-worshippers who did not grow their hair, and who have been called to Christ and are not bound by the Old Testament Jewish customs—doubt concerning their beards, despairing of their salvation? Is not shaving contrary to the dogmas of the faith? Is it not impossible for one with an unshaven beard to be saved?

I say this not to disparage old and honorable beards, but to eradicate (as we said before) the heretical notion that a beard is the image of God, and to root out doubts about the salvation of those who shave their beards by decree.

2nd CONSIDERATION

Who started the practice of shaving beards?

Our Russian books (as we have heard before) state that the practice of shaving beards began in Constantinople under the iconoclastic Emperor Constantine Kavalin or Kopronymus, and in ancient Rome under Peter the Fiery, Pope of Rome; we must now examine the case of Kavalin to determine whether the practice of shaving beards began with him.

In the Life of the Venerable Stephen the New, in the Great Menaion, it is written that Emperor Constantine Copronymus commanded his nobles to be beardless [377] ; and thus his servants were recognized by the fact that they shaved their beards.

It is well known, however, that even before Copronymus, among the most ancient kings—even before the Nativity of Christ—the practice of shaving existed.

Plutarch writes of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, that once, having arranged his troops for battle, when asked what else he commanded them to do, he replied: “Nothing more is needed, except that the Macedonians shave their beards.” When his friend Parmenion expressed surprise at these words, Alexander said: “Do you not realize that a beard creates a great hindrance in battle? For when the armies come close and engage in hand-to-hand combat, a bearded man is easily seized by the enemy by the beard.” So much for Alexander. From this it is evident that, from ancient times—even before Copronymus—soldiers would shave their beards before going into battle. What, then, are we to make of the holy great martyrs George and Demetrius, who are usually depicted on icons as beardless, as if they were youths not yet twenty years of age? Did they not command troops in the army when they were of full manhood? Indeed, they were in the prime of manhood; for immature youths are not permitted to command armies. Why, then, are they depicted without beards? Because in those ancient times, according to military custom, they shaved their beards. And what do we know about the Roman emperors who ruled the West and the East? Did they let their beards grow, or did they shave them? Dion, the chronicler of ancient pagan history, recounts that Emperor Hadrian of Rome was the first to begin growing a beard, because of certain unsightly sores on his face, which were covered by his beard. If Hadrian was the first of the kings to grow a beard, it is because all the kings before him did not let their beards grow long, but kept them trimmed. And when Julian, the apostate king—who, having turned from a Christian into a servant of demons—came to Antioch, bearing a long beard: the people of Antioch, who were orthodox Christians, upon seeing that bearded man, reviled his beard, and, laughing among themselves, called the emperor “the goat-bearded one.” This is what St. Gregory the Theologian ( ) recalls in his second oration against Julian, saying: “Is it indeed a good thing to see the Roman emperor’s cheeks so unsightly, causing much laughter?[378] ” And again further on: “Now, however, the beard is a source of ridicule and scorn, and is mocked along with the laborers.” Thus far the Theologian. From this, we can conclude the following: if the emperor’s beard was mocked by the people of Antioch, how much more unwelcome were the grown beards of ordinary men—those who let their beards grow before reaching old age and did not regard beards as a great sanctity or means of salvation. For it is evident that the custom of bearding did not originate with Cavalin, but existed before him; rather, Cavalin merely revived in Constantinople the ancient custom of bearding, which was most common among soldiers going out to war.

As for Peter the Heretic, the Pope of Rome, whether the practice of bearding began with him in ancient Rome among the clergy—we do not know; for what do we care about the Romans? This discussion does not concern them, but rather our own Russian schismatics; unless we make it known that Peter the Fiery is not listed among the popes in the Catalogs of Roman Popes.

At the end of the book *The Rudder* there is an appendix on the Roman Apostasy. In that appendix, the popes who fell away from the Orthodox faith are listed as follows: 1. Formosus, who was the leader of heresy; 2. Boniface; 3. Romanus; 4. Stephen; 5. Theodore; 6. John; 7. Benedict, 8. Leo, 9. Christopher; following Christopher is listed Peter the Huguenot, as if he had commanded his Roman priests to have seven wives and as many concubines as they wished, and to shave off the beards, mustaches, and other facial hair of every man [379] .

In the Roman and other foreign catalogs, however, after Christopher comes Sergius, after Sergius comes Anastasius, then Landon, and the rest in order, but Peter the Fierce is nowhere to be found. Let anyone who lacks faith examine the catalogs of the Roman popes himself—will he find him? Was not Peter the Fervent pope after Christopher, but at a later time? Yet even among the popes who came afterward, no Peter is to be found, unless the Romans changed that pope’s name. Nor is it true that any pope ever commanded his priests to have seven wives and as many concubines as they wished; for it is known to all that Roman priests are not permitted to have even a single wife, unless one lives in sin. And where is there no sin?

As for the practice of shaving among the laity in Rome, it is well known that this was the case among the Roman emperors—even as far back as Emperor Hadrian—and likewise among warriors from ancient times. And did not Pope Peter the Fiery establish the practice of shaving for the clergy in Rome?

In the year 7152 of the world, during the reign of the pious Tsar and Grand Prince Michael Feodorovich, and during the patriarchate of His Holiness Joseph, a book was printed in Moscow under the name of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem; a few of his words, as if interpreted, are placed at the beginning of the book; but the rest is not his, but appended. In that book there is a debate between a certain Panagiotis—supposedly a philosopher—and Azimith; in which Panagiotis states on page 235 that the practice of shaving the beard in the Roman clergy began with the pope; but he does not specify the name of that pope or the time when it began; he merely recounts the incident that led the pope to shave his beard. The incident is shameful to chaste ears; but just as that debate was not a model of wisdom, so too is his account not trustworthy. Every prudent reader will judge for himself.

3rd CONSIDERATION

Is shaving a sin against God?

Where God’s commandment is established, there sin is declared; for to transgress God’s commandment is sin. But where God’s commandment is not established, there can be no sin. For where there is no commandment, there is no transgression and no sin.

And since nothing has been commanded to Christians by Christ our God regarding beards—neither to shave nor not to shave—shaving is not a sin against God.

And since there is no commandment from Christ our God to Christians regarding beards, it is evident from this that neither in the Holy Gospel, nor in the Epistles of the Apostles, nor in any of the councils of the Holy Fathers is anything prescribed concerning beards; unless there is a tradition—which the clergy (and not the laity) must observe—besides Scripture.

And whoever relies on the rules of the holy Apostles and the councils of the holy Fathers, as if they had established laws regarding beards, let him show us at least one instance of an Apostolic or patristic conciliar rule on the matter. As for , where Nikita the Studite monk and Panagiot, the so-called philosopher, speak about beards, those words are not rules; nor were they ever discussed among the Holy Fathers at councils, nor are they true in their statements, nor are we obliged to heed them.

As for our own old Russian printed books, they require closer examination, discussion, and correction.

It has been clearly demonstrated above, with regard to God’s Old Testament commandments, that God’s commandments concerning the brothers in the Old Testament were not spiritual, divine commandments befitting faith and the worship of God, nor were they civil commandments promoting righteousness, which we Christians are also bound to observe; but rather from the fleshly commandments pertaining to rites and ceremonies, which Christ abolished by His coming; from these, the holy Apostles have set us—who are Christians from among the Gentiles—free, as we have already shown [380] . Let us also cite the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who, commenting on the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7, writes and says: “Wash the flesh, purify the flesh, cut the flesh, bind the flesh”[381] , and so on: “Are these,” he asks, “not of the flesh?” Thus far Chrysostom. In those words—“shave the flesh”—he clearly points to the practice of not shaving the beard and the practice of shaving the beard, which were formerly part of the fleshly, ceremonial commandments but were abolished by the coming of Christ; for there is no law for Christians regarding beards, but only free will, and one should not doubt one’s salvation because of shaving the beard.

As for those who prescribe the practice of not shaving beards among Christians, while regarding the shaving of beards as a great and most grievous sin, let us examine rationally whether their reasoning is sound.

In the Stoglavnik, mentioned above, in Chapter 40, we hear that shaving the beard is considered a great sin. The rule of the holy Apostles states as follows: if anyone shaves his beard and appears thus, it is not fitting to minister to him, nor to sing the forty-day memorial service for him, nor to bring prosphora or candles for him to the church; let him be counted among the unbelievers; for they have taken this custom from the heretics. This rule places the beard above the human soul. For according to the reasoning of that rule, even if a man were virtuous, righteous, and holy, yet if he were to shave his beard, he would not be saved, and his soul, after his passing, would not be worthy of Christian remembrance.

This rule, falsely attributed to the holy Apostles but not found among the Apostolic rules, is irrational, false, and alien to sound reason; it must first be refuted, and the following questions must be addressed:

What is a beard?

And what is the human soul?

And did Christ come to earth for the sake of the beard, or for the sake of the human soul?

What is a beard? A beard is insensate hair, an excess of the human body, a visible, tangible substance that is not necessary for human life, for it neither gives life to a person nor causes death; a temporary substance that, together with the body, descends into the grave and disintegrates; it is dead and inactive even before death, neither beneficial nor harmful, growing in the moist parts of the body. For just as on earth, where there is a marshy, damp place, there grows excessive grass, sedge, and reeds: so too on the human body, in damp places, hair grows.

What, then, is the soul? The human soul is the invisible, immortal image of God, abiding for all eternity; the soul is an incorporeal, rational nature that gives life to our flesh. And the soul is so essential to human life that without it, a person cannot live even for a single blink of an eye.

For whose sake did Christ come to earth: for the sake of the human beard, so that we might keep it unshaven, or for the sake of the human soul, to save it from eternal death? If Christ came for the sake of beards, then truly a man who shaves his beard is not worthy of a church commemoration after death; but if Christ came to earth for the sake of the human soul, what obstacle does a shaved beard present to the departed soul? And indeed, Christ came for the sake of the soul, not for the sake of the beard. And Christ, our Lord, is called the Savior of our souls: for He suffered for our souls, shed His most holy blood, and died on the cross, that He might lead us into eternal, immortal life.

For a beard is nothing compared to the soul; and that rule, falsely attributed to the Apostles, is false—the one that forbids the Christian soul, after its passing, to be commemorated in church memorial services, or to have prosphora or candles offered for it, because the beard was shaved.

And as for what that spurious rule claims—namely, that Christians adopted the practice of shaving their beards from the heretics—the following question is raised in response: Did the people of Rus’, who were previously engaged in idolatry before their baptism, shave their beards or not? If anyone says they did not shave, he lies; for Russia did not follow the Jewish Old Testament, and the people here had not yet heard God’s commandment against shaving, nor did they know God, but bowed down to idols and served the devil: and it was customary for idolaters to shave their beards, as has been said before. However, once the holy faith was established in Russia, men began to grow beards, especially the elderly, for whom it is fitting; others, however, continued to shave as before, since the Apostolic judgment frees those from the Gentiles who come to Christ from the Old Testament’s fleshly commandments, as we have explained above. For it is not because of heretics, but because of their own ancient custom—which existed before baptism and was not forbidden by the Apostles—that Christians who shave do so; and those who are accustomed not to shave do not do so, not because of any law imposed by Christians, but of their own free will.

In the aforementioned old-print Service Book, in the section on the prohibition against shaving, appended at the end on pages 626 and 627, it is written as follows: Let us also endeavor to demonstrate with words the prohibition against this heresy; for God Himself forbade it to Moses in the Old Testament: “Do not shave your beards” ([382] ). What, then, is to be said of these? But it is clear that it is forbidden and displeasing to God. But is this not a cause for even greater shame and fear for the fearless? For, as the Divine Chrysostom rightly says: this is the Church’s army; and it is well, as he says of a certain other, whose martyr’s blood cannot atone for this sin. Thus far that passage.

We do not know who the author of those false words is; but he clearly appears to be a liar and a madman.

A liar; for he slanders Saint Chrysostom, as if the latter had written about beards, and as if he had called the growing of a beard a “church army.” But where Chrysostom wrote this—in which book, in which passage, in which discourse, or in which moral teaching—the author of that false statement does not reveal; for he is clearly lying.

That author is insane; for he claims that the blood of the martyrs cannot atone for the sin of shaving.

O most insane of the insane! Is a beard greater than Christ? We know that among Christians there is no greater sin than this, when someone renounces Christ; yet if such a one repents and suffers for Christ, the blood of martyrdom will atone for his sin, and he will be deemed worthy of the crown of martyrdom in heaven. An example of this is the holy martyr James the Persian, honored on the 27th day of November, who first denied Christ, then repented, confessed Christ again, and suffered for Him, shedding his blood; and that blood washed away his sin and made him worthy of heavenly glory. And there are other such holy martyrs who, after denying Christ, again confessed Him, suffered for Him, and by their martyr’s blood atoned for their former sin of denial. But the author of that erroneous passage, included in the old-print Service Book, claims that the blood of martyrs does not atone for the sin of shaving; for, according to his foolish reasoning, the beard is superior to Christ; since the blood of martyrs washes away the sin of those who have renounced Christ, but cannot wash away the sin of shaving. Where has such madness ever been heard? And where is such a wicked confession found?

Again, that same anonymous author, in his treatise, denouncing the shaving of beards while advocating for not shaving them, speaks—or rather, lies—as if the holy Apostles, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the nine local councils had decreed that Christians should not shave their beards. But having thoroughly examined all the Apostolic and Patristic rules, we have already stated that nowhere is anything found regarding beards—neither in the Apostolic nor in the Patristic rules—except for false fabrications. We therefore ask the author of this work, who slanders the Apostolic and Patristic rules: which is the greater sin—to shave one’s beard, or to lie about the Holy? Shaving the beard is a human practice, but lying comes from the devil. Who, then, sins more grievously: the one who sins in a human way, or the one who sins in a devilish way?

Having said this, we make it known that in the final part of this treatise, and in the last chapter, it will be revealed which sin the blood of the martyrs cannot atone for, and which holy teacher spoke of this.

Here, however, we will say this: every sin brings a certain pleasure, whether in the senses—that is, the flesh—or in the soul. For in the senses of the flesh there is lust, while in the soul there is rage. For rage finds pleasure in vengeance, and lust finds pleasure in carnal sensuality. But in the insensitive hairs that are shaved—where is there any pleasure to be felt? None at all. For no sin is found in them, and it is in vain for anyone to doubt their salvation because of shaving their beard.

Others say that shaving the beard is like laying a hand on oneself. But we say to them: for you must not even touch your beard with a brush or a comb; for if you comb a beard that has been shaved, the hairs are torn out, and you will be condemned as though you had laid a hand on yourselves. But, O ignorant ones, is shaving one’s beard really the same as laying a hand upon oneself? Does the removal of dead, insensitive hairs cause any harm to a living body? To lay a hand upon oneself is to deliberately cut off a limb of one’s own living body, or to kill oneself in any way: just as Judas killed himself by hanging; Saul, David’s enemy, killed himself with a sword, stabbing himself with it [383] . Schismatics kill themselves—some by fire, some by starvation: this, in itself, is laying one’s hand upon oneself, that is, to destroy oneself by any kind of death. And how great this sin is will be revealed in the third part of this treatise.

4th CONSIDERATION

Is there salvation in wickedness?

Just as the holy Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians concerning Old Testament circumcision: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” ([384] ), so we may say of beards: “Neither shaving nor not shaving means anything.”

For just as Old Testament circumcision—performed on those who had turned from idolatry to Christ and had been called to circumcision from the beginning—did not bring them salvation, but rather faith in Christ God along with good works [385] : in the same way, Old Testament-style uncircumcision brings salvation to no one among Christians, but rather true faith and good works.

Beard-growers point to the holy martyrs of Vilnius: Anthony, John, and Eustace, as if they had suffered for their beards [386] . But know this: they did not suffer for their beards, but for Christ the Lord. Their beards at that time were a sign of Christianity among the pagans, who regarded fire as their god and worshiped it, shaving their heads and beards in honor of their fire god. But now, here in Russia, by the grace of God, there is no idolatry, and we do not worship fire; we all believe in Christ our God, and being clean-shaven cannot be a sign of Christianity among us, just as having a beard cannot be a sign of idolatry; for there are no differences among the orthodox, but all believe alike, unless now, in the time of schism, being clean-shaven is to be a sign. As for the salvation found in not wearing a beard, we reason as follows:

Where sinful lust is not felt, there can be no temptation to sin, nor any struggle against sin. And where there is no temptation, nor any struggle, there can be no crowns, nor any salvation: and since no pleasure is felt in the hair, whether it is present or not—for just as there is no sin in shaving it, so there is no salvation in leaving it unshaven.

If, however, salvation were to be found in unshaven and growing beards, then only those with great beards would be saved. And whoever has a larger beard would have greater salvation; a man with a sparse beard would have meager salvation, and those who have very little beard hair would have no hope of salvation at all. What, then, should be said about dying infants? What about women? They would be entirely alien to salvation, as they are without beards.

All this is said not to offend the elderly and honorable men, whom God and nature have almost adorned with beards and gray hair; for we do not teach the laity to shave their beards, nor do we praise or condemn the practice of not shaving; since both are of no consequence to salvation—neither do they help nor do they harm; nor do we have a commandment from Christ our Lord to preach the beard, but to instruct people on the path to salvation. And what I say is said as an exhortation to those who bear the beard as an image of God, for great holiness and for salvation: They regard shaving as a grave sin, as a hindrance to salvation, and as utter ruin, and they place their beards above their own souls: for they care not so much for the salvation of their souls as for the integrity of their beards. They regard mortal sins—which destroy the soul —as nothing, yet they hope to be saved by the very act of not shaving. To lose one’s soul through lawlessness is nothing; but to lose one’s beard is a great sin. They are ready to pay many rubles to save their beard, yet to sell their soul to hell for a pittance; and thus their beard has become more important to them than their soul. They hold their beards in higher esteem than Christ Himself. For they shave Christ from their hearts day after day with their vile thoughts and deeds, and they do not grieve over it; yet they take great care of their beards, so that they may keep them intact. They shun partaking of the Divine Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, despising them as some kind of impiety; yet they regard their beards as a great act of piety, and thus their beards have come to mean more to them than Christ. Truly, such people deserve to be called “bearded ones” rather than “Christians”; for neither the soul nor Christ is held in such high esteem among them as their beards are. A thief goes out to steal, to plunder, and to rob, having forgotten Christ and his own soul, and cares not for these things; yet he takes great care of his beard. To wrong one’s neighbor, to plunder, to kidnap, to commit injustices, to cause harm, to shed the tears of the innocent and blood—all while forgetting Christ and one’s own soul—all this is as nothing: the only thing necessary for salvation is to have an unshaven beard. To lead a vile, swine-like life—indulging in feasting and drunkenness, in carnal impurity, in adultery, in sodomy, and in other abominations—and thereby to drive Christ from one’s heart and prepare one’s soul for eternal perdition—all this is a trifle, all this is in vain: the only thing that is honorable and holy is to keep one’s beard unbroken. That will save you, that will lead you into the kingdom of heaven, that will justify you before God; and without it, it is impossible to be saved. O the utter folly of the foolish! The beard of an old man is honorable, but there is no holiness in it whatsoever if he himself is filled with many sins. Gray hairs are honorable, but there is no salvation in them if one does not care for his own salvation. Those judges of Israel were honorable for their beards and gray hairs, yet in Babylon they sought to rape Susanna, chaste in body and soul, though fair of form [387] : but what good were their beards and gray hairs to them? So too, on the day of God’s dreadful judgment and terrible trial, a beard will be of no help to anyone unless he has lived a righteous life. It is better to shave off one’s beard than to live a life of vice. For there they will not judge by beards, but by deeds; and they will not bestow honor based on beards, but on pleasing God. It is not the one whose beard the razor has not touched who will be blessed there, but the one whose heart remains pure.

Let no one, therefore, among those with beards, hope to obtain salvation through his beard; nor let anyone doubt his salvation because of shaving.

Chapter 20. On Mustaches

Here, too, a few words should be said about mustaches because of the following offenses:

I have heard some blaspheming and calling a holy man, an Orthodox bishop, the late Most Reverend Peter, Metropolitan of Kyiv, known as Mogila, for having written in his great Kyiv Trebnik, advising priests with thick mustaches to trim the excess hair above their lips slightly, so that it would not dip too deeply into the Blood of Christ. Thus, in that Service Book, in Part 1, on page 249, it is written:

If a priest, having a bushy mustache, through negligence dips it in the Divine Blood, he sins; but let him first wipe his lips well, and then wipe it off with a cloth. To avoid such a sin, O priest, you should trim it well, or cut it before the service. Thus ends the Service Book.

For this reason, some of the locals here revile and abuse that bishop, calling him a heretic—and God will judge them. As for me, to those revilers, instead of a reply, I offer the following:

In Rostov, in the bishop’s residence, there lived an elderly black-robed priest named Varlaam, whom all the people of Rostov knew well, and who is now deceased. He had, as it were, a rather long beard, as well as a large mustache, which extended excessively over his upper lip. Once, while I was celebrating the Holy Liturgy, that priest was concelebrating with me, and when he received Communion from the chalice of the Divine Blood, having dipped his entire mustache in the blood, I saw him wipe most of the Blood of Christ from the chalice with his mustache, without properly wiping his mustache, but proceeding thus to the antidoron and to the lavabo. I was horrified by such negligence and desecration of the Blood of Christ, so I commanded that priest never to serve with me again, but to celebrate the Liturgy on his own, so that I might not witness such desecration occurring during Holy Communion.

Here I ask: which is more honorable and holy—excess mustache hair above the lips, or the Blood of Christ? And which is the greater sin—to trim a little of the excess hair above the lips, or to carry the scent of the Blood of Christ out of the holy chalice with a thick mustache, without fear or care?

I know that blasphemers will cite the old printed books in Moscow, the aforementioned Trebnik and the Service Book, in which it is written thus: the devil encourages them to shave off their beards and trim their mustaches with scissors and razors. They commit an even worse act, for they bite off the hairs of their beards and mustaches with their own teeth, behaving like cannibals.

To this I reply with a few brief words.

Whoever wrote those words had as much sense in his head as there is feeling in his hair: he who finds sin where there is none is like one who strains out a gnat but swallows a camel. And if someone combs his beard and mustache with a comb or a brush, and the hairs are torn out, what sin should be attributed to this? For sometimes a hair from the mustache gets mixed into the food, and enters between the teeth along with the food: then, according to that judgment, there is no salvation for such a person.

Chapter 21. On the Gospel Narratives and Parables

Let this madness of the schismatics—which is worthy of ridicule—also be exposed, for I have recently learned that they do not regard the Gospel narrative as historical fact, but treat it as a parable, and presume to support their absurd reasoning with interpretations of the Gospels. For example:

Christ fed five thousand people in a desolate place with five loaves of bread and two fish; this, they claim, did not actually happen, but is a parable [388] . The “desolate place,” they say, refers to the tongues, to which Christ came after leaving the Jews; the five loaves represent the five senses; the two fish represent the two books: the Gospel and the Epistles; 12 baskets, 12 Apostles; so it is written in the Gospel commentary.

Furthermore:

The Gospel account of the Good Samaritan was not a literal event, but a parable [389] . The Samaritan woman represents the human soul; the well represents baptism; the living water is the Holy Spirit; the five men are the five books of Moses.

Again:

The resurrection of Lazarus was not a literal event, but a parable [390] . Lazarus, who was sick, is interpreted as our mind, overcome by human frailty; Lazarus’s death represents sins; Lazarus’s sisters represent the flesh and the soul; the flesh is Martha, the soul is Mary; the tomb represents worldly cares; the stone on the tomb represents a hardened heart; Lazarus is bound with strips of cloth, symbolizing the mind bound by the chains of sin; Lazarus’s resurrection represents repentance from sins.

Again:

Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on a donkey colt did not actually take place, but it is a parable. The donkey represents the Jewish people, bearing the yoke of the Law of Moses; the colt represents the nations; and Christ, having left the Jews, sat upon the nations; the disciples who preceded Him represent the Old Testament; those who followed Him represent the new grace; the garments cast aside along the way symbolize the mortification of the flesh; the palm branches signify victory over death; the youths calling out are people free from malice.

These and other wondrous deeds of Christ, described in the Gospel narrative and elucidated by the most excellent Holy Fathers through allegorical and moralizing interpretations, are regarded by those foolish, schismatic “wise men” as mere parables rather than as the Deed itself—all for the sake of the interpretations found in Theophylact’s *Gospel Herald*— unable to comprehend figurative forms and images, nor to distinguish between history and parable, and utterly incapable of distinguishing between the interpretation of history and that of parables, as if deprived of sound mind and unenlightened by the light of reason; and through their folly, like the darkness of Egypt, they are blinded [391] ; and they scatter their tares among the common people, harming the souls of the ignorant by slandering the Gospel narrative. I would have passed over their foolish reasoning in silence, as unworthy of a response; but I feared that, , if I remained silent, the harm among the people would multiply, and the seed of a greater heresy would be sown—one that would regard Christ’s incarnation, His suffering, and all His glorious deeds and miracles not as reality but as a parable; and to regard Christ’s taking on flesh and suffering as a mere illusion rather than a reality—as the malicious Manichaean heresy taught in ancient times—from which may the true God and Man, Christ, preserve His holy Church from such destructive heresies. I have also been prompted to address this by the questions of certain honorable individuals who, having heard that schismatic blasphemy, asked me about the five loaves and two fish, and about the Samaritan, and about the resurrection of Lazarus, and about Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on a colt; whether these were truly actual events or merely parables. With God’s help, I set out to refute that schismatic, foolish, and soul-destroying reasoning to the best of my ability by explaining the following:

1) Which passages in the Holy Gospel are literal?

2) Do all passages in the Gospel require interpretation?

3) How are those passages interpreted that require interpretation?

4) What is the interpretation given in Theophylact’s *Gospel Commentary* regarding the five loaves, the Good Samaritan, Lazarus who had been dead for four days, and Christ’s entry into Jerusalem?

5) How is the actual event distinguished from a parable in the Gospel?

FIRST EXPLANATION

What is the essence of the Holy Gospel?

The Gospel contains two things:

The account of Christ’s life

And His words of teaching.

The narrative recounts all the deeds and miracles of Christ—our God made man—who appeared on earth and lived among mankind, beginning with His immaculate birth from the immaculate womb of the Virgin, through His death on the cross, His resurrection, and His ascension into heaven; Along with the deeds of Christ, the lives and deeds of others are also recounted in part: those of John the Baptist, Herod, the Apostles, the Jewish high priests, Pilate, and others.

The Gospels, meanwhile, set forth all the words of Christ’s sermons and teachings, which He spoke with His most pure lips to those who followed Him and listened to Him, and which are now preached to us through the Gospel readings for the benefit of our souls.

SECOND EXPLANATION

Do all the words in the Gospel require interpretation?

Not everything written in the Gospel requires interpretation, but only that which is not understandable to everyone; and that which is clear and understandable to all is not interpreted, but merely preached. For who does not understand the deeds and miracles of Christ that are preached? He was born of the Virgin in Bethlehem, wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger; angels sang, shepherds worshiped Him, a star stood over Him, and kings came with gifts; He was also circumcised, brought to the temple, laid in the arms of the righteous Simeon, fled to Egypt, and returned from there after Herod’s death; at the age of twelve, in the temple in Jerusalem, He astonished the elderly Jewish teachers with His divine wisdom; At the age of thirty, He was baptized by John in the Jordan, fasted for forty days in the wilderness, and put the tempter, the devil, to shame; Then, having gathered his holy disciples and the Apostles, he performed his first miracle by turning water into wine at Cana in Galilee, and he traveled through the cities and towns of Palestine, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and healing all who were sick: He gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, raised the dead, and cast out demons from people; in a desolate place, He fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish; He conversed with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well; He was transfigured on Mount Tabor; then He raised Lazarus from the tomb after four days; entered Jerusalem triumphantly on a young donkey, received praise from the mouths of infants and nursing babies, suffered, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. All these deeds of Christ, which took place in truth (and not as parables) and are described in the Gospel narrative, are perfectly clear and require no interpretation of their own, except perhaps to reveal the future, which they foreshadow. For such is the nature of Christ’s deeds, which foreshadow the future, a matter we shall discuss below.

As for the words and sayings of Christ, spoken by Him out of His divine wisdom to instruct the people and His disciples, not all of them are comprehensible to everyone; for people have different levels of understanding:

Some are clear,

some are veiled,

some are parables and similes,

some are commandments,

some are counsel,

These are promises and consolations,

These are rebukes and punishments,

These are the prophecies.

And there are many other words of His most holy nature concerning various matters.

Some of these require interpretation, while others do not; let us recall a few of them here.

Among the clear sayings and words of Christ are these:

On repentance: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” ([392] ). On a virtuous life: “Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” ([393] ). On offering gifts to God: “If you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar; first go and be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift”[394] . On prayer: When you pray, do not use empty phrases; pray like this: “Our Father”[395] and so on. On fasting: When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show others that they are fasting[396] . On forgiveness: “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” ([397] ); and other similar, clear words of Christ found in the Gospel require no interpretation.

Among Christ’s veiled sayings and words are the following:

The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but whoever falls on it will be crushed and[398] . And again: If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. And again: Everything is to be salted with fire, and every offering is to be salted with salt. Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, with what will it be salted? Have salt in yourselves[399] . And again: “Whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag; and whoever has no purse, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword (knife)[400] .”

And again: “Where your corpse is, there the vultures will gather”[401] ; and other such cryptic sayings of Christ require interpretation, just as the one in which He foretold His suffering to the Apostles: “We are going up to Jerusalem,” and so on; but they understood nothing of these things, and this saying was hidden from them, and they did not understand what was being said[402] ; they needed an explanation.

Among the parables and similes spoken by Christ are the following:

About the seeds that fell by the wayside, on rocky ground, among thorns, and on good soil. About the weeds sown by the enemy among the wheat [403] . About the king who forgave his servant a debt of one hundred talents, but the servant would not forgive his fellow servant a debt of one hundred denarii [404] . About the man who fell among robbers and the merciful Samaritan [405] . About the rich man whose field produced a bountiful harvest [406] . About another rich man who showed no mercy to the beggar Lazarus [407] ; about the Pharisee and the tax collector who entered the church to pray [408] . About the vineyard and the heir who was killed by the workers [409] . About the man who arranged a wedding for his son; and about the man who did not have a wedding garment [410] . About the man who prepared a great supper and invited many, but they refused [411] . About the talents distributed to the servants [412] . About the prodigal son [413] .

And also this:

The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

The kingdom of heaven is like leaven.

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field.

The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls.

The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea[414] .

The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins[415] .

These and other parables and similes, spoken by the mouth of Christ, being veiled, require interpretation.

Among Christ’s commandments are these:

“This I command you: Love one another”[416] . “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you.” And again: “I say to you, do not swear at all—neither by heaven nor by earth”[417] . “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged”[418] . “Do not give what is holy to the dogs”[419] . And the other commandments of Christ in the Gospel. These, being clear, do not require interpretation.

Among Christ’s counsels are the following:

If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. If anyone wants to take your cloak, let him have your tunic as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks of you; and do not turn away the one who wants to borrow from you[420] . Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth[421] . Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or what you will wear[422] . And again: whoever wants to follow me must deny himself and take up his cross. Whoever wants to save his soul will lose it[423] . If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, give to the poor, and follow me[424] . Whoever wants to be first among you must be your servant. Whoever wishes to be first among you must be your servant[425] . These words of Christ are clear and require no interpretation; except that the cross spoken of is not to be understood as physical, but spiritual; and the loss of one’s soul is to be understood as martyrdom for Christ, or the mortification of one’s own desires.

Among Christ’s promises and consolations are the following:

If two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven[426] . Anyone who leaves home, or brothers, or anything else, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life [427] . I am with you always, even to the end of the age[428] . These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover [429] . Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours[430] . Everyone who confesses me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven[431] . Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you[432] . Whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do even greater works than these[433] . If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and I will come to him and make a home with him [434] . I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth[435] . I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you[436] . I am going to prepare a place for you[437] . And again: I will come and take you to be with me, so that where I am, there you may be also[438] . I have told you these things so that my joy may remain in you, and your joy may be complete[439] . You are my friends; to some I call you servants[440] . The world will rejoice, but you will grieve; yet your grief will turn into joy[441] . I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you[442] ; and other such promises and consolations of Christ, with which He comforted His beloved, are clear and require no explanation.

The rebukes and warnings that Christ addressed to sinners are as follows:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces; for you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, for you devour widows’ houses. Woe to you, blind leaders, who strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, for you clean the outside of cups and dishes, but inside they are full of greed and wickedness. Woe to you, hypocrites, for you are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all kinds of uncleanness. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of the fire of Gehenna?[443] ? And again, cursing the cities, He said: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!”[444] , and so on. And you, Capernaum, who have been exalted to the heavens, will be brought down to Hades; the land of Sodom will be more tolerable on the day of judgment than you.[445] . Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Woe to the person through whom a stumbling block comes![446] . Woe to you who are rich, for you have put off your comfort. Woe to you who are full now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep[447] . Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish[448] . And these words of Christ are not obscure, nor do they require much interpretation, except to understand that a gnat signifies a lesser sin, while a camel signifies a greater sin; and a vessel that appears clean on the outside but is full of filth on the inside signifies a hypocrite.

Among Christ’s prophecies are the following:

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes; they will condemn him to death, and they will hand him over to be mocked, flogged, and crucified; and on the third day he will rise again [449] .” And again He foretold to the Apostles: “You will be handed over to the multitudes, and in their synagogues they will beat you; and you will be brought before governors and kings[450] .” He also prophesied about the persecution of the church: “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against their parents and put them to death[451] .” He prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem: “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build a siege ramp against you, surround you, and hem you in on every side; they will crush you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you”[452] ; and again, concerning the Church in Jerusalem, he prophesied: “Not one stone will be left upon another here that will not be destroyed”[453] . He foretold concerning the Antichrist and his precursors: “Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will deceive many”[454] ; “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders”[455] . And he foretold the turmoil of the whole world: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be famines and disasters, and earthquakes in various places”[456] ; “Then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world”[457] . Finally, he spoke at length about the Last Judgment, prophetically foretelling the future. All of his prophetic words, however, required no interpretation, for they were clear and understandable to everyone.

And while not all of Christ’s words require interpretation, being clear in themselves, His deeds—which were the very truth and not a parable, and which contain no obscurity—do not require interpretation, but only to be proclaimed; rather, it is the things they foreshadow that require an explanatory interpretation. For (as I said before) certain deeds of Christ, which in themselves foreshadowed the future—that which has come to pass and that which is coming to pass—are interpreted in the Gospel, as we shall see below.

THIRD EXPLANATION

How are those passages interpreted that require interpretation?

The Divine Scriptures, contained in the Holy Bibles—the Old and New Testaments—have a twofold meaning:

namely, the Spiritual and the Literal;

the written, that is, the mystical.

The written meaning is historical and narrative; the spiritual meaning, however, is mystical and mysterious. The letter recounts the event, while the spirit expounds the mystery: the letter narrates the history of ancient deeds, while the spirit interprets that which is prefigured in those ancient deeds.

For the written—that is, the historical—mind of Divine Scripture is close at hand, explaining itself through the very narration of the events and making itself accessible to understanding.

But the spiritual meaning of Divine Scripture is mystical, mysterious, and distant; it is not revealed at close range by narrative words, but is signified from afar by the events narrated. For narrative words reveal a thing that actually happened; but the thing revealed by narrative words mysteriously signifies yet another thing.

A clear demonstration of both of these truths is seen in the words of the holy Apostle Paul; in the Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual bread, and all drank the same spiritual drink.” In these and the subsequent words of the Apostle, there is a twofold meaning: one is literal, close at hand, recounting events that actually took place—such as the children of Israel, having come out of Egypt, passing through the Red Sea, and walking under the cloud. They ate manna in the wilderness and drank water from the rock. The second meaning is spiritual, not expressed in narrative words but signified by the things narrated; for the exodus of the children of Israel, led out of Egypt by Moses, foreshadowed our own exodus—which was to come later—from the bondage of original sin, accomplished through Christ our Lord. The Red Sea foreshadowed holy baptism. Manna was a type of the Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The water brought forth from the rock, meanwhile, foreshadowed the blood of Christ; and the rock was a representation of Christ Himself, as the Apostle says: “They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them”—and the rock was Christ[458] . Let us heed these words: “They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them”—in fact, they drank from the physical rock; yet it is said that they drank from the spiritual one, because that physical rock symbolized the spiritual Rock, Christ, and through the power of the spiritual Rock, the physical rock provided water to the Israelites. For according to the literal sense, the rock is a physical rock; but according to the spiritual sense, Christ is the rock: and this duality of meaning, which is found in Holy Scripture, is clearly revealed in the words of the Apostles.

Furthermore: The spiritual, mystical, and mysterious meaning is divided by theologians into various interpretive categories, namely three, which in Greek are called:

Allegory,

Anagoge,

Tropology.

Just as there are three most excellent theological virtues—Faith, Hope, and Love—so too are there three forms of spiritual interpretation.

Allegory corresponds to Faith,

anagogue corresponds to Hope,

and tropology to Love.

What, then, are allegory, anagoge, and tropology? Listen carefully: if you wish to learn, O foolish Galatians, about the schismatic, empty-headed teachers and false interpreters, and understand, if you are able to understand.

“Allegory” is a Greek term; in the Slavonic language, in the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 4, at the beginning of verse 210, verse 24 is rendered as “figurative interpretation.” There is, then, a mode of interpretation in Holy Scripture that signifies, beyond the literal meaning, something else appropriate to the faith or to the Church militant on earth; for example: Abraham had two sons—one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman ([459] ); for this is the case according to the literal account. Allegorically, however—that is, figuratively—it signifies God, who has two sons, that is, two peoples, and two covenants given by Him: the Jewish covenant—from the lineage of Abraham—and the Christian covenant—from the Gentiles; the Jewish covenant was under the law of Moses, while the Christian covenant is in the freedom of Christ’s grace. The Jewish law was carnal, while the Christian law is spiritual; and just as the one born according to the flesh (the son of Abraham) persecuted the one born according to the promise, so now the Jewish multitude, having fallen away from Christ, persecutes the Church of Christ with its malicious hatred.

“Anagoge” is a Greek term; although it is difficult to translate into the Slavic language, it can nevertheless be rendered in Slavic as “higher understanding.” There is, then, a figure of interpretation in Holy Scripture that signifies, besides the literal meaning, something else befitting eternal life—which we await—or the Church, which triumphs in the heavens, to which we desire to go and in which we hope; as God says in the Psalms: “I have sworn in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest’[460] .” According to the letter, this refers to the Promised Land in Palestine, into which the Israelites themselves, having come out of Egypt, did not enter, but only their children were granted to enter; but in anagogical sense—that is, by a higher understanding—it refers to eternal life in heaven, which God has promised to those who love Him, where the triumphant Church will have true rest, into which sinners departing from this life without repentance will not enter.

Tropology is a Greek term denoting the good instruction of human morals. There is also allegory, which speaks of one thing but implies another; the difference lies in this: allegory speaks of matters of faith and the defense of the Church, whereas tropology speaks of morals. This figure of speech in Holy Scripture signifies, beyond the literal meaning, something else suitable for human improvement and a virtuous life, as it is said in Scripture: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” ([461] ). Literally, this refers to actual oxen; but tropologically—that is, as a moral lesson—it refers to clergy who labor in the preaching of the Word, so that they may not be prevented from receiving sustenance from the people’s alms. And again the Forerunner says: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire[462] .” Literally, this refers to a barren tree; tropologically, however, it refers to a person who is not virtuous.

Divine Scripture is understood through four figures:

1) literally,

2) allegorically,

3) anagogically,

4) tropologically

All these modes, however, are expressed in this single name:

Jerusalem

According to the letter—that is, historically or narratively—Jerusalem is described as a city located in Palestine.

Allegorically, that is, figuratively, Jerusalem signifies the Church in conflict.

Anagogically, that is, by higher reason, Jerusalem signifies the Church triumphant in heaven.

Tropologically, that is, as a moral lesson, Jerusalem signifies the human soul in this life. And again, these four modes of understanding, by which Divine Scripture is understood and interpreted, can be seen in the Epistle of the Apostle to the Galatians, at the beginning of chapter 210, where it is written about Abraham and his two sons.

The literal or historical sense is seen in these words: “Abraham had two sons: one by a slave woman, and the other by a free woman[463] .”

The allegorical or figurative meaning is found in these words: “These are the two covenants.”

The anagogical or higher meaning is found in these words: “But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”

The tropological or moral meaning in these words is this: just as the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born of the Spirit, so it is now.

Therefore, those passages found in the Holy Gospel that do not require interpretation are recounted and preached according to the literal meaning, historically, that is, narratively.

But those that require interpretation are interpreted:

Either allegorically, that is, figuratively:

Or anagogically, that is, by a higher understanding:

Or tropologically, that is, as moral instruction.

There is also a most concise and clear arrangement of the Holy Scriptures among theologians, expressed by the analogy of a banquet, which shall now be presented here.

The banquet (they say) of Divine Scripture is said to consist of three courses:

The first is the historical, narrative understanding, as set forth and preached in the text.

The second course is the mystical, that is, the mysterious and spiritual, understanding.

The third course is the moral course. The first course is for the uneducated and the simple.

The second course is for the wise, for the teachers.

The third course is common to all, both the learned and the uneducated.

At the first course, the food is the heartiest.

At the second course, the food is the most delicate.

At the third meal, the food is the sweetest.

The first meal embodies the flavor of ancient deeds.

The second meal carries the flavor of the sacraments.

The third meal holds the sweetness of virtue.

The first meal nourishes the wonders of times past.

The second meal nourishes the mind with knowledge.

The third meal nourishes the soul with edifying words.

In this theological Scripture of the holy minds, the arrangement is as follows: the first course of the historical mind—that is, the narrative mind— in the second course of the mystical mind—that is, the mysterious and spiritual—one must understand the allegory and anagoge contained therein, for through such interpretations the spiritual mind is elucidated; in the third course of the moral mind, there is tropeology.

FOURTH EXPLANATION

Regarding the five loaves, the Good Samaritan, Lazarus raised from the dead after four days, and Christ’s entry into Jerusalem—what interpretation is given in the Gospel?

We have said before that in the life of Christ, as described in the Holy Gospels, certain deeds of Christ foreshadowed future events. For Christ’s deeds, being true—actual events rather than parables—are recounted and preached through written reason, that is, historically and narratively; whereas future events, foreshadowed by Christ’s deeds, are interpreted with the interpretation befitting them.

Christ’s feeding of the five thousand with five loaves was a real event, not a parable, as the Gospel account clearly reveals. This took place in the second year of Christ’s ministry, after the death of Saint John the Forerunner; when our Lord heard of his beheading by Herod, He departed by boat from there, to his own homeland, which was in the region of Galilee, and went across the Sea of Galilee to a desolate place, avoiding Herod’s territory. And when the crowds heard of this, they followed Him on foot from the towns. And when Jesus saw the great crowd, He had compassion on them; and He fed them there in the wilderness with five loaves [464] . This miraculous work of Christ foreshadowed the future: the deserted place symbolized the nations, to whom the Gospel of Christ was to come from the Jews; the five loaves symbolized the five senses, or rather foreshadowed the five great wounds of Christ’s most pure body, which was to be given as food to the faithful; the two fish foreshadowed the two books, the Gospel and the Epistles; the twelve baskets foreshadowed the twelve Apostles. The significance of these things in that miraculous feeding of the multitudes by Christ is interpreted in Theophylact’s *Blagovestnik* and in other doctrinal works through a spiritual, mystical—that is, mysterious—understanding, following the method of allegorical interpretation. And the theological texts do not say that this miraculous work of Christ was a parable, but rather that it was the work itself, not a parable; and this work foreshadowed the future events that were later revealed.

Likewise, regarding the Samaritan woman, with whom Christ conversed at Jacob’s well, the Gospel account is true, having actually taken place, and is not a parable. In this account, through spiritual, allegorical understanding, the Gospel mysteriously reveals the Samaritan woman as a representation of the human soul; the well is a foreshadowing of baptism; living water—the proclamation of the Holy Spirit; and the five men whom the Samaritan woman mentioned served as evidence of this, for in the Old Testament, the five books of Moses could not bring the human soul to complete salvation. In explaining this, the Evangelist does not alter the Gospel narrative, which actually took place, but reveals the mystery inherent in that event.

Likewise, the resurrection of Lazarus is not a parable, but a real event: an event that shaped human character. The Evangelist’s interpretation, however, is not a historical one based on the text; for a clear history requires no interpretation, but rather a trope-based one, intended as a moral lesson for humanity—one that, having been formed through these events, reveals itself in human character: for just as Lazarus was sick, so too is our mind, overcome by human frailty, a sick soul; and the rest is interpreted there as moral instruction.

And Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on a donkey colt was a real event, not a parable. In this event, the symbolic elements are interpreted allegorically; and this event was both a prophecy of things to come and the fulfillment of what had been foretold; for Christ, sitting upon a donkey and a colt, fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, who had prophesied concerning this [465] ; and in fulfilling their prophecies, He began anew His own prophecy concerning things yet to come. Thus, regarding this, Saint Chrysostom, in Homily 66 on Matthew, says: “He Himself sat (on the donkey) and, having fulfilled this (prophecy of Zechariah), then began a new prophecy, through which He foreshadowed future events.” Thus far, Chrysostom [466] . Likewise, Saint Theophylact, interpreting the Gospel of John, says concerning the Lord’s riding on a donkey’s colt: “Zechariah’s prophecy was fulfilled, which says: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion, for your King is coming to you, sitting on a donkey’s colt:[467] for this was also a foreshadowing of things to come.’ A foreshadowing of the unclean among the nations, upon whom the Word of the Father would sit, subduing the rebellious like a colt. From these words it is clearly shown that the Lord, in His glorious entry into Jerusalem—fulfilling the prophecies of the holy prophets who had foretold of Him—began His own prophecy, foreshadowing future events, which subsequently came to pass; and these foreshadowings are interpreted by spiritual understanding.

Such is the interpretation of Christ’s deeds found in the Gospel and in other didactic writings—deeds that were actual truths, not parables.

For if the feeding of the people with loaves had been a parable and not the actual event, how then could Christ have said to His disciples: “Do you not remember when I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments you gathered?”[468] . And again He said to the people: “You are seeking Me, not because you saw a sign, but because you ate the loaves and were filled” ([469] ). Are these words of Christ false?

If the Samaritan woman were merely a parable and not a real event, why did the disciples, upon arriving, keep their distance, as if Christ were speaking to a woman? And why did the Samaritans, upon arriving, ask Christ to stay with them—and did He not remain there for two days? But the Samaritans said to the woman, “We do not believe because of what you have said[470] .”

If the raising of Lazarus were merely a parable and not an actual event, how is it that many of the Jews who came to Mary, having seen what Jesus had done, believed in him[471] ? And why did the chief priests conspire to kill Lazarus as well?[472] For a parable exists not in reality but in words—how could it be put to death?

And if Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on a donkey colt were a parable, and not the actual event, then so too would be Christ’s suffering and crucifixion. And His burial and resurrection would also be called parables; and the ancient Manichaean heresy would be revived, which claimed that Christ suffered only as an apparition, and not in reality. Oh, the utter madness of these schismatic false teachers and misinterpreters, whose minds are blinded!

FIFTH DECLARATION

By what is the actual event recognized in the Gospel, and by what is the parable recognized?

In the Holy Gospel, when a work of Christ is to be preached during the Divine Liturgy, the Gospel reading begins thus: “At that time”; but when a parable spoken by Christ’s own lips is to be preached, the Gospel reading begins thus: “The Lord told this parable.”

Behold, O misinterpreters, how the Gospel accounts concerning the loaves, the Good Samaritan, Lazarus, and the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem begin.

The Gospel about the loaves begins as follows: “At that time, Jesus saw a great crowd, and He had compassion on them[473] .”

The Gospel of the Samaritan begins as follows: At that time, Jesus came to a town in Samaria called Sychar[474] .

The Gospel account of Lazarus begins as follows: At that time, there was a man named Lazarus from Bethany who was ill[475] .

The Gospel account of the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem begins as follows: “Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died”[476] .

These were not parables, but the very deeds of Christ; for they do not begin like parables—it is not said, “The Lord told this parable”—but rather, “At that time, Jesus saw,” “Jesus came,” and so on. For some are parables spoken by Christ our Lord, while others are His miraculous deeds. For deeds, being deeds, are proclaimed through historical accounts in writing; parables, however, being parables, are spoken in veiled language and are interpreted; and those aspects of Christ’s deeds that foreshadow future events are revealed, as mysteries, through spiritual understanding.

Therefore, gain wisdom regarding these matters, and you who are blind will see the light of the Gospel’s truth; you who have strayed will be set on the right path; and you will come to know what the Gospel’s account of Christ’s deeds is, what the parables are, and what their interpretations are.

Chapter 22. On Almsgiving in Secret

And here, too, let the erroneous interpretation and teaching of the most simple-minded and ignorant regarding almsgiving be corrected.

In the Holy Gospel, the Lord says: “Take care not to practice your almsgiving before men, so that you may be seen by them,” and so on; and again: “But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your almsgiving may be in secret[477] .”

Not understanding the true meaning of these words of Christ, the simple-minded and ignorant teach that one should not give alms in the presence of others, but only in secret, so that no one may see. They claim it is a sin to give alms where people can see; they say Christ does not command us to give alms before others, lest the devil know what the right hand is doing. Thus, interpreting Christ’s words without discernment, they themselves do not give alms to the needy in full view of others, and they rebuke and forbid those who do. And they bring double harm to the poor and to themselves: they harm the poor by depriving them of alms from others, and they harm themselves by depriving themselves of God’s reward. And so that their ignorance may be exposed, it will be refuted here, and corrected—not by me, a humble one, but by the great teacher of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom, and by the expounder of his interpretations, Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria.

Saint Chrysostom, in his homily on Matthew 19, interprets the aforementioned words of Christ as follows: He (Christ) said, “Do not give alms before men, so that they may see you doing it”; for there are those who give before men, not to be seen, and those who do not give before men, yet still do so to be seen. Therefore, it is not merely what happens, but one’s intention that is judged and rewarded (a). Thus far Chrysostom. Saint Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, explains his words more clearly, saying: even if you give alms before others, if you do not do so to be seen and receive praise, you are not condemned, nor do you forfeit your reward; but if you have a thought of vanity, even if you give from your treasury, you will be condemned, and you will forfeit your reward: for the Lord either punishes or crowns the thoughts of the heart. And again, regarding the right hand and the left hand, Theophylact says: the left hand is vanity, while the right hand is almsgiving; for this reason, he commands us to be vigilant, lest vanity, taking hold, steal your alms. Thus far Theophylact.

From these words of the church teachers, it is clearly evident that it is not almsgiving before men to perform acts of charity in full view of onlookers; but it is almsgiving before men to perform such acts for the sake of vanity and praise, just as the Jewish scribes and Pharisees did. And it is not the hand with which you give that is the problem, but the vain thought that desires human praise. For even if someone gives alms in secret, yet has a vain thought, he does not give in secret but openly; for his vain thought—that vain desire for praise—is evident. Thus Theophylact said: If you have a thought of vanity, even if you give alms in your treasury, you will be condemned, for you have forfeited your reward; and conversely: even if you give alms before people, if you do not do so for the sake of vanity, you do so as if in secret. Thus Chrysostom said: “There is also almsgiving done before men, but not done to be seen.” And again elsewhere, he said: “It is not displeasing to God when almsgiving is seen by men, but it is displeasing when it is done for the sake of being seen.” It is not (he said) the almsgiving that is displeasing to God which people see, but that which someone deliberately performs out of vanity, so that he may be seen and praised by people.

We, however, say: it is good to practice charity in such a way that human eyes do not see it. Thus did Saint Nicholas of Christ act, secretly casting three small bundles of gold through a window to a beggar at night. Likewise, many godly people acted in this way, giving in secret wherever they could; but if it is impossible to hide from human eyes, and you see a beggar who is very poor and in great need of your alms—and it will not be possible for you to see him again and give to him later—then, without hesitation, give him what you have to give. Even if you must give in full view of others, do not turn away; nor will you forfeit your reward for the sake of human eyes, for you give not for the sake of vanity, but for the sake of the one in need. But if, though willing to give and having something to give, you have passed by the needy for the sake of human eyes, you have sinned against love for your neighbor; for perfect love does not seek its own , nor does it seek its own reward. Nor does it care about human praise, but looks only to comfort the needy neighbor in his poverty [478] .

For those who teach that one should by no means perform acts of charity before others have not properly understood the words of Christ, and they misinterpret them, contrary to Christ’s teaching and to the true interpretation of Chrysostom and Theophylact.

And there are many others like them; we cannot here examine every passage from Holy Scripture or every teaching, misinterpreted by the schismatics, nor do we have enough time to refute their erroneous interpretations and clarify them with correct ones. It suffices that their interpretation has been shown to be incorrect and their teaching to be false.

And since their teaching is false—for it is not beneficial to the soul but harmful to it—

Article Two

Chapter 23. On the Heretical Teaching in Brynyany

Is their teaching heretical?

This was clearly demonstrated in the first part of the Inquiry, which concerns the Faith, in the second article, namely that the schismatic Brynyans, following in the footsteps of their illustrious teacher Avvakum, are deeply heretical.

They divide the Triune God, who is of one essence, into three.

They divide the one Son of God into two sons.

They turn the Trinity into a quaternity.

They do not confess the Incarnation of the Son of God, which truly took place.

They seat Christ on a throne separate from the Holy Trinity.

And their other heresies, which are contrary to the dogmas of the faith and contrary to church traditions, have been sufficiently described and exposed there.

And since their teaching is full of heresy, it is not beneficial to the soul, but harmful to it.

Article Three

Chapter 24. The Schismatic Blasphemy Against the Four-Pointed Cross, and Inquiries Concerning the Cross

Is there not blasphemy against holy things in their teachings?

Rarely have there been such fierce heresies since ancient times as those that blaspheme the sanctities of the Church, such as the present-day Bryn heresies, whose open graves emit the stench of blasphemy: for they not only blaspheme against everything holy, including the sacred objects of the holy Church, but they also despise them as some sort of abomination, while exalting themselves above all that is holy. It is therefore necessary here to present some of their blasphemies to expose their malice, madness, obstinacy, and delusion, and to refute them with the revelation of the truth.

First,

They blaspheme the honorable four-pointed cross, calling it the “Roman cross,” an empty cross, a shadow of the eight-pointed cross that existed in the Old Testament, an abomination of desolation, an idol of the Antichrist, and the seal of the Antichrist. Let their blasphemies and their writings be recalled here.

Abakum, a priest, writes:

How the devil has deceived the poor Russian people: they are clearly heading toward ruin; They have come to love the Roman harlot—the four-pointed cross, rather than the true cross, fashioned from three trees: the cypress, the pine, and the cedar; and upon this four-pointed cross they depict the crucifixion of Christ. Thus he became the Polish cross, a bastard of the Roman Church.

Erofey, a disciple of Avvakum, denounces it thus:

Behold the two-part cross, the Roman cross and not Christ’s; and everywhere in church services, the three-part cross of Christ is used, not the two-part cross, whose canopy is empty and not Christ’s; for Christ was not crucified on it: the crosses on earth are different, so that the life-giving cross of Christ may be honored, and not those found on earth. If you call this four-pointed cross Christ’s, then I will undoubtedly call it the whore of Rome. If you call that cross the Savior’s, then I will break it. We bear two crosses on our bodies: one is Christ’s, and the other is empty; keep the three-barred one away from your body. Thus far, Erofey.

While I was writing this, a certain ancient schismatic scroll came into my hands, filled with lies, heresy, and wicked blasphemy against the Church of God; In that scroll is written blasphemy against the four-pointed cross of Christ, calling it an idol or an idol of the Antichrist, and an abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and a cursed tree.

That same wicked scroll also calls the four-pointed cross the “seal of the Antichrist.” Such blasphemy against the holy four-pointed cross is heard everywhere, proceeding from the blasphemous mouths of the schismatics; for even the holy anointing with chrism—in which, after baptism, the one who is anointed is marked with the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the form of a four-pointed cross—these schismatics do not call the seal of the Holy Spirit, but rather the seal of the Antichrist. This heretical blasphemy originated long ago from a certain German Lutheran heretic named Bullinger, who blasphemed against Confirmation; I do not know, however, how it found its way into the Russian lands among the schismatics. But this is not surprising; for the same evil spirit that was at work in foreign heretics is also at work in Russian heretics.

Such ungodly and heretical blasphemy against the four-pointed cross of Christ has stirred me to zeal for it and prompted me to respond against the blasphemers, and to clearly demonstrate that the entire power of the holy cross lies in its four points. For if there were a title on the Lord’s cross, and if there were a footboard, why did they come to write and make the cross eight-pointed? However, both the title and the footboard were short beams, not in the width of the cross but in its length. The cross itself, however, is four-pointed, not eight-pointed, as it is shaped like a man with outstretched arms, bearing upon itself our Savior, whose most pure hands are outstretched upon it; and not as they do now with the superfluous eight-pointed form. We do not blaspheme the eight-pointed cross, nor do we reject it, but we accept it with love, revere it with reverence, and worship it with piety, commemorating Christ’s crucifixion.

We do, however, object to the blasphemy against the four-pointed cross, by which—as the sign of Christ and the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit—we are marked at our baptism through the anointing with chrism, and by which all the sacraments of the Church are blessed, sanctified, and fulfilled; by which all Christians make the sign of the cross, not an eight-pointed cross but a four-pointed one, since our Lord Christ was crucified not on an eight-pointed cross but on a four-pointed one.

So that the blasphemous mouths of heretics may be silenced, we must now examine the following regarding the four-pointed cross:

1) Was the four-pointed cross in the Old Testament a shadow of the eight-pointed cross?

2) On which cross was Christ crucified—the Roman cross or the Bryn cross?

3) Is the four-pointed cross the Roman cross?

4) Is the four-pointed cross an idol of the Antichrist, and the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place?

5) Is the four-pointed cross the mark of the Antichrist, or will it be?

But before we even begin to examine the arguments presented regarding the four-pointed cross, let us first set forth here some information about the types of wood used for crosses.

The prophecy concerning the cross is said to appear in two places in the Old Testament: in the book of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 60, and in the book of Jesus Sirach, chapter 24; let us therefore examine both of these passages according to their interpretation.

Isaiah says: “The glory of Lebanon shall come to you—the cypress, the pine, and the cedar” ([479] ). The interpretation of these words is twofold: historical and spiritual.

The historical interpretation does not refer to the cross, but to the Church of Jerusalem, restored after the Babylonian Exile. For first he prophesies about the desolation of the land of Judah: “The cities will be desolate because of the lack of inhabitants,” he says, “and the houses will be empty because of the absence of people, and the land will remain desolate”[480] . This prophecy was fulfilled when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, invaded Judea; then Jerusalem, the royal city of the Jews, was laid waste, Solomon’s Temple was burned and destroyed, and the rest of the land lay desolate. He also prophesied about the restoration of Jerusalem, which was to take place after the people returned from the Babylonian captivity. “Awake,” he said, “awake, O Jerusalem, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. Lift up your eyes and look around; see your children gathered (after the captivity): behold, all your sons are coming from afar, even from Babylon [481] .” As for the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, it is said: “The glory of Lebanon will come to you—the cypress, the pine, and the cedar”—that is, just as Solomon, when he built the Temple, adorned it with trees brought from Lebanon: cypress, pine, and cedar; so too did Zerubbabel, the prince of the house of David, the forefather of Christ, having come out of the Babylonian captivity, restore the ruined church and adorn it with the same trees—cypress, pine, and cedar. This is the historical interpretation according to the text itself.

The spiritual interpretation of these prophetic words, however, concerns the holy Church of Christ, which is called the New Jerusalem, which our Lord has gathered through His appearance on earth, and which He has illuminated and continues to illuminate with the glory of His grace; which He adorns with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In her, the righteous, like the cedars of Lebanon and like other fragrant trees, grow, multiply, and are built up into a spiritual church and a temple to the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle said: “You are the living temple of God” ([482] ). And again: “Your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you” ([483] ). To this New Jerusalem, the holy church, came the glory of the cross, the tree of Lebanon, upon which Christ our Lord deigned to suffer for us; and the prophetic words concerning these trees are applied to the cross of Christ in the Church’s Octoechos, which states that it is made of cypress, juniper, and cedar. Thus, in Tone 2, on Wednesday at Matins, in Ode 9, verse 2, it is read: “The Lord was seen being lifted up on the cypress, the song, and the cedar, for the sake of His goodness.” In Tone 3, on Wednesday and Friday at Matins, the sedalen reads as follows: “Upon the cypress, the pine, and the cedar, You were lifted up, O Lamb of God,” and in other places in the Octoechos, as well as in other liturgical books, this is also found.

Of these trees, we know the cedar and the cypress; but as for the “pevka,” we do not know what kind of tree it is. Some say it is a pine tree: this is the opinion of Hieromonk Epiphanius of Kiev, the author of the Six-Day Commentary on St. Basil the Great, who translated it from the Greek into the Slavonic dialect, and who, in Discourse 5, on page 16 on the reverse side, opposite “pevka,” wrote “pine” on the margin. But this does not seem to be the case; for both Solomon and Zerubbabel adorned the temple with wood that does not rot—that is, wood that does not rot quickly; for cedar and cypress can last up to a thousand years without rotting, whereas pine will barely remain intact for a hundred years.

Jesus Sirach, describing the praise of God’s wisdom, speaks on its behalf: “I was raised up like a cedar in Lebanon, and like a cypress on the mountains of Hermon, and like a date palm (or date tree) I was exalted, which stands by the seashore [484] ”: The interpreters of Sirach’s words apply this to the cross of Christ, saying that it is a cedar, a cypress, and a date palm. But this is puzzling to us, for here a date palm is mentioned, not a cypress; are not the cypress and the date palm one and the same, namely, the palm tree? That the cross is a date palm is also attested by Saint Cyprian the Holy Martyr, Bishop of Carthage, the most ancient teacher of the Church, who speaks thus to Christ the Lord: “You ascended, O Lord, upon the date palm, for the tree of Your cross signified triumph over the devil”[485] . Thus far Cyprian. And his words are not without truth, for in ancient times palm trees were always a sign of victory and triumph over the adversary; and when Christ the Lord made His glorious entry into Jerusalem, they greeted Him with palm branches as the conqueror of death, and as a foreshadowing that the palm tree would be represented in the cross. Furthermore, there is another notable testimony from Holy Scripture, where it is said in the person of Christ: “I will ascend the palm tree and take hold of its top” ([486] ); which Cassiodorus and Saint Cyprian interpret as referring to the wood of Christ’s cross, meaning that Christ, having ascended the cross, subdued and vanquished every principality (of the rulers of the darkness of this age), and every authority and power. The date palm is indeed one of the trees that do not rot, just as are the cedar and the cypress. But as to whether this date palm and the one mentioned in the hymn are one and the same or not, we need not dwell on this at length. For this is not a dogma of the faith, since we believe not in the trees of the cross, but in Christ the Lord who was crucified.

Furthermore, we have here an earlier account concerning the four-pointed cross, so that the story of the life-giving cross may be established—a story that, though strange, is nonetheless not unworthy of belief.

The Tale of the Cross, compiled from various books.

From the book titled *The Key to Understanding*, printed in Lviv, in the sermon on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, page 335.

From John of Carphaeus, Book 10, Homily 19 on the Cross of Christ.

From Nicholas Liran, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, chapter 5.

From the Chronicle of Jacob Vergomita, folio 59.

From the chronicle of John, known as Navklir, folio 163.

And from other narrators, found in a foreign dialect.

Likewise, though with variations in wording, it is also found in the Russian manuscript titled *The Chosen One*.

When Adam fell ill and was near death, he sent his son Seth to the Garden of Eden, to the angel guarding the garden, to ask the angel for a remedy, for the sake of preserving his health and prolonging his life on earth. The healing, however, came from the oil of mercy—the very oil that God had promised to send him, even as He cast him out of Paradise. (The oil promised by God to Adam signified the Son of God, whom God would send to earth to redeem the human race from eternal death. Adam, however, thinking of the physical healing oil, commanded him to ask for it. Let this not be a wonder to anyone, for this man, Seth, was sent to the Angel. For it was not the first time Seth had known the Angel; for even in his youth, when he was ten years old, he was taken up by an angel to the heights by God’s command, and was taught the knowledge of many of God’s mysteries, as well as the order of the celestial bodies: the movement of the heavens, the course of the sun, moon, and stars, and the arrangement of the heavenly planets and their operations. George Kedrin of Constantinople testifies to this in his historical book. For is it not wondrous that such a one was sent by Father Adam to the Angel who guards Paradise? For the angel, by God’s command, took three grains from the forbidden tree—from which Adam, having tasted, transgressed God’s command—and gave them to him, so that just as human sin began from that tree, so too would salvation be arranged for the human race. Sif, having received those seeds from the angel, returned to his father Adam, but found him no longer among the living—he had died and been buried. So he planted those seeds in the ground near his father’s grave. From those seeds sprouted three shoots: a cedar, a cypress, and a date palm—or, (or, according to the words of the singer in Isaiah); and those shoots grew together into one great tree, for from the root to the top it was a single tree, though at the top the branches of each tree separated distinctly. And that tree remained even until the days of King Solomon. When Solomon was building the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, and many fine trees were being brought from all over, that tree was also cut down as a fine one and brought to Jerusalem for the construction; but by God’s providence, it was not used in the construction of the temple; it remained in one place for a long time and in another for a short time. For this reason, the tree was left in the temple porches by the wall, to serve as seating for those who came and for those who wished to rest from their labors. When the Queen of Sheba, named Nicavla, one of the ancient prophetesses known as the Sibyls, came to Jerusalem to hear of Solomon’s wisdom: as she surveyed the marvelous church building and beheld that tree there, she was filled with awe and, moved by a prophetic spirit, declared that on that tree God, clothed in human nature, would die. The Russian Book, known as *The Chosen One*, also recounts that at that time the following was prophetically spoken there: “O thrice-blessed tree, upon which Christ the Lord will be crucified!”

For this reason, that tree was buried deep in the ground near the sheep’s trough by King Solomon’s command, so that it might never fall into human hands. But after many years, by God’s providence, it emerged from the ground and floated on the water of the sheep’s trough. For the sake of that tree, the Angel of the Lord would enter that bath every summer and stir the water [487] , washing the tree; and healing was granted to the sick, who were the first to enter the bath after the water had been stirred. But when Christ our Lord took on human nature, appeared on earth, and lived among men, the Jews seized Him and handed Him over to Pilate to be crucified; they sought out the heaviest wood for the cross, so that they might make the burden heavy for Christ. And seeing the aforementioned tree in the water of the sheep’s bath —soaked with water and being very heavy—they drew it out from there and used it to make a cross; and it was so heavy that someone was needed to help Christ carry it; and they made Simon of Cyrene carry His cross. We do not affirm this account, since some consider it to be apocryphal (unauthentic), nor do we entirely reject it, since it has its own witnesses, and all things are possible through the omnipotence of God.

From this account it appears that the Lord’s cross was made from a tree in which three trees—cedar, cypress, and date palm—had grown together into a single tree.

But before we even begin our investigation of the four-pointed cross, let us briefly consider this: Was there a footrest on the cross? For the title placed on the cross is mentioned in the Gospel, but the footrest is not mentioned anywhere.

Someone might say: The Prophets spoke of a footstool. For David says: “Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool, for it is holy” ([488] ). And Isaiah speaks on behalf of Christ: “I will glorify the place of My feet” ([489] ). We, however, will examine the interpretation of both these prophecies to determine which footstool they refer to. But first, let us examine the distinction between God’s footstools: there is a footstool before which we are commanded to bow, and there is a footstool before which we are not commanded to bow. God says in the prophecy of Isaiah: “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet”[490] : no one bows down to that footstool of God—the earth—except its Creator, God. Again it is written in the Psalms: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’[491] .” And who would wish to bow down to that footstool of God—God’s enemies? To which footstool, then, does David command us to bow down?

The interpretation of these words of David is twofold: according to the letter of Scripture and according to the mystery.

According to the letter, the interpretation is as follows: in the Old Testament, there was the Ark of God, in which were Aaron’s staff that had remained green, the tablets of the covenant, and the golden jar containing manna; that Ark was called the footstool of God, as is seen in the Book of 1 Chronicles, chapter 28, where King David said to the people: “I have determined in my heart to build a house in which the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord may rest, and a footstool for the feet of the Lord our God” ([492] ). Why, then, was the Ark called the footstool of God? Because on top of the Ark, between the two cherubim whose wings were spread out over the Ark, there was a cover of pure gold, held up by the wings, as if it were a canopy over the Ark. It was shaped like a seat or a throne, upon which the Israelites believed the invisible God sat, as it is written in the first verse of that same psalm: “He who sits upon the cherubim.” These words, according to the commentators, the Israelites did not refer to the invisible heavenly cherubim, but to Moses’ visible, golden cherubim, placed above the Ark of the Covenant. But God Himself said to Moses: “I will make Myself known to you from there, and I will speak to you from above the mercy seat between the two cherubim, which are above the Ark of the Testimony” ([493] ). For God was seated between the cherubim on a golden throne, supported by their wings, and the Ark was beneath God’s feet; for this reason, the Ark was called the footstool of God, and David commanded that people bow down to it: “Bow down,” he said, “to the footstool of His feet, for it is holy” ([494] ). This is the interpretation according to the text.

By the mystical interpretation, however, Saint Athanasius the Great and the other holy Fathers understand the footstool of God to be humanity in the person of Christ. Thus Athanasius says: “The living God in the heavens, who has all creation under His feet, became a man without change, united to our nature, which is His footstool.” Likewise, in the Great Kiev Printed Psalter, which contains commentaries in the margins, it is written: “The footstool of God is the earth, the most pure body of Christ, taken from the earth—the body of the most pure Virgin—in which Christ, the true God, dwelt, united with the Godhead in a single hypostasis; therefore, it is holy and most holy.”

Thus, from both interpretations—both according to the letter and according to the mystery—it is evident that the text does not refer to the footrest that is made or painted on the cross. Rather, this refers to the holy Church and to the very cross of Christ itself, for the prokimen sung for the cross is this: “Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down before the footstool of His feet , for it is holy[495] .” But this refers to the entire cross of Christ, and not merely to a small part of it, as the footstool is visibly small.

Furthermore, the words of Isaiah, spoken on behalf of Christ: “I will glorify the place of my feet”—these are not found in Russian Bibles, but only in the Triodion, in the parables read on Great Saturday; These words are found in Roman Bibles, in Jerome’s translation, and their interpretation according to the letter is the same as that mentioned above regarding the Ark of the Covenant; but according to the mystery, they refer to the Holy Church: For God, who sits on His heavenly throne, has as His footstool His Holy Church, which labors on earth.

Whether or not there was a footstool at the foot of the cross, neither Holy Scripture nor the interpreters of the Divine Scriptures make this known. However, among the vessels of the Venerable Anthony the Roman, on the Holy Chalice, the Cross of Christ is depicted without a foot, four-pointed, and bearing the title of Christ written on parchment rather than on a wooden board: “[496] .” We do not dispute what is depicted and written on the base of the cross; we merely point out that there is no mention of this in the ancient holy books, nor any authentic record thereof.

How much more so is it a fable that I found written thus in a schismatic scroll:

Regarding the foot of the cross, see the question in the Alphabets: Why is the right foot of Christ’s cross depicted as rising toward the mountains, while the left foot is depicted as descending downward? Explanation: For when Christ stood on the cross, He bowed His head to the right, so that the tongues of believers might bow down and worship Him; and for that reason, He lightened His right foot, so that the sins of those who believe in Him might be lightened, and at His Second Coming they might be lifted up to meet Him; and for that reason, He weighed down His left foot, which is lowered to the ground, so that those who do not believe in Him might be weighed down and descend into hell. Thus far this reasoning.

I would say that this reasoning is not contrary to the Church of Christ, nor is it contrary to the Holy Faith; but since I hear simple people believing that fable as if it were the very truth of the Gospel; and since the Church is spotless, being the Bride of Christ, it must not accept any fanciful speculations or self-invented interpretations, but must be grounded in the Divine Scriptures themselves and heed the true interpretations of the great teachers of the universe (and not those of simple, talkative men). For this reason, zealous for the truth of the Church and upholding the office of a bishop, I pay no heed to such false reasoning.

I kiss the foot of the cross, whether it is slanted or not, and I do not object to the custom of cross-makers and cross-painters, since it is not contrary to the Church; I am lenient toward it: However, I do not accept the interpretation regarding the slant of the base, as written in the schismatic treatise, since it is not found among the ancient Holy Fathers and exegetes.

Here we shall proceed to examine the aforementioned propositions set forth against the heretical blasphemies, which claim that the four-pointed cross in the Old Testament was the canopy of an eight-pointed cross. Yet Christ was crucified on an eight-pointed cross; the canopy and the image of the four-pointed cross are simple, and that very four-pointed cross has come to be regarded as the Roman cross and an abomination of desolation, an idol of the Antichrist and the seal of the Antichrist.

Let us therefore investigate this matter thoroughly.

IN THE OLD

Was the four-pointed cross in the Old Testament a representation of the eight-pointed cross?

If, according to the schismatic view, the four-pointed cross in the Old Testament was the canopy of the eight-pointed cross, then it would be fitting in every way that the four-pointed cross in the Old Testament was, in fact, made of some material and stood in some place. Let the schismatics show us, then, where in the Old Testament a four-pointed cross is found? Or at least, where in the Old Testament of Russian Bibles is the name “cross” written? Furthermore, let them present to us testimony from the Holy Fathers (and not from their own Bryn false teachers) that in the Old Testament the four-pointed cross was a representation of the eight-pointed cross. For faith is not given to doubtful matters without reliable testimony. We, therefore, are conducting the following investigation for you, examining the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether a four-pointed cross ever appeared there; or, at the very least, whether the name “cross” is found in the Old Testament in Russian Bibles, apart from the secret symbols of the cross— —which do not explicitly reveal, but secretly represent, the cross of Christ? And if neither the cross nor the name “cross” is found in the Old Testament, for what reason is it not found?

An Inquiry into the Symbols and Prototypes of the Cross

Let it be known from the outset that the name “cross” is not found in the Old Testament in Russian Bibles (I am not speaking here of foreign Bibles found in other languages, but of Russian ones; for I address my fellow Russians). Who among the readers of Russian Bibles is well-versed? Who has read the entire Old Testament thoroughly? Has anyone found in it a four-pointed cross? Or at least the very term “cross”? Let Russian schismatics gather from all over, and let them read diligently, day and night, the Old Testament in Russian Bibles—all the way to the new grace, to the Gospel (I say) message—will they find any mention of the cross? By no means.

Although there were many foreshadowings and types of the Lord’s cross in the Old Testament, you will find the cross itself nowhere; for those foreshadowings were not named “cross,” nor were the writings about the cross known to the people of that time, except through certain prophets to whom God revealed them. These were recognized in the new grace by Christians who examined the Old Testament and discovered that they were signs of the Lord’s cross. Of these, we will briefly mention one of the most notable here.

There were three types of foreshadowings and shadows of the Lord’s Cross in the Old Testament:

These were found in incorporeal yet remarkable phenomena, or in certain miraculous powers bestowed upon them by God.

Some were found in human deeds that prophetically foreshadowed the future.

And these were in the visions and revelations given to the holy forefathers and prophets.

The first, then, foreshadowed only the power of the Lord’s Cross.

The second secretly depicted both the power and the image of the Cross.

The third, however, revealed both the power and the form, as well as the very suffering of the Lord.

The first foreshadowed the cross of the Lord in insensible, yet noble and wondrous, substances.

In the beginning, the tree of life, which stood in the midst of Paradise, was a foreshadowing and a shadow of the Lord’s Cross, which was to stand in the midst of the earth. Thus says Saint John of Damascus: “This honorable Cross was foreshadowed by the tree of life, planted in Paradise by God[497] .” Thus far, Damascus.

For just as the fruit of that paradisiacal tree was life-giving, granting immortal life to those who ate of it, so too the fruit of the Cross—Christ—grants eternal life to those who partake of Him, as He Himself says: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life”[498] . For this reason, the Lord’s cross is called the tree of life by the Church in the hymns, where it is sung thus: “The life-giving cross has been planted on the earth as a tree”[499] .

Here I ask the schismatics, who claim that in the Old Testament the cross was depicted as four-pointed and its canopy as eight-pointed, to tell us: Was that tree of life in Paradise, which foreshadowed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

Noah’s Ark, made of rot-proof wood, by which the human race was saved from the universal flood: that ark (according to the reasoning of the book on faith by an anonymous author, printed in Moscow during the patriarchate of Joseph in the year 7156, on page 67, verso) was a foreshadowing and symbol of the Lord’s cross, through which the Christian race was to be saved from the flood of sin. But I ask: was that ark, which took the form of the Lord’s cross, shaped like a cross—that is, a four-pointed cross?

The wood that Isaac, led by his father to be sacrificed to God, carried on his shoulders was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s cross. Thus the Venerable Ephrem reflects on this: Isaac, carrying the wood, went up the mountain to be slain like a harmless lamb; and the Savior, carrying the cross, went to the place of execution to be slain like a lamb for us. When you see the knife, understand it as a spear. When you think of the altar, look upon the place of execution. And when you see the logs (of firewood), understand them as the cross [500] . Thus far Ephrem. I ask: were those logs, which formed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

The staff or scepter of Joseph, who reigned in Egypt—at the end of which staff Jacob bowed down [501] —was a foreshadowing and the canopy of the Lord’s cross. Thus it is read in the Canon for the Exaltation, in Ode 7: The staff embraces the land of Joseph, which will one day see Israel, a mighty kingdom: for it will raise up the glorious cross, revealing it. Was that staff of Joseph, which foreshadowed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

Again: Moses’ miraculous staff, which turned into a serpent and devoured the magical serpents, turned the waters of Egypt into blood, and brought other plagues upon the Egyptians: which parted the Red Sea and created a dry path for Israel to cross: it was a foreshadowing and image of the Lord’s cross, intended to destroy the serpents of hell, to bathe the Church—which comes from the nations—in the blood of Christ, to punish the sinful world, and to create a smooth path to heaven for the new Israel. Was Moses’ staff, which foreshadowed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

Likewise, Aaron’s rod, which sprouted as a foreshadowing and symbol of the Lord’s cross, as the Church sings: “The rod is taken as a symbol of the mystery, for by its sprouting it foreshadows the priest; and the Church, which was once barren, now flourishes as the tree of the cross”[502] . Was that rod of Aaron, which foreshadowed the cross of the Lord, a four-pointed cross, just as the cross itself is four-pointed?

The tree, placed in the bitter waters of Merreh and sweetening their bitterness [503] , was a foreshadowing and a shadow of the Lord’s cross. Thus, in the Canon for the Exaltation, in Ode 4, it is written: “Moses transformed the bitter springs in the ancient desert with a tree, revealing through the cross the transformation toward the piety of the nations.” Likewise, Joseph, the author of the pre-feast Canon, says in Ode 5: “Moses, having first sweetened the waters of Marah, signified to you the honorable Cross with the tree, through which you poured out the saving sweetness upon mankind”[504] . Was that tree, which sweetened the Marah and formed the Lord’s Cross, four-pointed, like the four-pointed cross?

The palm tree, under which the prophetess Deborah sat and judged Israel [505] , was a foreshadowing and a canopy of the Lord’s cross, upon which the Lord executed judgment on the prince of this world, the devil, so that he might be cast out: “Now,” she said, “judgment has come upon this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out”[506] . Was that palm branch of Deborah, which formed the cross of the Lord, four-pointed, like a four-pointed cross?

The jawbone of a donkey, with which Samson struck down a thousand Philistines; but when he became thirsty and cried out to God, God opened a spring in the jawbone, and water flowed out of it, and he drank[507] . That jawbone was a foreshadowing and image of the Lord’s cross, through which the spiritual Samson—Christ—slay the Philistines of hell; He opened a wound in His most pure side, brought forth a spring of blood and water, and thereby quenched the thirst of human nature for salvation. Was that donkey’s jawbone, which prefigured the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

David’s lyre—that is, David himself—with his sweet singing drove away from Saul the unclean spirit that was tormenting him, as described in [508] : that lyre was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s cross, upon which the flesh of Christ was stretched out like a string on a lyre’s soundboard. And when the merciful Lord sang a sweet prayer for those who were killing him, saying, “Father, forgive them,” the evil spirits immediately fled far away, defeated and driven out by the mercy of the merciful Lord. Was David’s lyre, which in itself formed the cross of the Lord, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

David’s staff, with five good stones chosen from the stream—with these David went out against Goliath, just as the giant himself said to David: “Am I a dog, that you should come against me with only a staff and stones [509] ?” That staff was a foreshadowing and a symbol of the Lord’s cross, and the five good stones were a foreshadowing of the five wounds of our Lord, received on the cross. Was David’s staff, which foreshadowed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, like a four-pointed cross?

The tree of Elisha, which he cast into the water, causing the iron that had sunk in the water to rise to the surface [510] , was a foreshadowing of the Cross of Christ. Thus Saint Theodore the Studite says in the Canon for the Week of the Veneration of the Cross, in Ode 8: “Come, O Prophet Elisha, and tell us plainly: what was that tree which you cast into the water? It was the Cross of Christ, by which we were drawn up from the depths of corruption.” Was that tree of Elisha, which foreshadowed the Cross of Christ, four-pointed, just as the Cross is four-pointed?

And many other similar examples are found in the Old Testament Scriptures regarding the Lord’s cross in the form of prefigurations and shadows, which we do not have time to enumerate in full; these suffice for now to explain the matter under investigation. Let us recall just one more thing: the tree to which Achior, the commander of Ammon, was bound by his hands and feet by Holofernes before the city of Bethulia, for bearing witness to the truth [511] , as is written at length in the Book of Judith; let him who wishes look there: that tree was a foreshadowing and a symbol of the Lord’s cross, to which our Lord was nailed by His hands and feet before the city of Jerusalem. Was Achior’s tree, which foreshadowed the Lord’s cross, four-pointed, just as the cross is four-pointed?

It appears that in the Old Testament there were foreshadowings and shadows of the Lord’s cross in inanimate objects, and some of them were four-pointed, just like a four-pointed cross. For how could a four-pointed cross in the Old Testament be a foreshadowing of an eight-pointed cross, when a four-pointed cross was not found in the tangible foreshadowings and symbols?

Do the schismatics perhaps claim that the tree upon which Moses raised the serpent in the wilderness [512] was a four-pointed cross? For iconographers depict the serpent raised on a tree resembling a four-pointed cross. But this is not how it is written in the Holy Scriptures; for it is written there thus: “Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.” On what kind of standard? Might someone say, “On a cross?” Let him look, then, at that passage in the Greek Bibles, and there he will read and understand that the standard was not a cross, but a military standard—that is, a banner or standard. For in the armies of Israel, which wandered in the wilderness for 40 years—since there were 12 tribes (except for the tribe of Levi) and 12 princes—there were likewise 12 banners or standards (and not crosses) carried; as can be seen in the Book of Numbers, chapter 2: where God instructs Moses on how to organize the armies of Israel by order, by banners, and by their ancestral houses[513] , that is, by their tribes; for the people of each tribe adhered to their own army and banner [514] . For Moses raised the serpent on a pole in the wilderness as a banner; thus the Greek text reads: ἐπὶ σημείου, that is, on a banner [515] . The holy martyr Justin the Philosopher, adhering to these writings in his Apology—which he wrote to Emperor Antoninus of Rome—relates that Moses raised that serpent on a spear (on a banner) and placed it on the holy tabernacle, which served as a church for the Jews in the wilderness [516] . That banner was truly a foreshadowing and a canopy of the Lord’s cross, according to the words of the Lord Himself, who said to Nicodemus in the Gospel: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up”[517] ; however, according to the biblical writings, the tree upon which Moses lifted up the serpent does not appear to be a representation of the four-pointed cross. Unless the four-pointed cross was depicted as a serpent, contrary to how it was placed on a banner or standard: for Joseph, the Canon sung before the Exaltation, the author says in the eighth verse: “Lift it up high on a tree, opposite the serpent,” as it is written, “ ,” Moses designating that most holy tree as “[518] ”; for since the serpent was opposite the banner, the four-pointed cross could be seen. But that tree itself was not four-pointed, as is the four-pointed cross. For if that tree had been four-pointed, it would have formed not an eight-pointed cross, but a four-pointed one. And just as icon painters depict the serpent on a cross-shaped tree, so it is that they paint as they please, according to their own judgment. They also, when depicting the icon of the Nativity of Christ, paint the Most Pure Virgin lying by the manger, as if she were ill after the birth of Christ, even though she gave birth without illness and was not lying down: likewise, they depict Christ being held and washed by a woman, as if from impurity, even though He was born without impurity, and there was no need for a woman’s assistance at His birth, as is clearly explained in our book on December 25, in the sermon on the Nativity of Christ. I should also mention this regarding the unwise icon painters: in a certain venerable monastery, in the church porch, I saw a mural; depicting God’s creation of this visible world, in which the rest of God on the seventh day is depicted as follows: there stands a bed, with pillows spread upon it, and upon the pillows lies God the Father, and above him is inscribed: “God rested from all His works.” O folly! Does God lie on pillows and beds? And they have taken to painting many other absurd things: such as the holy martyr Christopher with a singing head, and the holy martyrs Flora and Laurus with horses—all of which are fabrications. Similarly, they depict a serpent on a cross-shaped tree; however, this is not contrary to the Church, but they have strayed from Scripture for the sake of the schismatics, since that tree was not a four-pointed cross but a military standard. This was clarified so that they might not assert their view, as if it were a four-pointed cross, that the canopy of the eight-pointed cross were merely a symbol of the four-pointed cross. For the canopy (and I say this contrary to their reasoning) ought to be in the likeness of the thing whose canopy it is; just as our eyes see when a man walks in the light of day, the sun shining, his shadow appears in every respect similar to the human form: for a man having one head, his shadow does not show two heads; likewise, a man having two hands, his shadow does not show four hands. The same may be said of that instrument upon which Moses raised the serpent in the wilderness: for according to the heretical view (and not according to Holy Scripture), that instrument had four ends, since it was a representation of a four-pointed cross, not an eight-pointed one.

There are other prefigurations and shadows of the Lord’s cross in human deeds, which prophetically foreshadowed what was to come.

Jacob, the Old Testament righteous man, filled with the prophetic gift, before his death, while blessing Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, exchanged his hands, placing his right hand on the younger son, Ephraim, and his left hand on the older son, Manasseh [519] ; this was a foreshadowing of the cross. Thus, on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, our Orthodox Church sings in the stichera of the Litany: “The crossing of Patriarch Jacob’s hands in blessing his children—show forth the majestic sign of Your Cross”[520] . Here the schismatics say: “This is a four-pointed cross, the canopy of an eight-pointed one”; but we reply: James’s hands, arranged in the shape of a cross, were not the four-pointed cross itself, nor is the name “cross” found there, but it was merely a secret representation of the cross; and the cross itself was not eight-pointed, but four-pointed. If, however, the schismatics wish for Jacob’s cross-shaped arrangement of his hands to be the image of an eight-pointed cross, then it behooves them to add more than two hands to Jacob, so that there may be more points.

The blood of the lamb in Egypt, with which God commanded the Jews to anoint the lintels of their houses and the two doorposts [521] , that blood (as Saint Cyprian teaches) was a foreshadowing of the holy cross; for they first anointed the upper lintel above the doors, then the lower one, and then both doorposts. However, this four-part anointing was not the cross itself, but merely a secret representation of the cross; for neither is the name “cross” found there, nor did those who anointed it know that it was a representation of the cross. But we, living in the new grace and examining the Old Testament, recognize that this was a sign of the cross—not an eight-pointed cross, but a four-pointed one. If, however, the schismatics wish that this anointing of the lintels and doorposts with the blood of the Lamb should be an eight-pointed cross, then let them add to the first lintel and doorpost in their Bibles two more lintels and two more doorposts, so that there would be four lintels and four doorposts on every door of the Jewish houses in Egypt, to serve as a foreshadowing of the eight-pointed cross.

When Moses parted the Red Sea with his staff [522] , a cross was formed. For when Moses’ staff was laid across the width of the sea, a cross was formed; for this reason, the Church sings: “Moses, having traced a cross with his staff, parted the Red Sea, allowing Israel to pass through on foot”[523] . However, the parting of the sea was not the cross itself, but merely a secret representation of the cross; for the name “cross” is not found in the Scriptures there, nor did people know it as a representation of the cross. But we, living in the new grace and examining the Old Testament, recognize that it was a depiction of the cross—not an eight-pointed cross, but a four-pointed one. If, however, the schismatics wish for the parting of the Red Sea by Moses’ staff to be a representation of an eight-pointed cross, why did they not pray to Saint Moses that he strike the sea not just once with his staff, but three times, so that the eight-pointed cross might be depicted according to their desire?

I have seen, moreover, in a petition from Solovki addressed to the blessed memory of the pious Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the following written: John Chrysostom, the teacher of the universe, in his Sunday homily on the Gospel for the third Sunday of Lent, does not regard the Latin cross as the true cross of Christ, but calls it an image and a symbol of it, and so on. I, however, took the book, read that passage, and found in it neither the Latin cross nor a four-pointed or eight-pointed cross, but only a reference to the cross of the Lord, prefigured by the rod of Moses; and as for that cross—whether four-pointed or eight-pointed—it is not mentioned there; but it merely explains that, like the rod of Moses, parted the Red Sea, sweetened the bitter waters of Meribah in the wilderness, brought water forth from a dry rock, turned the waters of Egypt into blood, and performed other miracles, was a type and foreshadowing of the divine and life-giving Cross of Christ. It falls to us, however, to consider why Moses’ staff was an image and a symbol of the Cross of Christ—was it because of its ends? Yet Moses’ staff was not four-pointed, but two-pointed, as staffs usually are, and its ends did not form the shape of a cross. Why, then, was Moses’ staff a symbol and a shadow of the Cross of Christ? Because of the miraculous power placed in it by God, which did not form any particular cross-like image or a number of cross-like points, but rather manifested the miraculous power of the Cross itself. For the Solovetsky petition, which refers to the so-called “Chrysostom’s sermon,” lies, as if Chrysostom were writing about the Latin cross and as if he were forbidding its veneration. Moreover, that sermon does not appear to be Chrysostom’s, but rather that of someone else. This is demonstrated by two arguments: first, that sermon is a commentary on the Gospel of Mark, and no commentary by St. Chrysostom on Mark has been found, only on Matthew and John. The second argument is that what is written in that sermon contradicts the history of Divine Scripture as written by Moses. For it is written there as if Moses had sweetened the bitter waters of Merrehia with his staff; but this is not true. For Moses did not sweeten the waters of Meribah with his staff, but with a certain tree shown to him by God, as is clearly stated in the Book of Exodus, chapter 15, where it is written: “The Lord showed him a tree, and he put it into the water, and the water became sweet” ([524] ). It was this other tree, shown by the Lord, that sweetened the bitter waters, and not Moses’ staff. And the Jewish rabbis recount that the tree shown to Moses by God to sweeten the waters of Marah is called “adelpha,” which by its very nature is extremely bitter and deadly. Yet God, wishing to perform a greater miracle and to reveal His almighty power to the people through this bitter and deadly tree, sweetened the bitter and deadly waters and made them wholesome, healing the opposite with the opposite. We say, then, that in this was foreshadowed the sorrow of Christ’s voluntary suffering and His death on the cross, through which He granted the sweetness of salvation and immortal life to the human race, which had been grieved by sin and was sliding toward death. Thus, the sorrow of the Lord’s crucifixion sweetened the illnesses and labors borne by the Apostles in the Gospel of Christ, the martyr’s acts of suffering, and the ascetic disciplines of the holy ones. And even now it sweetens every sorrowful affliction for those who carry the crucified Christ within their minds. For it was the tree, and not Moses’ staff, that sweetened the bitterness of the water in the wilderness. From these two arguments, it is evident that this saying is not from Chrysostom, but from some other, not very learned, person. We, however, will turn again to the prefigurations of the Cross found in human deeds.

Three holy men—Moses, Joshua, and the prophet Jonah—with their hands outstretched toward heaven as they prayed to God, formed the image of the Lord’s Cross.

Regarding Moses, the stichera for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross sing thus: “Moses prefigured you, stretching out his hands toward heaven; and he defeated Amalek the tormentor, O most honorable Cross, the praise of the faithful.”

Of Joshua the Son of Nun, in the sedalnia for that feast, they sing thus: “Mysteriously, in ancient times, Joshua the Son of Nun foreshadowed the image of the Cross, when he stretched out his hands in the shape of a cross, O my Savior! and stopped the sun for a hundred days, until the enemies were defeated.”

Regarding Jonah, in the sixth hymn: In the belly of the sea monster, Jonah spread his hands in the shape of a cross, openly foreshadowing the saving Passion.

However, the outstretching of their hands was not the cross itself, but merely a secret foreshadowing of the cross: for the name of the cross is not mentioned in connection with the outstretching of their hands; rather, by prophetic spirit they foresaw the Lord’s suffering on the cross, and thus, with their outstretched hands, they prayed to Him, forming the shape of a cross with their bodies; the cross, however, is not eight-pointed, but four-pointed. But if the schismatics wish for the outstretched arms of those holy men to represent an eight-pointed cross, then it would be fitting for them to add two more pairs of arms to each man, so that each would have six arms, and thus, according to their desire, an eight-pointed cross would be depicted.

They also speak of Daniel, who, in the den of lions, spread his hands in the shape of a cross and, with his prayer, silenced the beasts, as the church hymn proclaims: Daniel spread out his hands, and the lions’ gaping mouths in the pit were closed [525] . But even in this instance, the spreading of his hands represented the shape and shadow of a four-pointed cross, not an eight-pointed one.

The arrangement of the tribes of Israel in the wilderness into four parts [526] was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s four-pointed cross, as follows:

In the center was the Tabernacle with the Ark of the Covenant, and the tribe of Levi, which served as priests.

In front, on the east side, were three camps: Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun.

Behind them, on the west side, were three divisions: Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin.

On the right side, facing south, were three regiments: Reuben, Simeon, and Gad.

On the left side, facing north, were three divisions: Dan, Asher, and Naphtali.

And thus the camp of the Israelites in the wilderness was arranged in the shape of a cross.

This is also mentioned in the Vezhsky Canon, in Song 4, verse 3, as follows: “The people, divided into four parts, are arrayed in a sacred manner, following the pattern of the Tabernacle, glorified by their cross-shaped formations.”

However, their cross-shaped formation was not the cross itself, but merely a secret foreshadowing of the cross. For the name “cross” is not mentioned in connection with that formation in the Scriptures, nor did the people of that time know that it was a symbol of the cross. But we, living in the new grace and examining the Old Testament, recognize that it was a foreshadowing of the cross—not an eight-pointed cross, but a four-pointed one. If, however, the schismatics wish for that cross-shaped formation of the Israelites to be a foreshadowing of an eight-pointed cross, then they ought to have persuaded Moses, so that, instead of obeying God, who commanded him to arrange the troops into four divisions, he would have heeded them and arranged the troops into eight divisions, so that the eight-pointed cross might be formed according to their desire.

The two sticks of wood that the widow in Zarephath of Sidon gathered to bake a small unleavened cake [527] were (according to the commentators) a foreshadowing of the Lord’s cross. Thus it is written in the commentary: for this reason the widow gathered two logs, as she received Christ in the image of Elijah; she wished to gather two logs, for she desired to know the mystery of the cross. For those two logs were not the cross itself, but only a secret foreshadowing of the cross; and the cross was not eight-pointed, but four-pointed. If, however, the schismatics wish for those logs to represent the canopy of an eight-pointed cross, then they should have asked that widow to gather not two, but four logs, so that the eight-pointed cross they desire might be depicted.

The third representation and image of the Cross of the Lord, as seen in the visions and revelations granted to the holy forefathers and prophets.

Jacob’s ladder, which he saw in a dream, was firmly planted on the earth, its top reaching up to heaven; this, like the Most Pure Virgin Mary, was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s cross, according to the testimony of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople [528] : The Lord, by standing upon it, signified that, having taken human flesh from the womb of the Most Pure Virgin, He would be nailed to the cross and make the cross a ladder to heaven. For He Himself ascended by the ladder of the cross, as He says: “Was it not fitting for Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?”[529] . And He commands His followers to ascend to heaven by the cross—that is, through suffering—saying: “Whoever wishes to follow Me, let him take up his cross”[530] . Thus, the holy martyr Perpetua, honored on February 1, saw before her suffering a very great golden ladder reaching up to heaven; on one side of that ladder, however, were arrayed a multitude of sharp iron weapons: swords, knives, razors, spears, nails, fishing hooks, and other such things [531] ; all of this foreshadowed her suffering and her glorious ascent to heaven. Likewise, Saint Sadof, Bishop of Persia, venerated on the 20th of February, saw before his martyrdom a ladder reaching to heaven, and Saint Simeon the Bishop, who had been martyred before him, standing upon it in great glory, and calling out to him as he stood on the ground: “Come up to me, Sadof”[532] !

The Greek letter “tau,” pronounced and written in the same way as our hard initial “t,” was used by the Angel of the Lord to mark the people of God on their foreheads in Jerusalem, so that they might be spared from the deadly plague; as is seen in the revelation of the holy prophet Ezekiel:[533] . That sign was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s cross, with which we are marked in Confirmation; and by being marked with it, we are preserved from all evil by the power of our Lord, who suffered on the cross.

The rod and the staff, of which the Psalmist speaks, saying, “Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me” ([534] ), were a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Cross. Thus says Saint Athanasius the Archbishop: “The rod and the staff are the Cross for the faithful, for by them they are strengthened and saved.” Likewise, Euthymius the Exegete says: “Understand the rod and the staff as the cross, for it is composed of two parts; the vertical part is called the staff, by which we who lay in error have been raised up, while the horizontal part is called the rod, with which the Lord strikes and crushes the demons.” For it is customary for those who wish to strike a baptized person to raise the staff and, holding it upright, to strike, so as to inflict the most painful blow. Thus far Euthymius. We, however, have certain knowledge that the rod and the staff, in prophetic revelation, form the shape of a cross—a four-pointed cross, not an eight-pointed one.

The power on the shoulder of Emmanuel, about which Isaiah prophesied, saying: “The power was upon His shoulder” ([535] ), signified (according to the commentators) the cross, which Christ was to bear upon His own shoulders.

And there were many other revelations from God’s prophets concerning the Lord’s cross: as when David, speaking on behalf of Christ, said: “They have pierced my hands and my feet”[536] . And Isaiah, saying: “He bore the sins of many on a tree”[537] . And Jeremiah, speaking on behalf of those who hated Christ: “Come, let us set a snare for Him; let us hide our words in His bread”[538] —that is, let us set the cross upon the body of Christ, who is called the bread of heaven. There are also other prophecies by various prophets concerning this manifestation, which we do not have time to gather here in their entirety; the ones mentioned suffice to explain the matter we are investigating.

We have thus presented the prefigurations and symbols of the Lord’s cross: some derived from incorporeal substances, some from human deeds that prophetically foreshadowed the future, and some from revelations given by God to the holy Prophets; and nowhere have we found the actual form of a four-pointed cross that would be a foreshadowing of the eight-pointed cross; nor have we heard the name “cross” anywhere in the Old Testament. We have found only this: that there were certain representations of a four-pointed cross, not an eight-pointed one, and these were in dreams and divinations, not in reality.

For the schismatics are heretics, blaspheming the Lord’s four-pointed cross, calling it an empty cross, a shadow of the eight-pointed cross, and denouncing it with other blasphemies.

We do not reject the eight-pointed cross, nor the one with many points: we honor them all equally (as we have said before), for the sake of commemorating the Lord’s suffering; but we denounce and reject the foolish, schismatic reasoning that blasphemes the Lord’s four-pointed cross.

For what reason is there no mention of the cross or the name “cross” in the Old Testament?

Crucifixion was not a Jewish form of execution, but a pagan one—practiced by the Romans, the Greeks, and other pagan peoples. Among the Jews, however, in the Old Testament there was no such custom of executing anyone by crucifixion; from the time of the Exodus from Egypt until the reign of the kings, the three customary forms of capital punishment were: stoning, burning alive, and hanging on a tree—not on a cross; for if they had executed anyone on a cross, there would certainly have been mention of the cross in their Scriptures; but simply on a tree—that is, on a gallows, or on a tree standing on its own roots with branches. And it is written in their Scriptures concerning those hanged: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” ([539] ). When their kingdom came into being, a fourth form of execution was added: putting the guilty to death by the sword; thus Solomon put Adonijah and Joab to death by the sword ([540] ), and Herod put Saint John the Baptist to death by the sword. They had no crosses at all, nor had crosses ever been used in their lineage, nor did they know of them, until the time when the Roman general Pompey, having come to Palestine with a military force, captured the city of Jerusalem, subjugated all of Judea to the Roman Empire, and made them subjects; This occurred more than 50 years before the Nativity of Christ. It was then that the Jews saw and came to know the cross, when the Romans began to execute them by crucifixion, nailing Jewish rebels to their Roman crosses—just as they had crucified Antigonus, the Jewish king who reigned before Herod. And as long as they were not under Roman rule, they did not know of crosses. For this reason, nowhere in their Old Testament Scriptures are crosses found, nor is the term “cross” mentioned.

From this investigation, it is clearly evident that in the Old Testament there was no cross with four arms or an eight-pointed cross.

There were only prefigurations and shadows of the four-pointed cross, not the eight-pointed one.

But if the schismatics, in their stubbornness, wish to pass off their false blasphemy against the four-pointed cross as the truth, let them now show us a single piece of evidence from Holy Scripture or from the Holy Fathers (not from their own newly invented, false, and blasphemous writings, but from the ancient ecclesiastical ones) that would condemn the four-pointed cross and command that only the eight-pointed cross be venerated. The eight-pointed cross is honorable, but the four-pointed cross is not dishonorable either; for, as we have said, all the Old Testament types were prefigured by it, and all things are blessed and sanctified by the image of its four points. They, in affirming their view regarding the eight-pointed cross, cite the words previously written in the Octoechos, which state: “Christ was crucified on a cypress, a pine, and a cedar” ([541] ): for Christ’s cross was made not from two trees, but from three, since it is not four-pointed; We, however, say that it was not an eight-pointed cross, unless it were a six-pointed one. For an eight-pointed cross cannot be made from three trees, unless a fourth tree were added to complete the eight-pointed cross.

They say: “The inscription on the cross, which Pilate placed there, fulfilled the eight-pointed cross.” Let those who say this tell us, on what was that inscription written? Was it on parchment, as we see it depicted by icon painters (and as the cross of Christ is depicted among the vessels of the Venerable Anthony the Roman on the Holy Chalice, bearing Christ’s inscription written on parchment), or will they say that Christ’s inscription was on tin, or on copper, or on wood? In our Russian books, there is no authentic account of what material the title of Christ was written on. There is an account of this elsewhere, but not in our Russian books—rather in foreign ones, as will be discussed below. Here, however, we say that whether the title was written on parchment, on tin, or on copper, then, at the six ends of the three-beam cross, two ends could not have been distinct, nor would the eight-pointed cross have been complete. But if the title was on wood, then on what kind of wood? And it is necessary to add a fourth beam of some kind to the three aforementioned beams in every way, so that the cross may be eight-pointed. Once this fourth tree is added to the three, the ecclesiastical words written in the Octoechos—which state that Christ’s crucifixion took place on only three trees—will no longer hold true (though I say this contrary to the schismatic reasoning), for a fourth tree will now stand in the cross. It is unknown, however, which the schismatics will insist upon—the eight-pointed cross or the three-beam cross. For if they say that Christ’s cross consists of only three beams, then according to their reasoning the cross will not be eight-pointed, but rather six-pointed. But if they claim to uphold the eight-pointed cross, then Christ’s cross will not be three-beamed, but four-beamed. And thus their faith—whether in the three-beamed cross or in the eight-pointed cross—though professing belief in God, will have no firm foundation. We, in the one Christ our Savior, who was crucified on a cross with four ends (and not eight), placing our faith and hope in Him, and not in the three-beamed or eight-beamed cross; we acknowledge this and declare with the Holy Church that the cross of Christ was indeed three-beamed, and the inscription on the cross were: yet that three-barred and eight-pointed form does not negate the four-pointed cross of Christ, nor does it transform it into an idol of the Antichrist, into an abomination of desolation, or into the mark of the Antichrist. In which Scripture is the four-pointed cross of Christ thus blasphemed? Which apostles and teachers of the universe would reject the four-pointed cross of Christ? No one; only the schismatics, with their foolish reasoning, have invented this—believing more in the eight-pointed cross than in Christ Himself, and placing all their intellectual labor and their entire faith in the eight-pointed cross.

We, however, say that to debate this matter at length is excessive and stems more from curiosity than from piety. How much more so is it wickedness and opposition to Christ our Savior Himself to cause divisions over this in the Church of Christ and to tear the simple people away from the unity of the Church. For our faith and salvation do not depend on the number of the cross’s arms or the number of its horns, but on Christ our Lord alone, crucified on the cross. It is enough to believe and confess that our Lord was crucified on the cross for us. But let everyone judge for himself whether placing one’s faith and hope of salvation in the number of the crossbeams or the horns of the cross is not contrary to Christ Himself. Did the wood or the horns of the cross redeem us? Was it not Christ who redeemed us, having shed His blood for us on the cross? And it is not by the number of the wood or the number of the horns that the Cross of Christ is honored by us, but by Christ Himself, whose most holy blood has stained it. And whatever cross works miracles and wonders does not act of its own accord, but by the power of Christ who was crucified upon it, and by the invocation of His most holy name. The eight-pointed cross is honorable, and so is the four-pointed cross; both are equally honorable, and both possess equal power; for each one is called the life-giving Cross of Christ: yet neither is a god for us to believe in, but they are signs of the sufferings of Christ our God, in whom alone we believe, and for whose sake we honor any cross. What need, then, is there for the Church to be torn apart over the four-pointed cross? Is the four-pointed cross a heresy and blasphemy? Likewise, is the eight-pointed cross a dogma of the faith?

Furthermore, to silence the blasphemous mouths of heretics, I will present here the evidence regarding the four-pointed cross.

Testimonies regarding the four-pointed cross:

On the 14th day of September, at Matins, after the Great Doxology, in the stichera for the Veneration of the Cross, the following is sung: “Today the four-cornered world is sanctified by Your four-parted Cross, O Christ God.” In the Moscow Canon to the Holy Cross, a composition by Saint Gregory of Sinai, the first ode of that Canon reads as follows: “Most honorable Cross, four-pointed power, splendor of the Apostles.”

In the same canon, in the fourth ode, it is written thus: “Your height, life-giving Cross, strikes down the prince of the air, and the depth of the entire abyss slays the serpent; you encompass the breadth once more, overthrowing the prince of this world with your strength.” This is the four-pointed Cross, possessing height, depth, and breadth.

Again, in the same canon, in Ode 8, it is written: You have raised up our fallen nature through Christ crucified, and by restoring it, O Divine Height, O ineffable Depth, you are the sign of Christ, O most blessed Cross, and immeasurable breadth, and the sign of the incomprehensible Trinity, O Life-Giver.

Thus, in the Cross of Christ, the four-fold nature—not the eight-fold—is glorified: height, depth, and breadth. And therefore the Cross is called the three-part, three-loving, three-blessed, and tri-hypostatic image of the Trinity. For its height signifies the Father, who dwells in the highest places; its depth, the Son, who descended even to Hades; and its breadth , together with its length, signifies the Holy Spirit, who is everywhere present and fills all things. For this reason, when making the sign of the cross, we say: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Saint Athanasius the Great states in Question 41: “We worship the image of the cross, composed of two pieces of wood, which is divided into four parts[542] .”

Saint John of Damascus, in Book 4 on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 12, writes as follows: “Just as the four ends of the cross are held together and converge at a central point, so too are height and depth, length and breadth, sustained by God’s power.”

In the book known as the Sunday Instructional Gospel, printed in Moscow, in the sermon on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, on the reverse side of folio 347, it is written as follows: The image of the Cross, divided into four parts, shows through its central sign that all things are upheld by divine power; for the upper part is upheld by the upper arm, the lower by the lower, and the middle by the two sides—that is, by the two ends of the most holy Cross.

And again, in the same place, it is written: Signifying this, the blessed Paul says to the Ephesians: “that you may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and the depth, and the length, and the height[543] .” By “height” he signifies heaven, by “depth” the underworld, and by “breadth” and “length” the intermediate ends, all upheld by almighty power.

Saint Chrysostom, interpreting these very words of Paul, says: “He speaks of breadth and length, and depth and height—that is, to know the majesty of God’s love, how it extends everywhere” ([544] ).

For further testimony regarding the four-pointed cross, see the book called *The Staff* and the book titled *Uvet*.

But God also created this visible world in the likeness of the four-pointed cross. For He created it into four parts: east, west, south, and north.

And God created man in the likeness of the four-pointed cross; for when a man spreads out his arms, he becomes like a four-pointed cross.

Such is the testimony of the Holy Fathers and the ecclesiastical books concerning the four-pointed cross! Yet the schismatics, in every way, do not hesitate to blaspheme against it.

SECOND INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE CROSS

On which cross was Christ crucified: the Roman one, or the Bryn one?

Although one might genuinely seek to determine on which cross Christ was crucified, I pose the question: Who crucified Christ? You will say: The Jews crucified Him. I reply: not the Jews. For although the Jews did hand Christ over to be put to death on the cross—or, to put it more accurately, bought Christ’s death on the cross from Pilate with a bribe—and were guilty of Christ’s crucifixion, according to the saying: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; however, they did not crucify him with their own hands, nor did they condemn him to death by crucifixion according to their own Jewish law (in which there was no such punishment). And when Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law,” the Jews replied to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death [545] .” They said this because, at that time, the Jews no longer possessed their former autonomy, being under Roman rule; and it was not within their authority to judge anyone or put anyone to death. But Pilate, the governor—Caesar’s representative in Jerusalem—administered all the trials among the Jews and put the guilty to death. For this reason, the Jews, having handed Christ over to Pilate, said: “It is not for us to put anyone to death; for it was not Jewish hands that crucified Christ.”

Who, then, crucified Christ? Pilate and his soldiers; for they handed Christ over to him as a rebel, an enemy of Caesar, saying: “We have found this man subverting our language and forbidding us to pay tribute to Caesar, claiming to be the King of the Jews” ([546] ). Saying this, the Jews begged Pilate to crucify him according to Roman law and custom, for it was their custom to crucify rebels. They did this for two reasons: first, to justify themselves before the people who loved Christ; as if they had not handed him over to death out of any malice of their own, but because of Caesar’s dishonor, as if he were opposed to Caesar; and also to destroy him by the most dishonorable death, in a pagan manner rather than a Jewish one, and at the same time by the most painful crucifixion.

Here again I ask: Were Pilate and his soldiers, who crucified Christ, by birth and faith, Jews? By no means, but Romans; sent by the Roman Caesar to garrison the city of Jerusalem, whose Jews were already under the Roman yoke and forced into labor; and the entire army with Pilate was Roman: for it was not possible for the Jews to have their own Jewish army, since they were enslaved and ruled by the Romans; for it was the Romans who crucified Christ. And it is impossible to say otherwise, but only this: that the Romans put our Lord to death by crucifixion, at the insistence of the Jews. Thus also the holy Apostle Peter (in the Acts of the Apostles) says to the Jews: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God through the powers, wonders, and signs that God performed through him among you—as you yourselves know—this man you crucified by the hands of lawless men; but God raised him from the dead [547] . Thus far the Apostle. Pay attention to these words of the Apostle: “You crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men.” You did not crucify and kill him with your own hands, he says, but by the hands of lawless men. Whom, then, does the Apostle here call lawless? Not the Jews, for they had the Law of Moses, but the Romans, who did not have the Law of Moses. And when the Apostle says that Jesus Christ was crucified by the hands of the lawless, he clearly declares that the Romans, incited by the Jews, crucified Christ.

I ask again: if the Romans crucified Christ, then on whose cross, and on what kind of cross, did they crucify him? There were no crosses in Judaism, since (as we have said before) their law did not prescribe crucifixion for anyone, nor did they use crosses. They did not send the eight-pointed cross (in which the schismatics believe as if it were God) to Russia, to the Bryn hermitages; for at that time Russia was still in idolatry, knowing neither Christ nor the cross, and the Bryn forests had none of the hermitages that exist today; nor would the crucifiers—the Romans—have wished to wait until such time as an eight-pointed cross was brought to Jerusalem from the Russian lands, from the Bryn hermitages.

For the Romans crucified Christ on their own cross, the kind on which they customarily crucified all evildoers.

But if Christ had been crucified on a Roman cross by the Romans—for the four-pointed cross (which the schismatics call the “Roman cross”)—it is fitting to venerate it as the true cross of Christ.

We, the faithful, revere the eight-pointed cross just as we do the four-pointed one, contrary to the Church’s Octoechos, which states that Christ was crucified on a cypress, a pine, or a cedar; yet we adhere to this same understanding. Furthermore, regarding the inscription, we hear certain interpreters say that it was written on an olive branch, which is said to be preserved to this day in Rome, in the Church of the Holy Cross—the church that the Romans call “Jerusalem” among themselves; (just as here in Rostov there is a church, the one under the bells, which is called “Jerusalem”); these interpreters base their account on the words of God’s wisdom in the Book of Sirach, which seems to have foretold the cross-bearing trees and, in those passages, extols and declares: “Like a cedar I have risen in Lebanon, like a cypress on the mountains of Hermon, and like a date palm I have risen by the seashore, and like a magnificent olive tree in the fields[548] .” These four trees; to which the wisdom of God is likened; they say that the cross itself is made from the cedar, the cypress, the date palm (or, according to Isaiah’s prophecy, the singer), while the crossbeam is made from a branch of the olive tree. Even if this were so, however, it is said to resemble a four-pointed cross rather than an eight-pointed one; for both the crossbeam and the foot (if there were a foot) are short pieces of wood, appearing not in the width of the cross but in its length. The cross itself was in the shape of a man, with outstretched palms, bearing Christ upon it, whose most pure hands were outstretched upon it; for this reason, the cross of Christ is venerated by us as four-pointed, since Christ was crucified on it in four parts (and not in eight): His most holy head at the top, His body and feet along the length, and His hands across the width.

THIRD INVESTIGATION ON THE CROSS

Is the four-pointed cross a Roman cross?

Here, speaking in simple terms against the foolish reasoning of the common folk, let us pose a simple question: you, O Brynyan! who call the four-pointed cross not a cross but a “kryzh,” tell us: Was the cross that Christ our Savior, condemned to death on the cross by Pilate and led to crucifixion—which He bore on His own shoulders from the praetor’s palace all the way to Golgotha—a cross or a “kryzh”? And what was Simon of Cyrene commanded to carry: the cross of Christ or a “kryzh”? If you say it was the cross, you will clearly contradict your own reasoning; for you do not call the four-pointed cross the cross of Christ, but the Roman cross. And when Christ the Lord carried the cross on His own shoulders, that cross was not yet eight-pointed, but only four-pointed; for there was neither a title nor a footboard on it yet. There was no title, for Pilate ordered that one to be placed on the cross only after Christ had been crucified on Golgotha. There was no footrest, for Christ had not yet been raised onto the cross, and the soldiers did not know how far Christ’s feet would reach, nor did they make a footrest—unless they had already made one on Golgotha. The cross borne by Christ’s arms was by no means eight-pointed, but four-pointed; and it is impossible to say otherwise, except that the cross borne by Christ’s three arms was four-pointed. And it behooves you, schismatics, not to call that cross of Christ a “cross” according to your reasoning, but a “kryzh”; since it is four-pointed, not eight-pointed. But if you call it a “kryzhem,” you will clearly be opposing all four Evangelists, who, when translated into the Russian dialect, refer to it not as a “kryzhem” but as a “cross,” since it is four-pointed. Read in the Gospels—is it not written thus: “Carrying his own cross, he went out [549] .” And as they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, and they compelled him to carry his cross[550] .” The holy Evangelists, in the Russian dialect, refer to the four-pointed cross of Christ—carried by Christ’s own arms—as a “cross” (krest), not a “kryzh”: yet you wretched ones refuse to even hear anyone call such a cross a “cross,” but instead call it a “kryzh.” And who is better: the holy Evangelists, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or you simple, foolish men? And to whom should I give more credence: to the Holy Gospel, or to your foolish reasoning?

Another Question:

Those who call the four-pointed cross a “kryzh” in Roman, let them first tell us this: do they know the Roman language? Also,

Let them say: How is the cross called in the Roman language? Then let them say, in which language is the word “kryzh” used? Do they not wish that all peoples and nations under heaven should call the Holy Cross “kryzh” in the Russian language? And do they not imagine that, even during the Lord’s Passion, the Russian language was spoken in Jerusalem and on Golgotha, and that the Lord’s cross was called a “Russian cross”? They imagine that Christ the Lord, the holy Apostles, and the holy Fathers all spoke in the Russian language. But, O ignorant ones! Have you not heard of the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel? And do you not know that every people and every country names every thing in its own native language? The Jews speak Hebrew, the Greeks speak Greek, the Romans speak Latin, and we Russians speak in our own language, Russian. And as for the cross, every language calls it by its own name: the Jews call it “gets,” the Greeks call it “stauros,” the Romans call it “crux” and not “kryzh,” and we say “cross.” The word “kryzh,” however, is not a Roman word but a Polish one; for this reason, the Poles call the cross “kryzh” in their own language; for they do not speak the Russian language, but their own Polish language, given to them by God. For every language does not come into being on its own, but is given by God to every people and country. Whether Turkish, Tatar, German, Jewish, Greek, Roman, or any other—all are given and distinguished by God; for the Polish language was given by God to the Poles, just as the Russian language was given to us Russians. For the Poles, in their own language, call the cross a “kryzh”; nor is this a blasphemy against the holy cross; for when the Poles call it a “kryzh” in their own language, just as we Russians call it a “cross.”

For it has become evident that the four-pointed cross is not the “kryzh” of Rome, but of Poland; and the term “kryzh” is not blasphemous, but honorable, just as “cross” is among us. The schismatics, however, who blasphemously call the cross “kryzh,” blaspheme against themselves; for they reveal themselves to be foolish and ignorant, unaware of the terms used in other languages.

The Fourth Inquiry Concerning the Cross

Is the four-pointed cross an idol or an idol of the Antichrist, and an abomination of desolation standing in the holy place?

That accursed schismatic treatise, blaspheming the honorable four-pointed cross of Christ and calling it an idol of the Antichrist and the abomination of desolation, cites—as if to support its lies—the words of Christ and the words of Chrysostom.

The words of Christ:

The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 99: “When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place—where it ought not to be—let the reader understand: then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains [551] .”

A schismatic interpretation of Christ’s words:

Understand the holy place to mean any place where Christian churches have an altar—a holy place upon which priests offer sacrifice to God and consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; for in the altar of Christian churches there are two holy places—the altar of sacrifice and the throne: one is for offering, and the other for consecration; St. Chrysostom speaks of this, saying that the Antichrist, before his coming, will set up his own altars everywhere: to destroy the true sacrifice and to place his idol in the holy place—that is, the Latin cross.

His same false words, as is well known, are set forth as follows:

Commentary on 1 Corinthians, beginning 150.

For Chrysostom says this: that the Antichrist, before his coming, will set up his altars everywhere, destroy the true sacrifice—that is, the Cross of Christ—and set up his idol in the holy place, that is, the accursed Latin cross.

But to expose the heretical falsehood, let us first seek the true interpretation of Christ’s words, examining these:

Christ the Savior spoke these words of His: “When you see the abomination of desolation,” and so on:

Of what time did He foretell this?

Of what holy place? And

What abomination?

The Lord is not speaking of our present time, in which the schismatics claim that the coming of the Antichrist has already taken place; but of that time which was to come 40 years after the Lord’s Ascension into heaven, when the Roman army, led by the general Vespasian and his son Titus, was to invade Judea and Jerusalem. St. John Chrysostom testifies to this in his 15th Homily on Matthew, on folio 511, saying: “Then the end will come—not the end of the world, but of Jerusalem.” Likewise, Saint Theophylact, on folio 155, says: “Then the end will come—not of the whole world,” he said, “but of Jerusalem.” Again, Chrysostom, in Homily 76, on the reverse side of folio 320, says: Showing (Christ the Lord) the magnitude of the calamity, He said: “Pray that your flight may not be in winter, nor on the Sabbath [552] .” Do you see that He addresses these words to the Jews, and speaks of those evils that befell them? For the Apostles were not there to observe the Sabbath or to be present there (in Judea) when Vespasian carried this out; for the majority had departed beforehand; and those who remained were living in other parts of the world at that time. And again, on page 321, on the reverse side, it says, “If those days had not been cut short, no flesh would have been saved” ([553] ). For if the Roman army had remained for a long time against the city (Jerusalem), all the Jews would have perished; for here he speaks of all the Jewish people. Thus far, Chrysostom.

From this interpretation, it is clear that the Lord did not speak these words concerning our times, but concerning that time of the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem by the Romans. For the accursed schismatic scroll falsely applies what was foretold by Christ the Lord concerning the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem to our present times.

Of what holy place does the Lord speak? Of the one Jewish church in Jerusalem that existed among them at that time, and not of our Christian churches, which are found throughout the world. For the Lord did not say, “Behold the abomination standing in the holy places,” but in the holy place—the one in Jerusalem—and not in the holy places of Christians throughout the world. Just as the Lord spoke beforehand of the single destruction of Jerusalem at that time, so too did He speak of the one Church of Jerusalem.

For the schismatic, blasphemous scroll of Christ’s Word lies, speaking of the one Jewish church in Jerusalem, and applying it to all Christian churches.

Of what abomination standing in the holy place did the Lord speak? He spoke of the idol of the Roman Caesar, which the Romans, having taken the city, intended to bring into the church and set up in the holy place. Thus St. John Chrysostom testifies to this in his 15th homily on Matthew, on page 512: “The abomination, he said, is the idol of the one who then captured the city—the one who laid waste to the city and set up the idol within the temple—and that is why he calls this ‘desolation.’ Likewise, Saint Theophylact, on page 155 on the reverse side, says: ‘The abomination of desolation—he speaks of this idol.’ For he who took Jerusalem set up his idol in the temple’s inner sanctuary; he speaks of desolation because the city was laid waste; and of abomination because the idols and human images were called abominations by the Jews.” Thus far Theophylact. For this is a schismatic, blasphemous scroll, citing Christ’s words concerning the idol of the Roman Caesar, which alludes to the four-pointed cross of Christ.

Furthermore, that ungodly scroll lies shamelessly, citing the aforementioned words of Saint John Chrysostom as confirmation and testimony for its insane reasoning—words which are nowhere to be found in Chrysostom’s writings. In his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, at the beginning of chapter 150, Chrysostom states: “For the Antichrist, having set up his own altars everywhere, will destroy the true sacrifice—the cross of Christ (the eight-pointed one)—and will set up his own idol in the holy place—the accursed Latin cross [554] .”

If one wishes to verify this ungodly, schismatic lie, let him take in hand Chrysostom’s homilies on Paul’s epistles, and find the beginning of chapter 150 in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, to which they refer, and read everything from page 877 all the way to page 893; Will he find even the slightest mention of the Antichrist, the sacrifice, the cross, or the crucifixion? By no means. These wretched ones lie to their own detriment and slander Saint Chrysostom with their lies! And the other Saints as well, wishing that even the Saints would lend credence to their lies.

Oh, the utter blindness of our Russians! They accept schismatic lies as if they were the very truth itself; yet they deem the most holy truth, preached by Orthodox teachers, to be a lie!

Not only is their blatant falsehood exposed in those deceitful words, falsely attributed to Chrysostom, but their great folly—worthy of ridicule—is also revealed by their foolish reasoning: for they have called the cross a true sacrifice. O you utterly foolish ones! Was the cross consumed for us? Did the cross shed its own blood (which a tree cannot have) for us? Did the cross die for us, and not the Lamb of God—Christ? How could an insentient tree be a sacrifice for the whole world? Was it not the Son of God who was consumed on the cross for us (and not the cross itself), and was He not a sacrifice pleasing to God the Father? Furthermore, they call the four-pointed cross (which they call a “kryzh”) an idol; and in this their folly is evident. For an idol must resemble the person it represents, having a head, face, hands, feet, and the likeness of the entire human body: for the Antichrist will be a man with a head, hands, feet, and all human limbs. But is the four-pointed cross a human likeness? Does the cross have a head, a face, eyes, ears, a mouth, hands, feet, and other human limbs? For how can a four-pointed cross be an idol of the Antichrist, a man who does not have a human likeness? Furthermore: the four-pointed cross, called a “kryzh” by them, is referred to as accursed, saying: “The accursed Latin cross.” And in another place in their scroll it is written: “The tree in which an idol is carved—that is, the Latin ‘kryzh’—and which they call upon instead of God, is accursed, as is the one who carved it.”

In these blasphemous words of theirs, they are both deceitful and exceedingly presumptuous. They are deceitful, speaking falsely, as if anyone were to worship the four-pointed cross instead of God. Who worships the cross as God? Neither the Romans nor we; for the cross is not God, unless those schismatics have an eight-pointed cross as their God. Yet they dare to call the four-pointed cross accursed; let them show, then, from where they took the curse against the four-pointed cross—from which council? For without a conciliar anathema from the Church, it is not possible to call anyone or anything accursed. Which council, then, pronounced anathema upon the four-pointed cross: was it an ecumenical council, or a local one? Unless it was their heretical gathering, convened in the Bryn forests, that condemned the Lord’s holy four-pointed cross to anathema, they themselves being accursed. O godless audacity!

The Antichrist’s idol is described in the Apocalypse as having the ability to speak, just as a living person does; thus it is written: “It was granted to him to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might speak[555] .” But does the four-pointed cross—which the schismatics call the idol of the Antichrist—possess any human voice or speech? Does the cross speak to anyone? Not only does it not speak, but it does not even have a mouth. How, then, can the four-pointed cross be an idol or an image of the Antichrist, speaking nothing and having no mouth? For the schismatics lie with their blasphemous scroll, calling the holy four-pointed cross of Christ an idol of the Antichrist and an abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. But in all their speculations and heretical teachings, they are deceitful, and, as if bewildered, do not realize that they are rambling. The simple and ignorant, however, believe them and follow in their footsteps into error and destruction.

FIFTH INQUIRY CONCERNING THE CROSS

Is the four-pointed cross the mark of the Antichrist, or will it be?

From the book of Saint John the Theologian, called the Apocalypse, it is clearly shown that in the last days, at the coming of the Antichrist, two groups of people will arise: one believing in Christ, and the other in the Antichrist. Both of these groups will bear a seal on their foreheads: those who believe in Christ will bear the seal of Christ, while those who believe in the Antichrist will bear the seal of the Antichrist.

Concerning the people who believe in Christ, it is written as follows: “I saw an angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it had been given to harm the earth and the sea, saying: ‘Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads’ ([556] ).

As for the nations that are to believe in the Antichrist, it is written thus: he (the Antichrist) will mark them on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that no one may buy or sell unless he has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name[557] .

For the Antichrist will kill those who do not believe in him; it is written thus: whoever does not worship the image of the beast will be killed[558] .

But those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads will be punished by God’s wrath, as it is written: “Smoke rose from the well like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke from the well.” And from the smoke came out locusts onto the earth, and they were given authority, just as the scorpions of the earth have authority. And it was said to them not to harm the grass of the earth, nor any plant, nor any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads [559] .

We, however, will investigate: which is the seal of God, and which is that of the Antichrist?

What seal of God will be on the foreheads of God’s people during the days of the Antichrist? Saint Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and interpreter of the Apocalypse, clearly states that the seal will be the Holy Cross. Thus does this interpreter explain the words in the Apocalypse: “I saw another angel, having the seal of the living God[560] , and he who was writing said: which was revealed long ago to Ezekiel concerning the one clothed in wadding—that is, in a long linen robe—and marking the foreheads so that the righteous might not perish with the unrighteous, due to the unknown and hidden virtues of the saints, and by the Angel [561] . This is also indicated here to the blessed one (John the Theologian): by the supreme holy power, which commands the holy Angel, the executioner, to do nothing to the sinners until the servants of the truth—who have been set apart by the seal—come to know the truth. This, moreover, though it was once the case for those who believed in Christ in ancient times—those who escaped the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans—is now being accomplished among the many who walk in darkness (that is, those who have multiplied into thousands upon thousands), as the great James revealed their multitude to the blessed Paul. But, as has been said, this will be especially true at the time of the Antichrist’s coming—the multiplication of the faithful—bearing the seal of the life-giving Cross, which separates the faithful from the unfaithful, and boldly and unashamedly displaying the sign of Christ before the ungodly [562] . Therefore, the Angel says: “Do not harm the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads”[563] .

Saint Andrew of Caesarea also says in another place: “At the end of wicked deeds lies a hidden death of the soul, to which are subject those who are not marked on their foreheads with the divine seal and the enlightenment of the life-giving cross”[564] . Thus far Andrew. Saint Hippolytus concurs with him in his sermon for Meatfare Sunday, on folio 127 and on the reverse side of folio 133, stating that the Cross of Christ will be the seal of the faithful. This is also attested to in the book on the faith by an anonymous author, printed in Moscow in the year 7156, during the patriarchate of Joseph; in it, in Chapter 9, concerning the cross, on the reverse side of folio 69, it is written thus: At the time of Christ’s Second Coming, all the saints will be marked with the sign of the cross. Thus ends the book. And what could be clearer than this testimony and evidence?

Do the schismatics not say that the eight-pointed cross will be the seal on the foreheads of the faithful? But let them heed the first words of Saint Andrew, who, recalling Ezekiel’s vision, introduces John’s, saying: “What was revealed to Ezekiel of old, and so on: this also was revealed here to the blessed one.” What, then, did Ezekiel see? We have spoken of this above in the prefigurations of the cross found in the visions and revelations of the Prophet, and we shall repeat it here as well: Ezekiel saw an angel marking God’s people on their foreheads; the sixth sign was the Greek letter ταυ, written in the likeness of our capital “T.” That letter was a foreshadowing of the four-pointed cross, not the eight-pointed one; for when the title of Christ was added to the top of that letter, it read:

you will see the four-pointed cross of Christ. Just as Ezekiel’s vision there foreshadowed the four-pointed cross, so too in the Apocalypse, John the Theologian saw the very same four-pointed cross, with which the Angel seals the living servants of God; what was revealed to Ezekiel was also revealed here to the Blessed One. This is what it says, and nothing else; that is, it was not an eight-pointed cross but a four-pointed cross that was revealed to Saint John. Furthermore, from this it is made known that the seal of Christ is a four-pointed cross, not an eight-pointed one. Saint Hippolytus writes in his homily for Meatfare Week, on the reverse side of folio 131: Why will the Antichrist place his mark on the right hand and on the foreheads of his followers? For no one who is righteous will make the life-giving sign of the cross with his right hand on his forehead, but his right hand will be bound, and thus he will have no power to mark his own limbs. Thus far Saint Hippolytus. Likewise, Saint Ephrem says: The Antichrist will place a detestable image on a person’s right hand and also on their forehead, so that people will not be able to mark themselves with the sign of Christ our Savior with their right hand[565] . Thus far Ephrem. It is evident, however, that we mark our foreheads and other parts of the body with the four-pointed cross, and not with the eight-pointed cross, making the sign of the cross with our right hand.

For the four-pointed cross, the seal of Christ, as it is now, will also be on the foreheads of the faithful in the days of the Antichrist.

What, then, will be the Antichrist’s seal? The aforementioned Saint Hippolytus clearly declares that it will not be a cross, but something else will be the Antichrist’s seal. Thus, that saint says in his aforementioned work, on page 121: “The Lord gave the honorable cross as a sign to those who believe in Him; and he (the Antichrist) will likewise give his own sign. And again, on the reverse side of page 133, he says: “All have turned away from God and believed in the deceiver (the Antichrist), accepting the mark of the wicked god-fighter instead of the life-giving Cross of the Savior.”

This is the testimony of Saint Hippolytus—that ancient and glorious man among bishops and martyrs—clearer than the sun itself, that the seal of the Antichrist will not be the cross. What, then, is it? The schismatics have appended the Latin cross to Hippolytus’s words in their false scroll; as if Saint Hippolytus were saying that those who believe in the Antichrist will accept his mark—the Latin cross—instead of the life-giving cross of the Savior. But the words “Latin cross” are nowhere to be found in Hippolytus’s text. Those false-speakers, together with the father of lies, the devil, have added those words to the saint’s text out of their own malice; they have added mud to gold, darkness to light, and falsehood to truth, desiring to slander the four-pointed cross. And as for what the mark of the Antichrist will be, Saint John the Theologian clearly states in the Apocalypse: namely, the inscription, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name—[566] ; that will be the mark of the Antichrist. Likewise, Saint Andrew of Caesarea testifies, saying: “The Antichrist will prepare to slaughter, and will strive to impose upon all those who worship him the mark of the apostate’s destructive name.” Thus far Andrew. And who would dare to speculate beyond this? Unless someone wishes to inquire about the name of the Antichrist—what his name will be. But no one can know this; for God has concealed it from human curiosity, as Saint Andrew says: “If there were a need (as some teachers claim) to know for certain what the name (of the Antichrist) is, He would have revealed it; but divine grace did not will for the name of destruction to be written in the Divine Book.” Thus far St. Andrew. But if God has not willed to reveal it, who then can uncover what God has kept hidden? Some have sought the Antichrist’s name among the ancient saints, and some have found traces and likenesses of his name, but they spoke of it speculatively, not with certainty. Thus Saint Hippolytus, in his aforementioned treatise, on the reverse side of page 131, says: “His number is 666; I do not know this for certain, for it is dangerous to delve into this writing.” Let us heed these words of his: “I do not know”—that is, I suspect, but I do not assert—for it is dangerous to interpret this writing in its entirety; and he says: “For many names are found in this number, and others containing the Antichrist’s number within them, as written there; let whoever wishes read them.” Likewise, in Andrew’s commentary on the Apocalypse, in chapter 13, on page 62 [567] . And in the booklet by His Eminence Stephen, Bishop of Ryazan, in Chapter 8. We, however, say: if this mystery was not revealed to the ancient saints—that is, to truly know the name of the Antichrist—then who among those of today can know that mystery, which God has not revealed to anyone? And it is neither necessary nor useful to investigate this matter. St. Andrew speaks well: “The known knowledge of the number, as well as the rest that has been written about him (the Antichrist), will be revealed in due time”[568] .

As for us, who are investigating the Lord’s four-pointed cross, it suffices that we have found the true testimony of the holy fathers: the four-pointed cross of Christ is not the seal of the Antichrist. For the schismatics lie and heretically blaspheme the four-pointed cross of Christ, unjustly calling it the seal of the Antichrist.

But if they wish to prove their lie to be true, let them show us at least one testimony from Divine Scripture or from the ancient Holy Fathers—whoever wrote it or said it— whether an Apostle, a Prophet, a teacher, a confessor, a martyr, a venerable one, or the church books themselves, that the four-pointed cross is the seal of the Antichrist? Who will believe those who do not present reliable evidence, but speak only from their own false and heretical fabrications? For just as a house built on sand without a foundation cannot stand, so too every word and teaching without true and clear evidence cannot be credible or firm. Let them bear witness, then, from the ancient, attested books of the saints, and not from their own new and false ones. But nowhere can they produce such testimony, unless they refer to the father of lies, their own teacher and guide, the devil, who, hating Christ and the weapon of Christ—the holy cross, by which he was defeated—and fearing and trembling at the shadow of the cross, and through the mouths of his disciples—in whom he dwells—he utters blasphemy against the holy four-pointed cross.

But even if, according to their schismatic blasphemy, the Antichrist were to mark his followers with a four-pointed cross, should we therefore despise the holy four-pointed cross? Far be it from us. The Antichrist will also be called Christ: for he will not be called the Antichrist, but Christ. For even the Jews, in their own opinion, do not await the Antichrist, but Christ; yet we, the orthodox Christians, do not despise the name of Christ our Savior, even if the Antichrist is to be called by that name. And since the Antichrist will be called Christ, as Saint Andrew testifies in Discourse 10, Chapter 11, on folio 49: “He will proclaim himself to be Christ.” And Saint Hippolytus, on folio 121, says: “For in every way the deceiver desires to be like the Son of God.” In every way: for he will even call himself by the name of Christ. But the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: “Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ’[569] .” Many, that is, the forerunners of the Antichrist. And if these take the name of Christ upon themselves, how much more will the Antichrist himself take the name of Christ upon himself.

For just as we do not despise Christ, the Son of God, even if the Antichrist were to claim to be Christ, the Son of God, so too we would not despise the four-pointed cross, even if it were the seal of the Antichrist. But just as we love Christ, the Son of God, and confess and believe in Him, so too do we honor and kiss the holy four-pointed cross as the true one, and with it we make the sign of the cross and are sealed in Chrismation as the true seal of Christ our God, and not that of the Antichrist. With it we complete all the sacraments, bless the orthodox faithful and their meals, and protect ourselves everywhere with the four-pointed cross.

But if the schismatics despise the four-pointed cross because, as they delude themselves, it is the seal of the Antichrist, then it is fitting for them to despise Christ Himself, the Son of God; for the Antichrist will be called Christ, the Son of God. But what folly, heresy, and malice on their part! For by blaspheming the cross of Christ, they blaspheme Christ Himself, who was crucified upon it.

They are also worthy of ridicule in this regard: they blaspheme the four-pointed cross of Christ, calling it the mark of the Antichrist, yet they make the sign of the cross with a four-pointed cross; for they are marked with the Antichrist’s mark (according to their blasphemous talk), and they are not Christians, but anti-Christians. It is fitting for you, O schismatics! who despise the four-pointed cross but love the eight-pointed one, to make the sign of the cross not with the four-pointed cross but with the eight-pointed one, first tracing the sign on your forehead, then extending it down to your navel, as well as the width of the cross across your shoulders, and then draw the base diagonally across your abdomen: and thus, according to your faith, you will be true Christians.

Thus, through genuine inquiry, we have examined, O beloved, the holy four-pointed cross of Christ, and have found this:

that the four-pointed cross was not in the Old Testament in the form of the eight-pointed cross;

for it was on the four-pointed Roman cross, not on the eight-pointed Bryn cross. Christ was crucified;

for the four-pointed cross is not the

Roman cross;

for the four-pointed cross is not an idol or an image of the Antichrist, nor is it the abomination of desolation;

and since the four-pointed cross is not, nor will it ever be, the seal of the Antichrist, but is and will remain the seal of Christ, the living God.

Chapter 25. On the Sign of the Cross

It has also come to our attention that certain schismatic factions, calling the four-pointed cross of Christ the mark of the Antichrist, have reached such a state of madness that they have even begun to doubt the sign of the cross—which is four-pointed and depicted on the body with the right hand— fearing that they might be marking themselves with the mark of the Antichrist; and some of them no longer make the sign of the cross at all, even if one of them occasionally enters a church by chance. They ask: Who commanded Christians to make the sign of the cross—a four-pointed cross—upon themselves, and how long ago did this practice begin, and from whom? And they ask again: Is it not possible to pray to God without the sign of the cross, and to bow without making the sign of the cross upon oneself?

In response to their folly, it would suffice to quote the brief words of St. John Chrysostom, mentioned earlier, from his fourth homily on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians: “There is a tradition; seek nothing more[570] . The words of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, cited in the book titled *Uvet* on page 128, also suffice as a response to this, stating as follows: ““To make the sign of the cross on the face and chest is an ancient Apostolic tradition, handed down to us through teaching rather than in writing.” Thus far are the words of Basil. But since the blind seek a guide and the faint of faith seek authentic guidance, let us also show them, from ecclesiastical accounts, how long ago the sign of the cross began among Christians.

The sign of the cross began in the early Church from the days of the Apostles, from the most holy Apostles themselves, who were taught by Christ the Lord Himself, at that time when, after His resurrection, He led them out to Bethany and raised His hands to bless them [571] . From that time on, the holy Apostles, having themselves been blessed by Christ, began in turn to bless others and to perform miracles through the sign of the cross, as will be made clear shortly.

In the life of Saint John the Evangelist, the Theologian, it is written: once (Saint John) found a sick man lying by the roadside, tormented by a fierce fever, and healed him with the sign of the cross[572] ; and the life of John was written by Prochorus, his disciple.

The same life also records the following: There was a certain Christian who had fallen into such extreme poverty that, having nothing with which to repay his debts to his creditors, he resolved to take his own life out of deep sorrow. He begged a certain Jewish sorcerer to give him a deadly poison to drink. This sorcerer, being an enemy of Christians and a friend of demons, did as he was asked and gave him the deadly drink. The Christian took the deadly poison from him and went to his home: He pondered and feared, not knowing what to do. Then, having made the sign of the cross over the cup, he drank it, and suffered no harm whatsoever from it; for the sign of the cross had removed all the poison from the cup. He marveled greatly within himself that he was well and felt no harm whatsoever. Unable to bear the distress from his creditors any longer, he went to the Jew to have him give him the most deadly poison. The Jew was astonished that the man was still alive, and gave him the most deadly poison, which the man took and went home. Thinking deeply about it, when he was about to drink it, he again made the sign of the Holy Cross over that drink, drank it, and suffered no harm whatsoever. He then returned to the Jew and appeared healthy to him; he taunted the Jew, saying that he was inexperienced in his own cunning. The Jew, trembling, asked him, “What are you doing when you drink?” He replied, “Nothing else—I simply make the sign of the Holy Cross over the cup.” The Jew then realized that the power of the Holy Cross drives away death. And to verify the truth, he gave some of that poison to a dog, and immediately the dog, having tasted it in his presence, died. Seeing this, the Jew ran to the Apostle with that Christian, reporting what had happened to them. The saint then taught the Jew to believe in Christ and baptized him; and he commanded that poor Christian to bring a load of hay, which the Apostle transformed into gold through the sign of the cross and prayer; and he commanded him to use that gold to pay off his debts to his creditors, and to use the remainder to support his household [573] .

In the Life of Saint Matthew the Evangelist it is written: A prince, wishing to capture the Apostle, suddenly went blind and sought his guide. He began to beg the Apostle to forgive his sin and to restore sight to his blinded eyes. The Apostle, then, making the sign of the cross over the prince’s eyes, restored his sight [574] .

In the life of Saint Philip the Apostle, one of the Twelve Apostles, it is written: The Apostle instructed a certain man named Ira, who had been enlightened by holy baptism, to trace the sign of the cross with his own hand upon the sick Aristarchus, blessing his afflicted limbs. And when Iru did so, Aristarchus’s withered hand was immediately healed, his eye regained sight, his ears began to hear, and he was made whole [575] .

In the Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite it is written: When the holy Apostle Paul was leaving the city of Athens, a certain blind man—whom everyone knew to have been blind from birth—begged the Apostle to grant him sight. He then made the sign of the cross over the man’s eyes and said: “My Lord and Teacher, Jesus Christ, who created the world, anointed the eyes of the man born blind, and gave him sight—may He enlighten you as well by His power.” And immediately the man born blind received his sight [576] .

Saint Thecla, the First Martyr and disciple of the Apostle Paul, when a great pile of wood and brush had been gathered for her burning, made the sign of the cross over it all, ascended to the top, and stood there; yet the fire did not touch her [577] .

Saint Basilissa of Nicomedia, having made the sign of the cross, entered the blazing furnace and, standing for many hours in the burning fire, was preserved unharmed [578] .

The holy martyrs Avdon and Sennis, princes of Persia, were brought to Rome by the Roman emperor Decius and thrown to the beasts as food for Christ; but, protected by the sign of the cross, they remained unharmed by the beasts [579] .

The Holy Martyrs Zinon, Alexander, and Theodore, along with others, who, during the martyrdom of the Holy Martyr Terentius, commemorated on the 10th day of April: having been martyred by the governor Fortunatian near an idolatrous temple, they made the sign of the cross of Christ on their foreheads and breathed against the temple, whereupon the idols immediately fell with a great crash and crumbled to dust [580] .

The Holy Great Martyr Procopius, having been cast into prison after suffering many severe wounds for Christ’s sake, was visited at midnight by two most radiant angels in the form of beautiful youths, who said to him: “Look upon us and see.” He looked at them and said, “Who are you?” They replied, “We are angels, sent to you by the Lord.” Then the martyr said to them, “If you are the Lord’s angels, then bow down before the Lord in my presence, and make the sign of the cross to protect yourselves, so that I may believe in you.” The angels immediately did so, saying, “Now believe, for the Lord has sent us to you [581] .”

As Saint Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, was traveling from the desert to his see, he came upon a certain pagan temple along the way; for it was evening, and a heavy rain had set in, so the saint and his companions were compelled to enter that pagan temple and spend the night there. There were many idols there, in which demons dwelt; they appeared to their priest and conversed with him. While Saint Gregory spent the night there, he performed his customary midnight and morning hymns and prayers, and made the sign of the cross in the air, which had been defiled by the demons’ sacrifices. Frightened by the sign of the cross and Saint Gregory’s prayers, the demons abandoned their temple and idols and fled [582] .

In the lives of the holy martyrs Cyprian and Justina, it is written: that one of the princes of the demons, was sent by the sorcerer Cyprian to the maiden Justina; having transformed himself into the form of a woman, he came and enticed her with many words to marry the ungodly and lecherous youth Aglaides, quoting the words of the Apostles from the Divine Scriptures: “Marriage is honorable, and the marriage bed is undefiled”[583] . Hearing these words, Justina recognized the devil as the all-cunning seducer and, better than Eve, defeated him: for she did not engage in a lengthy conversation with him, but quickly fled to the refuge of Christ’s cross, placed the sign of the cross on her face, and lifted her heart to God, her Bridegroom; and immediately the devil vanished in great shame, even more so than before. Then that proud prince of demons came to Cyprian, disheartened, and Cyprian, realizing that even he had achieved nothing, said to the devil: “Could not even you, being a mighty prince and more skilled than others in such matters, defeat that maiden? then who among you can do anything against that invincible maiden’s heart? “Tell me,” he said, “by what weapon are you restrained? And what renders your mighty power powerless?” The devil, compelled by the power of God, confessed unwillingly: “We cannot,” he said, “look upon the sign of the cross, but we flee from it, for it burns us like fire and drives us far away [584] .”

It is also written there: When Cyprian fully realized that nothing can prevail against the sign of the cross and the name of Christ, he came to his senses and said to the devil: “Destroyer and deceiver of all, treasure of every impurity and defilement, I have now realized your weakness; for if you fear the shadow of the cross and tremble at the name of Christ, what will you do when Christ Himself comes upon you? If you cannot defeat those who make the sign of the cross, whom then can you snatch from Christ’s hands? Now I understand that you are nothing, that you can do nothing, and that you have no power to take revenge. I, the wretched one, was deceived by listening to you and believing your flattery; so depart from me, accursed one, depart! It is fitting for me to beg the Christians to have mercy on me; it is fitting for me to take refuge with the virtuous, that they may deliver me and care for my salvation. “Go away, go away, you lawless one and hater!” Hearing this, the devil rushed at Cyprian to kill him, and, pouncing upon him, began to strangle him. But Cyprian had no help from anyone, and did not know how to save himself or escape from the fierce hands of the demons; and though he was barely alive, he remembered the sign of the Holy Cross, by which Justin had resisted all the power of the demons, and said, “O God of Justin, help me.” He raised his hand and made the sign of the cross; and immediately the devil, like a taut arrow, recoiled from him. Having regained his composure and found the courage, he invoked the name of Christ, made the sign of the cross, and strongly resisted the devil, cursing and rebuking him. The demon, standing far from him and not daring to approach him because of the sign of the cross and the name of Christ, threatened him fiercely, saying, “Christ will not deliver you from my hand.” And he raged greatly against him, roared like a lion, and departed [585] .

In the Lives of the Venerable Fathers Barlaam and Joasaph of India, it is written that demons, sent by the sorcerer Feuda, sought to stir up in the young Prince Joasaph a desire for carnal sin; but when they achieved nothing and returned empty-handed, Feuda rebuked them, saying: “Are you wretched ones so weak that you could not even defeat a single youth?” But they, having been compelled by the power of God and unwilling to do so, confessed the truth, saying: “We cannot endure the power of Christ, nor even look upon the sign of the cross, with which the youth shields himself”[586] .

In the Life of the Venerable Hilarion the Great, it is written: a demon brought forth a host of his companions and cried out with such voices that Hilarion, terrified by the very sound of their voices, left that desert and fled. But when Hilarion realized that these were demonic terrors, he made the sign of the cross, armed himself with the shield of faith, fell to his knees, and prayed earnestly to God that He might grant him help from on high. And as he lay there in prayer, he cast down the enemy standing over him [587] .

The Great Saint Anthony, contending with the demons attacking him, said: “If you can, the Lord has granted you authority over me—here I am, devour what has been offered to you; but if you cannot, why do you labor in vain? For the sign of the cross and faith in God are an impregnable wall”[588] .

The same Venerable Anthony, instructing the brethren, said: “When the demons can do nothing against us in our thoughts, they then tempt us with visions and terrify us, sometimes taking the form of a woman, sometimes of a scorpion, and sometimes of some great fleshly creature, even stretching its head up to the top of the temple; and into countless forms and warlike hordes, all of which vanish at the first sign of the cross [589] .

The same Venerable Anthony the Great, coming into the desert to visit the Venerable Paul of Thebes, beheld a man resembling a horse, whom poets call the Hippocentaur. Seeing him, he armed himself with the saving sign of the cross and boldly asked: “Do you know where the servant of God dwells?” The beast, however, bowed before the saint’s words, and, unable to speak, pointed with its hand toward the place where one must go to find the servant of God [590] .

Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus, who was still unbaptized as a child, was thrown off a fierce donkey; the boy fell from the donkey, was injured, and lay there weeping, unable to rise, for his hip had been struck against the ground. But a certain Christian who happened to be there, named Cleopius, approached, touched his hip, and, making the sign of the cross three times, healed him [591] .

The same Saint Epiphanius, while in the land of Egypt, was discussing books with a certain Greek philosopher named Eudemus. Seeing that the philosopher’s son was blind in one eye, he made the sign of the cross three times over the blind eye, and immediately the eye opened, and the boy saw clearly [592] .

The Venerable Macrina, sister of St. Basil the Great, had a severe ailment that had developed on her chest; not wishing to reveal it to a doctor for healing, she prayed to her mother to place her right hand on the affected area and make the sign of the cross over it. And when her mother, placing her hand within her bosom and making the sign of the cross over the affected area, found no ailment there—for by God’s power the ailment had been healed and the illness had departed, leaving only a small mark of the former ailment as a reminder of God’s miracle [593] .

When the Venerable Zosima saw Saint Mary of Egypt in the desert, he was at first terrified, thinking she might be a demonic apparition. Trembling, he made the sign of the cross, and his fear subsided [594] .

When the Venerable Zosima saw Saint Mary praying to God in the air, standing about an elbow’s length above the ground, he was perplexed, thinking she might be an apparition: Saint Mary, knowing that she was flesh and not a spirit or an apparition, made the sign of the cross over her forehead, eyes, lips, and chest [595] .

The same Holy Mary, having made the sign of the cross over the Jordan, stepped onto the water and, walking upon the water, crossed the river [596] .

In the *Limonar* of His Holiness Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, there is a mention of a certain presbyter named Konon, a monk at the Penfokli Monastery, who was entrusted with baptizing men and women who had converted to the holy faith from among the Greeks. But when he baptized the women, he was tempted by a lustful thought, for he felt a passion of lust within himself; and, fearing this temptation, he wished to leave that place. One day, a young woman from Persia came to be baptized— —and she was very beautiful; but the presbyter Conon, so as not to see her nakedness during the baptism and chrismation, took his robe and left, saying, “I cannot remain in this place.” And as he was leaving there and ascending the mountain, Saint John the Baptist met him and said to him in a soft voice, “Return to your monastery, and I will lighten your bodily struggle.” But Abba Conon said to him angrily, “Believe me, I will not return; for you have promised many times to do this for me, and you have not done it.” Then Saint John took him, sat him down, and, opening his robes, made the sign of the cross three times beneath his navel, and said to him: “Believe me, Elder Conon, for I wished that you might receive a reward for this struggle; but since you do not wish it, this battle has already been taken from you, and you will be deprived of the reward for it.” And the presbyter returned to the monastery; the next morning he baptized that maiden and anointed her with myrrh, and he felt no lust within himself at the sight of her nakedness, as if he had not baptized a woman [597] .

In the same *Limonar*, it is written about a certain Saint Julian, Bishop of Vostretum, whom some of the great and wealthy citizens came to hate, and they plotted to kill him with poison. They bribed a young servant who worked for him, promising him many gifts, and gave the boy a deadly potion, instructing him that when he presented the cup to the bishop, he should pour the deadly poison into it; and the boy did as he had been instructed. But the divine Julian, having discerned their plot through divine revelation, took the cup and set it before him; and without saying a word to the young man, he sent for all the city’s leaders, among whom were those who had conspired to kill him. But the holy bishop, not wishing to expose those who had plotted this, spoke to all in a gentle voice: “If you think to kill the humble Julian with poison, I will drink this poison—prepared for me by you—before all of you.” And, blessing the cup three times with his right hand, making the sign of the cross upon it, he said: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I drink this cup before all of you, and having drunk it all, I shall remain unharmed.” Those who had prepared the poison were seized with fear; they fell at his feet, confessed their sin, and begged for forgiveness [598] .

Similarly, the Venerable Benedict, the abbot, was given a glass containing a deadly poison mixed with his drink at lunchtime by certain brothers who hated him. But when he made the sign of the cross over the glass, the vessel immediately shattered and broke under the power of the Holy Cross, as if struck by a stone [599] .

In the life of the Venerable Simeon the Stylite, it is written: Envious of his goodness, the devil transformed himself into a bright angel and appeared to the saint near the pillar, with a fiery chariot and fiery horses, as if descending from heaven, and said: “Hear, Simeon, God of heaven and earth has sent me to you, as you see, with a chariot and horses, so that, just as Elijah was taken up into heaven, you may be taken up as well; for you are worthy of such honor, because of the holiness of your life: for your hour has already come, that you may reap the fruits of your labors and receive the crown of righteousness from the hand of the Lord. Come, then, without delay, servant of the Lord, that you may see your Creator and worship Him, who created you in His own image; and may the Angels and Archangels, together with the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, who long to see you, behold you as well. Speaking these and similar words to the devil, the saint did not recognize the enemy’s deception, but said: “Lord! Do You wish to take me, a sinner, into heaven?” He moved his right foot to step onto the fiery chariot, but as he stretched out his right hand, making the sign of the cross, the devil immediately vanished along with the chariot and the horses, like dust swept away by the wind. And when Simeon recognized the devil’s deception, he repented [600] .

This is but a small portion of the testimony regarding the sign of the cross and the miraculous power of the sign of the cross; and you will find countless testimonies to this effect throughout the Holy Scriptures, all of which cannot be gathered into a small book, unless a great book were to encompass them.

Let us also mention at least a few things on this subject from the Church Fathers:

Saint Hippolytus, speaking of the Antichrist and those who are to believe in him, says: “He will give them a mark on their right hand and on their forehead; so that no one may make the holy sign of the cross with his right hand on his forehead, but his hand will be bound; and from then on, he will have no power to mark his own limbs [601] .” Thus far Hippolytus. We, however, note: Saint Hippolytus says regarding the sign of the cross: “It is well known, for in his day it was the custom among Christians to mark themselves with the sign of the cross, and at the end of the age it will be so, just as it is now among the Orthodox.”

St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, in Homily 54, says: “Let us bear the cross of Christ as a crown; for all things are accomplished through it that pertain to us. Even if we must be born again, the cross comes; whether we partake of that mystical meal; whether we are ordained; or whatever else we may do, everywhere the formation of our victory (over our enemies) is at hand: for this reason, we inscribe it with great care—in churches, on walls, on doors, on our foreheads, and in our thoughts. And further: For it is fitting to trace it with one’s finger, but first by one’s will with great faith. And if you visualize it in this way, no unclean spirit will be able to stand near you—for it sees the sword that inflicts wounds upon them; it sees the sword that brings misfortune upon them. For when we see the places where the condemned are punished, we are filled with dread; consider what the devil and the demons will suffer when they see the weapon with which Christ destroyed all their power and cut off the head of the dragon (the serpent)[602] . Thus far, Chrysostom.

Saint Ephrem says in Homily 103: “Let us place the sign of the life-giving Cross on the doors, on our foreheads, on our chests, on our lips, and on all our limbs; let us mark ourselves with it, and let us arm ourselves with it.” For this is the weapon of Christians, the victory over death, the hope of the faithful, the light of the end, the opener of paradise, the destruction of heresy, the great confirmation of the faith, the preservation and praise of Christians—which Christians offer ceaselessly every day and night, at all times and hours, in every place. Without it, indeed, do not begin or end anything, but whether you are lying down, rising, working, or traveling—even if you sail across the sea or cross a river— strengthen all your limbs with the life-giving cross, and the evil forces, seeing this, will not approach you; for, having seen it, they will hide and flee [603] .

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in the Moscow Catechism printed in the year 7204, as cited on page 43, teaches, saying: Make the sign of the Holy Cross when eating, drinking, sitting, standing, conversing, or walking. And do not begin a single one of your deeds without making the sign of the Holy Cross—at home, on the road, by day and by night, and in every place.

Such are the teachings concerning the sign of the cross! What, then, will you say against these, O schismatic, who doubts the sign of the cross, rejects it, and fears it just as the devil fears the four-pointed cross? The holy Apostles, having received the pattern of blessing from Christ, began to work power and healing in people through the sign of the cross; the holy Martyrs armed themselves with the sign of the cross; the Angels of the Lord, appearing to the holy Martyr Procopius, made the sign of the cross upon themselves; Saint John the Forerunner, many years after his death, appeared to the presbyter Conon and, with the sign of the cross, put to death the passion of lust within him. The saints of God drove away the power of demons and all fears with the sign of the cross. The entire Church of Christ, from its very beginning until now, has upheld that pious Christian custom of making the sign of the cross and sanctifying all things with it. But you, O enemy of the cross, fear the sign of the cross, and tremble like a demon, lest the four-pointed cross cast its shadow upon you.

If you call the four-pointed cross of Christ the “seal of the Antichrist,” what then would you call the seal of Christ? An eight-pointed cross? But who has ever depicted an eight-pointed cross upon themselves, or does so now? Who blesses anyone or anything with an eight-pointed cross? Do we not use the four-pointed cross to make the sign of the cross upon ourselves, to consecrate people and the sacraments, and to bless the meal? For this is the true sign and seal of the true Christ our God, as Damascene testifies, saying: “This sign has been given to us on our foreheads, just as circumcision was given to Israel; for by it we distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful and recognize one another; it is a shield, a weapon, and a victory over the devil; it is a seal, so that the all-destructive one may not touch us [604] .”

Thus far Damascene. This church teacher, in agreement with the aforementioned teacher, calls the four-pointed cross—as it is imagined—the seal of Christ, and not that of the Antichrist. May those who call the honorable four-pointed cross of Christ the seal of the Antichrist, and who fear the four-pointed cross just as the demons do, be put to shame and humiliated.

Chapter 26. On the Schismatic Blasphemy Against the Trembling Composition

Furthermore, another insane notion regarding the seal of the Antichrist is heard in Brynyany: they call the sign of the cross made with three fingers the seal of the Antichrist. Thus it is written in their heretical and blasphemous Scroll: “If anyone makes the sign of the cross on his face with three fingers, that is, with three fingers, he has renounced Christ and has given himself over to Satan; for this is the mark of the Antichrist.” Thus ends the Scroll. And so they have come to regard two things as the mark of the Antichrist: one mark of the Antichrist is the four-pointed cross, and the other mark of the Antichrist is the trembling gesture. It is unknown, therefore, which of their arguments to believe—the first or the second—since they do not agree among themselves, nor do they identify the true seal of the Antichrist. They cite Saint Hippolytus, as if he were the one who called the trembling gesture the seal of the Antichrist; but in this matter they are lying. And how can they not be ashamed to lie before God and before all people? For Saint Hippolytus makes no mention whatsoever of any finger gestures—neither of the trembling gesture nor of the two-fingered gesture; nor did he write that the four-pointed cross is the mark of the Antichrist; for just as the four-pointed cross is not and will not be the mark of the Antichrist, so too the trembling gesture is not and will not be the mark of the Antichrist. For that witness—Saint Hippolytus, upon whom the schismatics rely—does not bear witness to their blasphemy. Let everyone read Hippolytus’s words—on which the Brynians rely—with careful attention and discernment, and examine them letter by letter and word by word: will you find there any mention of the arrangement of the fingers? By no means. Why, then, do these liars dare to lie about Saint Hippolytus as well as about themselves? Is it not so that they may clearly reveal themselves to be the children of the father of lies—the devil?

I have seen in the lists from Avvakum’s letters that it is written: that false teacher, who teaches the two-fingered (Armenian-style) sign of the cross while rejecting the three-fingered one, blasphemes thus:

Then the Nikonian sect will weep, having failed to confess the pure Only-Begotten, the two natures—divine and human—converged for our salvation, but instead signifying with three fingers three unclean spirits, which are the spirits of demons, like toads. They spread throughout the entire universe: blessed is he who watches and guards his garments, lest he be found naked. Behold, my fathers and brothers, this trembling heresy is the nakedness of soul and body; let us guard ourselves against it in every way. Thus ends Avvakum’s blasphemy.

With these very words, Avvakum reveals himself to be a liar, a heretic, a misinterpreter, and a blasphemer—all of which will be exposed by careful reasoning.

Avvakum lies when he calls us, the orthodox Christians, of the Nikonian lineage. Did Russian Christianity receive its origin from Nikon? Were we enlightened by holy baptism through him? We hear that His Holiness Nikon was a great bishop of God, Patriarch of Moscow, a man well-versed in Holy Scripture, pious, and holy in his life; but he is not our progenitor, neither in the flesh nor in the spirit, for we were not born of him, nor did we receive our faith from him. But we were born according to the flesh of the lineage of Japheth, the son of Noah; and according to the spirit, we were born of the holy Prince Vladimir, Equal to the Apostles, for from him all of Russia received the faith and baptism; and Vladimir received it from the Greeks, and the Greeks received it from the ancient holy bishops and teachers of the universe; the ancient bishops and teachers received it from the holy Apostles; the Apostles received it from Christ Himself: for we are Christians, not Niconians, according to the words of the holy Apostle Peter, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession” ([605] ). But Habakkuk, with his disciples, having fallen away from the Church of Christ and the Orthodox faith—to which lineage do you belong? Surely to the lineage of Christ’s adversary—the devil.

Habakkuk lies again, slandering us, as if we did not confess in the only-begotten Son of God, Christ our Lord, the two natures—divinity and humanity—which were united for our salvation. He himself does this, just as was shown earlier in the first part, in the second article, where his heretical reasoning was exposed—the reasoning that claims there is a distinct Son of God in heaven with the Father, and a distinct Son in the womb of the Most Pure Virgin.

Avvakum is a heretic, blaspheming our reverent making of the sign of the cross, and calling it a heresy—by which we piously and orthodoxly represent the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and, making the sign of the cross with a reverent gesture, we say: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” By rejecting this sign of the cross, he rejects the confession of the Trinity.

Avvakum has shown himself to be both a misinterpreter and a great blasphemer, misinterpreting the words written in Revelation, chapter 16, as follows: “I saw from the mouth of the serpent, and from the mouth of the beast, and from the mouth of the false prophet , three unclean spirits like frogs coming out[606] ,” and so on. He uses his twisted interpretation of these words to mislead our timid minds, as if by making the sign of the cross with three fingers we were invoking three unclean spirits and three toads emerging into the universe. By doing so, he blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity, in whose name we make the sign of the cross with three fingers, saying: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Yet he calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the God we invoke—three unclean spirits and three toads. O grievous blasphemy! O blasphemy abhorrent to God! O godless impiety! Who has ever since the beginning of time heard such blasphemy against the Most Holy Trinity? No heresy, nor any wickedness, has ever blasphemed the Most Holy Trinity as the blasphemer Avvakum has done. Such a teacher do the schismatics have; such a one they follow; such is their orthodoxy.

Furthermore, the schismatic scroll contains a blasphemous depiction of the sign of the cross, drawn with a hand having three fingers joined together; on one finger is written “sa,” on another “ta,” and on the third “na”—this is Satan; and it is signed, for that name belongs to the wicked god-fighter, the Antichrist, whom he will place on the right hand of those who believe in him. And it blasphemes against us, the orthodox believers, as if we believed in the Antichrist rather than in Christ, and as if we bore the Antichrist’s name on three fingers, and as if we made the sign of the cross with the Antichrist’s name. Such blasphemies does that accursed Scroll heap upon us, who believe in Christ (and not in the Antichrist), and who do not make the sign of the cross with the Antichrist’s name, but with the name of the Most Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He falsely cites the testimony of Saint Ephrem and Saint Hippolytus, who call this three-fingered sign the sign of the Antichrist; yet in those saints (as we have previously stated) this is by no means to be found. This is a diabolical fabrication and the breath of hell’s mouth.

It would be more fitting for them, as schismatics, to write the name of a demon using their Armenian two-fingered gesture: “de” on one finger and “mon” on the other; and thus a demon will dwell on their two fingers—the very one they have long carried in their hearts, whom they listen to, and by whose spirit they are taught to devise blasphemous and false teachings against the Church of Christ. But God of vengeance, the Lord, God of vengeance, will repay them according to their deeds, and destroy them because of their deceit.

In that same schismatic manuscript, which teaches the two-fingered Armenian method of making the sign of the cross, it is written thus:

In the large printed Liturgy Book, page 659: “If anyone does not make the sign of the cross with two fingers, as Christ did, let him be cursed.”

I, however, took that large printed Liturgy Book and, having examined its passages, found it printed differently as follows: “If anyone does not make the sign of the cross with two fingers, as Christ did.” And immediately this appeared to be a schismatic lie, for the text states: “if anyone does not make the sign of the cross”; yet they have added “this” and “that”—“if anyone does not make the sign of the cross.” Thus they deceive simple people with their lies, adding to the written text what is not written, just as they have added “this” and “that”: for it is one thing to make the sign of the cross for someone else, and another to make it for oneself.

Consider this with sound reasoning: Was Christ the Lord baptized with the sign of the cross while living on earth among men? Did He form the sign of the cross on Himself with His fingers? Was the sign of the cross practiced before Christ’s Passion among the holy Apostles who followed Christ, or among the Prophets and forefathers who came before them?

And furthermore: Did Christ the Lord ever make the sign of the cross with two fingers? Where is this written? In which Gospel or by which Apostle? It is written in the Gospel of Luke, in the final chapter, how Christ the Lord, ascending into heaven, blessed the holy Apostles: He raised His hands and blessed them; but there is no mention there of the arrangement of the fingers. He blessed them with his whole hands, with all his fingers. The practice of folding the fingers subsequently took root among the faithful, and it is a good custom; however, it is not a dogma of the faith.

But I will not dwell on the arrangement of the fingers, since enough has already been written and explained on this subject in the book *The Rod*, in the book *Uvet*, as it is called, and in the revised Psalters; let those who wish read it there.

Chapter 27. On Their Blasphemy Against the Divine Mysteries

Furthermore, the schismatics blaspheme the most pure divine mysteries: the body and blood of Christ, celebrated under the appearance of bread and wine.

They blaspheme and despise these most exalted holy things as if they were some abomination, calling the partaking of the divine mysteries defiled—the most defiled of all defilements. O godless blasphemy and fierce dishonor against Christ our Lord, whom we honor and receive in His most pure mysteries! O grievous afflictions upon our Lord from those shameless and rabid dogs who have opened their barking mouths against Him, some of whom joined those who cried out: “Take Him, take Him, and crucify Him!”

They blaspheme and despise the three divine mysteries (as we have learned) because of:

First, because of the four-pointed cross depicted on the holy prosphora;

This is because of the newly printed liturgical books:

And this, because of the officiating priests.

They call the four-pointed cross the mark of the Antichrist;

The newly printed liturgical books are called a new faith:

And they condemn the clergy for two things: for the prescribed fees for ordination, which they, as schismatics, call a bribe, and for a lifestyle as depraved as that of Akiba’s,

And they argue that, because of these things, the priests are not priests; the liturgy is not a liturgy; the sacrifice is not a sacrifice.

We, however, will examine three points:

1) Is the four-pointed cross depicted on the holy prosphora an obstacle to the offering of the holy sacrifice, such that it might not be the Body of Christ?

2) Are the newly printed liturgical books an obstacle to the Holy Liturgy, such that it might not be a true liturgy?

3) Does the fee established for the ordination and the priest’s dissolute lifestyle prevent the Holy Spirit from descending and the divine mysteries from being celebrated when the priest performs the Liturgy?

FIRST CONSIDERATION

Regarding the four-pointed cross on the prosphora: Is this an obstacle to the Holy Sacrifice?

I ask:

In the sacred celebration of the divine mysteries, what is offered as a sacrifice to God the Father on behalf of the whole world under the appearance of bread: is it the cross, which is depicted as a seal on the prosphora, or Christ Himself, crucified in the form of a cross?

If the cross is offered as a sacrifice, then it is not Christ; for it would follow that it is not the body of Christ that exists, but the substance of the cross in the form of bread, which is absurd and nonsensical.

But if Christ Himself is offered as a sacrifice, then it is not the cross; for it is not the cross that is sacrificed for the life and salvation of the world, but the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, is sacrificed in the form of the cross.

And since it is not the cross but Christ who is offered as a sacrifice, what obstacle is there to the sacrifice of the four-pointed cross, depicted as a seal on the prosphora?

I ask again:

When Christ the Savior was crucified on the cross for us, stretching out His most pure hands, was Christ then eight-pointed or four-pointed?

You cannot say that He was eight-pointed, O Brynyan! But rather four-pointed: His most holy head at the top of the cross, His outstretched body along its length, His feet at the bottom of the cross, and His hands at its width—just as He is depicted on the prosphora with a four-pointed cross.

What, then, is the objection to the four-pointed cross on the prosphora, by which you depict the body of Christ, who was crucified on the cross in four parts?

Again:

When the Lamb of God, offered on the holy disk, is cut with a spear, is it offered in the shape of an eight-pointed cross or a four-pointed one? Truly, in the shape of a four-pointed cross, cut lengthwise and crosswise into four ends and parts, and not into eight ends and parts.

And if the Lamb, when cut into four parts, is not defiled by the four-pointed cross—what defilement or hindrance is there to the holy sacrifice from that four-pointed cross, which is imprinted on the upper part of the Lamb?

Furthermore:

When the priest, while performing the divine service, after uttering the words of Christ and invoking the Holy Spirit, says, “And let it be done,” and so on, he makes the sign of the cross over the holy gifts; with what kind of cross does he make the sign: an eight-pointed one, or a four-pointed one? Truly, a four-pointed one.

And if the holy gifts, when blessed with a four-pointed cross, are not defiled but sanctified, what defilement or hindrance could there be to the sacrifices from that four-pointed cross, which is depicted as the seal upon the Lamb?

SECOND CONSIDERATION

On the newly printed Liturgy Books: Are they an obstacle to the Holy Liturgy?

I ask:

Has the ancient order of the Holy Liturgy been altered in the newly printed Liturgy Books? Have the prayers, the words of Christ, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit been altered? By no means: but just as in the old ones, so too in the new ones they are printed without fail.

If, then, in the newly printed Liturgy Books neither the order of the Divine Liturgy nor the prayers, nor the words of Christ, nor the invocation of the Holy Spirit has been altered; but just as in the old ones, so too in the new ones they are printed without fail: what, then, is the obstacle to the Divine Liturgy posed by the newly printed Liturgy Books?

I ask again:

Who celebrates the Liturgy? Who prays to God during the Liturgy? Who invokes the Holy Spirit upon the Holy Gifts and offers the sacrifice? Is it the book—the old or new Service Book—or the person consecrated for this purpose, that is, the priest?

If it is the book—whether the old or new Service Book—it is fully effective; for a priest is not required, but only the book itself must be placed on the altar.

But if a priest, rather than a book, celebrates the Liturgy, what objection is there to the newly printed Service Book, from which the priest reads the same prayers as in the old Service Book, utters the very same words, and performs the same rites, just as prescribed in the old one?

Chapter 28. On Priestly Fees

Third CONSIDERATION

On the fees charged by priests for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy—which the schismatics call “wages”—and on their dissolute lifestyle; do these things hinder the Holy Spirit from working through the holy mysteries?

On fees.

I ask: Are these two—a fee and a bribe—one and the same? If they are one and the same, then it is not permissible for priests who serve at the altar to be supported by the altar; for it is customary for them to receive offerings from the faithful for every church service: for baptism, for marriage, for confession, for prayer services, for burial, for memorial services, for carrying the holy relics, and so on; and all these, as gifts from God, must not be sold, but given freely. And as the Apostle commands, those who minister in the sanctuary should eat from the sanctuary, and those who serve at the altar should receive their sustenance from the altar ([607] )?

Let it be known to all that there is a distinction between a tithe and a wage. The tithe is prescribed by the Church for the sustenance of those who serve at the altar; the wage, however, is forbidden, as it constitutes the sale of sacred things, which is called simony—named after Simon the sorcerer, who sought to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Apostles with silver ([608] ). A tithe is open to all, whereas a bribe is given in secret; for this reason, it is called sacrilege. A tithe is sinless, as it is sanctioned by the Church; a bribe, however, is a sin, forbidden by the Church. A tithe is a small amount, whereas a bribe is considered a large sum. The tithe fulfills a debt to the Church, while the bribe secretly buys the Church’s favor. For the tax is counted as alms, as can be seen from the words of the pious Greek Emperor Justinian in the book *Kormchiya*, on page 323, where it is written thus: “We not only do not forbid this, but rather command them to do so for the salvation of their souls.” For we forbid only that which is given by a private individual rather than to the holy churches. Thus end the words of Justinian. And truly, the tithe serves for the salvation of the soul; for that which is given to the clergy is given for their sustenance, and that which is given to the bishop is immediately distributed as alms to the poor . But a fee, being greed for money and unjust gain, and being extortion, is considered a grave sin; and it is punished by excommunication and anathema; as can be seen in the book called *The Helmsman*, in Chapter 1, in the Apostolic Canons, on page 7, verso.

Rule 29 of the Holy Apostles.

Any bishop, priest, or deacon who accepts an office in exchange for property shall be deposed, along with the one who ordained him.

For other such cases, see the same *Kormchiya*, page 184 on the reverse, and page 211 on the reverse, and pages 283, 284, 289 on the reverse, and 290 on the reverse.

As for the duties lawfully levied upon ordination, see in the same book, titled *Kormchiya*, Chapter 42; in the decrees of Emperor Justinian, entry number 32 on folio 319: there it is specifically stipulated what is to be paid upon ordination. Emperor Justinian ascended to the throne of the Greek Empire in the year 527 A.D.

Theodore, Patriarch of Antioch, known as Balsamon, in his commentaries on the Apostolic Canons and the Councils of the Holy Fathers, under Chapter 54 [609] , recalls the pious Greek Emperor Isaac Komnenos, who, by his imperial decree, established that seven zlotys be given to the bishop by the presbyter being ordained, distributed as follows: one zloty from the clergy, three zlotys from the deacons, and three from the priests. Isaac Komnenos began his reign in Greece in the year 1057 A.D.; Theodore Balsamon, however, wrote a commentary on the canons in the year 1202.

Let everyone see how, from ancient times, the sinless tribute from those being ordained was established by pious emperors in the Greek Church; from there we have received the faith and the church statutes and laws.

It is also known why this custom was established for those being ordained: A newly ordained priest or deacon must, upon his ordination, present a meal to the bishop and his clergy. And since not everyone can provide for the bishop and his clergy as is fitting—not being wealthy—it was therefore decreed that the cost of the meal be set at seven zlotys. But what these zlotys were like in Greece at that time—whether of high value or low—we do not know. In our land, however, the tax is not collected in gold coins, nor is it of great value; for in place of gold coins, the earlier Russian bishops established the hryvnia. Concerning this, it is written as follows: In the days of His Holiness Cyril (who was the third to bear that name), Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, when Serapion was installed as Bishop of Vladimir (in the year 6782 of the creation of the world, and in the year 1274 of the Incarnation of the Word of God), the following bishops were present at that installation: Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Rostov; Theodotus of Pereyaslav; and Simeon of Polotsk; these bishops confirmed the newly ordained bishop, stipulating that the newly ordained priest should give seven hryvnias to the choir members.

In the book *The Correct Old Manuscript*, in the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in Canon 22, and according to its interpretation, the following is written:[610] : Those coming to the sacrament of Holy Orders for ordination shall be brought before the local bishop. Such candidates are to be provided with all necessary expenses: for candles, for (church) wine, for incense, for prosphora, for the priests’ services, for other expenses, and for the bishop’s meal. Such offerings shall not be slandered or criticized, for no harm is done in these matters, and ordination takes place immediately, as Christ said: “You have received immediately; give immediately.” For it is one thing to take a fee for ordination—that is, to sell and buy sacred ranks—and another thing to provide offerings and expenses. For there is no buying or selling here, and this practice is found everywhere; those of sound mind have no objection to it, as the Apostle also says: “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? But he receives his provisions from those for whom he serves.” Or who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Am I speaking of human food? No—does not the law itself say this? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” (that is, do not prevent the animal laboring for you from eating; feed it). Does God speak about oxen, or does He speak for our sake? For it was written for our sake: “[611] .” And again: “If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?”[612]

Let us recall the following here:

In years past, during the era of the divided Russian principalities, which were under the rule of the Horde, certain heretics known as the Strigolniki rose up in the city of Pskov, (just as the present-day Kapitons Brynyans), who, uttering certain blasphemies against the Church of God, broke away from it and led many into their heretical obstinacy. Among other blasphemies, they denounced the clergy for the sake of tithes, as if ecclesiastical ranks were obtained through bribery; and for this reason they shunned the priests and the Church. Upon learning of this, His Holiness Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople (who at that time was in dispute with Saint Alexius, the Metropolitan, and Roman, the Bishop, over the See of Kyiv), the patriarch wrote an exhortatory letter to the people of Pskov; this letter is found in the old handwritten canons, inserted between the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, between the 22nd and 23rd canons, which we present here.

Letter of His Holiness Philotheos, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Noble and honorable boyars, men of Pskov, my son the posadnik, the thousanders, the centurions, and all my children, the people named after Christ, subject to the Holy Metropolis of All Russia, in the Russian city of Pskov and within its borders, children beloved by the Lord of our humility—for I call you all sons and children! And also those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church and have fallen away from Christian communion through the work of the evil devil. Having learned of our humility, and of the great Holy Hierarchs who are with us, the Divine Council—for some of you, under the pretense of piety, claiming to uphold the Divine Scriptures and the sacred canons, have separated yourselves from the Ecumenical Apostolic Church, regarding me, the holy bishops and priests, and all the clergy, as well as the rest of the Christian people—both those who ordain and those who are ordained—as heretics, while considering only themselves to be orthodox. Having heard this, we were deeply grieved in our hearts and suffered inwardly at the severing of the members of Christ. For what sicknesses and sorrows can we not have, hearing that our members are being cut off by the enemy of the truth, the murderer from the beginning, the adversary of our nature? For such is his nature always: when he cannot attack openly, he plots secretly, deceiving those on the right. Thus he has introduced every heresy into the Church of Christ; for after Christ’s coming in the flesh, all idolatry ceased without notice, and the devil had no place to subjugate people to idolatry: he set out to attack from the right, for he cannot openly deceive—since many worship a god whom some have taught to call the Son of God a creature: in this way, he has introduced other heresies from the right. Today, however, we see this happening among you as well: people are gradually turning away from Christianity and from the sacramental ordination that bishops and priests confer upon the people—without which no one can hope for salvation, even if they lived on earth like angels: This false slander is being sown among you, designed to make you believe that the Church of God is established for the sake of gain. And which wicked demon has so deceived them that they would accept such a thing? For the Church of God, which is Christ’s, Catholic, and Apostolic, existing from one end of the earth to the other, is firmly and unshakably established in the true faith by the grace and power of Christ our God Himself, and its existence and structure are clearly set forth in the sacred canons. But those who appoint for a fee, as if selling the unsaleable grace of the Holy Spirit, we count among Simon, Macedonia, and the other heretics. For the Church of Christ always acts in this wise. If, however, there are a few who commit this wickedness and dare to ordain for a fee, they do not belong to the catholic Church: for they are few, acting in secret; but when they are exposed, they are forbidden, condemned by the Church, and cast out. Even if there are a few bishops who ordain for a bribe, one must not for this reason separate oneself from the Church or regard them all as heretics, but rather remain united with the Church and participate in the Eucharist. As for a bishop who acts wickedly, report him to your metropolitan; and if he does not make amends, he will be punished by our humility, which God has established as the Father, Teacher, and Patriarch of the entire universe, Constantinople. For this reason we write and make known to you in a fatherly manner, as to our own children, as members of the Church, as the flock of Christ Himself—the Head of the entire Church—that you cease from strife and division; and, having united in one mind with the ecclesiastical order, offer glory to God in harmony. For the Church of Christ is glorified in orthodoxy and in a pure life; but any office held for the sake of gain is clearly called ungodliness. Those who are appointed often make a profit for themselves—from candles, wine, incense, other offerings, and meals. Such practices do not harm these people; for the office is temporary, as Christ said: “What you have received, you will give away.” For sometimes it is necessary to receive a stipend for the office, and at other times to provide for necessary needs. We also find our Lord God Jesus Christ entering many homes with His disciples, being received with honor, teaching the true word and wisdom, and performing many miracles, receiving what was offered to Him. For when He entered the house of Matthew the tax collector, they prepared a great feast for Him. And when He entered the house of Mary and Martha, Martha was busy with many tasks; and you will find many other such examples. The divine Apostle Paul, citing the Law of Moses— —said, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” ([613] ). Likewise, interpreting the meaning of the divine Scripture, he said, “Does God care about oxen? But He speaks to us in every way.” Likewise, those who serve at the sanctuary eat from the sanctuary, and those who minister at the altar share in the offerings of the altar. In the same way, God has commanded that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?[614] Many, however, desire to attain such things and to possess them in divine matters; yet, being of sound mind and good conscience, they do nothing to hinder the order established—which is carried out now, without reward: therefore, understanding all this, strive to correct what has been wrong. For this reason, we humbly send our message to the great council and to the God-loving Archbishop of Suzdal, Dionysius, a man of honor, piety, and virtue, and a well-known guardian of the sacred Canons, may he see you on our behalf, and bless you, instruct you, rebuke you, admonish you, and arrange and unite you as befits the Apostolic Church of God. Know this: whoever separates himself from the Church separates himself from Christ God Himself; he has no share or lot, neither in this life nor in the life to come. For to which church, then, shall they cling? If, by your own fault, you separate yourselves from your church as a punishment for your transgression and cut yourselves off as heretics, then Christ would have no church on earth today according to your words, and the saying, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” would be a lie. But this is not a lie; let it not be so. Therefore, having come to know the way of salvation and having been united with your brothers, may you be united in one spirit to glorify God, whose grace and mercy be with you all. We have written this briefly, omitting much; but we have entrusted the greater part to Archbishop Dionysius. Whatever he tells you in person, accept it as our word. And we ask that you write to us, so that we may know of the restoration that has taken place by the grace of God, and we may glorify God and rejoice over their return and their repentance, over which both angels and men rejoice, according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. May we all receive His mercy and love in this life and in the life to come. Thus ends the patriarchal letter.

Furthermore, in the year 6883 since the creation of the world, and in the year 1375 since the Incarnation of God the Word, the orthodox people, zealous for piety, put to death the Strigolnik heretics: the deacon Nikita, the simple man Karpa, and a third man with them, and cast them from the bridge, those debauched ones! who were once holy martyrs of Christ. However, their heresy did not perish immediately, but persisted until the days of His Holiness Photius, Metropolitan of All Russia, who assumed the throne in the year 6917 of the world’s existence, and in the year 1409 of the Incarnation of God the Word; and he, too, wrote an exhortatory letter to the people of Pskov, which we do not reproduce here in its entirety due to its length, but will briefly mention certain passages from it.

His Holiness Photius, the Metropolitan, writes these words in his letter to the people of Pskov:

I have heard, to my great humility, of your piety from the writings of your priests, and I have rejoiced; but concerning those who have strayed from God’s law and Orthodoxy—those called the Strigolniki—I am troubled, my children; my heart grieves greatly, and my mind is constantly preoccupied with them. And I have searched the divine precepts and written to you, and for the sake of reassuring those among you who are of the Orthodox faith—those called “Strigolnitsy”— who have been clouded by the devil’s delusion and blinded by the heresy of his deceit, and who do not know the true light of Christ, nor understand His righteous judgments, nor see His true ways, and so on. It also states the following: even if someone were to speak most blasphemously against a bishop or a priest, no one should be excluded from receiving Communion from them until a true trial has taken place, and so on.

As for the taxes, it states as follows: The decree of the great Justinian commands that a tax be paid for the ordination of priests. The ever-memorable Emperor Isaac Komnenos, having written this along with other matters, said: “Our kingdom decrees that the priestly office shall be administered according to the established ancient customs, so that nothing more than 7 zlatics may be taken from the office.” Confirming these ancient statutes, the synodal council convened by Patriarch Michael—a preeminent philosopher—likewise established, affirmed, and sealed them. And another conciliar decree, issued by Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople, likewise commands, and likewise—as previously written—that the same amount be stipulated for ordinations.

As for the rest of what is written in that letter, let him who wishes to know it read it in the same book and in the same place where the letter of His Holiness Patriarch Philotheos is included.

We, having presented such evidence regarding the sinlessness of the appointed duties, declare: If the Orthodox (as we have heard) kings and Patriarchs of Constantinople, and the ancient Russian bishops , have established the offering for the ordination; for that offering is not a wage, but a prescribed duty. And since it is not a wage, it does not prevent the Holy Spirit from descending upon the holy gifts, from performing the transubstantiation, and from administering the other sacraments.

Chapter 29. On the Life of a Priest

Does a dissolute priestly life prevent the Holy Spirit from descending upon the holy gifts and performing the consecration?

I ask:

When a priest performs the divine service, does he offer himself as a sacrifice to God the Father for the sins of the whole world, or does he offer the Son of God? Truly, the Son of God, and not himself; for the priest cannot be the sacrifice offered for the sins of the whole world, but only the Son of God Himself, of whom it is spoken at the beginning of the Proskomedia: “The Lamb of God is sacrificed, taking away the sins of the world, for the life and salvation of the world.”

I ask again:

In the Holy Liturgy, when the Son of God is offered as a sacrifice to God the Father for the sins of the whole world, for whose sake does the Holy Spirit descend upon the offered sacrifice: for the sake of the priest, or for the sake of the Son of God? Truly, for the sake of the Son of God; for God the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, looks more upon His Son who is offered than upon the priest who offers Him, even though the latter is also worthy not to be deemed unworthy of God’s gaze.

For I say:

If the priest were to offer himself as a sacrifice, and if the Holy Spirit were to descend for the priest’s sake, then indeed the priest’s corrupt way of life would be an obstacle to the coming of the Holy Spirit. But since the Son of God is offered as a sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit comes for the sake of the Son of God, what hindrance could a priest’s corrupt life possibly present to the Holy Spirit, preventing Him from coming upon the offered gifts and transforming them into the body and blood of the Son of God?

You might say:

The sacrifice of the righteous Abel was pleasing to God, but the sacrifice of the sinful Cain was not. It is fitting, therefore, for a priest to live a righteous and holy life, so that the sacrifice he offers may be pleasing to God; but if the priest is sinful, the sacrifice—whether it is a sacrifice or not—is not pleasing to God, just as Cain’s was not.

I reply:

In the Old Testament, God looked upon the one offering the sacrifice, not upon the offering itself, and accepted the offering based on the devotion of the one offering it; thus it is written: “The Lord looked upon Abel and his offerings; He looked upon Abel first, and seeing his true love for God, He also looked upon his offerings” ([615] ). But where He did not see true love for God in the one offering, there He did not look upon the sacrifices offered either, for He says: “I will not accept from your house the calves, nor from your flocks the goats.” “Do I eat the flesh of calves, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of praise[616] :” and so on. And in the Old Covenant, the priest was greater than the sacrifice.

But now, in the new grace, it is not so. The priest is no longer greater than the sacrifice; rather, the sacrifice is greater than the priest. The priest is a human being; the sacrifice is the Son of God. The priest is a sinful man; the sacrifice is the Lamb, spotless and unblemished—Christ. And all of God the Father’s regard is upon the sacrifice, upon His only-begotten Son; and not upon the life of the priest who stands before the sacrifice and ministers it. Nor is the sacrifice offered pleasing to God because of the priest’s righteous life; but because the Son of God Himself is offered as a sacrifice to God the Father. For whether the priest is righteous or sinful, the sacrifice remains a sacrifice pleasing to God, standing unhindered before the Holy Spirit and performing the sacrament.

A virtuous life is truly necessary for the priest’s ministry, so that, like a visible angel, he may stand with the invisible angels before the bloodless sacrifice. And every priest must, to the best of his ability, strive for this, that he may stand before the altar of God pure and worthy, lest he face judgment and torment. For God loves priests who serve Him with purity, and prepares a reward for them in heaven; but those who dare to approach the service while impure and unworthy, He will deliver to torment. However, even a priest’s sinful life is no obstacle to the Holy Spirit’s work of sanctifying and consummating the Holy Gifts: all the Church Fathers unanimously affirm this.

As evidence of this truth, let us cite, among many holy fathers, Saint John Chrysostom. In his homilies on Paul’s epistles, in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter 1, homily 2, he declares [617] : that the offering is true, even if the one offering it leads an impure life, and he says: God worked through the Ark when He wished to save the people. For is it the priestly life? Is it virtue that brings about such a thing? It is not possible for such things—which God grants through priestly virtue—to be accomplished by grace alone; it is up to the priest to open his mouth, yet God does the work; you merely fulfill this role. And again he says: “I wish to say something wonderful, but do not be surprised, nor be troubled.” What is this? The offering is the same, even if it is brought by a chance visitor. We, however, heed the words of Chrysostom: “Even if a mere passerby were to offer it—that is, even if the priest were of a wicked life—the offering is still the same; it is the very same sacrifice, not a different one, just as it is with any holy man”; and he says: “Whether Paul or Peter [offers it], it is the same [offering] that Christ gave to His disciples, and which priests now perform; and this is in no way inferior to that one, for this, too, is not consecrated by men, but by the One Himself who consecrated that one.” For just as the words that God spoke are the very same words that the priest speaks today, so too is the offering the same. Thus far, St. Chrysostom.

Furthermore, to confirm this truth, let us also cite here the story of the Venerable Mark the Clairvoyant, about whom the Prologue, on the 10th day of March, writes as follows:

It is said of Mark, the Egyptian monk, that he remained in his cell for thirty years without leaving it. It was the custom for a presbyter to come to him, and after celebrating the Divine Liturgy, he would administer the Holy Mysteries to him. But the devil, envying the elder’s virtues and patience, desired to lead him into temptation; and he brought to him a man possessed by an evil spirit, as if to receive prayer and a blessing; But the man, who had been instructed by the devil, said to the elder first of all: “Your presbyter is full of every kind of sinful filth; do not let him come near you anymore.” But Mark, the man inspired by God, said to him: “My child! All people cast out filth; but you have come to me. And it is written: ‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.’ Yet even if he is a sinner, God will save him. For it is written: ‘Pray for one another, and you will be healed.’” Having said this, the elder offered a prayer, cast the demon out of the man, and sent him away in good health. And when the presbyter arrived, the elder welcomed him with joy. The good God, seeing the elder’s kindness, showed him a sign; For as the presbyter was about to stand before the holy altar, the elder saw the Angel of the Lord descend from heaven, lay his hand upon the presbyter’s head, and immediately the presbyter became like a pillar of fire. As the elder marveled at the vision, a voice spoke to him, saying: “O man! Why do you marvel at this?” For if an earthly king does not wish his nobles to appear before him in a state of impurity, but rather in purity and with great glory, how much more will the King of Heaven purify those who minister the holy mysteries and stand before His throne? Truly, He will purify them and illuminate them with heavenly glory. Seeing this, the Venerable Mark told everyone that no one should condemn a priest for his sin; for priests are God’s intercessors and co-ministers with the angels.

A similar account is found in the Skete Paterikon, in Chapter 9: A presbyter from the monastery would visit any hermit to administer the Holy Mysteries to him. But once, when someone came to the hermit, he slandered the presbyter, calling him a sinner. But when the presbyter came, as was his custom, to administer the sacraments, the hermit would not open the door to him, deeming him unworthy, and the presbyter turned back. And a voice was heard from above, speaking to the hermit: “Men have taken my judgment.” And the hermit was as if in ecstasy, and he saw a fine spring, a golden bucket, a golden spout, and water that was very pure; and he saw a certain leper drawing water from the spring with that golden bucket and pouring it out. Though he wanted to drink when he saw this, he did not drink, for the one drawing the water was a leper. And again a voice came to him, saying, “Why do you not drink this good water? What sin is there in the leper who draws it?” The hermit then came to his senses, discerned the power of the vision, called the presbyter to offer the holy sacrifice as before, and received the most pure sacraments from his hand.

From these arguments and testimonies it is clearly evident that a corrupt priestly life is no obstacle to the grace of the Holy Spirit descending upon the holy gifts and perfecting them.

We have indeed investigated the most pure Divine mysteries and have found this:

Neither the four-pointed cross stamped on the prosphora,

nor the newly published Liturgy books,

Nor the prescribed fee for priestly ordination.

Nor does a priest’s dissolute life prevent the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the sacrifice offered.

For in vain do the schismatics blaspheme the most pure Divine Mysteries and abhor them as if they were some kind of defilement.

Chapter 30. On the Holy Lamb, Sacrificed and Slaughtered

Their schismatic scroll, however, blasphemes the Divine mysteries and the bloodless sacrifice we offer, and reviles the consecration, in which we cut and slaughter the Lamb of Bread, saying: “The Lamb of God is being eaten,” and so on. And again: “One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear,” and so on. Mocking this act, that blasphemous scroll of theirs writes thus: “The Lord (they say) was pierced once in the side with a spear on the cross, and then blood and water flowed out; for Jesus tasted death on the cross, a piercing on the cross—that is, in the side. Understand this: it is impossible for any man to be killed twice or more; everyone tastes deadly death only once. And again below: “For who can kill a man who has already been killed many times?” Thus far the Scroll.

Let every orthodox believer listen here and understand the schismatic, mad mind—by what spirit, by what thought—they speak these things. Do they not reason with a heretical spirit, so that the true Body of Christ might not be present in the sacrifice we offer and celebrate? As if Christ, having been sacrificed once on the cross and pierced with a spear, is no longer offered for the salvation of the world; and the sacrifice performed by the priests is not a sacrifice at all.

I would not wish to respond at all to their foolish reasoning, as it is unworthy; for it is written: “I will not reveal your secrets to your enemies.” But that grievous blasphemy against the divine mysteries, uttered by them, stirs me to zeal; and the office of a bishop commands me not to remain silent, but to defend the honor of the most holy mystery. Let their wicked blasphemy be refuted, and let them be put to shame; I am compelled, though unwilling (for necessity even overrides the law), to briefly explain to them some of the mysteries that take place in the Divine Sacrifice—mysteries which they are not worthy to hear or understand. Let them know, however, that even Balaam, the sorcerer and idolater, was unworthy of the angelic apparition—though it was necessary—to silence his mouth, which sought to blaspheme and curse Israel: the Angel of the Lord appeared to him with a drawn sword and forbade him to blaspheme or curse Israel [618] .

May the blasphemous, schismatic mouths here also be silenced—those that blaspheme Christ the Lord Himself in His most pure mysteries: let our response to them be the revelation of the mystery of the Divine Sacrifice, like a sword that strikes and cuts off their heretical blasphemy.

1) The Mystery of the Divine Sacrifice.

The Divine Sacrifice, performed through the sacred rite, is not the killing or the actual death of the immortal Christ our God, who is glorified in heaven and reigns with the Father in the flesh for ever and ever; of whom the Apostle says: “Christ has been raised from the dead, and He dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him[619] ; but it is a remembrance of His former slaughter and death. And when a portion is consumed on the diskos—taken from the prosphora in the likeness of Christ’s body and called the Lamb—it is consumed in remembrance of the Lamb of God Himself, Christ, who was sacrificed on the cross for us. And when a portion called the “Lamb” is pierced with a spear on the diskos, it is pierced in remembrance of the Lamb of God Himself, Christ, who was pierced in the side with a spear on the cross for our sake. Christ the Lord Himself commanded the holy Apostles to do this, saying: “Do this in remembrance of Me”[620] . Hear, O blasphemers, and listen to what the Lord says: He did not say, “Do this in remembrance of my second killing, of my sacrifice,” but “in remembrance of me”—that is, in remembrance of my voluntary suffering and death, in remembrance of my previous killing and sacrifice at the hands of the Jews. For this reason, Saint Basil the Great, speaking on behalf of Christ in his Liturgy, says: “Do this in remembrance of me”; for whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim my death and confess my resurrection. And Saint Chrysostom, in his Liturgy, praying to Christ, says: “For we commemorate this saving commandment and all that has befallen us : the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, and so on.” Thus, you wretched blasphemers see that the Divine Sacrifice we offer does not kill Christ, but commemorates His prior killing at the hands of the Jews.

2) The Mystery of the Divine Sacrifice.

That portion which is taken from the prosphora at the beginning of the Proskomedia, and called the Lamb, and placed on the holy disk in the likeness of Christ’s body—when it is cut and slaughtered, it is not Christ’s very body that is cut and slaughtered, but mere bread, not yet transubstantiated into Christ’s body, but merely bearing the likeness of Christ’s body. Now, if an image of someone is drawn on something, and that image is cut and slaughtered, does a living person suffer in his body from the cutting and slaughtering of his drawn image? By no means. Likewise, Christ the Lord, with His glorified Body—which is no longer subject to any suffering and is immortal—suffers nothing nor dies when the image of His Body, the Bread of the Lamb, is cut and sacrificed during the Proskomedia.

3) The Mystery of the Divine Sacrifice.

Not only before the transubstantiation of the bread offered on the paten into the Body of Christ—Christ, being present in it as His image, suffers nothing when it is cut and sacrificed— but since that bread has already been transformed by the action of the Holy Spirit and is no longer mere bread but truly the Body of Christ under the appearance of bread, Christ suffers no suffering whatsoever when He is broken and consumed. For He suffered only once in His flesh for us on the cross; but after His resurrection, He is no longer subject to suffering. And just as then, during His voluntary suffering, His divinity—which was ever with Him—suffered nothing, so now His humanity, glorified by impassibility and immortality, suffers nothing in the Divine Sacrifice that is being performed; for the Divine Sacrifice of Christ that we perform does not kill or slay Him a second time.

4) The Mystery of the Divine Sacrifice

In the Divine Sacrifice that we offer and perform through the sacred rite, although our Lord Christ suffers nothing in His flesh nor is He put to death, He is nevertheless pierced and slain, and His blood is shed without any suffering on His part, as was revealed to the holy fathers of old through divine revelations. Hear what the Venerable Ephrem writes in Homily 86 about an elder to whom a revelation concerning the divine mysteries was given:[621] : “I saw,” says the elder, “the heavens opened, and fire descending with a multitude of holy angels; and above them were two beautiful faces, the goodness of which cannot be described, for their light was like lightning; and in the midst of the two faces was a little child.” For the angels stood around the holy table, and those two faces were above the holy table, with the child in their midst. And when the celebration of the Divine Mysteries was drawing to a close, and the deacons approached to break the bread of the offering, I saw (says the elder) two faces that were above the holy table. They bound the hands and feet of the boy who was above them; and they took a knife, slaughtered the boy, and poured his blood into a chalice that was on the holy table; and having cut up his body, they placed it upon the bread, and the bread became his body. And read the rest of what is written there up to the point where it is written that, after the celebration of the Holy Liturgy, those divine powers were seen ascending to heaven, and the boy was in their midst, alive and not dead. Similarly, in the Life of the Venerable Arsenius the Great, it is written [622] : To a certain brother who doubted the divine mysteries, two great elders prayed to God for him with fasting for a whole week; and when they stood together with him in the church in one place during the Divine Liturgy, their eyes were opened, and when the bread was placed on the holy table, they saw a small child; But when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, they saw the Angel of the Lord descending from heaven, holding a knife in his hand, with which he slaughtered the boy and poured his blood into the chalice; and as the priest was breaking the bread, the Angel was tearing the body into pieces. And when the brethren came to partake of the holy mysteries, an unbelieving brother also came, and took in his hand raw and bloody meat, and saw blood in the cup as well; and, being afraid, he cried out, saying, “I believe, O Lord, that the bread is Your body, and the wine is Your blood.” And immediately the meat became bread, and the blood became wine, and he received Communion with great fear and deep emotion. Such a revelation occurred not only to the worthy but also to the unworthy, by God’s will. In the Prologue, on the 26th day of November, it is written: In the city of Diospolis, the brother of the Saracen king Nunermia entered the Church of Saint George and saw the priest celebrating the Holy Liturgy; he slaughtered a lamb, poured its blood into the chalice, and broke its body onto the plate; and after the Liturgy had ended, all the people ate the flesh and drank the blood. Likewise, in the * * (Life of Saint Basil the Great), it is written [623] : while he was celebrating the Divine Liturgy, a certain Jew, wishing to learn about the holy mysteries in place of a Christian, mingled with the faithful, entered the church, and saw Saint Basil holding a child in his hand and breaking it apart; As the faithful were receiving Communion from the saint’s hand, the Jew approached, and the saint offered him, just as he did to the other Christians, a portion of the holy gifts; the Jew took it in his hand and saw that it was true flesh; then, approaching the chalice, he saw that there was true blood in it.

Behold, you wretched blasphemers, how Christ our Lord, in His divine mysteries, is truly present under the appearance of bread and wine—broken, slain, and shedding His blood for our salvation; yet He is not subject to suffering, neither is He killed nor put to death, but is ever-living, and never consumed by poison. These mysteries of the Divine Sacrifice—few among many, and briefly explained to you—may silence your blasphemous, heretical mouths, O foolish schismatics, who blaspheme, as if we were celebrating the Divine Liturgy with the intention of piercing, killing, and slaying Christ a second time or many times over; and reviling us—and even Christ Himself in the Divine Sacrifice—you say: “How is it possible to kill a man who has already been killed once?” By what words do you express your heresy, as if Christ, having been sacrificed once on the cross and pierced with a spear, is no longer offered for the salvation of the world? And if this were so, according to your foolish heretical reasoning, then for what reason would Christ have commanded the holy Apostles, saying, “Do this in remembrance of me”? For what reason would Saint James, the brother of God, and Saint Basil the Great, and Saint John Chrysostom (in whose faith you yourselves believe) have composed their own liturgies? But you, O most foolish ones, have strayed far from the path of truth and are perishing, yet you refuse to see your own destruction.

Chapter 31. Further Schismatic Blasphemy Against the Divine Mysteries

Only the schismatic blasphemy against the divine mysteries reaches our ears, and they do not even shrink from calling it the abomination of desolation. And already, in their insane reasoning, they conceive not just one abomination of desolation, but they call the four-pointed cross, our holy churches, and even the divine mysteries themselves “abominations of desolation.” For we have already sufficiently refuted their first blasphemies, those directed against the churches and the four-pointed cross. But we are ready to respond to these grave and godless blasphemies against the Divine Mysteries. Yet first we wish to hear from them the reason why they call the Divine Mysteries an “abomination of desolation,” for who can judge a fault that has not been made clear? Let them tell us first, then, why the Divine Mysteries are an abomination of desolation? Is it not truly the ordinance of Christ, handed down by Him to the holy Apostles and to all the faithful, and to be carried out until “[624] ” comes? Has the power of God failed, and has the Holy Spirit ceased to act? Did Chrysostom lie when he said [625] : “The offering is the same as that which Christ gave to His disciples, and which priests now perform; and it is in no way inferior to that one, for this, too, is not sanctified by men, but by the One Himself who sanctified that one as well”—and so on, as we have already said? But the wretched ones cannot say anything of the sort, nor can they find any true fault, except a false and blasphemous one, for they are accustomed to lying, blaspheming, and barking like rabid dogs at the divine sanctuary. For Christ Himself, our God, is true in His holy divine mysteries, and when He is blasphemed by them—which is grievous—He Himself answers them through His blasphemer at that time, when the Jews look upon Him whom they pierced, and when these schismatics look upon Him whom they blasphemed and reviled in those divine mysteries, calling Him the “abomination of desolation.”

Chapter 32. Their Blasphemy Against the Office of the Bishop

Furthermore, the schismatics blaspheme against the office of the bishop, slandering as if the bishops were buying their own holy office.

I reply:

As for former times, as was the custom in the imperial city of Moscow, we, having been summoned from the lands of Kiev, neither know nor inquire into matters that are of no concern to us. Nowadays, however, it is not heard that those in authority— —demand any payment from those being elevated to the rank of bishop; but by the grace of God, each receives his rank according to his own merit. And I, a sinner, though unworthy of this holy episcopal office, have nevertheless been deemed worthy by God’s will. I have been deemed worthy—not by my own desire, nor by my own seeking, nor by payment; God is my witness (and I say with the Apostle), to whom I serve with my spirit[626] ; but by God’s providence and design, I have been called by the decree of the great Sovereign. And when I speak of myself, I also speak of my fellow bishops, who were likewise called from there and elevated to the episcopal rank; it is known to all that they, too, received the episcopal office not for a fee, but by God’s good pleasure and by the sovereign’s will, in accordance with their own worth. But if any of those here before us sought power through bribery, what concern is that to us? We look to ourselves. Know, then, that because of one or two individuals who have sinned by simony, the entire Church of Christ does not crumble, nor does it fall. And among the Apostles who were with Christ there was Judas the traitor; yet the Apostolic College was not destroyed because of him. Just as among the wheat, as long as it remains in the field unharvested, it is impossible for there not to be tares mixed in with it; yet the wheat remains wheat, and is not cast aside by its master because of the few tares found among it, but is left until the harvest; then the master will command the reapers to gather the wheat into his barn, but to burn the weeds in the fire. Likewise, in the Holy Church, as long as it remains like wheat in the field in this world of sorrow, it is impossible not to find the wicked among the good. However, for their sake, Christ the Lord does not forsake His Church, nor will He forsake it until the end of the age, as He has promised, saying: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” ([627] ). But when the harvest—the dreadful judgment—comes, then He will separate the wicked from the righteous, just as the tares are separated from the wheat. We, however, take heed: if Christ Himself does not abandon His Church, even though the wicked are found among the righteous, how much more unbecoming is it for a faithful Christian to separate himself from the Holy Church because of certain former bishops who sought their office for gain—men whom we neither know nor wish to know. Likewise, it is not fitting for anyone to revile the episcopal office because of certain bishops who have sinned. Does anyone revile the Apostolic Order because of Judas, who was found among the Apostles?

In the schismatic tract, those who blaspheme and revile the episcopal office have depicted the faces of demons holding episcopal staffs, as if in these present times it were not true shepherds who shepherd the Church of Christ, but demons. By such scheming, they have refused to reveal their own shepherds—who are demons—who lead them in their hermitages not toward eternal life, but toward eternal death. For each of their schismatic monasteries, which maintains a distinct faith of its own, is a gathering of Satan, and has its own distinct shepherd—a demon. Since they sought to bring blasphemy upon us, they have thereby exposed themselves.

Chapter 33. The Two Principal Blasphemies of the Schismatics Against the Church of God Are Refuted

But let us not continue to respond to all their slanders; we will disregard others as unworthy of a reply. We will only say this much: among all their blasphemies against the Church of God, these two are the most serious:

1) As if God’s grace had departed from the Church, and as if it were now without God’s grace;

2) and as if it were filled with heresies.

To this I reply briefly:

If God’s grace has departed from the Holy Church, then where are the true words of Christ our God, spoken by His most pure lips: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age”?

Again:

If the Church is now filled with heresies, then where are the words of Christ spoken to Saint Peter, who confessed that Christ is the Son of the living God: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ([628] )?

Having said this, I ask:

Are the words of Christ false, or not? Truly, they are not false. The Lord is faithful in all His words[629] . Heaven and earth will pass away, but the words of the Lord will never pass away[630] ; they will not fail.

For the grace of the Lord has not departed from the Church, in which Christ is present until the end of the age: for where Christ is, there is His grace.

For the Church is not filled with heresies, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. For if she were to accept any heresies within herself, then the gates of hell would already have prevailed against her, and the words of Christ would not be true. But He has granted His Church firm infallibility, as the Apostle says: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” ([631] ).

But the accursed Brynians, those schismatics, do not hesitate to distort the words of Christ—the words of God, the words of truth—into lies; they place their own heretical blasphemies and lies above the words of Christ, as if they were truer, the earth, the void, dust, and ashes, rather than Christ, the Son of God and our God; and they strive to present their foolish, peasant-like reasoning to the simple people as more convincing than the power of God and the wisdom of God. And who will not laugh at their folly? And who will not grieve at the grievous blasphemies against the Church of God, which flow from their corrupt minds and mouths as if from the abyss of hell? And who will not grieve even more for their own delusion and destruction—both those who deceive and those who are deceived? For the Church is like a lofty rock standing in the midst of the sea, and though battered by the waves of the sea day and night, it remains unharmed; but the blasphemers, like waves crashing against the rock, vanish without a trace. The Church will be glorified, but they will be put to shame; the Church will reign with Christ as its Head, but they will be cast into the abyss of Gehenna with their leader, the devil; the Church will triumph forever in heaven, but they will weep and wail forever in the underground chambers of hell. And who can thoroughly expose and denounce their blasphemies against the Holy Church, against the clergy, and against every ecclesiastical sanctuary—which are innumerable? Let the aforementioned suffice to reveal their lies, heresy, and malice, which they have borrowed from the devil himself.

Behold, O beloved orthodox people, true sheep of Christ’s flock, and sincere children of His Holy Church, we have shattered with sound reasoning another fruit of Bryn’s garden—their teaching—and through genuine investigation have ascertained these three things:

1) Is their teaching not false?

2) Is their teaching not heretical?

3) Is there no blasphemy against holy things in their teachings?

And we found in that fruit, just as in the colorful apple of Sodom, not a sweet taste, but foul dust and ashes; we found, I say, that their teaching is

false.

heretical,

and full of blasphemy.

For their teachings are not beneficial to the soul, but harmful to it.

Part III. On Schismatic Matters

1. On the Severity of Schismatic Cases

The Investigation of Schismatic Matters.

I do not wish to speak here of secret and unknown human affairs, nor of sins committed either out of weakness or ignorance, which do not cause strife against the Church of Christ. Let not my lips speak of such human affairs[632] ; for who has appointed me as a judge over them? For I, too, am a sinner and subject to human frailty; for even the holy Elijah (according to the words of James) was a man subject to the same nature as we are [633] ; how much more so are we sinners. It is enough for each person to examine their own sins; there is one common Judge for all, our Lord, who will judge both the living and the dead.

But I speak of those deeds which are openly committed against the Holy Church of Christ. And they are not committed out of weakness, but out of the devil’s malice; nor out of ignorance, but deliberately out of stubbornness; it is of such deeds that we must speak.

The essence of these deeds, as we hear, is that they are (in human estimation) good deeds: many acts of penance, prolonged prayers, numerous prostrations, sobriety and abstinence from intoxicating drinks, and from eating meat and fish, and their very desert life (as if in imitation of the Holy Fathers), and other feats and labors, which they believe please God—and which we do not condemn—but let the all-seeing God judge them.

But since it has come to our ears that they boast, exalting themselves above the Church of Christ, boasting of their ascetic feats and labors of prayer and fasting—while they rebuke us for our eating and drinking and for our entire way of life as sinners, considering themselves to be saints— It is therefore necessary for us to examine their good deeds as well as their evil ones; for by their evil deeds they openly oppose the holy Church of Christ, while their so-called good deeds, in truth, like pigs rooting with their snouts, undermine the Church, deceiving many of the common people with their hypocrisy.

Speaking generally of deeds—both evil and good—let us examine them.

Deeds in human beings are generally of two kinds: some are good, and some are evil.

Evil deeds are always evil; they can never be good, just as soot cannot be snow, mud cannot be gold, and bile cannot be honey.

As for good deeds:

i) Sometimes they appear to be entirely good, yet their pleasingness to God is unknown.

2) Sometimes they appear to be good but are in fact very evil and displeasing to God.

3) Sometimes they are truly good, yet fruitless, not deserving of salvation.

First, then, let us briefly examine good deeds.

Article One

On Good Deeds.

Chapter 2. On Deeds That Are Supposed to Be Good but Whose Pleasingness to God Is Unknown

1) A discussion of deeds that appear to be good but whose acceptance by God is unknown.

Good deeds that please God are described in Divine Scripture: some in God’s commandments, some in the teachings of the Gospel and the Apostles, and some in the books of the Church Fathers and on fasting; and we have countless examples of what pleases God in the lives of the saints, whom we ought to imitate to the best of our ability, and we can see them in virtuous men living among us; but we ourselves cannot truly know within ourselves whether what we do pleases God. For if a person knew that his deeds were pleasing to God, he would also be certain of his own salvation. But just as no one can boast of knowing whether his deeds please God, so too no one can boast of being certain of his own salvation. Let us not despair of our salvation; we have hope in God, who desires all to be saved: but none of us can say, “I have pleased God, I am among the saved, my deeds are good and pleasing to the Lord.” The Reader says: Who will boast of having a pure heart? Or who will dare to claim to be free from sin [634] ? We strive, as much as we can, to guard ourselves from provoking God’s wrath; we labor, as much as our feeble strength—strengthened by God’s help—can bear, so that we may appear acceptable before the face of Christ. But all our deeds and labors cannot prove that we are loved by God. The Church Father speaks beautifully on this, saying: “The righteous and the wise, and their deeds, are in God’s hands; but love and hatred are not seen by man”[635] . This passage is explained more clearly in the translation as follows: “The righteous and the wise, and their deeds, are in God’s hands; yet no one knows whether he is worthy of love (from God) or of hatred.” Fasting is a good deed, but it is not pleasing or acceptable to God for one who fasts to the point of physical exhaustion; for God sometimes says: “This is not the kind of fasting I have chosen” ( ) ([636] ). And Saint Chrysostom explains in *The Pearl*, saying: “[637] ” What, then, is fasting, even if we fast? Is fasting defined as abstaining from food, or as abstaining from lust? For even if we abstain from physical food but do not abstain from the lust of the soul, such abstinence from food brings no comfort, but rather bears the fruit of malice. For if I abstain from bread but do not abstain from anger toward my neighbor, I am no longer a human being; for a beast acts in this way: a beast does not eat bread, but eats flesh [638] . It is a good thing not to drink intoxicating beverages, nor to eat meat or fish, for the sake of abstinence; but it is not the one who abstains from intoxicating drinks and from meat or fish that is pleasing and beloved to God, for, as Saint Chrysostom says: “If anyone does not drink wine or eat meat, let him not boast of this, for he has created nothing more than beasts.” For all animals do not eat meat or drink wine—neither the ox, nor the donkey, nor the sheep. It is a good deed for one who mortifies his flesh to lie down on the bare ground for a little sleep, but such a person is not pleasing or acceptable to God; for the same teacher says of such a one in the same sermon: If anyone lies on the ground, needing neither a bed nor a mat, but has only his own bones as a bed, let him not boast about this, nor take pride, as if he thought he were better than everyone else; for such things are the nature of beasts. For this is by no means admirable, but rather blasphemous; for if we, who are partakers of the Word, are worse than beasts, then… Up to here, Chrysostom. Continuous prayer is a good deed; but it is not the one who prolongs his prayerful singing for many hours who is pleasing and beloved to God; for the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: “It is not by many words that you will be heard” ([639] ). And Saint Theophylact, interpreting these words of the Lord, says: “It is not fitting to prolong prayers, but to pray often and speak little.” And again: excessive talk (in prayer) is idle chatter. But also in Chrysostom’s Commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostles, on page 1830, it is written in the margin: “He who speaks excessively in prayer is not praying, but engaging in idle chatter.” It is a good thing to impose many labors upon oneself, to dwell in desert hermitages, and to mortify one’s body in every way; but it is not certain that one pleases God by doing such things, nor is it known by what kind of labor one pleases Him. For we find in the books of the Fathers certain individuals who led lives of fasting, solitude, and hard work, completely mortifying their bodies, yet departed from this life without knowing whether they had been saved. St. John Climacus laments a certain hermit named Stephen [640] , who spent many years in the labors of the desert; wild beasts were tame toward him, for he would feed a leopard from his own hand in the desert: But as he was dying, he faced a terrible trial from menacing figures who appeared to him; while being tormented by them, he answered some of their questions well, but could not answer others; and it was truly a terrifying and dreadful vision, (says the Climber) an invisible and unforgiving trial. O wonder! The silent one and the hermit spoke of certain sins of his own, saying, “I have nothing to say against this”; having spent nearly forty years in monastic life, he wept: “Woe is me, woe is me!” And the Ladder concludes this account thus: “And thus, having been tested, he departed from this body.” He did not explicitly describe the judgment, the outcome, the response to it, or the conclusion of the trial. Thus far, the Ladder.

We, however, are filled with fear and dread regarding the uncertainty of our salvation, for we do not know whether our supposed good deeds are pleasing to God or not; whether we are worthy of His love or of His hatred. This word of God in the Psalms is terrifying: “When the time comes, I will judge with righteousness” ([641] ). It is not surprising that He will judge our sins; but it is terrifying that He will also judge our righteousness—that is, our good deeds: fasting, prayer, abstinence, sobriety, mortification, and many other acts of devotion—just as He will judge our sins. Why is this so? Because often even in our good deeds there is a certain sinfulness; for no one is perfect, and above all, it is customary for us to hide within our good deeds a self-righteous attitude, as if we please God and are already righteous and holy; a thought that, like a raging fire, destroys all our labors and deeds, and all our merits. And it is no wonder that a sinful person does not attain the kingdom of heaven: it will be a wonder to the one who is deemed righteous and holy here, yet is cast out from the kingdom of heaven there. It is no wonder that one who walks the broad path does not enter into life; it is a wonder that one who walks the narrow and sorrowful path should find death rather than life. It is no wonder that a drunkard or a glutton does not receive the enjoyment of heavenly blessings; it is a wonder that a fasting person, who never tastes intoxicating drink, should be deprived of the sweetness of heaven. It is no wonder that a person who is corpulent, sluggish, and obese cannot pass through the narrow gate of the heavenly abodes: it is strange that one who has dried up and emaciated his flesh through much abstinence and toil, and whose bones are covered only by skin, should fail to squeeze through that narrow entrance and find himself outside the heavenly dwellings. For when the righteous Judge begins to judge both our righteousness and our sins, He will find at that hour in every righteous person a certain hidden wickedness, which a person cannot see within himself—or rather, does not wish to see; for if we judged ourselves, (says the Apostle), we would not be condemned[642] . Our hidden crookedness, I say, will be revealed before the all-seeing Judge; for then (according to the Apostle’s words) the Lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the heart[643] . Once these are revealed, whose transgressions will not be found? What is purer than the rays of the sun, which illuminate the entire atmosphere? And when a ray of sunlight enters a temple through a window or a crack, how many particles of dust moving within it become visible! So too, in our good deeds, which are to be illuminated on the last day, how many of our weaknesses and shortcomings will be revealed! For who can be free from transgressions—if not by the deeds themselves, then at least by the willing desires of the mind? And how can anyone appear pure before God, before whom (as Job says) even the stars are impure: how much more so is man, who is but dung, and the son of man, a worm[644] ? Then we have boasted of our many good deeds, thinking ourselves to be holy and righteous; yet they will be revealed as sins that are displeasing and abominable to God: for whatever a person considers to be exalted in himself is an abomination before God. And all our righteousness, done with pride, lies before Him like filthy rags; we hear the prophet Isaiah saying: “All our righteousness is like filth”[645] . And so our good deeds, in which we place our prideful hope, are counted together with our sins and will be consigned to torment by God’s righteous judgment; for this reason, the Apostle wisely warns, saying: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”[646] . Not merely with fear, but also with trembling: “Serve the Lord with fear,” he says, “and rejoice before him with trembling” ([647] ). Even if you know for certain that you are standing on the path to salvation, still be afraid, for it is written: “Take heed that you may stand firm, so that you may not fall” ([648] ). Even if, through your deeds, you have attained such a high degree that you have received the gift of performing miracles—casting out demons, foretelling the future, and healing the sick—you must still fear; for the Lord Himself says in the Gospel: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness [649] .” O Lord, how dreadful are Your judgments! Who will not tremble in their heart, who will not quake in their soul upon hearing such a terrible response from God—not only directed at sinners, but also at certain miracle-workers who thought themselves to be saints, who preached the Gospel, cast out demons, and performed many miracles, all of which were attained not through idleness or laziness, but through many prayers, fasts, and labors, just as the Lord said concerning the casting out of demons: “This kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting” ([650] ); But the righteous Judge does not merely fail to regard the prayers, fasts, and other labors of those whom He does not favor as good deeds; He even calls them lawlessness, saying to those who have fasted, labored, and prayed: “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Why is this so? Is it not because of some secret, haughty opinion of himself? But who can know this? The Lord’s judgments are a deep abyss[651] . His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways are unfathomable. For who has understood the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?[652] . For this reason, David, standing aside from the judgments of the Lord, prays to Him: “Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no one living will be found righteous before You.”[653] .

Do not, therefore, boast of your own glory, and do not exalt yourself above the Church of Christ, Brynya, thinking yourself to be holy; nor speak at length of your deeds and labors, of your long prayers and many fasts, of drinking only water and kvass. For how can you know whether your so-called good deeds are pleasing to God or not? Forgive me, for I do not condemn your deeds, which are said to be good; but I do not approve of your pride and boasting: you have not risen from the earth, yet you imagine yourselves to stand higher than the heavens, while you cast us down into hell.

Chapter 3. On Hypocritical Deeds

2) A discussion of deeds that are thought to be good, yet in reality are great evils and displeasing to God.

Good deeds performed insincerely and hypocritically are not good, but evil: just as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is not a sheep, but merely takes on the appearance of a sheep, while in nature and disposition it remains a wolf; so too do such hypocritical deeds bear the appearance of holiness, piety, and godliness, while inwardly they are the very essence of evil, lawlessness, and blasphemy.

I will now reveal which evils are concealed under the hypocritical guise of good deeds.

The first evil is prideful vanity.

Another evil is futile labor.

The third evil is judging others.

The fourth evil is hypocrisy toward others.

The fifth and final evil is the bitter ruin of oneself and those who have been deceived.

Let everyone consider here whether that evil, hidden under the guise of hypocritical deeds, is small.

There is a great evil, hidden under the guise of good deeds: prideful vanity; for it opposes God Himself, who resists the proud. It opposes Him because it seeks not God’s glory but its own; it pleases not God but people, and labors not for God’s sake but for its own; so that it may be honored as holy, and people may praise it as a great servant of God. Such a person, when fasting, darkens his face so that he may appear to be fasting; when praying, he prays openly, prolonging his prayer so that people may see him praying [654] . And whatever good he does, he does not do it in secret but openly, so that he may be praised by people. For Christ our Savior likens such a person to a whitewashed tomb, saying to the hypocritical Pharisees in the Gospel: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” So also are you: on the outside you appear to be righteous people, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness [655] .

A great evil, disguised as good deeds performed hypocritically; the futility of labor, for all labor performed by man—fasting, prayer, and every act of devotion—is in vain. Here, human praise receives its reward, but in the age to come it will not be found; St. John Climacus [656] clearly reveals the futility of such labors, saying: Vanity is a waste of deeds, the ruin of sweat, a slander against treasure, a fence for unbelief, a precursor to contempt, a burning in the harbor, and an ant in the threshing floor; for ants are small, yet they slander every deed and its fruit. The ant awaits the wheat to ripen, and vanity awaits the gathering of (virtuous) wealth; for the ant rejoices to steal, while the vain person rejoices to squander. And again: The fasting of the vain is without reward, and prayer without gain; for he does both for the sake of human praise. The vain fasting person commits a double evil, for he withers his body yet receives no reward. Who will not laugh at the vain doer? Thus far the Ladder.

A great evil, under the guise of good deeds done hypocritically, is the condemnation of others, as is seen in the vain Pharisee who prayed in the temple alongside the tax collector, saying: “God, I give you thanks, for I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers, or even like this tax collector[657] .” For the tax collector, who was condemned by the Pharisee, was found justified before God; but the Pharisee, who condemned others, went away condemned himself, and his good deeds came to nothing.

A great evil, under the guise of good deeds performed hypocritically, is the deception of others, leading them to false faith. It is to regard false deeds as true, to honor a pretender as the holiest of saints, to accept his words as words of truth, and to obey his teachings. In this hypocritical manner, many heretics have led many astray from the Orthodox faith into heresy; such a person is like Satan, who transforms himself into an angel of light[658] ; he appears as light to deceive people and lead them astray from the path of salvation.

The final and greatest evil, however, is eternal perdition; for those who perform good deeds hypocritically, out of vanity, will be condemned just as those who do evil; for hypocrisy and vanity themselves are evil.

He who exhausts his strength on hypocritical deeds will be condemned just as the wicked servant who steals the wealth entrusted to him by his master and squanders it unwisely. For he turns the gifts granted to him by God not to God’s glory, but to his own self-glorification.

Whoever condemns others will be condemned just as the Antichrist is. Is it not written in the books of the Fathers: “Whoever condemns his brother is the Antichrist”? What did John of Sabaea suffer, and for what reason—oh, when he pronounced judgment on his brother, was he cast out in a vision by Christ the Lord, crucified on the cross, called the Antichrist, and stripped of his mantle? Let anyone who wishes read about this in the Prologue, on the 22nd day of October.

Others have been deceived into condemning him as a tempter; but, according to the Lord’s word, a millstone will be hung around his neck, and he will be cast into the sea[659] .

Such a one does not perish alone, but drags those he has deceived along with him into the same destruction: just as that serpent, whom Saint John the Theologian saw cast down from heaven, did not fall alone, but dragged down with him a third of the stars of heaven[660] . Those who are deceived perish together with the one who deceived them; St. Chrysostom makes this clear in his second homily on the Epistle to the Philippians [661] , saying: Is there anything more vile than the devil, who devises a sermon intended to bring torment upon those who submit to it? Do you see how many evils he inflicts upon his own people? He devises torment and anguish for them through his sermons and his labors. Thus far Chrysostom.

Such great and fierce evil is hidden beneath the guise of good deeds, performed hypocritically.

Here, the enemies of Christ’s Church—who imagine themselves to be, and are deemed to be, holy, righteous, and pious—let them examine their own consciences and test their deeds to see if, beneath the guise of their good works, there lies that fivefold evil. I, a sinner, do not condemn them, but I protect my flock, entrusted to me by Christ my Lord, according to my duty, speaking the words of Christ to Christ’s spiritual sheep: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” ([662] ); beware of the hypocrites who come to you, deceiving you with the outward appearance of good deeds. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets (deceptive teachers) have gone out into the world[663] .

Chapter 4. On good deeds that are fruitless, because they stem from self-love

3) A discussion of good deeds that are fruitless and do not merit salvation.

Good deeds that do not bear the fruit of salvation are those that are done:

Either not out of love for God itself, but out of self-love.

Or those done outside the Orthodox Catholic Church.

ON GOOD DEEDS MOTIVATED BY SELF-LOVE

Those good deeds that are done not out of love for God itself, but out of self-love, are examined as follows:

Does a person love God more than himself, or himself more than God? He who loves God more than himself does not seek himself in his deeds, but God Himself. He who loves himself more than God does not seek God, but himself, in his deeds. The God-lover seeks God in his deeds; every good deed he does, he does for God’s sake, for the sake of divine love, so that he may please the One whom he loves. The self-lover, however, seeks himself in his deeds; everything he does—even good deeds—he does for his own sake, seeking no good for himself, whether temporal or eternal.

The self-lover does good deeds for the sake of temporal good, so that he may not fall into vain, disgrace, or reproach, as punishment and retribution for evil deeds; or to gain some benefit, or honor and praise from people for doing good: the wicked do not do evil out of fear of torment, but would do evil in every way if there were no punishment or retribution. A good person does good for the sake of gain or for the sake of human honor and praise, and would not do good in any way at all if he did not expect some reward, or respect and praise, from people in return. Both are essentially good deeds—both the one who refrains from evil out of fear of punishment and the one who does good for the sake of reward and honor; however, both are, since they are not done out of love for God itself but out of self-love, for one’s own gain; and for this reason they are fruitless before God, unworthy of eternal salvation, though they receive their reward and benefit here. For the one who does not do evil out of fear of punishment, the reward and benefit are simply that he does not suffer punishment. But for the one who does good for the sake of the good itself, the reward, the benefit, the honor, and the praise he receives—for the sake of which he does good—are the very reward.

But even those who labor at good deeds for the sake of eternal salvation, if they are more self-loving than God-loving, remain unproductive or utterly fruitless in their labors; for they deserve little, or do not deserve salvation at all, as is explained as follows:

There are three motives (reasons) for which a person, desiring salvation for himself, avoids evil and does good:

1) Either out of fear of eternal torment,

2) Or for the sake of gaining the Kingdom of Heaven,

3) Or for the sake of divine love itself. One who does good out of fear of eternal torment is like a servant or a slave who acts so as not to be beaten or tormented; and if he did not fear torment, he would not do good, but would avoid evil in every way.

One who does good for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is like a hired hand who works to receive his wages; but if he did not expect a reward for himself, he would by no means be willing to labor at good deeds.

But to do good deeds solely for the sake of divine love is the way of a son, who acts neither out of fear of punishment nor in expectation of a reward, but solely for the sake of his Father’s love; and to regard as a punishment anything that would anger his Father; whereas to love his Father and to be loved by him is to possess the greatest reward and wealth. And everything he does, he does to please his beloved Father, and not for his own personal gain or profit; for he regards everything of the Father as his own, and everything of his own as belonging to the Father.

A servant is not reviled for doing good, nor is a hired hand criticized for laboring at good works; but the son is praised and exalted above them, for the one’s intention is different from theirs; the former desires to please his father in all things, neglecting himself; the latter, however, seek their own good, caring little for pleasing God; and though they do good deeds, their intention is unpraiseworthy, for they do not aim at the end of pleasing God, but at gaining good for themselves. For the fear of punishment preserves one’s integrity, lest one suffer harm; but the desire for the heavenly kingdom seeks one’s own good and gain. And they are without love, just as a branch is without a root, which bears no fruit but withers and becomes useless. Thus St. Gregory the Dialogist (the Dialoguist) teaches on this matter in his 7th Homily on the Gospel: Just as many branches of a tree spring from a single root, so many virtues are born of a single divine love. No branch—no good deed—can have any vitality unless it remains attached to the root of love. Thus far St. Gregory. From these words of his, it is clearly evident that any good deed, if done not out of love for God but solely for one’s own sake, is like a branch that has fallen from the tree—one that bears no fruit but withers away, and is of no use.

It is good to fear torment, and for the sake of that fear to guard against evil and do good; but if that fear is dissolved by divine love, if that branch remains attached to the root of love—that is, to both fear and love God—then the good deeds of such a person will not be deprived of the fruit of their salvation.

But without divine love, mere fear—the fear of God as if He were a fierce beast lest He devour, or a tormentor lest He kill—such fear, even if it leads one to do good, destroys; for that branch, being without a root, withers and bears no fruit: fear without love does not merit salvation.

It is good to desire the Kingdom of Heaven and to do good deeds for the sake of attaining it, but only if that desire is infused with divine love; and if the branch remains attached to the root of love—that is, the desire to be in heaven. not so much for one’s own comfort as for the glory of God, that one may praise Him forever; then the good deeds of such a person will not be deprived of the fruit of their salvation. But without divine love, the mere desire for the Kingdom of Heaven is like a branch without a root, bearing no fruit but withering; as the Apostle affirms, saying: “If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing [664] .”

Chapter 5. On Good Deeds That Are Fruitless; Because They Are Outside the Orthodox Church

On Good Deeds Performed Outside the Orthodox Church

Those good deeds done outside the Orthodox Church, even if they are very good, are nevertheless fruitless and do not merit salvation; for they are outside the Church, whose Head is Christ, who said: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” ([665] ). For whoever clings to Christ’s Church clings to Christ Himself, who has joined Himself to His Church as the head to the body and is present within it. But whoever is estranged from the Church of Christ is estranged from Christ Himself—the Head of the Church; and without Christ, anyone who thinks they are gathering good deeds for salvation is not gathering them but squandering them, and does not merit salvation for themselves. Can a member, severed from the body that is enlivened and governed by the Head, remain alive and active? Can a rod cut from a grapevine, or a branch broken off from an apple tree, bear fruit? By no means. So too, a Christian, even if he leads a virtuous life, cannot attain salvation if he separates himself from the communion of the Orthodox Church of Christ. Take heed, for His Holiness Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, states at the beginning of his creed: “Whoever wishes to be saved must first of all hold the Catholic faith; for whoever does not keep it whole and unblemished will, without a doubt, perish eternally.” Likewise, at the end he says: “This is the Catholic faith; whoever does not believe in it faithfully and certainly cannot be saved.” Thus far Athanasius. From these words of his, it is clearly evident that no one can be saved outside the Orthodox Catholic Church; just as in the days of Noah, no one was saved from the flood who was found outside Noah’s ark, but only those who entered the ark were saved, while all who did not enter perished: This is to be understood in the same way regarding the Holy Church of Christ (for it is a foreshadowing of Noah’s ark), that not a single one of those who are not found within it will receive salvation; for he is not worthy to have God as his Father (as Saint Cyprian says) who does not have the Church as his mother [666] . And the Gospel says: “If anyone does not listen to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”[667] . Do not look at his good deeds if he is not obedient to the Church. There are many virtuous people even among the Hagarites who uphold the truth, show mercy, harm no one, and show love and kindness not only to their own but also to Christians; yet their good deeds do not bring them salvation; for they are alien to Christ and to Christ’s Church. Likewise, those who bear the name of Christ—calling themselves Christians—yet are alien to Christ’s Church will perish along with their (if they have any) good deeds. This is clearly taught by St. Chrysostom in his commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 1, Discourse 2 [668] , where he says: “There is nothing more wicked than the devil, who thus everywhere imposes his useless labors upon people and tears them apart.” And not only does he prevent them from receiving the heavenly reward, but he also compels them to perform acts of penance. For he prescribes not only such preaching, but also such fasting and chastity, which not only deprive them of their reward but also bring great evil upon those who practice them; of whom he says elsewhere: “burned by their own conscience”[669] . Thus far Chrysostom. We, however, take note that fasting, chastity—even virginity—the preaching of heretics, and their other deeds and labors not only fail to bring them salvation but also bring upon them eternal torment. The truthful lips of Chrysostom have made this known.

Chapter 6. On the Character of Hypocritical Teachers

Having thus presented an examination of the schismatic deeds that are falsely deemed good, I shall not fail to address the character of their hypocritical teachers, by whom they deceive the souls of good-natured and simple-minded people; for we have heard how these ravenous wolves enter Christ’s flock in sheep’s clothing.

First, they seek out (as we have heard) well-to-do, wealthy households; but they do not enter the homes of the poor and destitute. So does the wolf: it does not go where it does not expect to steal food for itself, but where it hears a gathering of livestock, there it goes. They also seek out those who are easily swayed by their allure, such as the common people, and especially women.

Furthermore, upon entering a house, they display great piety, presenting themselves—in both word and deed—as servants of God, holy, righteous, and pious.

They bring their own bread with them and refuse to taste anything from the meals offered to them, until they have led the inhabitants of that house astray into their heresy. For they do not partake of the hosts’ food—partly because they abhor what is unclean, and partly to demonstrate their fasting—and they fast until evening, or throughout the day, or even longer, eating only a little of the bread they have brought with them.

They continue their fervent prayer to God with devotion, so that people may see them; of such worshippers Christ spoke in the Gospel: “They pray at length without washing; these will receive a greater condemnation” ([670] ).

They propose scriptural readings and, based on them, expand their teachings—not to instruct others in the path to salvation, but to entice them toward their own narrow-minded views. They speak to their listeners with sighs, deep emotion, and tears. They display the entire appearance of holiness and all acts of piety, yet with a deceitful nature and cunning intent, just as in the parables we read in The Ladder of Divine Ascent [671] : The fox feigns sleep, while the demon feigns chastity; the former seeks to obtain a chicken, while the latter seeks to destroy the soul. Thus do these hypocrites feign chastity, holiness, fasting, prayer, and other supposed good deeds—all of it hypocritically, to deceive the innocent.

But people, being simple and unaware of their deceit, marvel at their way of life, their almsgiving, their prayers, and their gentle disposition, and honor them as great servants of God, listening with open ears to their teachings as if they were sweet music.

Then, having already smoothed the path to the hearts of ignorant people, they begin to sow the weeds of their heresy. At first, they blaspheme the Church of God, claiming it lacks faith, and denounce the clergy, the scriptures, all ecclesiastical relics, and all the sacraments.

They also extol their own Brynsk hermitages, their order, their faith, and their way of life with high praise. At the same time, they prophesy about the Second Coming of Christ, claiming that since it is already at hand, the Antichrist is already reigning in the world. And in this way they deceive innocent souls, separating them from the Church of Christ and leading them into their own superstition; they accept many alms from them and return to their own with their spoils, like wolves with their stolen prey; and they even lead certain people away with them, as if toward salvation, but in reality toward destruction.

Chapter 7. A Virtuous Life Does Not Validate a False Faith

We therefore exhort and implore you, O sheep of Christ, to beware of these deceivers, these hypocritical “righteous” ones who have the appearance of godliness but have denied its power; Turn away from them: for just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these oppose the truth—men of perverted minds and unskilled in the faith [672] . Do not be deceived by the appearance of their virtuous lives, for it is well known that a virtuous life does not confirm a false faith. For sometimes false belief is found even among the virtuous, just as true belief is found even among the unvirtuous; and since a virtuous life does not confirm a false faith, this is clearly evident from the foregoing.

It is written in the Life of Saint Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria [673] (and also in the Prologue, on the 25th day of February): There was a certain elder in the lower regions of Egypt who, though holy in his way of life, was nevertheless rough and simple; out of his ignorance, he claimed that Melchizedek was the Son of God. This was reported to His Holiness Cyril, who sent for the elder and summoned him to his presence; Knowing that the elder performed signs and that whatever he asked of God, God revealed to him, but that when he spoke of Melchizedek, he spoke out of ignorance, the patriarch employed such wisdom, saying gently: “Abba, I beg you, for one thought tells me that Melchizedek is the Son of God, while another thought tells me, ‘No, but he is a man and a priest of God’; and since I am in doubt about this in my thoughts, I have summoned you specifically so that you may pray to God and inform me.” The elder, however, trusting in his life’s experience, said boldly: “Grant me, Lord, at least three days, and I will inquire of God about this; and I will tell you whatever is revealed to me.” So the elder went to his cell and, shutting himself in for three days, prayed to God to reveal to him the truth about Melchizedek; and having received what he had asked for, he went to Saint Cyril, saying, “Melchizedek is a man, not the Son of God.” The patriarch asked, “How do you know this, Father?” He replied, “God showed me all the patriarchs, one by one, and I saw each one passing before me, from Adam to Melchizedek; and the angel said to me, ‘Behold, this is Melchizedek.’ Know, therefore, O Lord, that this is truly so.” Saint Cyril rejoiced greatly, for he had saved the soul of that elder, and after giving thanks, he sent him on his way. And the elder went forth and preached to all that Melchizedek was a man, not the Son of God; with such wisdom, Cyril, the servant of God, had guided the ignorant one onto the true path.

We see, however, that this elder was holy and a miracle-worker, and received everything he asked of God; yet he persisted in a false belief concerning the Son of God. He would have perished in every way had he died while clinging to that heresy. Could his virtuous life, then, have upheld that false belief, which calls Melchizedek the Son of God? And in the *Limonar*, in Chapter 37, we read of a certain pillar ascetic who lived in the region of Hierapolis and adhered to the heresy of Severus, whom the most holy Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, later miraculously converted to the true faith. While that pillar ascetic remained in Seviro’s heresy, could he, through his virtuous life as a pillar ascetic—spent in fasting and prayer—have upheld the faith of Seviro, which he adhered to? What, then, shall we say of Patriarch Eudoxius of Constantinople, to whom the holy Great Martyr Theodore Tyron appeared, commanding him to prepare kolivo during Holy Lent for the sake of the Christians, as is written in the Synaxarion for the first Saturday of Great Lent? Did not that Patriarch Eudoxius, the son of the holy martyr Caesarius, who was burned at the stake for Christ, lead a virtuous life? However, his virtuous life could not strengthen his false faith; for he held to the heresy of Arius, and in that state he died, perishing with the heretics, condemned by the Holy Fathers. Likewise, Patriarch Sergius, who dipped the robe of the Most Pure Virgin into the sea and, through his prayers, caused the Scythian ships off Constantinople to sink, and who established the singing of the Akathist to the Most Pure Virgin Mary in praise on the fifth Saturday of Great Lent—did he not lead a virtuous life? However, his virtuous life could not confirm his false faith; for he was the leader of the Monothelite heresy, about which it is written at length in the life of the Venerable Maximus the Confessor, on the 21st day of January; and in that heresy Patriarch Sergius died, and was counted among the heretics, and condemned by the Holy Fathers. This clearly shows that no one’s virtuous life can uphold a false faith. This is also evident from the words of St. John Chrysostom [674] , in which he commands us to be wary of those who live virtuously but teach heresy, saying: “For if the teaching of the faith is corrupted, even if it were an angel (by his conduct), do not obey him; but if he teaches the truth, do not pay attention to his conduct, but to his words.” Thus far Chrysostom.

For even the Brynians, by their way of life, claim to be virtuous, yet they cannot confirm their false beliefs. Beliefs, I say, and not a single faith; for among them, (as we said before), there is not one faith, but many. As many monasteries, so many faiths; and every monastery seeks to exalt its own faith and establish it as the true one; and they send out into the world their secret, hypocritical preachers and teachers, as if they were the Apostles of Christ; and these teachers are the ones to whom these words of the Apostles refer: “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as the Apostles of Christ” ([675] ); and this is no surprise; for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light; it is no great wonder, then, if even his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Article Two

Chapter 8. On the Evil Deeds of Schismatics and on Their Teachers

The evil deeds of schismatics, which are clearly committed in opposition to the Holy Church, as we have been informed, are innumerable; it is impossible to write about them in detail or to speak of them, except to present the most notable ones here. We do not present these on our own authority, for I, being humble, was neither born nor raised in these lands, nor have I ever heard of the schisms existing in this country—neither of the Bryn forests, nor of the hermitages, nor of the differences in their faith, nor of their deeds; but now that I have begun to live here, by God’s will and by the sovereign’s decree, I have learned of these matters through numerous reports. We shall therefore present only that which is truly known—some of which I have learned from trustworthy narrators, and some of which I have heard from eyewitnesses—and which I have received in writing.

First, we present an excerpt from the three epistles of His Beatitude Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia, which he wrote to his entire diocese during his pastoral ministry in Siberia, denouncing and eradicating the harm of schismatic heresy, while exhorting the faithful not to be led astray by heresies that are harmful to the soul.

In the first epistle, he speaks of three schismatic teachers who were in the Siberian lands near Tyumen, whose names are: Osk (Joseph), a false monk, nicknamed Astomen, an Armenian by birth, from the city of Kazan; Yakunka (Jacob), an apostate, nicknamed Lepikhin; and Avramko (Avram), a Jew, nicknamed “the Hungarian,” a false monk. These three taught people not to attend church, not to confess, not to receive Holy Communion, and not to be married in a lawful marriage according to the church rite; they taught them not to make the sign of the cross on themselves according to the ancient custom adopted from the Greeks—not with the first three fingers of the right hand—but with two fingers, according to the custom of the Armenian heresy. And they spread other absurd teachings among the people—teachings contrary to the Holy Church and harmful to the soul—and tormented the Church of God, deceiving many and drawing them after themselves. Of those three schismatic teachers, two were in agreement with the third on many of their heretical teachings; however, they did not agree on this point, for Osk and Yakunka taught people to set themselves on fire, as if for Christ; and they burned many, leading them into forests and wildernesses, into desolate places; but Avramko objected to their teaching and actions, forbidding people to burn themselves, but only to shun the church and its sacraments. His Eminence Ignatius also mentions another point of disagreement in his third epistle, near the end, namely that Yakunka Lepikhin had been taught by the pseudo-prophet Avvakum, the archpriest, who claimed that the coming of the Antichrist would not be perceptible to the senses, but would exist in the world only in the mind, and indeed already exists as if it were so; whereas Avramko taught the Jews that the Antichrist would come perceptibly in his own time and reign over the world; Having thus separated from him and his disciples, the Lepikhinites were called the “orthodox,” while the Avramites were called the “sensualists.” Even to this day, there is a hermitage in the Bryn forests inhabited by these so-called “sensualists,” who are believed to be descended from that Jew Avramko, nicknamed “the Hungarian,” a false monk.

And let it be known concerning these false teachers that Oskia Astomen, an Armenian, was exiled from Kazan to the Siberian lands in the year 7168 (1660) of the world, in the fourth year following the exile of Avvakum, the Russian protopope. Oskya was first in Tyumen, then taken to Yeniseysk; everywhere, in cities and villages, wherever his path led him, he left traces of his schism among the simplest people, whom he could easily deceive. As for Yakunka Lepikhin, he had previously served as an ataman in Verkhoturye; having had a first wife, he killed her, then married another, and fathered a daughter with her; he, too, strayed into schismatic teachings, called himself a priest—though he was not ordained—and performed priestly functions other than the Liturgy: he purified women in labor through prayer, baptized infants, heard people’s confessions, and administered Communion—though by what means is unknown, as if it were brought to him from somewhere far away; he also tonsured those who wished to enter the monastic order; and when burying the dead, he recited the prayer of absolution for them.

After Oska the Armenian was taken from Tyumen to Yeniseysk, Yakunka and Avramko remained there in his place, leading God’s people astray from the right path, and they wrote many blasphemies against the Church of God, among which was this: Yakunka, an icon painter himself, depicted on a sheet of paper a church and the devil, in the form of a serpent, coiled around the church and spewing his vile poison upon the most pure mysteries of Christ; Having painted many such sheets, he distributed them among the people and sent them to the surrounding regions, so that people might be disgusted by the church and shun the most holy mysteries of Christ.

In his second epistle, His Eminence Ignatius, Bishop of Siberia, states that those false teachers, who taught people to set themselves on fire, having gathered disciples and like-minded companions—as well as accomplices in their evil deeds—committed this fierce and inhuman lawlessness and torment: having deceived many, and having led wives, maidens, and children into empty places— —they first defiled them with all manner of fornication; then, confining them in huts prepared for that purpose in the forests, they sealed off the entrance and set them on fire, while seizing their possessions for themselves. And thus they destroyed the deceived with a double death, killing both soul and body—the soul by sin, and the body by fire.

As it became more common for men to live with women without marriage, they ordered that the infants born to them be baptized by ordinary men, and that the clergy should perform neither marriage nor baptism, nor any other blessing.

Chapter 9. On Capito, Avvakum, and Others

In his third epistle, His Eminence Ignatius, Bishop of Siberia, after thoroughly exposing the Armenian heresy and describing the former heretics of Veliky Novgorod who had strayed into Judaism, begins his account of the current schisms and heresies with a certain heresiarch named Kapiton, a monk who lived in the Kostroma District, in the Kolesnikova Desert, and had gathered disciples around him. For some of the villagers, having seen his ascetic way of life, came to him, lived with him, and took him as their spiritual guide. He, however, practiced such strict fasting that neither on the feast of the Nativity of Christ nor on Holy Pascha would he permit cheese, butter, or fish; but he and his disciples ate only bread, seeds, berries, and other fruits of the earth. On the most glorious feast of Christ’s Resurrection, instead of red eggs, he gave the brothers red-dyed onions. Considering himself to be great and holy, he began to despise the clergy and refused to accept blessings from them; he also began to invent new teachings and beliefs according to his own perverse wisdom, and to cause schisms and strife in the Church of Christ, commanding people to shun ecclesiastical communion and the blessing of the priests; He taught that one should not venerate new holy icons, but only the old ones; and to make the sign of the cross in the Armenian manner with two fingers; and he uttered other doctrines contrary to orthodoxy, teaching many, and became known as Kapiton, named after him.

In the imperial city of Moscow, schismatics arose: Avvakum, the protopope, and Gregory, the protopope, nicknamed “Neron” (the latter later repented and was forgiven); as well as Lazar, a priest; Nikita, a priest, nicknamed “Pustosvyat”; Fyodor, a deacon; many others from the clergy and the laity; and a few from the Tsar’s court—defenders of the Armenian two-finger heresy and instigators of other schisms.

Chapter 10. A Maiden Receives Communion with Raisins

At that same time, in the Kineshma and Reshma districts, as well as in Ples, other schismatics appeared, known as the “Podreshetniki,” so named after their teacher, a certain peasant named Podreshetnikov, who, following the heretic Kapiton, taught people not to attend the Church of God, not to have spiritual fathers, not to receive a priest’s blessing, and to shun all the sacraments of the Church. These very people performed certain church services in their own homes according to the priestly rite, though they had not been ordained, and they baptized infants; as for Holy Communion, they had a sort of magical ritual—not bread, but berries, known as raisins, imbued with magic—and they partook of it in the following manner: They would choose a single maiden from among themselves and lead her into the cellar of the hut, where they would dress her in a colorful gown; she would then emerge from the cellar at a set hour, wearing a sieve on her head covered with a clean cloth, the sieve itself containing the “raisins”; meanwhile, a large crowd of men, women, and children had gathered in the hut. When the maiden emerged from the cellar with the basket on her head, she spoke in the manner of a priest: “May the Lord God remember you all in His kingdom, always, now and forever, and unto the ages of ages”; and they, bowing, replied, “Amen”; and the maiden repeats this three times, and they respond “Amen” three times. And then that maiden gives them that blasphemous offering, instead of partaking of the Holy Mysteries: and those who taste of those berries immediately desire death for themselves, as if for Christ’s sake—whether by burning, or by hanging, or by drowning in water—as if they had lost their minds; and many have thus destroyed themselves.

Chapter 11. The Demons Rejoice Over Those Who Set Themselves on Fire

Within the boundaries of Nizhny Novgorod lie the palace villages known as Knyaginino and Murashkino; from those villages, and from the surrounding settlements and hamlets, a multitude of men, women, and children gathered, preparing to burn themselves on a certain threshing floor in a barn, and having partaken of their magical communion, they tied themselves together in bundles of two or three with thin ropes, leaving two people among them to set the fire and burn them. Those men, though they took the communion into their hands, did not eat it, having been preserved by God, as a sign of the doom of those accursed demonic martyrs. When those two kindled the fire, and the flames engulfed the entire barn, and even as those two were about to throw themselves into the raging fire to be burned, they immediately saw, high above the flames in the smoke, two black demons, resembling Ethiopians, flying through the air with wings like bats (flying mice), rejoicing and clapping their hands, and crying out loudly: “They are ours, they are ours!” Seeing that demonic rejoicing over the perishing, the two men shuddered and said to one another: “Do you see, brother, how we are perishing because of the teachings of the accursed one?” And they began to make the sign of the cross upon themselves and fled from there. When they came to the priest of their town, they confessed everything to him and repented; and not only to the priest, but also to everyone else, they told with weeping what they had seen over the perished—the demonic rejoicing—and they gave thanks to God who had delivered them from that destruction.

Chapter 12. On the Heart of an Infant, Cut Open by Sorcery

Near the city of Vologda, on the road leading to Kargopol, in a region far from the sea, in a desolate place, there lived a certain enemy of God, a sorcerer and witch-doctor, who bore the name of a hermit and feigned virtue; and he was regarded by the surrounding villagers as holy and reverend; and many came to dwell with him, regarding him as their teacher and mentor. Not only men, but also women and young girls had already filled that desert; for they were drawn to him by his flattering teachings and hypocritical way of life, as if he were a great saint of God. That wretched, so-called saint secretly taught everyone to live in fornication without any shame, saying that consensual sexual intercourse is not a sin, but love; provided only that they do not get married or have their marriage blessed. A certain man from the city of Vologda, weighed down by many sins, came to his senses and repented before God; and he made a vow to live the rest of his life in purity and to go into the desert, so that, living in silence, he might receive forgiveness of his sins from God. Having heard about this hermit—that many had gathered around him and were living in the desert—he went there, unaware of their secret, immoral way of life. And when he came to that hermit—the leader of those immoral desert dwellers—he begged him to allow him to live with them in the desert, just as the others did; but the hermit said to the visitor: “Beloved brother, you have come well to us, for now there is no longer a church of God on earth; all have strayed and become depraved; for in the churches they sing and read according to the new rites, but here God’s mercy still covers us, and we accept no innovations; we are baptized according to the tradition of the blessed Theodoret, and we do not accept Nikon’s traditions; you have done well indeed to flee from the Antichrist.” Hearing this, the man spoke to him with emotion: “Honorable Father! I beg you to guide me on the path to salvation; for this reason I have come to your holy dwelling, having heard of your godly life, which is capable of leading souls to Christ God; save me, who desire to be saved.” But the wretched hermit replied, saying: “Good child, it is fitting that you first be tested by fasting, so that you neither eat nor drink for a certain number of days, until the Lord God reveals to us what is to be done regarding you; and then we will welcome you with joy.” He, in turn, promised to do everything commanded of him without hesitation, for the sake of the salvation of his soul. The hermit then ordered that he be led into the innermost of his cells, a small chapel adjoining his own cell, where he himself lived; In that chapel there was only a single, very small window facing the path, just enough to let light into the chapel; the entrance, however, was firmly secured, so that whoever was shut inside could not possibly escape.

After that man had remained in that enclosure for three days without food or drink, he began to make a small hole in the wall of the hermit’s cell, tearing away the moss between the logs; and having made it, he watched to see what the hermit was doing. Just as he was looking through that small opening, two men came to the hermit, saying, “Holy Father! God has forgiven that pregnant maiden; she has given birth to a male child. What do you command us to do about him?” That wretched, so-called holy hermit replied to them: “Did I not tell you before that when that maiden gives birth to a child, you are to immediately cut open the newborn’s chest with a knife, remove the heart, and bring it to me on a platter? Go, then, and do as I have told you.” They went away at once, and after a short while brought the heart of the newborn infant on a wooden platter—still alive and moving—and gave it to him; he took a knife, cut it into four pieces with his own hands, and said to them, “Take this, dry it in the oven, and grind it into flour.” Those wicked servants of the accursed hermit went and did as they were commanded, and then brought back to him the infant’s heart, ground into powder. The hermit then took a sheet of writing paper, tore it into small pieces, placed a small portion of the ground heart into each piece, and, summoning some of his disciples, said to them: “Take these pieces of paper with the holy relic (he called his spell a ‘holy relic’— ) and go to the cities, towns, and villages; and when you enter people’s homes, tell them not to go to church under any circumstances, not to accept blessings from the current priests, and not to confess to them, nor partake of any church sacrament, but instead make the sign of the cross upon themselves with two fingers, and under no circumstances accept the three-fingered sign, for that is the mark of the Antichrist. And whether they listen to you or not, take this instruction given to you and secretly mix it into their food or drink, or into the vessel where they keep water in their home or in the cistern. When they taste it, they will turn to the truth, believe your words, and become martyrs of their own free will.

Seeing and hearing this, the man sitting in confinement was completely paralyzed with fear and did not know what to do. He began to pray earnestly to the Lord God, glorified in the Holy Trinity, for deliverance from such a calamity, and began to make the sign of the cross on himself with three fingers (for previously he had made it with two fingers, as he had been taught by that wicked hermit). But God, who hears those who pray to Him in times of trouble, sent deliverance to that man, who was sitting in seclusion, in the following manner: The next morning, some merchants were passing by his cell on the road; when the hermit saw them, he beckoned them to the window with his hand and secretly confessed to them everything—what he had seen and heard about himself and the hermit—and begged them to rescue him from there. He instructed them on how to rescue him: they were to say that their servant had stolen from their property, fled, and was hiding there, and they were to beg the hermit to return their servant to them. The merchants, however, took great pity on the man who was imprisoned, so they pretended to be looking for their servant who had stolen from them and fled; and they pretended to have learned that he was hiding in that desert; and they begged the hermit to return their servant to them. The hermit, however, called the man out of his cell and said to him, “What have you done, brother? You have deceived us, claiming to be seeking salvation, yet you, having stolen from your masters, have fled to us.” But the man fell to the ground and said, “I have sinned against Heaven and before you; evil men have led me into this. But I beg you, do not hand me over to my masters, for I cannot go on living under them.” The hermit replied, “Go, brother, and serve them, as the Apostle commands: ‘Servants, obey your masters.’” The hermit then pleaded with those false masters not to harm their servant, provided he returned their property. They gave their word to the hermit that they would not harm their servant; and after taking the man with them, they departed.

After those merchants had departed with that man, it was reported to the hermit that all his secrets had been revealed to those merchants by the man who had been in the monastery. The hermit, then, gathered all his disciples—both men and women—and burned their cells; then he went to the outskirts of Veliky Novgorod and settled in the wilderness by a certain lake, at the Paleostrovsky Monastery, and took possession of that monastery; for many people from the surrounding villages began to gather there as well, deceived by his flattering teachings and enticed by his sorcery. When His Eminence Cornelius, Metropolitan of Veliky Novgorod, heard of them, he sent to them honorable men from the clergy and the laity to admonish them in accordance with Church doctrine; but those depraved hermits, together with their leader, not only refused to heed the admonitions but also gave themselves over to destruction. For, having first blasphemed the Holy Church and all Orthodox Christians, they shut themselves up in that monastery and set fire to the churches, the cells, and the surrounding walls; and thus, together with the monastery, they were burned and perished.

Chapter 13. Those Burned Cry Out from Beneath the Ground: “Alas, We Are Lost!”

This practice of self-immolation even spread as far as the Siberian lands, multiplied by exiled schismatics: for when Osk, an Armenian false monk, was brought to Tyumen, he seduced a certain priest named Dometian into his heresy; and together with the aforementioned Yakunka Lepikhin, they seduced many, led them into the wilderness, and burned them. After Oskha was taken to Yeniseysk, Priest Dometian went into the wilderness, where he found a monk named Ivanishcha, who was as wicked as himself; he was tonsured by him into monasticism and was named Daniel. After his tonsure, he established a separate dwelling for himself in the desert, not far from that monk Ivanishche; and when he went out into the world, he spread his heresy throughout the villages and led the ignorant people astray, so that they would shun the Holy Church and all ecclesiastical holy things and sacraments: and he told them that the Antichrist was already reigning in the world, and that the Day of Judgment was already at hand, and he terrified simple souls; and, gathering those who listened to him, he led them into the desert to his dwelling there. Having gathered men, women, and children—about one thousand seven hundred in number—he wrote to the monk Ivanishche, asking for advice: “Virtuous men, women, maidens, and children have gathered to me in the desert,” he said, “and they all ask for a second, unblemished baptism by fire: what, then, does your holiness command me to do?” But the accursed monk Ivanishche wrote back to him a reply worthy of derision, saying: “You have stirred up this mess; now deal with it as you please.” Domitian, who was also Daniel—a wretched apostate and a debauchee —began to prepare them for burning, building huts of thick timber; after erecting them, he ordered that pitch, birch bark, and hemp be brought in, and he also prepared sulfur and gunpowder, so that the people might be instantly engulfed by fire when they were set ablaze. Thus, while they were preparing for the burning—taking their time, not hastening the flames, but rather gathering even more people to themselves—His Eminence Paul (who had preceded Ignatius), Metropolitan of Siberia, and, grieved in his soul for those who were perishing, he quickly sent to them honorable and prudent men from the clergy and the laity to admonish them and turn them away from their evil undertaking. And when the envoys reached them and began to admonish them, they immediately shut themselves in huts prepared for burning, and, uttering many blasphemies against the Church and the clergy, set themselves on fire. And immediately, from the gunpowder, sulfur, pitch, birch bark, and hemp, they were engulfed in flames on all sides and burned to death. At the very spot where they were burned, a terrible stench lingered for a long time, so that it was impossible for anyone passing by that place to do so without covering their nostrils.

Many, however, who happened to pass by that place at dawn or dusk, heard mournful voices there, as if crying out from beneath the earth: “Oh, we are lost! Oh, we are lost!” And many testified to these mournful voices, which were sent by God’s revelation to announce the doom of those who had been led astray, and to warn others not to be led astray by schismatic false teachings.

The same thing happened in the Tomsk district: a certain apostate named Vasya Shaposhnikov led many men and women astray and brought them into the wilderness to burn them. He built three large wooden churches, all of which were prepared for immediate burning. The governor of the city of Tomsk, having heard that many were gathering in the wilderness to be burned, sent priests and other men to them to persuade them not to destroy themselves. And when these men reached the deceived ones, Vasya locked everyone gathered in the church inside, while he himself went up to the top and spoke to those who had come: “We are burning with this earthly fire, but you are already burning with eternal fire, and you will continue to burn there: leave this place; for when the saltpeter and gunpowder begin to tear down these buildings, they will crush you with the beams.” The wretch spoke these words, trying to frighten the visitors into leaving; for they did not have much gunpowder or saltpeter. Hearing this, those who had come retreated far from those temples; but Vasya, having gone down into the temple, said: “I will go out through the window of the temple, set fire to the brushwood gathered around it, and then come back in here.” But a certain girl said to him, “Don’t go yourself; send a little girl to set it on fire.” He, however, wanted to go out himself just to set it on fire, so that he could set them ablaze with the very thing and then flee himself. For he had prepared a secret pit between those temples and a distant underground passage, so that he might flee there with the possessions left behind after the burning. With that very intention, that wretched man deceived people and set them on fire, so that he might seize their possessions; for they burned the people, while they themselves fled. But when that wretched Vasya tried to leave the church, as if to set it on fire, that girl and the others pounced on him, held him fast, and said: “You want to destroy us, but you yourself want to flee.” And they threw a little girl out the window to set fire to the prepared brushwood; and when that girl had set it alight and saw the destruction of those being burned, she ran to the priests, who were standing at a distance, and told them everything—how Vasya was being held in the church, and how the accursed one perished along with all those he had deceived. After they had been burned, a certain villager from the same Tomsk district grieved and wept, for from his house Vasya, that accursed one, had led eight souls—men and women alike—into the wilderness, deceiving them and causing their destruction by burning. When that villager arrived at the very spot where the deceived had been burned, he walked among the ashes, weeping for his family; and immediately he heard mournful voices rising from the ashes: “Oh, they are lost! “Alas, they are lost!” He was filled with dread at those voices, and after pausing briefly, he quickly left that place and spread the news throughout the city and the villages, as he had heard. Thus far from the three letters of His Eminence Ignatius, Bishop of Siberia.

Similarly, Maxim Danilov, nicknamed Pivovarov, a member of the hospitable hundred of the city of Ustyug, told us this while he was with us in Rostov in the year 1709, during Holy Week leading up to the Glorious Resurrection of Christ, saying as follows: In the great city of Ustyug, in the administrative office where records are kept, it is written: in the year 196 or 197 (I cannot recall the exact year), in the Ustyug District, in the Cherepovskaya Volost, 120 versts from the city of Ustyug, there were schismatics numbering about 300 people in the forest; and according to reports from the volost centurions and the peasants, it was known to Voivode Timofey Ivanovich Rzhevsky that schismatics were living in the forests; and the voivode sent men to them to bring those schismatics to the city; but the schismatics refused to obey. In those forests, the schismatics had built large churches, surrounded by a fence, and caves had been dug into the ground beneath the churches. When the men sent by the governor tried to capture them, the schismatics put up a strong resistance and would not surrender; so they surrounded their temples with a large crowd and straw, set them on fire, and burned to death inside them, while others suffocated and perished in the caves— —which were beneath the temples. And for many years, at the very spot where they burned, people heard throughout the night the wailing cries: “Oh, we are lost! Oh, we are lost!” Even to this day, there is a terrible stench at that place.

The schismatic leaders entice people toward such spontaneous self-immolation and destruction not only with seductive words but also with magical spells; just as this has been known to happen before, and the following account will clearly demonstrate.

Chapter 14. On Magical Spells, and on the Priest Who Was Cast into the Fiery Pit

In the present year of 1709, in the early days of February, the elderly hieromonk Ignatius, a monk of the Ugletsky Voskresensky Monastery, reported both verbally and in writing to our humble self; he had taken his vows 26 years ago, and his secular name was Jacob; he lived in the Poshekhonsky District, in the Beloselskaya Volost; he served as a priest at the Church of the Holy Friday for seven years; and he reported that in his parish, 1,920 souls of both sexes and all ages were burned to death, not counting other neighboring villages and hamlets, in which countless people were burned, having been deceived and bewitched by schismatic teachers; and the air was filled with the foul stench of burning corpses for many days. And since those enchanted by sorcery had willingly submitted to being burned, the monk Ignatius confirmed this account as true and provided us with the following written statement: At that time, when many people were being burned in the Poshekhonsky District, Prince Ivan Ivanovich Golitsyn of Moscow arrived at his estate in the Beloselskaya Volost, in the village of Kuzmodemyanskoye, to persuade his peasants to stop burning themselves. But his peasants were being led astray by the evil teachings of a certain Ivan Desyatina, a peasant from the village of Kholma in the same Poshekhonsky District, on the estate of boyar Ivan Maksimovich Yazykov. When the prince learned of that deceitful peasant, he ordered him to be found and brought before him; he questioned him about his teachings and urged him to desist from such wickedness and murder; But that peasant, Ivan Desyatina, took three berries from his pocket—made from a certain kind of flour—which in appearance resembled cranberries—and began to crush them with his foot. Seeing this, the prince’s priest (though Elder Ignatius cannot recall the priest’s name) rushed forward, grabbed one berry, held it up, crushed it with his fingers on a piece of bread, and threw it to the dog. The dog, having eaten that bread, ran out; and in the courtyard at that time a fire had been kindled to cook a meal; and as the dog ran toward the fire, howling and whimpering, it fell into the flames and was burned. As for the priest, after he had crushed that berry on the bread and thrown it to the dog, he brought his fingers—with which he had crushed the berry—to his lips, as if to taste it; and immediately he lost his mind, and his face and eyes were transformed; and everyone was astonished and terrified by his sudden transformation and bewilderment. The prince, taking pity on him, ordered him to be taken down to the cellar, where at that time a furnace was being stoked to prepare food for the prince; and when the priest was led into the cellar and saw the fire in the furnace, he immediately threw himself into the fiery furnace and would have burned there had the prince’s men not quickly pulled him out by his feet; and his head and face were scorched, and his hair and beard were singed; and he remained out of his mind for a full day. Then he came to his senses and, with tears, began to thank those who had rescued him from the fire; and he reported to the prince, declaring openly to all: “When they led me into the dungeon and I saw the burning furnace, the furnace appeared to me as paradise, and the mouth of the furnace as the gate of paradise.” And in the furnace, amidst the flames, I saw radiant youths sitting, who called me to them, saying, ‘Come to us’; and I immediately turned toward them. Then that priest recounted this to the prince and to everyone with tears; and present at the time was the one who reported this to us, the hieromonk Ignatius—who was then still called Jacob among the secular priests—and he was an eyewitness and earwitness to all of it. And just as he saw and heard, so he reported to us in accordance with his priestly conscience, and we have faith in him, a man who is now very old.

Chapter 15. On Jewish and Schismatic Sorcery

From a letter by Joseph the priest, who in recent years, by decree of the Sovereign, was stationed at the Olonets outpost, and wrote to the schismatic teachers in that region: to Daniel Vikulin, to Andrei Dionisov, and to their entire assembly. That priest, Joseph, in exposing the schismatics for their sorcery, first recounts a wondrous magical deed once performed by Jews in the Kingdom of Poland, taken from the book titled *The Mirror of the Polish Crown*, from the fifth chapter, namely that the Jews offered a great sum to a certain Christian woman so that she might sell them Christian milk; The woman, however, told her husband about this, and, following his advice, sold them cow’s milk instead of human Christian milk. The Jews, having joyfully accepted the milk, hired a certain man and went with him to the gallows where the villain had been hanged, and having performed their magical incantations over the milk there, they commanded the hired man, to pour the milk, which they had bewitched, into the ear of the hanging villain, and to press his own ear against the ear of the dead villain. When he had done so, the Jews asked him what he heard. He replied, “I hear the lowing of cattle.” The Jews, deeply distressed, went to the Christian woman’s wife and accused her of having deceived them. Afterward, a great plague struck the livestock throughout the entire Kingdom of Poland; and that plague would have fallen upon the Christians as well, had that Christian woman sold them human Christian milk. Then the priest Joseph brought the schismatics and said to them: “You schismatics, too, in your apostasy from piety, practice sorcery just as the Jews do, going from house to house and seducing simple people of both sexes; and those who do not succumb to your seductions, you bewitch with your sorcery, as we have learned from reliable witnesses.”

In Berezov on the Voloka River, within the Kola District, there lived a man of some standing—a resident of that place who owned a well-stocked home and had a respectable family, and who was aware of your seductive schemes. His name was Gregory, who later took monastic vows, lived a pious life, and died in the Lord; he himself recounted the following about himself: When the schismatics gathered there with your leaders, they set up a fort on an island in the lake: a certain wealthy local resident, enticed by them along with his entire household—some seventy people—settled on that island. And quite a few others settled there with them; and from there they began to frequently visit the house of that Gregory and try to entice him. He, however, knowing your deceit, paid no heed to those enticements and guarded his household carefully. After some time, when those wicked men heard that an expedition would soon be sent against them from Olonets, they began to visit Gregory even more frequently and to entice him in every way toward their heresy; but he remained steadfast, for he had a brother in Olonets in the military, and he had been strictly warned by him not to accept your false teachings. At a certain time, those schismatics came and spent the night at Gregory’s house; he, however, was especially vigilant in protecting his household at that time; and those wretched men, along with your accomplices, seeing that he was unyielding to their temptations, what did they do? They began to go out frequently from the house into the barn; at first he was careless and paid no attention to it, but then he was seized with a sudden fear, wondering why they were going out; so he went out himself and began to search the barn to see if they had hidden anything there, but found nothing. Later, when some of them needed water, he went out into the barn again and lifted the lid off the vessel containing the water; he saw what looked like flour floating on the surface of the water; He scooped some of it into a small vessel to examine it more closely and saw some burnt bones in the water; but before that, his wife, his daughter-in-law, and several children had been drinking that water. When night fell, those evil men departed, and soon they were expecting an army to come against them from Olonets. Gregory’s household, who had been drinking the bewitched water, began to beg him to take them to the schismatics’ fortress; but he tried in every way to hold them back, pleading and begging with tears: but it was impossible to hold them back; for they fled from him to those accursed ones. And soon afterward, the sent soldiers arrived; but those wicked, destructive leaders (the schismatic teachers), having locked up all those they had deceived in that fortress, set it on fire and fled themselves. And thus all those who had been deceived perished in the fire. Behold, you wretched ones (Father Joseph says to the schismatics): behold the deceit of your schemes; where you cannot deceive with words, there you use sorcery to bewitch and destroy—such is your holiness. Thus ends Joseph’s message.

This concerns the burning and sorcery of the schismatics; but there is also another form of their self-inflicted death—such as starving themselves to death, for example—which we have learned entirely from eyewitnesses.

Chapter 16. On the Morelitsy

They have a hermitage called the “Morel-Eaters,” who, like the “Burners,” entice ordinary people—men and women—to shut themselves away to die through fasting and starvation, as if for Christ’s sake: They cite the lives of the saints as examples, showing how many who loved Christ shone forth through fasting, while others perished from hunger and thirst in exile and prisons for the sake of the faith. And Scripture says: “We must enter the kingdom of heaven through many tribulations.” But what good is there in this life? For there is no true faith left on earth, no spiritual fathers; bishops and priests are all wolves, and churches are stables and abominations of desolation; and the Antichrist already reigns in the world, and the dreadful Day of Judgment is at hand. It is fitting, therefore (they say), for those who truly desire to be saved to suffer here; and just as the martyrs and confessors perish from hunger and thirst in this brief time, so that, having escaped eternal torments, they may reign with Christ. Let us suffer here a little, so that we may not be counted among those who have abandoned the true faith, and for whose sake we are persecuted and tormented. For it is better for us to waste away from hunger and thirst in a short time than to be condemned with them to eternal torment. Thus speak the accursed deceivers, with great emotion, sighing and weeping. And if they deceive anyone, they beg him to go to a solitary cell or a cave, repent of his past sins, and be crowned with the wreath of fasting as a martyr. The Morelites have special places in the forests set up for this purpose: some are wooden huts, others are pits dug into the ground. Some huts have small doors; there they lock the deceived person inside and shut them tightly; others have no doors at all, but they let them in from above. As for the pits or caves, they are deep, and no one can escape from them, for they are blocked off and secured very tightly from above. Sometimes they imprison one person, sometimes two, three, or many. The prisoners, suffering from hunger on the first, second, and third days—and even after many days—cry out, scream, and beg to be released from there; but there is no one to hear them or show them mercy. And what is even more horrifying is to hear that wherever two or three, or many, are imprisoned, unable to endure the hunger, they devour one another alive, each one devouring whoever he can overcome. And let no one think this to be implausible—that in confinement and starvation they would devour one another—when a man himself, in such distress, would devour himself. George Kedrin of Tsargrad writes in his *Synopsis of Histories* about Zinon, the ill-fated Greek king, that because of his excessive drunkenness, he was often seized by a frenzy, falling to the ground and lying there for a long time as if dead; his wife, Queen Ariadne, came to hate him and, not wishing to see him alive, she put him to death in this manner: when Zinon went into a frenzy and fell to the ground, appearing as if dead, the queen took him and placed him in a coffin buried deep in the ground; she did not cover it with earth, but set a large stone over the coffin’s opening and posted a guard. After some time, King Zinon came to his senses and began to cry out to be released, but the guards did not heed him; for the queen’s command was strict. And having remained alive in the tomb for three days, crying out and weeping, he died. After his death, the coffin was opened, and they saw that his body had been devoured by his own hands, right up to his shoulders, from starvation; this is recorded in Greek histories. It is likely, then, that—just as among the Morelitsy of Bryn, those confined in earthen or wooden cells—they eat one another, driven by extreme hunger. What is that cry there? What weeping? What sobbing? What anguish and sorrow? And what salvation is there from that involuntary martyrdom? And thus, cursing the day of their birth, they perish by a double death, both bodily and spiritual: for their souls do not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but depart to the torments of hell, as suicides. And what benefit do they derive from that bitter death? For such martyrdom is not pleasing to Christ the Lord, to those who choose to destroy themselves, as will be explained below.

Chapter 17. They Do Not Consider It a Sin of Fornication, but a Manifestation of Christ’s Love

And this is strange, for they subject themselves to death—whether by fire or by starvation—as if for Christ’s sake; yet they do not put to death their own carnal desires, which a true servant of Christ must certainly put to death, but instead live in fornication. I do not say this of all of them; for it is known that many among them live pure and chaste lives; but the vast majority commit fornication and do not regard it as sin, but rather, wretched as they are, call it the love of Christ, as we shall soon hear.

The Governor of Rostov, Mr. Semyon Yeremeevich Pashkov, told us that in the year 1703, he was sent by decree of the Tsar on official business to the Balakhon District, in the Zausolsky Volost; while he was there, the following incident occurred at the hands of schismatic teachers: There is a village called Bor, named after St. Nicholas; in that village, at the home of Priest Siso, two schismatics persuaded his wife to take some money and led her to the schismatic settlements in Bryn, as if to save her. Before they reached the Kerzhenets River, those schismatics brought the priest’s wife to a certain empty chapel. But before their arrival, by God’s providence, two beekeepers from the Tolokontsovskaya Dvortsovaya volost had come there; after stoking the stove a little, they went up to the upper room to rest and fell asleep. After about an hour, they awoke, sensing the arrival of those schismatics with the priest’s wife—for the beekeepers knew them well, since her husband, Father Siso, was their spiritual father—and they sat silently on the benches, watching secretly to see what would happen. Those schismatics, having entered with the priest’s wife and found the church warm, sat down; thinking that no one else was in the church, for they did not know of the beekeepers’ presence. Then they began to speak to the priest’s wife: “Sister, share Christ’s love with us.” She asked them, “What kind of Christ’s love am I to share with you?” They replied to her, “Be with us in carnal union, for that is Christ’s love.” She, horrified, said, “Is that why you have enticed me away from my husband? “I hoped to receive the salvation of my soul through you, and I followed you as holy and soul-saving guides and teachers, but you have sought to defile me.” And she did not consent to their sin. They then began to forcibly coerce her into their lawlessness; and one of them struck her in the face with his hand. Then those beekeepers, sitting secretly on the rafters, took a musket loaded with gunpowder but without a bullet and fired at the heads of those lawless men, shouting. Those wretched heretics from Bryn, terrified by the great fear of “ ,” fled quickly from the church, leaving the priest’s wife with the money, and were never heard from again. And the priest’s wife rejoiced at her deliverance from the hands of the lawless fornicators, who, calling their fornication “the love of Christ,” had sought to defile her. The beekeepers, having rescued the priest’s wife, took her to her husband—to their spiritual father, Father Sisa—and handed her over to him, intact, along with the money and her purity. The priest was overjoyed and gave the beekeepers several rubles as a reward for bringing his wife back to him.

That same Mr. Semyon Eremyevich also reported that the peasants of the Zausolskaya and Tolokontsovskaya volosts take their daughters, sisters, and female relatives to the Bryn forests to the holy fathers (for they call these schismatic teachers “holy fathers”), and entrust them there ostensibly for the love of Christ, but in reality for fornication. The devil has so blinded those wretched people that they not only do not consider fornication a sin, but regard it as a virtue and honor it as the love of Christ; whereas they call lawful marriage lawlessness and slave labor. When these girls become pregnant, the schismatics take the pregnant girls back to their former places, depending on where each was originally brought from. And once they give birth at their fathers’ homes or with their relatives, and have lived there for six weeks after the birth, they are once again taken back to those same Bryn forests.

We take the aforementioned gentleman’s account at face value, for we hear of similar practices in our own diocese as well. It has recently been reliably reported to us concerning certain townspeople in the city of Romanov, men of considerable means (I do not recall their names, but the local residents know them), three of whom: Ivan Grigoryevich Trusov, nicknamed Mylnikov, sent three daughters; Vasily Grigoryevich Trusov, nicknamed Mylnikov, sent one daughter; Ivan Mikhailovich Shanin, nicknamed Durakov, sent one daughter; Fyodor Stefanovich Lykov sent one daughter; one daughter each; and the fourth, Mylnikov, sent three daughters to the Bryn forests, to a certain women’s hermitage there, with sufficient money, though for what purpose is unknown. Is it not true that there are no convents for young women in the Diocese of Rostov, if they wished to betroth their daughters to Christ? Likewise, here in Rostov, a certain Ivan Menkin—who was reputed to be a good man—secretly sent his daughter, a young woman of marriageable age, to the dwellings of the schismatics, and for what purpose, God only knows.

Chapter 18. On the Bryn Hermitages

For a clearer exposition of the ungodly deeds of the schismatics, which are contrary to the Holy Church, certain of their hermitages—briefly mentioned in the first part—shall be repeated here in slightly greater detail.

The schismatic settlements in the Bryn forests are specifically called “sketes” and “tolki.” They are called “sketes” because they wander in the wilderness, imitating the ancient Holy Desert Fathers. The “tolki,” on the other hand, are so called because each skete interprets the Holy Scriptures differently, according to its own perverse wisdom, and not in agreement with others; and they spread their teachings throughout the surrounding villages and hamlets, instructing the simplest people of their faith and drawing them toward their own interpretation.

First of all, let the “Christ-following” sect be discussed.

In that sect or interpretation there is a certain man whom they call “Christ,” and whom they revere as Christ; and they bow down to him without making the sign of the cross. This “Christ” resides in a village called Pavlov Perevoz, on the Oka River, 60 versts beyond Nizhny Novgorod. It is said that this false Christ is of Turkish origin; he keeps a fair-faced maiden with him, whom he calls his “wife,” while his followers call her the “Mother of God.” But the maiden (or, to put it more bluntly, a whore) is of Russian origin, from the Nizhny Novgorod district, the village of Landyukha, the daughter of a town official. This false Christ also has twelve apostles who go from village to village preaching Christ—as if he were the true one—to simple men and women; and whoever they deceive, they bring to him to worship. This doctrine, known as “Christ-worship,” though it blasphemes the Church of God, does not forbid entering the church, venerating the holy icons and the cross, or receiving the priest’s blessing; for this false Christ permits such things to those who believe in him for the sake of hypocrisy: “Do not defile yourselves, lest you be recognized.” This was told to us by the monk Pachomius, who heard it from an eyewitness who had seen this false Christ, for he had been brought to him by one of his disciples to worship him. At that time, that Christ was on the Volga River, in the village known as Rabotki; 40 versts downstream from Nizhny Novgorod along the Volga. In that village, on the riverbank, there is a dilapidated and empty church, and believers in him gathered there at that time to pray in that church.

This Christ then came out from the altar to the people in the church and to the table, and on his head was seen something large wrapped around it in the likeness of a crown, as depicted in icons, and certain small red figures, resembling birds, were flying around his head; these are said to be cherubim; (It seems to us, however, that either demons in such forms appeared to the people in a dreamlike state, or that cherubim had been painted with colors on writing paper and attached around the crown.) When he sat down, all the people gathered there fell down and worshiped him to the ground, as if he were the true Christ; and they bowed down unceasingly, praying for many hours, until they grew weary from prayer. In their prayers, some cried out to him, saying, “Lord, have mercy on me,” while others said, “O our Creator, have mercy on us.” He, in turn, spoke to them with prophetic words, foretelling what would happen—such as changes in the weather—and encouraged them to believe in him without a doubt.

The Anuphrian sect, also known as the Popovshchina.

That skete or sect is the most widespread of all, for Anufriy’s wicked faith is spreading throughout many cities and even in our diocese. Those who adhere to this doctrine and faith are called the “Popovites,” while their leader, Anufriy, is said not to be a priest but a simple elder. The Popovites accept only those who were ordained before Patriarch Nikon, of whom there are not many. They venerate Avvakum, the heretical former archpriest—who was excommunicated and perished—as a saint; they call him a new passion-bearer; they paint his image and worship it as a saint; they have composed a service for him; they celebrate a feast in his memory; and they retain the heretical writings of that man, and thus they believe, and teach others to believe likewise, and to glorify the Triune God. And Avvakum’s disciple, Erofey Andreev, testifies about Avvakum’s letters: “Avvakum’s letters are brighter than the sun, and they are all good.” A heretic bears witness to another heretic, and both, along with their like-minded followers, receive praise from their supreme teacher, the devil, in hell.

Once again, Popovism.

The sects or factions that the present-day priests accept are as follows: the Pavlinovshchina; the Andreyanovshchina; the Iosifovshchina; and others of a similar nature in their superstition. They accept priests who have been excommunicated and who do not submit to the Holy Church. They rebaptize people who adhere to their faith and are under sixty years of age; for they call our Orthodox baptism “heretical baptism” and claim that heretical baptism is not baptism at all, but rather a desecration. As for those over sixty years of age, they do not rebaptize them, for they say that they were baptized with true baptism; since they were baptized before Nikon’s patriarchate and before the revision of the liturgical books; likewise, they re-tonsure monks. As for the current priests whom they accept, they first require them to renounce their priestly ordination and the bishop who ordained them. They also grant them the authority to perform sacred rites, and some of these priests secretly serve in empty churches according to the old Liturgy books, using seven prosphora, but not often; they make a large prosphora only for the sake of having a reserve of the Gifts, so that it will last a long time. Other priests, however, claim that they still have the old offerings and use them to administer Communion. This is indeed a matter worthy of ridicule: In some villages and hamlets—those that are far apart—when a woman gives birth and they cannot quickly summon a priest to her, either because of the distance or because the priest happens to be away in another village, they send a man to him in haste with a white, clean cloth; and the priest, reciting the prayer appropriate for women in labor into the cloth and naming the infant, folds the cloth and gives it to the messenger. Upon returning, the messenger unfolds the cloth, waves it over the face of the woman in labor, and announces the baby’s name; and thus the woman in labor is blessed. Similarly, when someone dies, and the priest is unable to come to the deceased—whether due to distance or some other matter—to recite the prayer of release; he takes a white, clean cloth, reads the prayer of absolution over it, and, having finished, folds the cloth and sends it to be waved over the face of the deceased; and thus the dead person is buried as if absolved of all his sins. O the foolishness of those schismatics!

This, too, is worthy of ridicule: if anyone of their faith happens to eat, drink, or enter a church with our orthodox believers, they recite over such a person the same prayer that is recited over a vessel into which something unclean has fallen.

The Priestless Movement.

The sketes or communities that do not accept any priests at all are as follows: the Volosatovites, the Andreevites, the Ilarionites, and others who agree with them in their schisms. Although they are not ordained, they perform certain priestly functions themselves: they baptize, hear confessions, and tonsure novices; they pray for women in childbirth and recite the prayer of absolution for the dead. Moreover, their women baptize infants and rely on the *Kormchaya* as if it contained a rule from the Holy Fathers authorizing women to perform the sacrament of baptism. They do not live in lawful marriage but in unlawful fornication, and wives, maidens, and nuns dwell together with them in the same cells, and there is general promiscuity among them. For their teachers instruct them that it is better to live without a wedding than to be married heretically (they call us Orthodox Christians heretics), and they despise those who have been married according to the church rite. And if a child is born to those who have been married according to the church rite and Christian law, they will no longer eat, drink, converse, or pray with them, treating them as if they were pagans. For this reason, fathers and mothers who have daughters do not give them in lawful marriage, but allow them to live with whomever they wish without a wedding ceremony. They claim that their Communion is an ancient practice, consecrated even before Patriarch Nikon; and when that Communion runs out, they make unleavened dough, grind the remaining portion of the Communion into flour, sprinkle the dough with it, and make large prosphora so that it will last a long time, and bake them; and they distribute them among their congregations, saying that this is the Body of Christ. When it runs out again, they make prosphora in the same way, sprinkling the dough with the portion of the Communion that has been ground into flour, and thus their ancient Communion, as consecrated by Akiba before Nikon, never diminishes. These same sects are also burners: Andrew the Pomorian burned more than three thousand people; the Bearded Elder burned more than two thousand people. They build large, special temples in the forests for this purpose, and put one hundred, two hundred, or more people into a single temple; and to prevent small children from escaping, they seat them on benches and nail their clothes securely to them with nails. And having thus wrapped the hut in straw and brushwood, they set it on fire; and they stand guard around the fire, making sure no one escapes the flames: and whoever does escape, they strike down and throw back into the fire. After burning those people, they take their belongings for themselves.

Other hermitages and communities:

The Serapionite sect: named after Serapion the monk, a false teacher who taught that one should starve oneself to death; he gathered a great number of nuns into his hermitage and became their leader. After Serapion’s death, his own brother, the monk Simeon, took his place; he enticed all the nuns and the laborers who were in that hermitage to voluntary martyrdom, starving to death some fifty souls in their cells, leaving only one—the sixth abbess—with whom he went to Kazan and married her there.

Stephanovshchina: named after Stephen the Deacon, who has already died, but whose heretical doctrine remains. In that doctrine (as also in the Theodosius Sect, discussed in the first part), marriage is called fornication, while they call themselves virgins; yet they live together with women and commit fornication, considering it not a sin of fornication but of love. However, they conceal this from our orthodox believers, as if they were living in chastity. But the very fact that they dwell with their wives in the same cells exposes them. For how can hay coexist with fire? As for the infants born to them, they carry them far into the forest and cast them there; and those infants become food for beasts, birds, or dogs. This is what the monk Macarius told us; he is a native of the village of Zverintsa in the Rostov district, and he lived among the schismatics near the Brynsk hermitages for about five years. He later returned to Orthodoxy and was tonsured a monk at the newly built Dormition Monastery by Abbot Pitirim. And while he was with us in Rostov in the year 1709, during Holy Week leading up to the Glorious Resurrection of Christ, he told us what we have presented here.

The Kozminshchina: They also call marriage “fornication”; they do not speak of holy churches, priests, or the holy sacraments anywhere on earth; and in their prayers, they do not pray to God for the tsar. The same is true of other sketes.

At a convent in the city of Rostov, a nun named Anfisa, now advanced in years, who had previously lived in the Bryn forests, relates the following: more than twenty years ago, a monk named Avraamy built himself a hermitage on the Kerzhenets River. This Avraam set himself up as a heretical teacher of his own faith according to his own interpretation; he lured many into his heresy and appeared to lead an ascetic life; and he rebaptized those who came to him at his hermitage. He gathered nuns to himself, and after rebaptizing them, he cut off their hair; Among them were two particularly virtuous nuns whom he had enticed to him: Kilikia and Matrona. For with Kilikia he lived as with a lawful wife, mistaking fornication for soul-saving love; Matrona, however, he treated as a daughter, and with Kilikia he fathered a son. After some years, Cilicia fell ill with a severe disease; thinking she was about to die, he himself heard her confession, gave her Holy Communion, and tonsured her as a schema-monk. But after a few days, she began to recover and rose from her sickbed. Once she was well again, she desired to engage in carnal relations with him as before; but he refused, saying that it was impossible to have carnal relations with a monastic woman; and he had already begun to live in fornication with his betrothed daughter, Matrona. Cilicia, however, grew jealous and, filled with anger and fury, fled to another hermitage, where she hired two strong men and sent them to kill Avramius; they went and attacked his hermitage. But Avramius, realizing their evil intent, fled from them; and one of those men threw a spear at him, striking him in the shoulder and wounding him; yet, though wounded, he managed to escape, while they beat Matrona, leaving her barely alive, and, having gathered their belongings, returned to their own home.

Afterward, that elder Avraamy and Matrona were seen in the city of Yaroslavl, secretly teaching and luring simple-minded people into their heresy. What a fine example of asceticism and devotion from that schismatic teacher!

In the year 7210 of the world, at the beginning of my arrival in Rostov, a certain vagrant named Fedka or Fyodor, a native of Rostov, emerged from the Bryn forests, accompanied by two seductive nuns. Having arrived in Rostov at the convent, he began to secretly persuade the local nuns, saying that it was impossible to be saved here in the city, and that they would not be saved unless they fled to the Bryn forests and hid in the wilderness. Saying this, he gave them cranberries from the Bryn deserts as a blessing—which he carried with him in a sieve—and those who ate the cranberries were immediately seized by a great desire to flee to the Bryn forests; and the nuns fled after him: Euphrosyne and Mastrigia; and two others followed them. As for that Fedka, he wandered through the city and the Rostov district, seducing many women and maidens; taking their belongings, he led them into the Bryn forests. Upon reaching his hermitage, he took their belongings from them and dispersed them among other hermitages. This was later recounted to us by Abbess Natalia of the Rostov Convent of the Virgin and the other sisters.

The essence of these is that they are hermitages or sects that adhere neither to the priestly tradition nor to the non-priestly tradition; they do not practice baptism at all, and many among them have grown up unbaptized, have married without a church wedding, have fathered children, and are utterly alien to Christianity. What kind of Christianity is that, where there is no longer even baptism!

What, then, shall we say about the Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath in the Jewish manner? Have they not revived that Jewish practice which arose in Veliky Novgorod during the reign of Grand Prince John Vasilyevich, under Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in the days of the Venerable Joseph, abbot of Volokolamsk? For at that time, many men of both the clergy and the laity, having been deceived by certain Jews who had come to Veliky Novgorod, practiced Judaism in secret without being circumcised.

Furthermore, a new sect has recently emerged from the wisdom of Bryn, known as the Rogozhniki or Rubishchniki, who wander the world clad in rags and straw mats, claiming to be saints; church regulations command that such people be expelled from the cities. Kormchiya, page 191, verso, rule 12.

But who can enumerate their insane inventions, the differences in their heretical beliefs, their heretical speculations, and their deeds contrary to the true piety of Christ’s Church? And since I have here recalled their deeds from various testimonies, let them be presented in a brief list for the sake of easier consideration.

Chapter 19. A List of Schismatic Acts They Deem to Be Good.

1) They burn people.

2) They are burned.

3) Before burning, they defile women through fornication.

4) They seize the property of those who have been burned.

5) They starve people to death.

6) Because of each other’s guilt, they are kept alive in confinement.

7) A maiden feeds them magical raisins.

8) They sacrifice an infant.

9) They use sorcery to draw people to themselves.

10) They call lawful marriage fornication.

11) They claim that fornication is the love of Christ.

12) They make a man into Christ, and bow down to him as if he were Christ.

13) They are hypocrites.

14) The heretic Avvakum, who was cursed, is venerated as a saint.

15) They re-baptize and re-tone monks.

16) They reassign the priests they approve of.

17) Their priests read prayers for a fee.

18) Laymen, ordinary men, perform priestly duties.

19) They administer false Communion.

20) They do not pray to God for the tsar.

21) Others do not practice baptism at all.

22) Others observe the Sabbath according to Jewish custom.

Let everyone with sound judgment consider and see whether all these deeds of theirs are good and pleasing to God.

Chapter 20. A Discussion of Schismatic Practices

Is it a good deed to burn such a great multitude of people of both sexes and innocent infants who have done no harm? Is this not obvious murder? For just as killing someone with a club or any weapon is murder, so too is delivering them to the fire to be burned. And God’s commandment says: “You shall not murder” ([676] ); and the laws of the city punish murderers with death; for God also said to Noah: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall his blood be shed” ([677] ). And if killing even one person is a great evil, how much more cruel is it to put many and countless people to death. Mauricius, the pious Greek king, was good and most excellent; he killed no one, but only because he failed to ransom the captives from the Khan, who were being sold for a small price, and thus was guilty of their slaughter: for this, by God’s righteous judgment, he was delivered to be killed by Phocas the torturer, who first beheaded his sons before his very eyes, and then beheaded him as well with a sword. What judgment, then, will the schismatic leaders face, having burned so many thousands of people? In the Prologue, on the 3rd day of February, it is written that a certain robber, having killed an innocent child, repented and became a monk; and he lived for nine years in great abstinence and monastic labors, and did not doubt the forgiveness of his sins, trusting in God’s mercy. However, every day as he walked to church, the infant he had killed would appear to him, saying, “Why did you kill me?” And after nine years, having laid aside his monastic habit and returned to lay life, he went to the city of Diospolis, even though he was to be tortured by the city court for his sins; and having been taken there, he received the death penalty as a murderer. What, then, will the schismatics do—those who have condemned to a fiery death such thousands of innocent children and infants still suckling at their mothers’ breasts? What answer will they give to God? What will they say to those infants they have burned, when, at the dreadful judgment of God, the infants cry out to them: “Why did you burn us?” And the schismatics, who now burn men and women of all ages, imagine they are offering service to God[678] , and teach simple people not to be terrified, and without doubting their salvation, to dare to face the fire like Akiba for Christ’s sake—though in reality, for no reason at all. And their aforementioned schismatic teacher, Avvakum, instructs them, saying: “Every believer, do not listen to them, do not hesitate; go boldly into the fire, and suffer joyfully for the Lord’s sake, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, for the sake of righteousness and for the sake of the ancient holy books.” And again, blessing those who were being burned of their own free will, he said: “Blessed is this choice for the Lord [679] .”

But O foolish Abbaqum, false teacher—or rather, tormentor!—are you not like the devil, the murderer from the beginning, who rejoices in human slaughter and strives to kill people? For you teach and urge people to bring death upon themselves, so that both their bodies and their souls perish. For here their bodies are burned, and there their souls are consumed by the fire of Gehenna. You, who are guilty of both their deaths, what answer will you give to God, the righteous Judge, for all those who have perished because of your teaching and counsel?

Is it a good thing for those who have heeded schismatic teachings and counsel to bring about their own death by fire, to be burned along with their wives and children, and to become murderers of themselves? This is to take one’s own life—to kill oneself by any means, whether by weapon, strangulation, water, or fire: all of this is suicide, and such suffering serves no purpose but to cause harm; for even if one sheds one’s own blood by killing oneself, that blood is not for salvation but for condemnation; and such “martyrdom” leads not to a crown but to the most terrible punishment of hell; for suicide is a great sin, greater even than murder. It is a great sin to kill a person; but to kill oneself is an even greater sin than that. We hear Saint John Chrysostom, in his homilies on Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, speaking of those who destroy their own lives through violent death, strangulation, and other such means, and saying thus: God punishes such people more severely than murderers, and we all abhor them (that is, we despise those who commit suicide); and truly, if it is not good to kill others, it is much worse to kill oneself [680] . And again, the same Saint, in his homily on the Epistle to the Philippians ( 13), says: “Crucify yourself,” I say, “but do not kill yourself; do not do so, for this is wicked [681] .” Thus far, Chrysostom. Hear what the great universal teacher, Saint John Chrysostom, says as he discusses suicides: that God does not have mercy on such people after their death. Rather, He torments them; and that such people are abhorrent to God and to man, and that such an act is not pious, but ungodly. But the schismatic teacher Avvakum dares to teach his disciples and glorifies such an act, saying: “Blessed is he who chooses this for the Lord.” But whom should we believe: Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Avvakum, the heretic of Moscow? The ancient, true teacher of the universe, or the new, schismatic false teacher? Judge for yourselves.

Know this: just as the holy martyrs of old cast themselves into the fire for Christ’s sake, yet when they were seized by their tormentors, tortured for Christ, and condemned to be burned at the stake—and once they had been brought to the fire—they did not wait to be thrown in but threw themselves into the fire; and such was their deed, which was pleasing before God. But apart from the hands of their tormentors, they did not set fire to themselves, nor did they throw themselves into the fire; rather, they waited until the pagans seized them, began to torture them, and set the fire upon them. But today’s ungodly “martyrs” are schismatics; even though there is no persecution for Christ’s sake, and no one compels them to renounce Christ, nor does anyone torment them for Christ’s sake—yet they kindle the fire upon themselves and burn themselves of their own accord, imagining that they are suffering for Christ. But their hope is vain, their expectation is in vain; for they do not suffer for Christ, but for their own stubbornness, and their souls go not to Christ, but to the devil: for they are not Christ’s martyrs, but the devil’s; for the devil, too, has his own martyrs. Who, then, are the devil’s martyrs? Those (as we hear from Chrysostom) who kill themselves. And since the schismatics who are being burned kill themselves, they are not Christ’s martyrs, but the devil’s. The patristic canons forbid commemorating such people: for Canon 14 of the Most Holy Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria, states: “If anyone kills himself, or stabs himself, or strangles himself, no offering shall be made for him, unless he has truly lost his mind.” See on this matter in the book *Kormchiy*, page 270, verso. For even the schismatic disciples, who destroy themselves by fire, are unworthy of commemoration due to their ruinous end, just as suicides are. No offering shall be made for them. Their memory perishes with a clatter.

Is it a good deed to defile, through fornication, the women, maidens, and youths who had been deceived, before their burning, as happened in Tyumen? This is what His Beatitude Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia, testifies to in his second epistle, as we have written above in this third section. For the grief caused by the seduction of even a single child is fierce, as Christ the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea” ([682] ). How much more so for those who lead many young boys, girls, and women—defiled by fornication—into sin, for the defiler’s guilt is great; for each of them, not just one, will have a heavy millstone hung around their neck, but as many as they have led astray; and they will be cast into the fiery abyss, which is in hell. For such seducers commit a particularly grave evil: they destroy both soul and body—the soul through sin, and the body through fire. It is terrifying to consider what judgment they will face for both.

Is it a good deed to seize the possessions of people who have been burned? Is this not precisely why they deceive and burn them—to enrich themselves from their possessions? And is this not blatant robbery, killing people with fire for the sake of their possessions? And truly, this robbery by schismatics is more heinous than that committed by highwaymen. For a robber, lying in wait on the roads, seeks only to take one’s possessions; but a schismatic seeks to destroy the soul as well. A robber may kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; a schismatic, however, kills both the soul and the body. For by leading a person into soul-destroying heresy, you deliver the body to fire and the soul to hell.

Is it a good deed to lock up the deceived in soundproof huts or deep cellars, to starve them to death, and to be the cause of this terrible and, from time immemorial, unheard-of torment—where, locked up to die of starvation and unable to endure the fierce hunger, they devour one another alive, whoever overpowers whom? Where in the world is such torment heard of? And who, from time immemorial, has devised such a path to pleasing God and salvation? Truly, this path is not one of pleasing God, but of provoking His wrath; and not of salvation, but of perdition. And such wretched souls begin their torment even in this life, and with it they descend into eternal Tartarus. O godless invention and inhuman torment!

Is it a good deed to give a maiden, instead of true Christian communion, raisins that have been bewitched by sorcerers—as happened in the districts of Kineshma and Reshma, as we mentioned above— those who partake of this magical communion, having gone mad, destroy themselves—some by fire, some by water, and others by strangulation?

Is it a good deed to remove the heart of a newborn infant, dry it out, grind it into powder, and secretly mix it into people’s food and drink, or to pour it into wells to bewitch the people, and through such sorcery draw people to one’s heretical beliefs?

Is it right to accuse a lawful marriage, solemnized according to church rites, of fornication? Is this not contrary to God’s law and civil laws? Even among unbelievers, the law of marriage is upheld, yet among schismatics who claim to be faithful and holy, that natural law is being destroyed. For where, indeed, do they set aside the Holy Scriptures, the very words of Christ spoken in the Gospel: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” And He said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Thus, they are no longer two, but one flesh: for what God has joined together, let no man put asunder [683] . And who among the faithful would dare to call that law of God—and the law of the nature created by God—fornication, when even the Apostle testifies to it, saying: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the marriage bed is undefiled”[684] ?

Is it a good thing to commit fornication—even if it is not open but secret—and to call fornication “the love of Christ”? Where did Christ command such love? And who among the Apostles, or the Prophets, or the holy fathers teaches us to remain in fornication? Do not all forbid a life of fornication, punish it severely, and sometimes even execute people for acts of fornication? Is it not commanded in the Law of Moses to stone fornicators and adulterers[685] ? And what does the holy Apostle say about such people? “Every fornicator and impure person has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ our God” ([686] ). And again: “God judges fornicators and adulterers” ([687] ). As for Christ Himself, our Lord, the most pure and spotless One, born of the most pure Virgin, and the source of all purity, it is clear from this how detestable and abominable fornication is, as is written in the Book of Revelation: Christ our Lord, appearing to His beloved disciple John, said to him: “Write to the angel of the church in Pergamum. This is what he who has the double-edged sword says: I have something against you, because you have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality: So also you have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which I hate. Repent; otherwise, I will come quickly and make war against them with the sword of my mouth [688] . Thus far the words of Christ. Let us heed this; for Christ the Lord hates the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which He says He hates. And what was the teaching of the Nicolaitans? It was the same as that of Balaam; for just as Balaam of old taught Balak to seduce the people of Israel with harlots, so Nicholas of Antioch, in the days of the Apostles, taught people to share wives and to commit fornication without fear or restraint, for he did not consider it a sin. For the Lord has sharpened His sword against such people, and has clearly declared that He hates the teaching of the Nicolaitans—that is, fornication—and desires to wage war against the fornicators with the sword of His mouth. Yet these wretched schismatics are not ashamed to call fornication “the love of Christ.”

They say: “Not all are like that; not all commit fornication, and not all are guilty of the sin of fornication.” I reply: We are not speaking of everyone; for we find in the Scriptures that even among the pagans, many men and women preserved their purity and virginity, even while practicing idolatry; how much more so, then, might there be those in Brynyany who remain in virginity and purity? However, we speak of what we hear and see. For we often hear of maidens and nuns fleeing from our diocese to that place; and we see them returning from there with children in their wombs—and what greater proof is there?

Is it a good thing to call a simple peasant “Christ,” to honor him as Christ, to pray to him as to Christ, and to believe in him? Did not Christ Himself foretell this in the Gospel, saying: “Then, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it; for false Christs will arise”? [689]

Is it right to be a hypocrite and to appear to be a person who is holy, righteous, and pious? For hypocrisy brings no salvation even to a virtuous man. How much more so does one who harbors wicked thoughts under the guise of holiness—and who, to deceive others, covers the nature of a wolf with the skin of a sheep—bring about not salvation but destruction, not only for the hypocrite himself but also for those deceived by him.

Is it a good thing to venerate the accursed heretic Avvakum, who was excommunicated and cut off from the Church of Christ like a rotten limb, to worship his image, to celebrate a feast in his honor, to regard his heretical books as orthodox, and to adhere to his soul-destroying teachings?

Is it a good thing to rebaptize those who have been baptized with the Orthodox baptism into a schismatic faith? Do not the Apostolic Canons forbid this? See in the book *Kormchiya*, on page 12 on the reverse side, Canon 47: “If anyone baptizes a person who has been baptized with true baptism a second time, let him be excommunicated.”[690] And what does St. Chrysostom say? “We have been buried with Him (Christ) through baptism into death. For just as there is no second crucifixion of Christ, so there is no second baptism for us.” And further on in the same place he says: “For whoever baptizes himself a second time crucifies Him again.”

Is it a good thing to transfer priests from one place to another, to tonsure monks, and to allow unordained laymen to presume to perform priestly duties—to baptize and hear confessions? How can a simple man, having not received priestly authority, absolve a person of his sins?

Is it not a matter worthy of ridicule that a priest mutters a prayer over a cloth and sends it to women in labor or to the dead, to be waved over their faces? What good can such a prayer possibly do?

Is it a good thing that unordained common men perform Communion in some unknown manner, and instead of the true Body of Christ, they administer to people this empty and false Communion? And if a priest, among those who have joined them, were to celebrate the Liturgy in an empty church according to the old Service Book, using seven prosphora: what then is the nature of the ministry of one who has separated himself from the Orthodox Church, who has cursed his own priestly ordination, and who has rejected both the bishop who ordained him and all the sacred things, and has accepted the authority to perform sacred rites from simple, unordained men? What is the descent of the Holy Spirit there, where the Holy Spirit is blasphemed?

Is it right not to pray for the king as God, under whose rule they live, and to despise his name in prayer as if it were heretical? Yet Holy Scripture commands us to pray even for unbelieving kings. Thus the holy prophet Baruch writes to his fellow Jews in the Babylonian captivity: “Pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and for the life of Belshazzar, his son, that their days may be like the days of heaven on earth, that we may live under the shadow of Nebuchadnezzar and under the shadow of Belshazzar, his son.” Who was Nebuchadnezzar? And who was Belshazzar? Were they not idolatrous and wicked? Yet the Prophet commands us to pray for them. Likewise, when the holy Apostle Paul taught us to pray for the king and for all those in authority ([691] ), who was the king at that time? Was it not the wicked idolater Nero, the great persecutor of the Church of Christ and the fierce tormentor of the faithful? Yet the Apostle commanded us to pray for him. The Brynians, however, though not in all, yet in many of their hermitages, exclude the orthodox Christian king from their prayers. Are their prayers—coming from unorthodox lips—not worthy of being remembered, so that the name of the orthodox Christian king might be mentioned therein? Listen to what Saint Chrysostom teaches: Imitate God: if He desires that all be saved, it is fitting to pray for all; if He desires that all be saved, desire it yourself as well; and if you do desire it, pray: “This is pleasing to God, and just as we are like Him in this, so let us desire the same as He does”[692] . Do not be afraid to pray for the Greeks as well; He also desires this. Be afraid only to pray against them, for He does not desire this. But if it is fitting to pray for the Greeks, it is evident that it is also fitting to pray for heretics; for it is fitting to pray for all people, not to cast them aside. Thus far Chrysostom. For we pray for the pagans, that the Lord may enlighten them with the light of the holy faith; we pray for the heretics who have fallen away from the Church, that the Lord may bring them back to His Holy Church. The Brynians, however, do not wish to pray for the orthodox.

Is it right to call oneself a Christian without having received true baptism according to the Church’s rite—but rather to have been baptized without need by simple, unordained men or women, or to have no baptism at all? For such people, as was said earlier, have grown up and even had children, yet they have not been baptized.

Is it right to revive the Old Testament observance of the Jewish Sabbath, as is reportedly being discussed among them? Do not the Fathers of the Saints forbid this practice? See the book *Kormchiya*, page 14, rule 53; page 18, rule 64; and page 59, rule 17.

The Brynyans say: such practices are not observed in all hermitages and communities. I reply: even if not all follow the same practices, each hermitage or community nevertheless engages in certain specific acts contrary to the Orthodox Church, as has already been made clear. But all of them, being of one mind and speaking with one voice in schism, and blaspheming the Church of Christ with ungodly blasphemies, are all together ensnared by the devil’s net into his devilish will, and all together carry out the devil’s will.[693] For those who agree with one another in schisms and in blasphemies against the Church of God according to the devil’s will are accomplices in one another’s evil deeds, according to the Apostolic judgment: “He who sins in one matter is guilty before all.”[694]

Chapter 21. All Good Deeds of One Who Divides the Church Are Evil

Even if, among the schismatics, certain deeds that are good (in the eyes of men) take place—such as frequent fasting, prolonged prayers, and other such things— yet all of this is essentially evil, since it is done in schism, by those who tear apart the Church of Christ; and because of this discord, the Head of the Church—Christ—is greatly angered. For what else could so provoke our Lord Christ to anger as schism, which opposes His Holy Church, redeemed by His precious blood, and which causes discord among the faithful—just as the Arians tore Christ’s garment, or rather, the very Body of Christ, which is His Church, by severing the bonds? Hear what the great Church teacher, Saint John Chrysostom, says: “Nothing angers God so much as the division of the Church; even if we were to do countless good deeds, those who sever His Body will receive no lesser punishment than those who sever the unity of the Church [695] .” Let everyone here heed the words of Chrysostom: “Even if someone were to perform countless good deeds, yet if he severs the unity of the Church through strife and schism, he will not be saved but will perish; for he provokes Christ’s wrath just as if he were severing His body.” And furthermore, this universal teacher, to add weight to his words as a warning to those who cause schisms, cites the anonymous holy martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage [696] , the earliest teacher of the Church, for Cyprian lived more than a hundred years before Chrysostom. Cyprian of Carthage suffered martyrdom in the summer following the Nativity of Christ in the year 261; Chrysostom, however, was ordained a deacon in Antioch by Archbishop Meletius in the summer of 382; thus, quoting Saint Cyprian anonymously, Chrysostom says: “A certain holy man said something that seemed presumptuous, yet it was true.” “What is this? Not even the blood of a martyr can atone for this sin,” he said. “Tell me, for what reason are you a martyr? Is it not for the glory of Christ? For you are giving up your soul for Christ’s sake, just as the Church was destroyed—for which Christ gave up His soul.” Hear Paul saying: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, for I persecuted the Church of God and tried to destroy her” ([697] ). Thus far, Chrysostom. Here you hear two holy teachers of the Church, Cyprian and Chrysostom; who declare that the blood of martyrs cannot wash away the sin of schism, which tears apart the Holy Church. For of all evil deeds, schism is the worst and most evil; it is the very discord they cause in Christ’s Church, by which even their good deeds (if any there are among them) are destroyed. Let us not overlook here the words of Saint Cyril of Alexandria concerning schismatics, written in his treatise on the departure of the soul: “Those who separate themselves from the Church and from Holy Communion become enemies of God and friends of demons”[698] .

Chapter 22. A Frank Account of Schismatic Acts, for They Are Not Pleasing to God

We have heard previously that His Eminence Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia, of blessed memory, wrote in his third epistle to his Siberian diocese that within the borders of Nizhny Novgorod, in the palace villages, the people of Knyaginin and Murashkin, when they were burned alive with their wives and children in a barn on a threshing floor, two black Ethiopians were seen flying through the air in the smoke above the fire, clapping their hands with joy and crying out: “You are ours, you are ours!”

And when a multitude of people were burned in the forests near Tyumen, mournful cries were heard all night long at that place: “Oh, they are lost! Oh, they are lost!” A terrible stench emanated from that place for a long time. The same thing happened in the Tomsk District, as was mentioned earlier. The same thing happened in the Ustyug District, in the Cherepovskaya Volost, as was authentically recounted by a local man named Maxim Danilov, whom we mentioned above.

One can clearly discern God’s displeasure toward schismatic heresies from the death of the priest Nikita, the desecrator of the sanctuary, who had repented of his heresy only to return to it again, like a pig returning to the mud; about whom His Eminence Ignatius states near the end of his third epistle that in the year 7190, during the turmoil in Moscow caused by the rebellious streltsy, Nikita, along with his accomplices—having found an opportunity to do so— and with the aid of the rebels who were disturbing the royal city, settled in the Streltsy settlement—which was beyond the Yauza River, in Semyon Titov’s regiment—and from there, going out onto Red Square, he cried out with a loud shout, speaking with great audacity to the people: “Stand firm, O people of Orthodoxy, for the true faith; for now there is no true church on earth, neither in Russia nor among the Greeks; only we still hold fast to the Orthodox Christian faith, and we are baptized, as Blessed Theodoret wrote, with two fingers, symbolizing thereby the divinity and humanity of the Son of God; but whoever is baptized with three fingers will be in eternal torment with the Antichrist, for that is the seal of the Antichrist, Thus speaking blasphemously, that accursed man taught the people not to enter the present churches, nor to accept any of the church’s holy relics. He demanded that the patriarch, together with all the ecclesiastical authorities, come out to the Lobnoye Place, and that a debate on the faith take place there. Also, on the 5th day of July, that accursed heretic Nikita, along with his like-minded followers, shamelessly came to the royal chambers and boldly demanded a debate on the faith with the patriarch and the bishops. They set up analogions near the Church of the Archangel, placed the icons they had brought with them there, and, standing on benches themselves, shouted blasphemies against the Church and taught the people to make the sign of the cross on themselves (in the Armenian manner) with two fingers, rather than in the image of the Holy Trinity, with three fingers. His Holiness Patriarch Joachim sent two priests from the great cathedral church to them to exhort Nikita and those with him to desist from such an evil undertaking. But they rushed upon those priests and beat them severely, so that the priests barely managed to escape from the hands of their assailants. Seeing the heretical rumors and unrest spreading, the Patriarch called upon the tsars to defend the Holy Church. The most illustrious tsars, John Alexeyevich and Peter Alexeyevich ordered a council to be held in their royal crystal-adorned chamber, at which council their royal mother, the pious Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna, and their royal aunt, the noble Princess Tatiana Mikhailovna, and their royal sisters, the noble princesses Sophia and Maria Alexeyevnas, presided; Seated alongside them was His Holiness Patriarch Joachim with the bishops. And when Nikita the Heretic entered with his like-minded followers, he presented a scroll in which all his insane reasoning was written. It contained all his blasphemies against the Holy Church, as well as a petition in which he sought a just judgment from the most illustrious tsars regarding reforms in the Church. As he was delivering his tirade, drawn from the holy books, Nikita, having been exposed and shamed for all his heretical folly, rashly lunged at His Eminence Athanasius, Archbishop of Kholmogory, who had rebuked him, and struck him in the chest; for this audacity and recklessness, Nikita and those with him were immediately banished from the royal chamber by the tsar’s command. As they walked through the city toward Lobnoye Mesto, they cried out in a loud voice, howling like wolves: “We have triumphed! We have triumphed!” For no one at the council could say a word against them. When they reached the Place of Execution and continued to cry out to the people, the Lord God Himself, unable to endure their blasphemy against His Church, exposed their heretical schemes through a sudden punishment: for an evil spirit struck the heretical leader Nikita, the desecrator of the holy, and immediately Nikita fell to the ground, stiff as a board and raging like a madman. Then all the people, seeing God’s vengeance upon him, recognized that Nikita was a manifest heretic, a blasphemer against the Holy Church, and an enemy of God; and on the following morning, filled with zeal, all the infantry regiments seized that accursed heretic—whom they had previously aided—and, having bound him, brought him before the civil court; and by the tsar’s decree, Nikita was executed as a heretic and a seducer of the people.

From this, we can clearly see God’s disapproval of schismatic malice; for He openly delivered the heretic Nikita, who had blatantly blasphemed the Church of God, into the power of Satan before the eyes of all the people of Moscow. And Nikita’s madness served as clear proof of his heresy and that of all his like-minded followers.

Moreover, there was the monk Pachomius, whom we mentioned in the first part of this book, who in his childhood was taken from the Poshekhonsky District into those forests, grew up there, and was rebaptized twice by the schismatics after his true baptism here: first, they rebaptized him in a sect known as “Bespopovshchina”; and the second time in a sect known as “Popovshchina,” where his secular name was Panka, that is, Panteleimon. Having turned to the Holy Church, he was tonsured a monk by the aforementioned abbot Pitirim: that monk, Pakhomius, is the reason we know this for certain, as it happened during his time there among the schismatics.

In the Anufriyevsky district there is a women’s skete of the elder Elena, in which there are more than a hundred nuns. Now the following incident occurred among them: about five years ago, an elderly nun died and lay unburied for two days while they awaited their teacher and mentor, Anuphrius, who was away on a journey. And even before Anuphrius arrived to bury the deceased, the dead elder came back to life and sat up in the very place where she had been lying; and she began to call out to the abbess, saying, “Mother! Come to me.” Fear fell upon all who were there. The abbess approached her, and the woman who had come back to life ordered all the nuns to gather around her; and to all who came to her, she said: “Since we all follow Anuphrius’s teaching, we are not going to paradise, but to torment.” Having said this, she immediately lay down and died again. Then all the nuns were greatly terrified, and many began to consider leaving that place and returning to the holy church. Meanwhile, Anufri arrived and, having learned of the miracle that had occurred, began to persuade them, saying: “It was Satan who acted, and what you saw was a dreamlike apparition, not the truth itself.”

Ivan Vasilyevich, a follower of the Bespopovshchina sect, lived in Yazvitsy (a village also known as Pochinok, part of the Sheremetev estate). He had died about four years earlier and was lying there, washed and dressed for the funeral. His mother was sitting by his body, weeping, when suddenly the dead man came to life and began to cry out, “I’m drowning, I’m drowning.” His mother, terrified, fled from him. He then came to his senses and began, with tears, to call for his mother. His mother approached him, along with those who had been in the house, and the man who had come back to life began to recount where his soul had been and what he had seen. “Some Ethiopians came and seized me,” he said, “and threw me into a great swamp.” Then a certain handsome man came, took me by the hand, and led me through dreadful, fiery places, showing me all the hermitages and the souls tormented in hell, burning in fierce fire—people I had known when they were alive but who had since died: teachers of various hermitages and ordinary people; I saw them all in the fire. “I also saw,” he said, “a dark field, where I was told that the souls of the unbelievers are—those who did not know God and had not heard the Christian teaching. Those souls are in darkness, but not in fire.” Then the guide asked me: “Will you repent, and will you begin to attend church, and will you go to all the hermitages to proclaim what you see here? If not, I will cast you into the fire along with your thoughts.” So I promised to repent and to do everything that was commanded. That man, having led me out of those dreadful places, brought me to a certain pool of mud and threw me in there. I cried out, “I’m drowning, I’m drowning!” and found myself alive. That is what John, who had been raised from the dead, told his mother and those who happened to be there at the time. And he went throughout all the hermitages, telling everyone about himself—how he had died, how he had been led through torments, what he had seen, and how he had been restored to life. But they did not believe him; rather, they mocked him and reviled him. After that, he left there with his mother for a certain city (Pachomius does not recall the name of the city), and after living for a short time among the Orthodox, he passed away in piety.

From such candid accounts, anyone can be fully convinced of the schismatic deeds, which are displeasing to God and deserve not salvation but torment.

Let all those who have forsaken the Church of Christ and its true shepherds and teachers, and who follow schismatic false teachers, hear this: and let them listen and see whom they are listening to, in whom they place their faith, and whom they follow: murderers, soul-killers, sorcerers, magicians, heretics, hypocrites, fornicators, lawless ones, apostates from the holy faith, blasphemers of God’s most exalted holy things, those who have renounced the grace of the Holy Spirit—through whom the true way is blasphemed, by whom Christ our Lord is dishonored in His most pure mysteries, by whom the Christian name is reviled, in whose destruction the demons rejoice, whose souls, after death, are received by the fire of Gehenna. What salvation, then, can those who follow them hope for or expect? Nothing but the same destruction that awaits their leaders.

Behold, O beloved orthodox people, true sheep of Christ’s flock, and sincere children of His Holy Church! We have examined with sound reasoning the third fruit of Bryn’s garden—their deeds—and have thoroughly investigated them:

Regarding their deeds, which are merely pretended to be good,

And as for the wicked, they approve of them.

And we found in that fruit, just as in the colorful apple of Sodom, not a sweet taste, but foul dust and ashes; we found, I say, that:

Their good deeds are not pleasing to God, for they are performed hypocritically. And even if any of their deeds are done without hypocrisy, they are still not pleasing to God, nor do they merit their salvation: for they are done outside the Orthodox Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved.

But who can approve of their evil deeds, which are clearly done in opposition to the Holy Church? Only one who loves to call darkness light, and night day, and mud gold, and fire water, and soot snow, and gall honey—such a one will call evil good. But woe to such a one, cries the prophet Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who take darkness for light and light for darkness, who take the bitter for sweet and the sweet for bitter” ([699] ).

Chapter 23. The Conclusion of the Book, and an Exhortation to the Faithful

Thus it has been established through genuine investigation:

The heretical faith, and

their teachings, and

their deeds:

And it has become evident that: indeed,

Their faith is false,

their teachings are harmful to the soul, and

their deeds are not pleasing to God.

An Exhortation to the Faithful

Behold, therefore, O people of God, and understand the deception and spiritual harm of the schismatics, and beware of the dogs, beware of the evildoers[700] . Beware of the wolves who, coming out of the forests of Bryn, secretly approach you in sheep’s clothing, seeking to deceive you with false prophecies and teachings, and to lead you to your own destruction. These are truly false prophets and false teachers, of whom the holy chief Apostle Peter foretold, saying: “There were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and, rejecting the Lord who redeemed them, bring swift destruction upon themselves; And many will follow their impurity, through whom the way of truth will be blasphemed; and in the abundance of their flattering words they will ensnare you; their judgment has long been pending, and their destruction is not asleep [701] .

These are the very ones whom the holy and most eminent Apostle Paul commands us to guard against, saying: “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned; keep away from them” ([702] ).

These are the ones who teach differently and do not adhere to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching based on faith; they are proud, knowing nothing, and, sick with unbelief, they quarrel and argue over words [703] .

These are the ones from whom come envy, strife, slander, and the wicked schemes of those whose minds are corrupted and who are deprived of the truth, seeking to gain a false reputation through their own wicked piety [704] . For they are wicked, yet they imagine themselves to be godly; and by deceiving people, they acquire their possessions and profit from the rich people’s gifts. Paul commands Timothy to turn away from such deceivers, who are deprived of the truth, corrupted in mind, and are deceitful slanderers:

These are the ones who intrude into homes and ensnare young women burdened by sins, driven by various lusts, always learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth[705] .

These are the deceitful men and sorcerers, who are making progress toward what is worse, deceiving and being deceived[706] .

These are the ones whose character is described by Saint John Chrysostom, who says: they are not only wolves, but also perpetrators of wickedness, adversaries, enemies, slanderers, blasphemers, hypocrites, thieves, robbers, false teachers, false prophets, blind guides, seducers, crafty adversaries of Christ, fools, sons of the wicked one, and spirit-fighters who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit—for whom there is no forgiveness, neither in this age nor in the age to come, but whose way is to blaspheme the true path [707] . To these also belong the children of the evil one, the devil, as the Lord said to them: “You are of your father the devil”[708] . And again, the theologian John said: “They are known to be the children of the devil.” Thus far, Chrysostom.

Beware of such people, O beloved! I beg you and urge you; do not give any heed to their fables. For this is how Saint Paul exhorted Timothy: “Reject profane and old wives’ fables, and train yourself in godliness” ([709] ). Beware of their conversations, and pay no heed to their false teachings; flee their company all the more, and do not welcome into your homes those who seek to lead you astray from the true path. Listen to the helpful counsel of Saint John the Theologian, who says: “Whoever goes astray and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God; but whoever abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son”[710] . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, nor greet him. For by greeting him, you share in his evil deeds. Just as one who touches pitch (tar) is defiled by it (as Sirach says)[711] : so too, one who associates with heretics will be defiled by them.

Know, therefore, O orthodox believers, that anyone who welcomes schismatics—who are enemies of the Church of Christ—and befriends them, and gives them alms from his own possessions, is an enemy of Christ Himself, who is the Head of His Church. For just as anyone who associates with the king’s enemy and supports him is not a friend of the king but an enemy, so too, anyone who associates with the enemies of the Holy Church—which is the body of Christ the Head—is not a faithful servant of Christ but is hostile to Him. And just as a son who loves his father’s enemy does not truly love his father, nor is he himself worthy of his father’s love: so too a Christian who loves Christ’s enemies—the schismatics and heretics—does not truly love Christ, nor is he himself loved by Him; for Christ loves those who love Him. How, then, can one claim to love Christ while associating with those who tear apart Christ’s garment and sever His body—the Holy Church united to Him? If you truly love Christ, keep far away from those who blaspheme Christ’s Church, who bark at her like dogs, and howl like wolves, tearing at her limbs. It is good to imitate David, who said: “Have I not hated those who hate You, O Lord, and abhorred Your enemies? With perfect hatred have I hated them, and have they become my enemies?”[712]

Having set forth this love of yours, O faithful people! I conclude my address to you with the words of Saint John the Theologian:

Whoever knows God will listen to us; but whoever is not of God will not listen to us: by this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception[713] .

May God, in His great mercy, not desire the death of sinners—those who have strayed into schisms and strife and have fallen away from His holy Church—but may He turn them back to the right path, through whatever fate may be in store for them, and may He reunite them once more with His holy, chosen flock.

May He confirm and strengthen you, His children, who cling to your Holy Catholic Church and abide in the true faith, so that you may remain unshakable in the holy faith, and may He preserve His Church, unconquered by the gates of hell, until the end of time. Amen.

I submit this little book, the fruit of my humble labor, to the judgment of the Church, to the Most Reverend Bishops, and to the entire clergy. For I do not presume to be wise, nor do I rely on my own meager intellect. And if anything incorrect is found herein, I ask for kind correction. I, for my part, am ready to obey the Church’s command in all things, of which I am the lowliest member, the humblest servant, and the most humble worker.

[1] August 32, page 661, on the reverse side.

[13] St. Zlat. on 1 Thess. 4, homily 8, letter 2265.

[17] Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, discourse 21, folio 2978, chapter 11.

[23] Zlat., on 1 Cor. 13, Discourse 34, folio 967.

[28] In the Great Printed Collection, folio 325.

[30] In the Great Printed Collection, folio 325, reverse side

[32] St. Damascene, Book 4, On Faith, Chapter 12

[36] Cockpit leaf 74, reverse side

[39] Eusebius, Book 6, Chapter 84.

[40] Nikephoros, Book 5, Chapter 31.

[41] Page 44 of the Guide, and pages 179, 566, and 567.

[51] Theophylact, in the preface to Matthew.

[67] His memory is commemorated by Martha on the 11th day.

[70] Tone 3, Ode 7, verse 2, on Sunday, at Matins

[81] Page 550 on the reverse side.

[82] The Canon is great; on Thursday of the 5th week of Great Lent, Ode 4, Glory.

[90] St. Anastasius, Question 78 on Holy Scripture; this is also found in St. Chrysostom’s preface to Paul’s epistles.

[101] St. Andrew of Caesarea, Homilies 18, ch. 17, fol. 81.

[104] Sermon 106, folio 268, verso.

[107] St. John of Damascus, Book 4, Chapter 27.

[113] St. Hippolytus, folios 127 and 129 on the reverse, and St. Andrew, folios 49 and 101.

[119] Amos 5, Chrysostom on 1 Thessalonians 5. Discourse 9, folio 2276.

[123] Sermon 106, folio 272 on the reverse.

[133] Acts 7:47–49. Isaiah 66:1, 2.

[154] November 13, page 322 on the back. November 23, page 397 on the back.

[200] The Samaritan Weekly, pp. 114 and 115.

[209] In the Collection, folio 325.

[210] Chapter 5, Discourse 18, folio 1757.

[219] In the Collection, folio 327, verso.

[220] Luke 8, beginning of section 39.

[225] April 1, page 171, reverse side.

[229] Page 425 on the back. Georgy Kedrin.

[230] Damascene in Sobornik, page 334.

[231] Quadruple Minutes, sheet 132, reverse.

[235] The Four Minor Hours, folio 434, verso.

[241] In the Great Synodal Collection, printed sheet 310, verso.

[242] Min. Readings for February 25, in the Life of St. Taras, folio 741, verso.

[255] Min. Read. November 26, sheet 420 on the back.

[257] January 19, folio 321, verso.

[261] August 2, folio 414 (verso) and 415.

[262] Oct. 26, folio 237 on the reverse and Feb. 12, folio 456 on the reverse.

[264] Min. Chet. Oct. 26, folio 236 on the reverse. June 11, folio 284.

[268] 2 Maccabees 15:12. Monday, May 1, folio 305 on the reverse.

[269] October 19, folio 206 on the back.

[273] Ministry of Education. Thursday, January 7, page 232, back.

[274] Ministry of Education, Thursday, page 412 on the back.

[284] 2 Tim. 3:1, 2, and following.

[292] Matt. 24:3, 4, and following.

[337] St. Basil the Great, folio 37.

[339] In the same discourse, below folio 38.

[378] Baronius, Year 362, folios 38 and 41, reverse side.

[379] 1 Corinthians, pages 11 and 15.

[381] John Chrysostom, folio 2897.

[399] Mark 9:43, 45, 47, 49, and 50.

[465] Matt. 21:4 Isa. 62:11. Zech. 9:9.

[500] St. Ephrem, Homily 109 on Abraham and Isaac.

[520] Sentences 14, ch. 2. Cyprian’s Work.

[528] Cyril, Book 8, on John, Chapter 17. Herman on the Veneration of the Cross.

[533] Ezek. 9:8 July 21, folio 343 on the reverse.

[537] Isa. 33:12 and 1 Pet. 2:24.

[541] Tone 2, on Wednesday, Ode 9, and Tone 3, on Wednesday and Friday of Sedalny.

[542] In the Book of the Rod, folio 66.

[551] Matthew 24:15–16. Daniel 9:27.

[554] This nonsense is printed in a book attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, on page 32.

[564] Chapter 9, Word 9, folio 41. His memorial on January 30.

[574] November 16, folio 352, reverse side.

[575] November 14, folio 341, reverse side.

[579] July 30, page 404 on the reverse side.

[584] Oct. 2, page 141 on the reverse.

[586] November 19, folio 376, verso.

[589] Jan. 7, page 309 on the back

[590] Jan. 15, page 287 on the back

[591] May 12, page 385 on the back.

[593] July 19, page 331 on the back and 332

[602] Part 2, folio 91 on the reverse.

[604] Book 4, On Faith, Chapter 12.

[625] 2 Timothy 1:1, moral instruction, page 2556.

[637] Margarit, Word 12, folio 450.

[666] The Book on the Unity of the Church.

[674] On 2 Tim. 1, Exhortation 2, folio 2318.

[680] On the Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 1, Verse 4, Letter 1469.

[682] Matt. 18:6; and Mark 9:42.

[683] Gen. 2:24; and Matt. 19:4, 5, and 6.

[685] Heb. 13:4, and John 8:5.

[690] On Hebrews, Chapter 6, Lecture 9, Sheet 2857.

[692] On 1 Tim. 2, Lecture 7, Sheet 2423.

[695] On the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 4, Lesson 11, folio 1692.

[698] Cyril of Alexandria, in a sermon on the departure of the soul, letter 495.

[707] Margarit, Word 13 on False Teachers, page 466.