Глава XVI
Machine translation from the original · Show original
The Right Reverend arrived at the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery on October 13, 1861. 243 With him came: Abbot Justin, who ruled the Caucasian Bishop's House under him, the bishop's close spiritual son, sacristan Hieromonk Callistus, from the novices of the Sergius Hermitage, Hieromonk Theophan, who was the confessor at the St. Andrew's Church of the Stavropol Bishop's House, from the monks of the Nikiforov Hermitage of the Olonets Diocese, and several novices. The latter were in the Caucasus under the spiritual leadership of Hieromonk Theophan, who, like Abbot Justin and Hieromonk Callistus, himself used the advice and spiritual instructions of Bishop Ignatius. Thus, all the people who arrived from the Caucasus to the Babayevsky monastery constituted one spiritual family, and their friendly way of action soon influenced the entire internal and external life of the monastery.
The time of the founding of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery cannot be determined with accuracy, because its written documents were destroyed by repeated fires. It is known that the area now occupied by the Babaevsky Monastery belonged to the Moscow Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery, founded by Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich Donskoy. The foundation of the Babaevsky Monastery, therefore, should be attributed to the time of Donskoy’s successors. According to its charter, the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery is a cenobitic monastery, but according to its hierarchical meaning it is supernumerary.
The monastery has two miraculous icons: 1) the Iveron Mother of God and 2) St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, especially revered by the people both in the cities of Yaroslavl and Kostroma, and throughout the surrounding area. With this icon there is a particle of the relics of the saint of God, stored in a specially designed silver shrine. Local legend says that this particle of the saint’s holy relics was donated by Prince Potemkin of Tauride, who owned more than twelve thousand souls of peasants in the vicinity of the monastery. This particle was sent to the prince as a gift from the pope, and the prince sent it to the monastery through Aladov, who managed his estates. The icon of the saint itself was found on babaikas - oars made from a single log, used on rafts, into which logs are tied, floated down the river for sale, and which, when the rafts were introduced into the Solonitsa River, were folded as unnecessary near the monastery on the right bank of the river at its confluence with the Volga River. For this reason, both the icon and the monastery are called Babaevsky.
The place where the monastery is located is quite picturesque. It is made up of a cape formed by the confluence of the Solonitsa River into the Volga River, which separates the Kostroma province from the Yaroslavl province. The monastery stands 100 fathoms from the river and the river deep at its mouth. The opposite left banks and rivers are water meadows belonging to neighboring villages and hamlets of the Yaroslavl province. The southern side of the monastery is decorated with an adjacent oak grove, the western side is decorated with an arable meadow and abundant springs of the purest spring waters, springing from the bowels of the earth and flowing in a stream into the Volga. The ground is sandy, with stone ridges of cobblestones scattered over it, some of which are quite large in size, which in reality - in hewn form - resemble granite, mostly gray in color with a blue or reddish tint. The soil of the land is very conducive to the fact that the monastery has healthy air in terms of climate.
Beyond both rivers, the monastery owns small hay meadows in the Yaroslavl province. Residents of Yaroslavl have long been drawn to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery and with special reverence and faith they honor the shrine there - the miraculous icon of St. Nicholas. Apparently, the advantageous position of the monastery, standing halfway between two provincial cities - Yaroslavl and Kostroma - and with one of the first water communications, on which it has its own steamship and passenger pier, should hint at its material well-being, but in fact it was not the case. The newcomers from the Caucasus found this cenobitic monastery with only sixty rubles in cash, with two thousand rubles in debt, and just before entering winter, without any supply of bread or firewood. The monastery did not engage in arable farming at all.
The rapid improvement of the monastery was greatly helped by the fact that even before the arrival of the Right Reverend Ignatius, its former rector, Abbot Parthenius, at his own request and request, was moved by the diocesan authorities to the Nadeevsk Hermitage of the same Kostroma diocese, and his position was immediately filled by Abbot Justin. Hieromonk Kallist was appointed dean of the monastery, and Hieromonk Theophanes was made the second confessor.
The order of worship, the order of cell residence, fraternal meals and homes - everything was improved. With the opening of spring, proper arable farming was established on the land adjacent to the monastery (about eighty acres, partly marsh, partly alluvial-sand), for which the fields were divided, ditches were dug to drain the swamps and through them the swamp waters were drained into the Volga.
At the same time, the reconstruction of the cells intended by the bishop for himself began. He chose for himself two spacious, high rooms, with windows facing south, into the back courtyard, in the building of cells, called the “hospital”, due to the construction of a church in it at the eastern end of the building, adjoining it with its western wall. This building is built vertically to the flow of the Volga River from west to east, and therefore the magnificent picture of the Volga is closed to the inhabitant of these cells; he can only see the tops of the ancient oak trees of the monastery grove, adjacent to the black courtyard, furnished with a ruined barn, a cellar-glacier, a bathhouse with a laundry, wood sheds and along the front facade a building in which workers live and are housed workshops.
Simultaneously with the bishop’s cells, a major renovation of the corps of fraternal cells and abbots’ cells began. This building, on the one hand, facing the Volga, is two-story, on the other, facing the inside of the monastery, it is one-story; they found it necessary to sew it with transverse iron strips, since it was significantly cracked in this direction due to the dampness of the place and due to uneven settlement. The hotel for visitors, located right next to the monastery fence, was completely remodeled inside and, as decently furnished as possible.
In the first year after Bishop Ignatius arrived in Babayki, his old friend M. Chikhachev visited him, and this meeting was their last in their lives. Both recognized that the latter did not need to leave his place of residence - the Sergius Hermitage, in which he put all his fortune and enjoyed in it the universal respect of the brotherhood and the comforts that were necessary for him in his painful old age.
At the end of June 1862, Vladyka’s brother Pyotr Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov came to the Babayevsky monastery to live. Having asked for dismissal from the post of Stavropol civil governor, he settled in the monastery as a pilgrim.
In May 1862, Bishop Ignatius visited the Right Reverends Plato in Kostroma, Nil in Yaroslavl and Irenaeus in the Tolga Monastery near Yaroslavl, after this trip he never left the monastery except for a carriage ride around the outskirts of the monastery in good weather. At seven o'clock in the morning he drank tea, which he recognized as necessary as a means of warming the blood, and used to say: “This is what old age means: without drinking tea, you are not able to pray to God!” From 9 o'clock he got down to business, or went out to the liturgy, or inspected the work being done, received visitors, mostly sick peasants who used medicines (homeopathic) from the bishop.
A lot of such patients flocked, one of the cell attendants wrote down their names in a book, the age and type of illness, and the bishop noted which medicine to give to whom, the number of doses and diet, if one turned out to be necessary. The treatment was successful, but after three years it was stopped due to a crowd of patients who violated the saint’s solitude. At the end of the 12th hour of the day, Vladyka had lunch. His table was simple, and he ate very moderately. At 3 o'clock he ate tea, to which he always invited one of the brethren and concluded the meal with a soul-saving conversation. After Vespers, until 8 o'clock, he received all monks and novices who had a spiritual need for him, as well as outside visitors. From 8 o'clock in the evening the Bishop locked himself in his cells, he usually slept without undressing, and put on felt boots at night because of his feet, which had long been cold. Such was the atmosphere of the cell life of the Right Reverend Ignatius on Babayki.
On June 29, 1863, the Babayevsky monastery was blessed with a visit from His Imperial Highness, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich. His Highness arrived from Yaroslavl by boat at eleven o'clock in the morning. From the pier he deigned to go to the monastery with Count Sergei Grigorievich Stroganov in the monastery phaeton. The Bishop in full vestments with the holy cross in his hands and holy water met him on the porch of the Church of St. Nicholas, led him to the place assigned to him opposite the miraculous icon of the saint and immediately began the liturgy. The service was performed majestically, in excellent order, and the winged ones sang successfully. After the liturgy, His Highness honored the Right Reverend with his visit and accepted the fish breakfast prepared for him and his retinue in the bishop’s cells.
At half past two o'clock in the afternoon, His Highness set off on his further journey to Kostroma. After the departure of the dear guest, the Yaroslavl city society on a special steamer, which accompanied the Tsarevich to the monastery, wished to serve a cathedral prayer service of thanks for the health of His Highness, at the end of which a farewell prayer for the traveler was offered on his knees.
With the arrival of Right Reverend Ignatius at the monastery, the crowd of people attending divine services increased significantly. The Church of St. Nicholas, accommodating no more than six hundred people, became cramped, the entire monastery brethren and surrounding residents began to express a desire to build a new church instead of the six-aisle cathedral church of the Iveron Mother of God, which had fallen into a dangerous state, in the four aisles of which it was already forbidden to perform divine services, since large cracks had formed in all directions of the stone vaults. A donor appeared - a contractor for stone work, Yaroslavl tradesman Fedotov, who promised to carry out all the stone work with his workers free of charge and give a thousand rubles for the initial work.
The Right Reverend summoned from St. Petersburg an architect he knew, professor of the Academy of Arts I. I. Gornostaev 244, and conveyed to him his majestic idea of a new church, which he implemented in his project. In order to dismantle the collapsed cathedral church, it was necessary to apply for the highest permission through the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and the construction of a new church was also subject to the highest approval. Meanwhile, the monastery needed to hurry with the dismantling of the church, since Fedotov’s workers, if permission was not given, were preparing to go to St. Petersburg for their earnings, then Fedotov would be forced to refuse the promise, which would be a great loss for the church builders.
On Saturday, in the first week of Lent, the sovereign, upon receiving the Holy Mysteries, deigned to remember that the chief prosecutor had cases that needed to be reported and demanded that they be presented. The Chief Prosecutor, the director of his office, the head of the department - everyone through whose hands the case about the Babayevsky Church was going was communicants on that day. The Emperor took into account Fedotov’s donation and was pleased to allow the dismantling of the old church. On the same day, permission was transmitted by telegraph through Yaroslavl to the Babaevsky Monastery. All the brethren of the monastery were communicants, but the bishop was informed about this the next day - on Sunday, the week of Orthodoxy, after the liturgy, which he performed himself. Thus, an event worthy of note took place: the first step towards the construction of a new church was taken by persons who, without exception, had just been honored with communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ - a visible sign of God’s blessing on the work begun.
On Monday of the second week of Lent, dismantling of the old church began, and things went quickly. Bricks were prepared at factories set up at the monastery, wild stone was mined on site, which went into the base of the building, the area was planned, since the new church was being built a little further inland, the dimensions of the foundation were indicated. Solid soil did not require pile reinforcements; it was planned to begin construction of the building with the onset of spring.
We were waiting for approval of the project, which slowed down. The Minister of Railways found that the architectural lines in it were too bold to be reliably executed. Only on the personal explanations of the architect Gornostaev did the ministry agree to the approval. Thus, the project of the church in honor of the miraculous Iveron Icon of the Mother of God was prepared for the all-submissive report, which, in turn, was delayed by various accidents until the end of May, and only on the 21st of that month, the day of the celebration of the Icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir, did the sovereign deign to approve the project. “Over the construction of the church of the Mother of God,” the bishop wrote to his brother, “the finger of the Mother of God is obvious. Help is granted to people who are working in business; together they are granted to struggle with obstacles and grieve for their own spiritual benefit, in order to cleanse the work from the admixture of vanity and other hobbies, so that it is accomplished in God-wise humility. This is the usual course of affairs protected by God.” 245
The construction of the new church was provided by citizens located near the monastery. Yaroslavl and Kostroma. His Grace Nil of Yaroslavl (in the world Nikolai) reacted sympathetically to the desire of citizens to annually transfer the miraculous icon of St. Nicholas from the Babaevsky Monastery to the Yaroslavl Cathedral with a religious procession. The Kostroma Eminence Platon expressed his approval, and the Holy Synod, by decree of July 4, 1866, respected and resolved the petition of the Yaroslavl archpastor. Since then, this icon has been carried annually to Yaroslavl, greeted and seen off by tens of thousands of residents. 246
Living in retirement in the Babaevsky monastery, freed from official duties, the Right Reverend Ignatius devoted all the free hours of his day to revising and adding to his ascetic writings. The work of printing them was taken over by his brother P. A. Brianchaninov, who settled with him. Among all the works published at this time, the “Word on Death”, first published by the publisher of the magazine “Home Conversation” 247 Askochensky, is especially remarkable. It, along with some other works of Bishop Ignatius, was subject to a review compiled by priest Pavel Matveevsky and published in the September book of the spiritual magazine “Strannik” for 1863, 248 then published by Archpriest Grechulevich. Due to the importance of the accusations raised in print by the priest against the bishop, the Right Reverend Ignatius did not consider it possible to leave it without a response, which was published in Askochensky’s magazine “Home Conversation” under the pseudonym “Orthodox” 249 . We enclose it in its entirety.
“In the September book of the spiritual magazine “Strannik” we read a review of the works of Bishop Ignatius, made by priest Pavel Matveevsky. Due to the importance of the accusations raised in print by the priest against the bishop, this review should not be left without response.
The priest begins his analysis with the bishop’s teachings and sees in them, and rightly so, an ascetic direction. It should characterize the writings of a bishop who spent his life in monastic solitude and was called to the ministry of the saint already in his advanced years. The priest said neither good nor bad about the teachings. About the 13th lesson after Pentecost, he said: long, very long. To make the verdict more certain, let us add: practical and extreme, it deserves the attention of modern Christians. The priest adds that it, being very long, for this reason remained even unspoken. Where did he get this information from? We know that the indicated teaching and some others, printed and unprinted, were written specifically for private reading. The priest himself sees this quality in him, calling it moralizing reflection. The review expressed its direction and character from the first words.
The priest does not sympathize with the “Sermon on Death” compiled by the bishop. He does not agree with the bishop’s opinions, as he says: 1) about the corporeality of the soul and spirits; 2) about the sensuality of heaven; 3) about the location of hell inside the earth and 4) about the location of evil spirits and ordeals in the air. Based on the objections he made, the priest accuses the bishop—indirectly—of heresy (p. 30) and that his theory adheres to the newest materialist view and, so to speak, gives him a hand (p. 34). Let us consider the merits of the priest's accusations.
“On the one hand,” says the priest, “the author admitted that Holy Scripture and St. Fathers constantly call spirits disembodied, but on the other hand, he cannot prove in any way that they call spirits disembodied only relatively. The concept of relativity is arbitrary, unjustified by anything” (p. 30). Further, the priest says that on the basis of such arbitrariness one can fall into error and that the ancient heretics fell into it: “after all, they tried,” he says, “with the help of a peculiar system of interpretation to base their errors on Holy Scripture” (p. 30). Obviously this refers to the bishop.
In the “Theology” of the Right Reverend Anthony 250, which, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, serves as a teaching guide in all seminaries in Russia, the following doctrine is taught about angels: “They are incorporeal. However, the holy fathers understand the incorporeality of angels in a limited sense, namely, that they are incorporeal only in comparison with us, clothed in coarse and heavy flesh. Saint John of Damascus says: an angel is called incorporeal and immaterial in comparison with us. For everything in comparison with God, the One Incomparable, turns out to be rough and material. The Deity alone is immaterial in the strict sense. They are invisible. However, this property is accepted by the fathers to a limited extent. Angel, soul, demon, says St. Damascus - although they do not have physical coarseness, they also have the appearance and limitations inherent in their nature. One Divine Being is indescribable, completely formless, unimaginable and unlimited.” 251
This teaching is preached, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, throughout Russia; this teaching is taught to all young men preparing to be shepherds of the people, taught for their own knowledge and for the teaching of the people. Where is the arbitrariness in the concept of the relative incorporeality of spirits, the arbitrariness of which the priest accuses the bishop? The priest hastened to say that the bishop could not prove in any way that Holy Scripture and St. the fathers called spirits incorporeal only relatively! The priest hastened to accuse the bishop that the bishop hastened to raise his opinion about the corporeality of the soul and spirits to a positive level (p. 38). The entire Orthodox and Eastern Church confesses the invisibility and formlessness of spirits in relation to us and together confesses that they have the form and limitation inherent in their nature.
Bishop Ignatius will follow with all accuracy the beliefs of the Orthodox Church, and the priest Matveevsky deviated from it arbitrarily with a peculiar and reckless interpretation of what is incomprehensible to a person who spends his life in the midst of everyday concerns (Reverend Macarius the Great. Conversation 21, Chapter 4).
The priest says that the bishop allegedly confessed that the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers constantly call spirits incorporeal. In the “Word on Death” there is no such consciousness, which would be a sign of wavering opinion. The above teaching is stated positively in the sense in which it is proclaimed to the Church. Both Scripture and the Fathers constantly call spirits incorporeal, without entering into the definition of this incorporeality as generally known. Very rarely and very few of the fathers dealt with the resolution of this issue itself.
The priest condemned the willful and peculiar interpretation of Holy Scripture. He did it correctly, because the Holy Church does not accept Scripture otherwise than according to the explanation of it by the saint. fathers. Even in the charter, which is issued by the bishop to each priest upon ordination, he is charged with the duty of explaining Scripture not arbitrarily, but in the sense in which it was explained by the Fathers of the Church. After a correct judgment, in contrast to this correct judgment, the priest suddenly became carried away by a peculiar explanation of the meaning of the soul and spirit in a person, contrary to the teaching not only of the fathers, but also of Holy Scripture itself. He asserts that throughout Scripture the meaning of spirit and soul in man is identical.
Scripture does not adhere to scrupulous precision in expression, but always maintains precision in meaning. It uses the word “spirit” to designate the entire invisible part of the human being, and it uses the word “soul” for the same reason. This is the meaning of the word “spirit” in the Savior’s saying: Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit (Luke 23:46). This is the meaning of the word “soul” in the saying of the Savior: I lay down my soul for the sheep, the imam will lay down the area, and the imam will receive the area again (John 10; 15, 18). These words of St. are used in the same meaning. fathers. But the same Holy Scripture, not without an important reason, separates the soul from the spirit in a person (1 Sol. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12).
They separate the soul from the spirit and the holy. fathers, when it is required for a deep explanation of the ascetic invisible feat. The spirit is the verbal power of the human soul, in which the image of God is imprinted and by which it differs from animals; Scripture also ascribes souls to animals (Lev. 17; 11, 14). We reserve further judgment on this subject, since the “Tale on Death” says nothing about it. Suffice it to say that the priest accepted the first way of using these words by Scripture and the Fathers, and rejected the second, without giving it any meaning. He adopted his one-sided view, as if decisively correct, in order to build on it objections to the “Tale of Death,” which will be seen later.
For now, let us point out a phenomenon worthy of special attention. The priest, who has just pronounced the sentence that arbitrary interpretation of Holy Scripture leads to error, himself, through arbitrary interpretation, reaches heresy and falls into blasphemy. What do you think he is claiming? He claims that spirits differ from God in will and mind - only! (p. 30, 1st line from the bottom.) In other words, spirits are of the same nature as God, spirits are the same Gods, but not as smart and powerful as the main God. You are mistaken, priest, gravely mistaken. God differs from created spirits by His Being. The Monk Macarius the Great, whom you so dislike, says: “Below wisdom (scientists) with their wisdom, below understanding with their minds, were able to understand the subtlety of the soul, or to say how it exists, except for those to whom, through the Holy Spirit, comprehension and precise knowledge of the soul is open. But do you think here, judge, and listen, and hear that it exists? That is God, but she is not God; He is the Lord, and she is the slave; He is the Creator, and this is the creature; He is the Creator, and she is the creation.
There is no similarity between the nature of This One and This One” (Conversation 49, Chapter 4. This quote is placed in the “Tale on Death”).
We also see in the theology of St. John of Damascus constantly warns that spirits, due to some misunderstanding, should not be placed in the same category with God (An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith. Book 1, chapter 13, XIV; Book 2, chapter 3, 12). In book 4, chapter 13 of St. John says: “The good, all-good and all-good God, being all goodness, according to the immeasurable riches of His goodness, did not suffer that goodness, that is, His nature, should remain alone and no one should be a partaker of Him. For this purpose He created the intellectual and heavenly powers, then the visible and sensory world, and finally, man from the intellectual and sensory nature. And so everything created by Him, by its very existence, participates in His goodness, because He is existence for everyone, everything in Him exists not only because He brought everything from non-existence into existence, but also because His power preserves and supports everything He created. Living beings especially participate in His goodness, both by being and by participating in life, and even more by rational beings, both for the reasons stated above and because they have reason, for the latter (i.e.
rational beings) are somewhat closer to Him, although He is incomparably higher than all.”
An error, an error of the greatest importance - the recognition of angels as the same spirits as God - belongs to all who recognize the unlimited incorporeality of created spirits. To attribute unlimited properties to spirits means to attribute to them an unlimited nature. This leads to the greatest difficulty for materialists who have a thorough knowledge of mathematics and chemistry. Attributing unlimited subtlety to limited beings is nonsense. This nonsense contradicts the indisputable conclusions of mathematics and the tangible results of chemical research. A mathematician and a chemist, having heard a teaching about spirits that is alien to meaning, reject the existence of spirits. Any other behavior is impossible for a mathematician and a chemist; the concepts and beliefs they have acquired require it. This is the kind of theory that joins modern materialism and gives it a hand - to use the expression of a priest (p. 34).
On the contrary, the doctrine of the spirits of the Orthodox Church satisfies the requirement of mathematics, which finds limited properties in limited objects, satisfies the requirement of chemistry, which sees in every limited object the corresponding materiality. What is materialism? Mainly in the rejection of spirits. Even many who acknowledge Christianity reject spirits. Then many reject the incarnation of God, but only the frivolous reject God. All learned men, engaged in the study of the laws of matter, who find their glory in the discovery of a particle of these laws, the variety and multitude of which are innumerable, are aware of the existence of that unlimited Mind, which compiled these laws, serving as a mirror, reflection, evidence of this Mind. If Western scholasticism had not humiliated Christianity, there would be no deists, or there would be very few of them.
Holy Scripture nowhere deals with a separate solution to the question of the incorporeality of spirits, but at the same time this question is resolved in Scripture with all clarity, resolved in the system in which many other questions are resolved, resolved exactly as the fathers explain it. A spirit does not have flesh and bones, said the Savior, as you see Me (Luke 24:39), that is, spirits do not have human flesh. Ethereal, as not having this flesh, and not as alien to all materiality. Comparison: like Me is a comparison with the human flesh of the Lord. The Gospel of Luke tells that the Archangel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth, that he went up to the Mother of God, that he spoke with Her, that at the end of the gospel he left Her (Luke 1: 26-38). This is the angel's dependence on space and time!
The Gospel of Mark says that when the myrrh-bearing women entered the tomb cave in which the body of the Lord was laid, they saw a young man, that is, an angel sitting on the right side. This young man was dressed in white clothes and spoke with the wives (Mark 16: 5, 6). What an angel! During another visit to the tomb by the myrrh-bearers, two men in shining clothes appeared to them and spoke to them (Luke 24: 4, 5). Mary Magdalene, during a special visit to the Holy Sepulcher, saw two angels in white robe: one at the heads, the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus lay (John 20; 12). This is the most accurate definition of an angel’s relationship to space! The angel, when he appeared to Gideon, the judge of Israel, had a rod in his hand; when he touched the prepared sacrifice with this rod, the sacrifice caught fire (Judges 5:21). When the angel appeared to the false prophet Balaam, he had a sword in his hand (Num. 22; 31). How many different properties belonging to spirits are revealed from the cited passages of Holy Scripture!
As is clear from Scripture that spirits are subordinate to space and time, although to an incomparably lesser extent than we are, so Orthodox theology teaches this. It says: “The extraordinary speed and speed with which the angels are transported from place to place proves that they are not constrained, like us, by the forms of space and time. However, this property also allows for limitations. St. Damascus says again: angels are limited, for when they are in heaven, they are not on earth, and when sent by God to earth, they do not remain in heaven and cannot be and act here and there at the same time” (§97, art. 6, p. 96).
What strange thing does the priest see in the teaching of the Great in the Venerable Macarius, when this father, in accordance with Holy Scripture, for an accurate explanation to those who do not know, counts the members of spirits, saying that they have eyes, hands and other members, which a person has, clothed in his body (p. 29)? Did the myrrh-bearers and other saints mentioned in Scripture see angels in the form of young men and men without eyes, without a nose, without hands? What strange thing does the priest see in the behavior of St. Andrew, when this saint of God, like the story of Holy Scripture, says that an angel gave him his hand? The teaching of St. Macarius strongly agrees with the teaching of Holy Scripture, and it, according to its special meaning, is given in the “Sermon on Death.” St. Macarius says that angels and souls have their own appearance and that this appearance is the appearance of a person in his body (Conversation 7). In this form, angels appeared to the myrrh-bearers, apostles and other persons, according to the story of Holy Scripture (Acts 1:10; and 10; 30; Judges 13; 6, 10, etc.). What does the priest find strange in the story of St.
Theodora, who saw angels in the form of young men with beautiful faces and hair, in clothes shining like lightning, girded around the breasts with golden belts? What is strange here when this is exactly how the myrrh-bearing angels were seen according to the Gospel narrative?
The priest refers to the teachings of St. Macarius with irony. With even greater irony, he refers to the proof of the materiality inherent in spirits by the stories found in the biographies of some saints, that the saints, the priest says, either themselves beat evil spirits or were beaten by them (p. 29). To enhance the irony, the priest distorted the bishop's words and presented the martyrdom of the ascetics as something like a stupid fight. The “Word on Death” reads: “Many of them (saints) suffered fierce beatings from demons (for example, Anthony the Great). Others, having received power from God, subjected fallen angels to beatings (see: Life of St. Andrew, Dec. 2, St. Martial Juliana, Dec. 21). The Venerable Anthony the Great was twice tormented by spirits, the Venerable Macarius the Great was like a shadow from the cruel torments he suffered from the spirits” (Alphabetical Patericon).
The struggle with spirits in thoughts and feelings is common to all Christians who live their lives according to God’s commandments. Obvious struggle is allowed by God to successful ascetics in order to make them capable of accepting Christian perfection (St. Macarius the Great. Homily 7, ch. 14-16; Homily 4, ch. 6-7). Put on, says the apostle, the full armor of God, for you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, and against the powers, and against the rulers of the world, the inhabitants of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12). The lives of saints and their ascetic creations are filled with descriptions of both struggles. The tone of the priest's mockery in relation to this abuse leads to the idea that the priest does not believe it, like many sages of our time.
It is said above that the priest adopted a one-sided view of the meaning of the words “spirit” and “soul” in Holy Scripture, in contradiction to Scripture, which uses these words in a double meaning. In his justification, he says that only in two places does Scripture separate the soul from the spirit (p. 31). This excuse is powerless. Only in one place in Scripture is the trinity and unity of Persons in God expressed with complete clarity and certainty (1 John 5:7). This in no way weakens the testimony of Scripture. The priest attributes his views to Scripture (p. 32), just as Luther attributed his opinions to the Gospel. Calling this view, his own, the opinion of Scripture, he says that “on the basis of Holy Scripture, the majority of St. fathers allowed the complete immateriality of the soul and spirits, but until the Church’s thought on this subject was precisely defined, some of the ancient fathers and teachers allowed themselves to think somewhat differently.”
The priest points to Justin, Irenaeus, Caesarea, who admitted, although in vague terms, the materiality of angels and souls (p. 32). In a bullet point consisting of two lines, he says that the thoughts of Justin, Irenaeus and Caesarea were brought by St. John of Damascus in his “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” But, the priest continues, the most famous fathers and teachers of the Church, the true pillars of the faith - St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and others were strongly of the opinion that angels and souls are immaterial. In a note against this place, the priest says that “in many places he does not dare to make extracts from these fathers” (p. 32). Let's take this work upon ourselves.
For this purpose, let’s take the life of St. Anthony the Great, since the life tells a lot about spirits. It was written to St. Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria, the true, true pillar of the Church. Saint Athanasius the Great says: “Antony told about himself that he often saw the devil in the same way that Job saw him through the action of God’s revelation. His eyes are like the gaze of a star, and fiery streams emanate from his mouth. His hair also scatters fire, and smoke comes from his nostrils. (Vita beati Antonii, caput XVI. Patrologia. Tom JXXIII). They, the spirits, sometimes appear, sing with pleasure, and often, when we read, they respond like an echo to the last words (in the same place and in the same chapter). They often come at night, disguised as angels of God, praise the feat, are surprised at the constancy, and promise future rewards. The appearance of the holy angels is pleasant and calm, because they do not argue, do not shout, their voice is heard below, but, coming in silence and with quietness, they impart joy, joy, and trustworthiness to the heart, because the Lord, the source and beginning of joy, is with them...
their goodness is such that if anyone, due to human weakness, comes into fear from their radiance, they will immediately take this fear away from the heart” (ibid., Caput XVIII).
Saint John Chrysostom, in the 53rd discourse on the Gospel of Matthew, says: “Those lying on the bed shake it with great power and look fearfully at those approaching, when the soul tries to stay in the body and does not want to be separated from it, horrified by the vision of approaching angels. If we tremble, looking at terrible people, then what will our torment be when we see approaching angels, menacing and inexorable forces, when they drag our soul and tear us away from the body? In his commentary on Psalm 42 he says, “How many demons are there in this air? How many nasty authorities? If only God would allow them to show us their terrible and disgusting image, would we not be subjected to insanity? Wouldn't they die? - Here is an extract from the fathers, the complete accuracy of which the priest refers to.
Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer, according to the narration of the historian Nicephorus (Book 13, Chapter 8), established singing in the Church with two faces as a result of Divine revelation (it would be useful for the reader to pay attention to the fact that Job, Anthony the Great, Ignatius the God-Bearer saw spirits by Divine revelation), in which he saw angels singing in this way. (Reverend Philaret in the “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church” says that St. Ignatius, according to the testimony of Socrates, in imitation of the singing of the ranks of angels, introduced antiphonal singing into the Church of Antioch. Volume 1, § 19, p. 21, ed. 1859).
Let's look into the book of St. John of Damascus: let's see if he accurately bases his teaching about spirits and souls on the works of Justin, Irenaeus and Caesarea? In the chapter on angels, Damascus refers to Athanasius the Great, Theodoret and Nemesius. The writers exposed by the priest are not mentioned at all (Book 2, Chapter 3). In the chapter on man, in which the doctrine of the soul is expounded, Damascene refers to Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Maximus the Confessor and Nemesius, again there is no mention of the writers exposed by the priest (Book 2, Chapter 12).
In the Orthodox “Theology” it is said, in decisive contradiction to the priest’s story, that the holy fathers understand the incorporeality of angels in a limited sense. Why is there such a contradiction in the reference to St. fathers? Because only with careful reading and study of St. Fathers makes clear their exact opinion about spirits, which they, like Scripture, speak of as incorporeal beings in general terms, without stopping to determine the degree of their incorporeality and occasionally speaking in such a way that their opinion is revealed with the clarity required when resolving the present issue.
(For example, St. Basil the Great says in his “Discourse on the fact that God is not the cause of evil”: “As for his, the devil’s, nature, it is incorporeal, according to the apostle: our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual malice (Eph. 6:12). The place of his leadership is in the air, as the same apostle said: according to the prince of power airy (Eph. 2:2)." It is obvious that St. Basil calls the devil incorporeal in comparison with us, who have flesh and blood, and indicates his place, which is characteristic of limited beings, subordinate to space and time. Further in the same conversation, St. Basil the Great says that hordes of demons, subordinate to their prince, are in the air, that by the word “air” we must understand all space, located between heaven and earth.).
The passage we have cited in a very abbreviated form from the writings of Athanasius the Great is the only one in the writings of this father in which spirits are described so clearly. Very, very few of the fathers, and even those of the ascetic fathers, went into a detailed explanation of spirits and souls. The first place between these explanations is occupied by the explanation of Macarius the Great. It is of the greatest importance for ascetics and, due to the extraordinary abundance of grace-filled gifts with which this saint of God was filled, is completely authentic. He was the father of fathers, the mentor of saints and saints.
Let's turn to the review. Based so correctly on Holy Scripture, referring so successfully to St. fathers, the pillars of the Church, having so plausibly avoided quotations, having so skillfully hidden the great Father John of Damascus in a barely noticeable statement, slandering him, the priest with the triumph of the winner, holding in his right hand the inexorable ax of the just, the most intelligent, stocked with all the necessary knowledge of censorship, judges the Venerable Macarius the Great as accused and convicted, poses the question at his trial: “How can St. Macarius the Great could have adopted a way of thinking that was so at odds with the concepts of the greatest fathers of Christianity” (p. 32)? This question is resolved by the priest as follows: “He could find the conviction in the corporeality of the soul and spirits, so widespread among the monastery brethren, that he himself adopted it,” etc. (p. 33).
We, for our part, find it necessary, firstly, to note that when Macarius the Great traveled to the hermitage desert, it was uninhabited by monks, that he lived there as a hermit, and that subsequently this desert was populated by ascetics who came to him and devoted themselves to his leadership, and not by individuals who would be able to guide him. He was called the earthly God, to such a degree he achieved perfection. The miracle workers were in unconditional obedience to him. We find it necessary, secondly, to ask Macarius the Great himself, where did he borrow the doctrine of spirits and souls? “From the Holy Spirit,” answers the Great Macarius. “Rare,” he says, “even among the saints, are worthy of this experienced and at the same time grace-filled knowledge. It is the property of the most perfect Christians” (Conversation 7). The authentic words of Saint Macarius are placed in the “Sermon on Death”. By divine grace the fathers were revealed to what science had come to after fifteen centuries.
A polemic against the materiality of spirits, which is characteristic of them, a polemic that the priest recognizes as based on Holy Scripture and on St. fathers, he ends with a message of information, to which he strives to attach the greatest importance to information that had hitherto been hidden in obscurity. It was hidden in obscurity not from anyone but from the entire Orthodox Church. He says: “Finally, the Church, finding this opinion unfounded, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Nicene, in the fourth session, proclaimed the immateriality of angels and souls” (p. 33).
Where is this definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council placed and is it in the same character as the priest gives? It is not in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is not in the complete collection of the rules of the ecumenical and local councils and the Holy Fathers, the rules that guide the Eastern Church and which were issued by the Holy Synod. 252 It is not in the description of the actions of the council in the church history of the Right Reverend Innocent, 253 it is not in the church history of Fleury, 254 in which the fourth meeting is described in great detail. Fleury makes the following remark in the chapter on this meeting: “It seems that among the considerable number of bishops present at the council there was not one sufficiently experienced in criticism, because the council adopted many forged works. This has no influence on the definition of the council, because it is sufficiently established on the true writings” (vol. 3, book 44, chapter 32). The subject of the cathedral was the restoration of the veneration of icons; the canons of the cathedral relate solely to the deanery of the church.
Where did the priest get the information he reported? The foreign and heterodox writer Labbey has the acts of the council, probably in Latin. If so, then the information expressed unfoundedly has no weight for us. For weight, especially for the weight that is given by the priest, it is necessary that the information be presented clearly, in detail, and correctly. Did the council really reject the teachings of St. Macarius the Great, St. Cassian the Roman, and St. John of Damascus? Did the council really find, as the priest did, that these holy fathers contradict the other holy fathers? Did the council really make an extract from these fathers, as was done at all councils and as was done at this council in relation to the veneration of icons: compared the teaching of some fathers with the teaching of others, compared teaching with teaching, and on the basis of this comparison gave a resolution that resolved seven centuries of church confusion? Could this most important resolution, if it had taken place, remain unknown in Russia? If it definitely existed, then the “Theology”, which contains the doctrine of the spirits of St.
John of Damascus, generally called the teaching of the fathers, would not have been accepted into the general educational leadership of both the Russian and Greek Churches. There is a fraud here. If something was said about the incorporeality of spirits, then it was said as it has always been confessed in the Church. On the contrary, the book of St. John of Damascus, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” 255 was published by decision of the Holy Synod.
The preface to the book says: “Saint John of Damascus is one of the great teachers of the Church, whose works and exploits were dedicated to the benefit of his contemporaries and were and will be soul-saving for subsequent children of the Church of Christ. The Truth of the Word of God St. Damascene explains by the very Word of God, and at the same time calls for the aid of sound reflection, enlightened by the light of revelation, and in both cases most often repeats the words of the teachers of the Church who preceded him. The book about the Orthodox faith is a treasury of paternal thoughts about the objects of faith. St. Damascus brought together all the conciliar and paternal definitions of the dogmas of faith that had come before him and not only collected the sayings of the fathers, but also penetrated with far-sighted vision into the very spirit of the teachers of the faith, discovered the depths of the spirit of the profound teachers of the faith at different times.”
Works of St. Macarius the Great was not known to Damascus, which could easily have happened at a time when printing did not yet exist. At least Damascene never referred to them, and it is not clear that he borrowed his teaching from them. When presenting it, he indicated the above-mentioned fathers, especially those whom the priest calls the greatest. (Until now we have not heard such a division. The Church called those saints great who surpassed others in their feats. Such were some of the saints, martyrs, and monks. There is no conflict between the gifts of the Holy Spirit that the priest introduces, although these gifts are different, just as there is no disagreement between the members of the body, although their services are different. Holy Scripture teaches us this (1 Cor. 12: 4-30).
The saints in their writings refuted the false teachings of their time and taught morality that was generally edifying for all Christians. Ascetic writers, on the contrary, do not examine the dogmas of faith and teach rules of morality and asceticism that are exclusively necessary for ascetics. The great ones among the monks were higher in personal grace-filled success than the great ones among the saints. This is the opinion of Saint Gregory the Theologian and other fathers. The benefit to the Church brought by the holy hierarchs was more extensive.) The works of St. Macarius the Great have always been recognized by the Church as the most sublime ascetic creation. They contain the doctrine of perfect Christianity. Ascetic writers of subsequent times speak of them with the greatest respect and refer to them with full confidence. His conversations were translated twice at the Moscow Theological Academy 256. The words, which also contain the doctrine of spirits, are published from the Holy Synod. 257
Having finished the polemic about the materiality of spirits on the basis of Holy Scripture and St. fathers, on the basis of theology, the priest moves on to polemics on the basis of science and his own considerations. The author’s philosophical considerations are also interesting, says the priest (p. 29). We leave this consideration to anyone to read both in “The Word on Death” and in the priest’s review. The priest did not recognize the meaning of the article he was criticizing. This is an extract from mathematical theory about the infinite, about finite quantities, about their relationship to the infinite, about their mutual relationship with each other, and is by no means an arbitrary consideration. The theory of the positive science of mathematics is magnificent: this theory reveals the most sublime concepts that are impossible to achieve in any other way than a thorough study of mathematics.
In order to explain somewhat to everyone how abstract concepts are more convenient, more detailed, and more clearly depicted by numbers than by words, we point out the generally accepted custom in educational institutions to depict abilities, diligence, success in science, and the state of morality with numbers.
Let us make some further application of the above-mentioned theory to the relative incorporeality of spirits. To do this, let's take the relationship of numbers to the human ability to calculate. All numbers can be counted, because all numbers are countable by their inherent property. At the same time, countable numbers, having reached a certain value, become innumerable for a person, due to the inability of a person to count them. Thus, countable numbers can also be uncountable.
Likewise, immaterial spirits in relation to man are together material in relation to themselves. This proof is unusually strong, because the degree of immateriality of spirits, according to the property of mathematics, can be depicted with all certainty by a number. Being represented by a number, it receives the inherent property of limitation according to a clear, positive law of mathematics. Further, all numbers that differ so much from each other are equal before the infinite, because the difference between the infinite and each number, no matter how great it is, is infinite. God is depicted as infinite with all the fidelity and precision impossible for words. With the same accuracy, numbers depict the different meanings of creatures. So, the difference between God and all creatures without exception, which are so different from each other and so superior to one another, is infinite. Isn’t this what theology proclaims that mathematics explains from its conclusions, which have an irrefutable positivity in the nature of the means by which knowledge is acquired?
The priest puts forward his philosophical considerations against extracts from positive science (p. 33). These considerations include several questions, the resolution of which belongs to physics and chemistry. From the questions themselves it is clear that the one who gave them is not familiar with these sciences. It is difficult to talk about matter without the help of sciences that explain it. The priest understands matter in the crude, constrained meaning in which it was understood before the appearance of chemistry at the end of the last century, before the gigantic successes that it made after its birth. The substance may be weightless, contrary to the priest's opinion. It may not be subject to our feelings, contrary to this opinion. When it changes very often, it almost always does not retain all its properties. What does the weight of a substance mean? This is the degree of its attraction to the earth, because gravity is the force of attraction of the earth, by which the earth attracts to itself the bodies that belong to it. Thus, air can be weighed because it has heaviness, and not because it is weighed in a physical apparatus, as the priest thinks.
Even if a means of weighing had not been invented, the property of being weighed would remain in the air.
Light, on the contrary, is called a weightless substance in chemistry. The light with which the earth is illuminated belongs to the sun; we do not know what its relation to the force of gravity of the earth is and whether it exists. Meanwhile, light acts on earth as a substance: it is decomposed in various ways by earthly bodies and produces colors. Colors, priest, come from the decomposition of light, and not from the action of air, as you imagined. A substance, being the same substance, but in different forms, can have different properties: thus water has different properties in different chemical combinations with caloric. It has some properties when it is in the form of ice, others when it is in liquid form, and still others when it turns into vapor.
Chemistry has achieved the most refined decompositions of matter; it clearly sees that decompositions could be continued, but man, due to the limitations of his abilities, cannot carry out the decomposition that would be possible due to the properties of matter. He stops. Just as numbers, having reached enormous proportions, become innumerable for him, so matter in its sublime decompositions is inaccessible to him, inaccessible both to his bodily senses and to his comprehension.
Although chemistry calls some substances principles, it calls them this way - this is its teaching - for the reason that they are not decomposed and there is no possibility of decomposing them. According to such an experimental concept, delivered by science, in which experience always goes side by side with judgment and which recognizes as correct only that judgment that is confirmed by experience, we come to the conclusion that matter may be, in a certain state, incapable of subordinating to our feelings, and in other cases we may be subject to its action and at the same time not understand this at all.
Such is our relationship to lifeless matter. What can we say about the relationship to the organic force by which plants live, animals live, feel, act? Organic force - this life of bodies - is completely incomprehensible to man. The more incomprehensible is the life of the human soul, especially the life of the human spirit. The “Word on Death” says what is revealed by Holy Scripture and St. fathers, collected some information brought by science and experience. Important experience has been left out. Since the question was asked about it in the review, we will answer it now. The priest asks: “When an arm or a leg is cut off from a body, what happens to the corresponding member of the soul” (p. 34)? We answer: it is known from experiments that this member remains in its place. Those deprived of arms and legs clearly feel the presence of these members and the ability to act with them, an ability that remains inactive due to the removal of its instrument - the bodily member.
1) The priest says: we don’t know whether angels and souls occupy what place in space (p. 34)? This is clearly seen from the passages cited in the Gospel and from the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. When the angels sat in the tomb cave, in which the body of the Lord was laid, they occupied a certain space. What is simpler and clearer? The soul of every person during his earthly life occupies the space limited by his body; it does not leave the body. What is simpler and clearer? Scripture calls the body a hut, that is, the dwelling place of the soul (2 Pet. 1:13). We have already given the teaching of Theology on this subject.
2) The priest says: “If you give even the slightest substance to souls and spirits, then you must deny them the eternal continuation of their existence” (p. 34). Yes! In “Theology,” which we have quoted so many times, it reads: “Angels are gifted with immortality. However, angels are immortal, according to St. Damascus, not by nature, but by grace, for everything that has a beginning by nature also has an end” (§97, p. 97). After the resurrection and renewal by grace, our bodies, remaining bodies, will be immortal. Man was created immortal in body. If our bodies were created immortal, if after the resurrection they will be immortal again, then where did the priest borrow his objection? Obviously, from the distorted, outdated concepts of matter that he had adopted, borrowed from Western scholasticism, and modern science put into the archives as suitable only for the history of science. By contradicting science, the priest at the same time contradicts the teaching of the Orthodox Church, contradicts the “Theology” that is taught in all seminaries and which should be known to him.
3) The priest says: “Finally, and here is the main difficulty: how will the author explain from the materiality of the soul all its free and reasonable manifestations - the actions of thought, feeling, desire” (p. 34)? Very simple and easy. After all, the body has its own feelings, which are completely different from bodily materiality, proceeding, however, from it. Likewise, mental feelings and movements differ from its essence. Organic force, life, is inaccessible to the human concept, as stated above by the definition of science: it is incomprehensible in a worm, a fly. How do they move? How do they feel? How do they work? It is incomprehensible in the human body, all the more incomprehensible in the soul, and even more incomprehensible in the spirit. How is a thought born? How does she fly freely through the universe, while remaining sane? What is the relationship of the heart to the mind, which with its feelings is consistent with thoughts?
The action of the soul on the body is clear. The body feels this action in its entirety. When the soul leaves the body, its effect on the body ceases. There is also the effect of spirits on human bodies and on matter in general. So Zechariah was struck dumb by the action of the angel on him (Luke 1:20-22), so Gideon’s sacrifice was inflamed by the touch of the rod held in his hand by the angel who appeared to him, so the angel touched the breadth of Jacob’s flank, and the breadth of Jacob’s flank was touched when the angel fought with him (Gen. 32:25). So the angels in Sodom, stretching out their hands, drew Lot into the interior of the house and closed the doors of the house, and struck the people who had gathered at the doors of the house with blindness (Gen. 19:10). This is how it reads in the second book of Kings (24; 16-17), in the description of the pestilence: The angel of God stretched out his hand against Jerusalem to destroy it, and the Lord repented of the evil and said to the angel who was destroying people: it is enough now, withdraw your hand. And the angel of the Lord stood before the threshing floor of Orna the Jebusite. And David spoke to the Lord, when he saw the angel beating people. So the angel of the Lord snatched Philip from the road from Jerusalem to Gaza and placed him in Ashdod (Acts.
8; 39), so the angel pushed the Apostle Peter in the ribs, and so, by the action of the angel, the iron chains fell from Peter’s hands (Acts 12:7).
The action of demons is also mentioned in Scripture: Satan bound a woman healed by the Lord with a serious illness (Luke 13: 16), he brought a serious illness to the righteous Job (Job 2: 7), the demon loved Sarah, daughter of Raguel, killed her husbands, fled to Egypt when he smelled incense (material smoking), was bound by an angel (Tobit 6: 7–8). What is told here by the Holy Scripture about spirits is told with perfect similarity by St. fathers. For those who do not understand or understand very little inanimate matter, the nature and properties of created spirits are even more incomprehensible.
Explanation by words is futile where explanation from asceticism is needed. The Church sings to its sage: “You have found your deed by inspiration of God, in a vision you have risen” (troparion to the holy martyr). It is useful for everyone who has theological knowledge to the letter and decides to judge ascetic writings solely from them, to pay due attention to the following excellent passage from one of our modern church writers: Prosper of Aquitaine, one of the ardent admirers of Augustine, in 432 subjected to a strict examination the thoughts of (Reverend) Cassian, or, as he put it, “the interlocutor” (coiiaiog). But Cassian based his thoughts on the experience of people who “passed through the stages of spiritual life with attention, and, bearing in mind Augustine, noticed that grace can be far less defended by pompous words and talkative competition, dialectical syllogisms and the eloquence of Cicero, than by the examples of Egyptian ascetics” (Historical doctrine of the Fathers of the Church of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. Vol. 3, § 202, p. 55, ed. 1859).
The Western Church does not like Cassian for many reasons, she ranked him among the heretics, as stated in the “Tale on Death”. But the Eastern Church honors him among the saints, and among such saints who, according to their scriptures, deserve special respect and trust from the children of the Church (Ladder. Homily 4). The writer we quoted says in the same article: “Cassian defends the rightness of the middle path between the path of Augustine and the path of Pelagius, and the Eastern Church never approved of the extremes of Pelagius and Augustine.”
4) In the second callout (p. 32), the priest makes a naive question about exactly when gases, vapors, air, wind, human breath ceased to be called spirit? Although this is known to everyone who knows the history of chemistry, but, not wanting to leave the review incomplete, we answer: at the end of the last century, when a new science - chemistry - was suddenly born, especially from the hour when the air was decomposed by Count Levoisier into oxygen and nitrogen, thereby being reduced from the dignity of the beginning to complexity, from spirit to matter. In joy, reaching the point of frenzy, about the discovery, which was supposed to change all people’s concepts of matter, the count ran through the streets of Paris and shouted: open, open! Then the concepts that humanity had revered for thousands of years fell into the dust, the concepts of the four elements and other fictions and assumptions that replaced accurate information for lack of it. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of St. Damascus. Book 2, chapters 8, 9, 10).
With pleasure and respect, the above and similar proclamations of infant science are read as the results of the first attempts of the human mind, but following them at the present time would be ridiculous, alien to the meaning. Among such lofty concepts of venerable antiquity, which were recognized as an inviolable truth and which have no basis, belongs the famous concept of the simplicity of substances and beings. After the decomposition of air, with the success of chemistry supported by mathematics, the concept of simplicity fell. Simple, that is, infinitely subtle, alien to any complexity, can only be one infinite. The priest's lofty knowledge apparently includes the defunct theory of simplicity in the limited. Guided by this concept, the scholastics declared the simplicity of spirits on a par with God.) Hence the beginning of materialism in its present development: the scholasticism of Western theologians turned out to be weak for confrontation against it, turned out to be weak for the reason that it was based on reason and human teachings, rejecting the teaching of the Spirit, neglecting it in its pride.
We have already said that Priest Matveevsky does not sympathize with the teaching about the sensuality of paradise expounded by Bishop Ignatius. However, the priest does not really try to refute this teaching and devotes a short article to reviewing it. “After,” he begins this article, “how the compiler of the “Tale on Death” admitted the materiality of the soul and spirits, it is not surprising that he also recognized the sensuality of paradise: after all, material souls, separated from bodies, require a material location for themselves” (p. 34). Very true. We read in “Theology”: “For spirits (holy angels) there must be somewhere their own special world, occupying a certain place in the universe, which is called in Holy Scripture the third heaven (2 Cor. 12: 2) and the heaven of heavens (1 Kings 8: 27).” Exactly the same should apply to the souls of the holy people who departed from here. The priest says: “The Church has not expressed what heaven is and where it is located.” Is this true?
The Holy Scripture directly says: The Lord God planted a paradise in Eden on the east (Gen. 2:8). It speaks of the trees of paradise (Genesis 2; 16–17; 3; 2–3; 7; 22). It will tell about the consumption of the fruits of paradise by people who were in the body, therefore, ate material food. This is what the Church has always recognized, not bothering in vain to define expressions both about the place and the substance of paradise, which are unclear to us in our present situation. The “Tale on Death” contains the fathers and lives of the saints, which confirm and somewhat explain the narrative of Scripture.
The priest is confused by his backward concepts of matter. He recognizes matter in the visible world alone; outside of our bodily senses he needs a decisive absence of matter, in accordance with the outdated concept of matter. Everything limited is material, science says positively. It cannot accept the refutations presented by ignorance of its irrefutable truths. He who refutes materiality in the limited is either a decisive nihilist or only a deist before the court of science.
The concept of created spirits and the world invisible to us, as if something completely abstract, is equivalent to a refutation of the existence of the invisible world and created spirits. (After their resurrection, people will enjoy the bliss of paradise in their bodies! After their resurrection, people will suffer in hell with their bodies! The fire of hell is prepared for fallen spirits: this fire will burn both people in their bodies and disembodied spirits. Also, the pleasures of heaven will be common for spirits and for people. Currently, before the resurrection, people enjoy in paradise and suffer in hell alone This is attested by Holy Scripture with all the clarity and simplicity that requires direct understanding and acceptance of the true, as Saint Tikhon of Voronezh speaks of eternal bliss and eternal torment. For such understanding, it is necessary to recognize the inherent materiality of the world invisible to our bodily eyes.) The existence of something limited and completely immaterial is nonsense.
An equally brief article examines the location of hell (p. 35). The priest, citing the words of the bishop: the teaching that hell is inside the earth is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, asks the question: “But where, in what symbolic book, in what catechism is this teaching expressed?” According to the special significance of the question by which the priest strives to overthrow the opinion of the bishop, which also has its own significance, we must consider how one came to his opinion, and the other to refute this opinion with a question that makes one assume that the opinion was formed without any reason. Places of Holy Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Fathers in abundant quantities, which do not contain anything controversial, on the contrary, having the clearest and most definite meaning, on which the bishop based his opinion, can be seen in the “Sermon on Death.”
The priest calls the passages quoted from the Holy Scriptures very controversial and, in order to catch the reader’s opinion, he writes in a note: “For example, what kind of proof is this: the earth is ecu and to the earth you will go (Gen. 3:19)? The reader guesses what meaning the writer gives to the last words” (p. 35).
The bishop is shown unseemly, very unseemly, both in relation to prudence and in relation to conscientiousness. What kind of proof is this?! – let’s repeat the words of the priest. If it had been displayed alone? – let’s add to the priest’s words. The “Word” contains decisive passages of Scripture that do not need any explanation, such as, for example, the words of the prophet Isaiah: You will come down into hell and into the foundations of the earth (Is. 14:15), or the words of the Apostle Paul: The Lord has descended into the lowest parts of the earth (into the underworlds of the earth) (Eph. 4:9). To the words from the Book of Numbers: The earth became gray under their feet and descended alive into hell (16; 29–33), - added a reference to them by Saint Demetrius of Rostov, who expressed with all certainty the idea that hell is in the interior of the earth.
To the words from the book of Job, who calls hell the land of eternal darkness (10; 20–22), there is added a reference to them by St. Cyril of Alexandria, who also expressed with all certainty that hell is located inside the earth, etc. and so on. There is so much evidence of Holy Scripture and St. fathers, confirming the bishop's opinion that there is no possibility of disagreeing with him. (Even St. Augustine, a Western writer, who said in his essay on the book of Genesis (Bk. 12, ch. 33, 34) that hell is not inside the earth, corrects this opinion in his Retractions (Bk. 2, ch. 24) and says that he should have said the completely opposite, i.e., that hell is inside the earth.
As a priest, Matveevsky expresses special trust in St. Athanasius the Great, then it would be useful to mention here that this saint affirms the location of hell inside the earth (Epistle to Antiochus, answer to question 19). St. is of the same opinion. Basil the Great (On the prophet Isaiah 5, 14). Let us admit: it is incomprehensible that the Catechism demands that the teachings be proclaimed in the Church for the hearing of all the people at the most solemn singing of Easter Matins, “Thou hast descended into the nether regions of the earth,” and so on. The teaching proclaimed in the Church cannot but be called the teaching of the Church.).
What is the significance of the text quoted by the priest in the “Tale on Death”? It is placed at the beginning of the article on hell, in the preface, as containing an unclear indication, preparing for what is explained with particular satisfaction in subsequent passages of Holy Scripture. This was done in accordance with the rules of literature. Anyone who reads in the “Word” the action of the bishop specified by the priest will be convinced of what we have said. The priest demands in his question that a symbolic book be presented to confirm the bishop’s opinion. The “Word” contains a quotation from the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. Damascus, whose ecclesiastical significance the priest vainly wanted to trample.
There is also a quotation from the “Sermon on the Exodus of the Soul” by St. Cyril of Alexandria, which has no less ecclesiastical importance. St. Cyril presided over the Third Ecumenical Council. At subsequent councils, his works were read as containing the most correct teaching of the faith, and extracts were made from them to combat heretics and to assist the councils in drawing up their decrees. The mentioned word of St. Cyril is published in all Psalms with research by order of the Holy Synod; reference is made to him in both the “Theology” of the Right Reverend Anthony and the “Theology” of the Right Reverend Macarius. Other paternal church testimonies are numerous and very important. The quotation from St. John Chrysostom given by the priest was copied by him from the “Sermon on Death,” but the priest significantly shortened Chrysostom’s words, deprived them of the meaning that they have, and directed them in his own sense. It is shameful to denounce such a course of action. The reader can see in the “Tale on Death” Chrysostom’s opinion about the place of hell.
In his review of that section in “The Tale of Death,” in which the ordeals are examined in particular detail, the priest says: “Our Church has not pronounced its judgment both about the ordeals and about the dwelling of evil spirits, and therefore we do not know what to say about this. However, we think that in a strictly theological work it is almost better to avoid such and similar questions of simple curiosity, which have no moral significance and speak only to the imagination” (pp. 35, 36).
Isn't a theology textbook the most rigorous theological work, carefully avoiding any excess? Both textbooks, one of which is intended for theological seminaries, and the other for theological academies, set out the doctrine of ordeals. “The private judgment of souls,” proclaims the first of the manuals we mentioned, “is preceded, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, by their torture in the so-called ordeals, through which they, ascending from the earth, accompanied by angels, pass through the air and in which evil spirits detain them and expose all the sins they have committed in life” (§ 341, p. 244).
From the above quotes, it is worthy of note that the opinion of St. is not present in the “Tale on Death”. Chrysostom, who says in his homily on the memory of the dead that “after being separated from the body, the soul has a great need for help with the intercession of angels in order to carry it past the elders and authorities and the invisible world rulers of this air.” (In this quotation, the expressions that Chrysostom used are worthy of note. This way of expressing himself is explained in the review.) Mentioning Ephraim the Syrian, Dogmatic Theology says that he has many similar passages that prove the universality of opinions about toll-houses in his time (§341, p. 245).
In the “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Macarius 258 he speaks at great length about ordeals. In essence, the same thoughts are presented as in the “Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Anthony. It is said that the doctrine of ordeals, based primarily on Holy Tradition and in agreement with Holy Scripture, has existed in the Orthodox Church since ancient times (Vol. 5, § 250, p. 77). Up to 20 holy fathers are cited as evidence of this teaching, and references are made to various church prayers and hymns.
The “Word on Death” contains 14 quotations from the writings and lives of St. fathers. How can we believe a priest who allows himself to say that the Church has not pronounced its judgment either on the tollhouses or on the dwelling of evil spirits? How can we agree with him that it is better to avoid such and similar questions? How to bypass them when they have a decisive influence on our eternal destiny? How to get around them when St. Do the fathers advise to constantly remember the judgment that awaits every person on the brink of eternity? How to get around when Holy Scripture instructs you to remember in order to refrain yourself from falling into sins and not lose salvation? How can we recognize, according to the wishes of the priest, as having no moral significance that which, in the opinion of all the saints, has the greatest moral significance? How useful it is to think about death, about heaven, about hell, about ordeals, anyone can see in the “Word on Death” from the many grace-filled holy instructions contained in it, pronounced by the fathers of the Church, calling for this soul-saving reflection.
Having completed the review of Priest Matveevsky’s “Words on Death”, having carefully examined the review, we see ourselves in the need to review it in its general sense. What the priest desired, his conscience and the Searcher of hearts know. We cannot fail to pay attention to the results to which he arrives, and to the modes of action by which he goes about achieving his results. He rejects the doctrine of ordeals, speaking in the name of the Church, in the name of theology, speaking together against the Church and against theology, contradicting them and the dogmatic and moral teaching, trampling on it. Having denied the location of hell by dishonest means, which we were forced to reveal, the priest did not say any of his thoughts about hell. Is it really true that, in his opinion, there is no hell, and sinners are tormented only by their conscience, as many, many people now think? It is common for those who have lost their conscience to think this way; those who have lost their conscience have thereby destroyed the instruments of their torment. The rejection of the sensory paradise is done with great peace of mind. Heaven is not like hell, it does not inspire fear.
Being transported to heaven is desirable for everyone, but the thought of being placed in the interior of the earth is terrible. He who is thrown into such a prison, of course, will not come out of it (Matthew 5:26).
Trying to introduce a teaching that is contrary to the Church, contrary to theology, the generally accepted Church, contrary to Holy Scripture and St. Fathers, using for this purpose those means that we have been privileged to contemplate, blaspheming the struggle of ascetics with demons, the priest naturally suggests that he is very hesitant in his conviction of the existence of spirits, according to the custom of many contemporaries.
The priest’s attitude towards St. is depicted in a strange character. Fathers of the Orthodox Church. He pretends to respect them, calls some of them pillars of the Church, but throughout the entire space of his review he does not cite a single piece of evidence from St. fathers. There was an urgent need for this. The Lay on Death is filled with quotations from the fathers, on which the writer of the Lay bases his opinions. The writer of the Lay does not even speak his opinions, but exposes and explains the opinions of St. fathers. It was necessary for the priest, who was trying to reject the “Word” in all parts of it, to cite at least one quotation from the fathers and contrast it with the fathers cited by the writer of the “Word”. He could not find a single quote that was favorable to him. Having dissuaded himself from presenting evidence from the fathers, he only named some of them, in which he believed to find support. These fathers have been discharged, so what? This extract becomes the strongest defense for the writer of “The Tale of Death”, the strongest weapon against the priest.
The fathers indicated by the priest stood, as one might expect, in one holy host with the fathers cited by the bishop in lengthy quotations. It turns out that the priest slandered all the holy fathers without any exception. To achieve his goals, he wanted to bring them into conflict, to present them in a false form to readers, to show hostility and heteroglossia where sacred peace, union, and unity of thoughts were given by Divine grace.
The Holy Scripture is explained by the priest arbitrarily, against the rules of the Church and not in accordance with the teachings of the Church. It decisively contradicts the teachings of the Church, expressed in its theology. The view of the “Word on Death”, a view that at the beginning of the review he called coming from a theological point of view (p. 28), we recognize in a dogmatic sense as Protestant, and in an ascetic sense as belonging to the realm of the fallen archangel, to the realm into which spirits and people ascended, arbitrarily submitting to this archangel (John 8:44).
The means used against the “Tale of Death” are the same means that were used by the Protestant heresiarchs, the nature of the review is the nature of the polemics of these heresiarchs. The review fully deserves the scholastic title of a dissertation: Dissertatia Dissonens.
“The Tale of Death,” being an ascetic work, bears the name of all similar works written by ascetics of the Orthodox Church. There is nothing new in it, it is a collection of the opinions of St. Fathers of the Orthodox Church about the subjects about which the “Word” speaks. It speaks about them with an ascetic purpose, with the goal of leading the reader to self-concept, to the fear of God, to a pious life, to repentance. Because of this significance, “The Word on Death” is precious for all true Christians who care about their salvation and want to have that understanding of the mortal sacrament and the afterlife of man, which is provided by the study of St. fathers of the Orthodox Church, which is not possible for everyone, as we see in the priest Matveevsky. We do not stop to declare our opinion about Protestantism, however, we borrowed it: “Protestantism is a disguised atheism.”
What to say in response to the opinion expressed by the priest about the “Chalice of Christ,” the work of Bishop Ignatius? To answer, we will use the words of the Holy Gospel: Thou art (Matt. 26; 25)."
Subsequently, the Right Reverend Ignatius compiled a special “Addition to the Word on Death”; this addition was included in the 1865 edition of “Ascetic Experiences” at the end of the 2nd volume, 259 and then again, significantly expanded by the author, it was published together with “The Word on Death” as a separate book after his death, in 1869 and 1880. 260
The bookseller-publisher I. I. Glazunov, 261 an old acquaintance of Bishop Ignatius, entered into an agreement with him to publish all his works, accepting the costs of publication upon himself, and thereby introduced the Reverend into the intensive task of revising, correcting, adding to and bringing into one whole all the articles written by him at different times in the rank of archimandrite, and then bishop. Thus, the first two volumes were compiled under the title “Ascetic Experiences”, published in 1865; the last two: “Ascetic Sermon” and “Offering to Modern Monasticism,” consisting of advice on outward behavior and spiritual activity, were published in 1867, just before the death of Bishop 262. The fifth volume, entitled “Fatherland,” containing sayings of the holy fathers and stories from their lives, was also published by Glazunov after the death of the compiler 263 .
In addition to these five volumes, after the death of the Right Reverend, articles were published in separate books, prepared by the deceased for publication, but not in time for the publication of the first edition of his works, namely: 1) “The Fates of God” 264; 2) “On the patience of sorrows” 265; 3) “The Wanderer,” published with the brochure “On the Jesus Prayer” in 1867 266; 4) “On the attitude of a Christian to his passions”; “The Mysterious Explanation of the 99th Psalm” and “The Voice from Eternity” were published in 1870 as a separate brochure entitled “Three Articles That Have Not Been in Print” 267, and, finally, 5) “Letters to the Laity”, published by the rector of the Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius the Second in 1881, during the biography of the bishop Ignatius. 268
In the preface of the first volume, the author explains the reasons that prompted him to publish his works, namely: he recognizes himself as obligated to give an account to Christian society of his vision of the promised land, sharpening spiritual blessings, which is the monastic life, conducted according to the teaching and tradition of the Eastern Church and contemplated in its living representatives. This preface states that various articles in “Ascetic Experiences” were compiled in response to issues that arose in the society of monks and God-loving laity who were in spiritual communion with the author. All of them, taken as a whole, depict the Orthodox Christian feat in its order and gradualism, warn the ascetic against hobbies and errors, against untimely striving for high spiritual states, teach him to lay a solid foundation on doing the Gospel commandments, on repentance and repentant crying.
Here it is not inappropriate to quote the words of the Most Reverend Ignatius himself, which he repeated more than once in a frank conversation to his brother Peter Alexandrovich, that he never allowed himself to talk about any spiritual work, much less write, without verifying with his own experience the teaching or work and its consequences that he conveyed to the listener or reader, pointing at the same time to the Sacred and Fatherly Scriptures, which spoke about the same subject, which, however, can be clearly seen from his creations themselves.
Long before his death, the Right Reverend Ignatius began to prepare for it and in his conversations often touched upon instructions in the event of death. Within five years (in 1862), he made a spiritual will, certified on July 20, 1863 in the Kostroma Chamber of the Civil Court, to which he transferred all his works to the ownership and disposal of his brother Pyotr Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov. 269
In August 1864, he told his brother: “Our mother was as sick before her death as I was, everyone was on her feet, and she had a decent appetite, but the time came - in three days the illness ended the whole thing. I ask: when I die, don’t think of sending for a doctor, let me die a Christian, don’t make a fuss. Don’t notify my relatives about the death and don’t expect them to go to the funeral, but after burying them in the ground, then notify them... I’m telling you ahead, so that you know and so that you don’t forget or worry about this in the hour of death. I don’t say or bequeath anything about how and where to bury me, because I don’t want to bind the actions of my neighbors outside the boundaries of my life and, moreover, in something that is almost never fulfilled.”
The year 1866 came, the 3rd and 4th volumes of the works of the Right Reverend Ignatius, his “Ascetic Sermon” and “Offering to Modern Monasticism”, or “Advice”, were printed. Meanwhile, his physical strength was apparently declining, so that the spiritual children who came from St. Petersburg to visit him were amazed at the change that presented themselves to them at the sight of their spiritual father, exhausted by illness and premature decrepitude. Despite, however, this decline in physical strength, spiritual vigor did not leave him. “Do not be afraid,” he wrote to one of his spiritual children, who was engaged in proofreading his published works, “I will not die until I finish the work of my service to humanity and convey to him the words of truth, although I really am as weak and exhausted in bodily strength as it seems to you.”
On August 14, 1866, their imperial highnesses the sovereign heir Alexander Alexandrovich and Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich visited the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery. The Bishop, presenting the holy icon of the Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky to the Tsarevich, greeted him with the following speech: “Almighty God, who in difficult times of Russia overshadowed the Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky with heavenly blessing and heavenly help, may he overshadow with this blessing and this help Your Imperial Highness in the great service ahead of you to God and humanity.” Then, handing Vladimir Alexandrovich the icon of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, he said: “Your Imperial Highness! In ancient times, two great princes - Equal-to-the-Apostles and Monomakh - bore the name of Vladimir. Their lives were marked by piety, wisdom, and courage. And now the Grand Duke, who bears the name coveted for Russia, may he rejoice Russia with these qualities, so beneficial for the peoples, when the peoples are illuminated by them from the sanctuary - from the royal house.”
The private conversation of the Bishop, whom the distinguished guests of the monastery honored with their gracious visit, concerned monasteries. “Monasteries are hospitals,” said the bishop, “a shelter for people who, realizing their powerlessness to preserve themselves, their souls, living in the world, go to this refuge and bring into it their understandings, their habits, their vices, their passions, developed by the education that they received in the world, therefore the moral state of the monasteries is completely dependent on the moral mood of the people.
The people are corrupted, and the monasteries are corrupted. A lot of reprehensible things have crept into them, a lot of bad things, but with all that they retain the character of their refuge for those wishing to survive from final destruction, they are hospitals for the souls of the hopelessly sick. For example, Your Highness deigned to notice today’s deacon.” “Yes,” said the sovereign heir, “an excellent voice!” “Although he,” the bishop continued, “has a talent, due to his morbid addiction to wine, he requires supervision over himself—a nanny. And is it really possible to abandon this man to his mercy—to his destruction? How many cripples, orphans, and beggars are there here? And everyone is busy, everyone is aimed at protecting them in the Christian spirit, in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, and therefore, no matter how weak the monasteries are, their weakness comes from the weakening of general morality, and they relatively retain their character as a hospital. Their distinctive moral feature is loyalty to the Orthodox Church and the throne.
Please, Your Highness, draw attention to the fact that there is no other class, except the monastic one, in which there would be no temptation to betray the throne.
Monasticism and monasteries are especially persecuted by evil parties because they are devoted to the faith and the throne and support these feelings in those who draw close to them and submit to their spiritual direction. I already have one foot in the grave and am not looking for anything for myself, and I have nothing to look for, but I report to Your Highness the real truth for the sake of truth, I beg Your Highness: support the monasteries for the good that their existence brings.” Their Highnesses treated the Bishop very favorably and consoled him with their attention to his words. Their visit left the most pleasant impression on the Reverend; he called it his “vision of the rising luminaries” around him.
“The severe feat of personal asceticism, the feat of prayer and enduring the sorrows of bodily soreness, concern for the improvement and prosperity of the monastery, caring for one’s brother ascetic, remembering the places of one’s life’s service, strengthening correspondence for the edification of one’s neighbors, literary ascetic activity, constant remembering of death and the need for dignified preparation for it - this is the direction in which the content of the life of the Right Reverend Ignatius can be presented Brianchaninov in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery from October 1861 to April 30, 1867" (Sokolov. Part 1. pp. 315–316).
Ivan Ivanovich Gornostaev (1821–1874) – academician of architecture, artist. The author of many capital buildings, as well as buildings of the Nikolo-Babaevsky and Ust-Medveditsky monasteries, worked in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. He revived Byzantine and traditional Russian styles in architecture.
Collection of letters. 1995. P. 759.
For a description of one of these meetings of the icon of the wonderworker Nicholas in the monastery after its month-long stay in Yaroslavl, see: Holiday in Yaroslavl // Home Conversation. 1865. Issue. 46. pp. 1344–1347. The article tells about the prayer service performed by Bishop. Ignatius, his speech is given to all those present.
A word on death, compiled by Ignatius, the former bishop of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, who is now retired in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese. SPb.: ed. V. Askochensky, 1862. 194 p. Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1863.
Matveevsky P. [Review] // Wanderer. 1863. T. 3. Sep. Bibliography pp. 26–28.
Review of the works of the Right Reverend Ignatius, made by priest Pavel Matveevsky // Home conversation. 1864. Issue. 3. pp. 63–70; Vol. 4. pp. 91–101; Vol. 5. pp. 127–132. Sub: Orthodox Dept. ot.: St. Petersburg, 1864. Under the title: Review of the Orthodox on the review of the Word on Death and other writings of Bishop Ignatius by priest Pavel Matveevsky, published in the September book for 1863 of the spiritual magazine “Wanderer”.
Anthony (Amphitheaters Ya. G.). Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church with the addition of a general introduction to the course of theological sciences, compiled by the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archimandrite Anthony. Kyiv, 1848. Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1849; M., 1852; St. Petersburg, 1862. The edition of 1857 indicated by the saint is not in the Russian National Library.
Seventh edition 1857. It is known that the “Theology” of the Right Reverend Anthony was translated into Greek to guide him in teaching. Because of this significance of this “Theology” in the Orthodox Church, we will often refer to it and declare its teaching as the teaching of the Church.
Book of rules of St. apostle, St. Ecumenical and Local Councils and St. father. St. Petersburg, 1839. At the church. – glory. language Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1843; M., 1862; 1866; 1893; 1992.
Innokenty (Smirnov I.D.). An outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century for the benefit of spiritual youth. Dept. 1–2. St. Petersburg, 1817. Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1820–1821; 1823; 1834; 1838; 1842; 1849; 1857.
FleuryC. Histoire du Christianisme (connue sous le nom d' ecclesiastique). Vol. 1–6. Paris, 1836–1837.
John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith: Trans. from Greek M., 1844. Dr. ed.: M., 1855; St. Petersburg, 1894; Rostov n/d., 1992.
Macarius of Egypt. Our venerable father Macarius of Egypt, called the Great, spiritually beneficial conversations about perfection, decent for Christians.” Translated from Greek. Ep. Moses. Parts 1–2. M., 1820. Dr. ed.: M., 1839; 1851.
Macarius of Egypt. Words of our venerable father Macarius of Egypt / Trans. from Greek hierodeac. Herman. SPb.: ed. Holy Synod, 1817.
Macarius (Bulgakov M.P.). Orthodox dogmatic theology: In 5 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1849–1853. Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1856–1857; 1868; 1883; 1895; Kolomna, 1993; M., 1999.
A separate edition of the “Addition” was published before 1865. See: Addendum to the Word on Death. A look at Western opinions about spirits, hell and heaven and especially additional evidence (quotes) about the location of hell and heaven. Compiled by Ignatius, a bishop living in retirement in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese. St. Petersburg, 1864.
A word about death and an addition to it. 2nd ed. corr. and additional Yaroslavl, 1869. Dr. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1881, 1886, 1900.
Ivan Ilyich Glazunov (1826–1889) - representative of the Glazunov publishing and bookselling company, founded in 1782 and publishing collected works of Russian writers, works of historians, teachers, etc. St. Ignatius noted in a letter dated April 18. 1863: “I am heartily glad that Ivan Ilyich had the good idea to publish my works on his own credit. I dare to think that he will do a benefit to the entire domestic Christian society by providing spiritual reading not from the education that is given by school, which imparts only knowledge by letter, but which is acquired through monastic life” (Collected Letters. 1995. P. 570).
Works of Bishop Ignatius: In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg: type. I. I. Glazunova, 1865–1867.
Selected sayings of St. monks and stories from their lives, collected by Bishop Ignatius/Introduction. and the conclusion of the author. – comp. SPb.: type. I. I. Glazunova, 1870. On the title: Fatherland, compiled by Bishop Ignatius.
The Fates of God: The dying creation of Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov), who resides in retirement in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery of the Kostroma Diocese / Preface. P. A. Brianchaninova. SPb.: type. I. I. Glazunova, 1867.
On the patience of sorrows, the teaching of the holy fathers, collected by Bishop Ignatius, who lived in retirement in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese / Preface. P. A. Brianchaninova. Yaroslavl: type. G. V. Falk, 1868.
About the Jesus Prayer: Conversation between an elder and his disciple. SPb.: type. I. I. Glazunova, 1867.
Three articles that have not been published by Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Yaroslavl: ed. P. Brianchaninova, 1870.
Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Letters to the laity // Biography of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov and letters from His Eminence to persons close to him. St. Petersburg, 1881. P. 1–144 2nd page.
Collection of letters. 1995, pp. 723–724.