ADAM DROZDEK

STEFAN IAVORSKII AND PROTESTANTISM

Simeon Iavorskii was born in 1658 w Iavor in the western Ukraine.
In 1667, his family moved eastward to settle near Nezhin. Since
1673 he had studied in the Kiev Academy, and beginning in 1684 he
continued his education in Polish universities after converting to the
Uniate faith, when he assumed the name of Stanislav. After his return
to Kiev in 1687 (or 1689), he converted to Orthodoxy, and after two
years, he became a monk and assumed the name of Stefan. Soon after
he started teaching poetics, rhetoric, philosophy, and theology in the
Kiev Academy. In 1691, he became a prefect and professor of phi-
losophy. In 1697, he became a hegumen, i.e., an abbot of the Holy
Nikolskii monastery. At that time, he wrote poetry in Polish, Latin,
and Russian
1
. In 1700, Peter I heard and appreciated one of his spee-
ches and soon after made him the metropolitan of Riazan and Murom.
He was nominated a protector of the Moscow Slavonic-Greek-Latin
Academy introducing many reforms in it and also in the educational
system in Moscow. After the death of patriarch Adrian in 1700, no
new patriarch was nominated, but Peter I chose Iavorskii to fulfill the
duties of the post. Iavorskii accepted hoping that this was a prelude
for his becoming the next patriarch. Iavorskii advocated many social

1
The little known poetic side of Iavorskii is presented by R. UNY. Stefan Jaworski
poeta nieznany. Slavia Orientalis 1967 nr 4 p. 363-376.
PERSPECIVA
Legnickie Studia
Teologiczno-Historyczne
Rok X 2011 Nr 1 (18)
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 47
and economic reforms of the tsar but did not agree with the tsars
policy toward the church. In a 1712 sermon, he considered the tsare-
vich Aleksei to be the only hope of Russia, the son of the tsar who
soon was later arrested for treason and died in prison. After this ser-
mon Iavorskii was prohibited from having public sermons. In a letter
to the tsar he still tried to defend himself and the independence of the
church, and yet, although reluctantly, he signed the Spiritual Regula-
tion in 1721 that gave the tsar the authority over the church, and he
was nominated the president of the newly established Most Holy
Synod. However, before and after that act, his influence on the life of
the church steadily waned. He died in 1722.


1. THE ROCK OF FAITH

Iavorskii was known for his oratory skills leaving over 300 un-
published sermons
2
. He was very well versed in the Bible and in the
writings of the church fathers. He was very traditional in his theolog-
ical views which are best expressed in his opus vitae, The Rock of
Faith. The book, written in 1713-1715, and published for the first time
posthumously in 1728, is a defense of the Orthodox church from the
attacks of Protestants. The rock () of faith is Christ who is at
the same time the cornerstone (), the stone on which the true
church is based, and the stumbling block (), on which all he-
retics stumble and their teachings are pulverized (KV preface)
3
.

2
.. . ,
. Vol. 2. Part 1. - 1906 p. 381-426.
3
The following references will be used:
KV . . - -
, ,
. 1730.
S O, o o.
1874. Vol. 3 p. 72-121, Vol. 4 p. 123-154, 505-520;
1875, Vol. 1 p. 118-128, 631-647, Vol. 2 p. 486-505, Vol. 3 p. 463-492, Vol. 4 p.
124-145.
Z . . ,
. 1703. In his: .
. 1999 p. 29-112.
48 ADAM DROZDEK
The Rock of Faith consists of twelve chapters that concentrate on
twelve issues: the icons; the cross; the relics; the Eucharist; prayers
to the saints; prayers of the departed; prayers for the departed; tradi-
tion; liturgy; fasting; good works; and punishment of heretics. The
structure of all chapters is similar. First, the positive teachings of the
Orthodox church concerning a partucular issue are presented and
this is the part related to the cornerstone; then teachings of Protestants
considered erroneous are refuted which is the part related to the
stumbing block; and finally some rational arguments are presented
where rationality means deriving certain conclusions from the Biblical
statements. The Rock of Faith is at the same time an apologetic work
and a defense of the only true Christian teaching, which, to be sure,
is for Iavorskii the teaching of the Orthodox church. The author did
not strive for originality; actually, he refrained from it. His originality
may stem primarily from the way he presented his arguments, from
his greater reliance than his predecessors on logic, in particular, syllo-
gistic reasoning
4
. Some examples he used may also be original. Over
a thousand pages of the book are filled with many Biblical passages
and with many quotations from the church fathers, in particular Greek
fathers, with occasional references to the Latin fathers. The Rock of
Faith belongs to the category of lightweight theology, concentrating
on issues that divide Orthodoxy from Protestantism, which might in
many cases be considered of secondary importance. Sometimes the
discussion is carried to the extreme in bringing up issues of seemingly
no importance at all: was Christ crucified on a four-pointed cross or
on an eight-pointed cross, if the ends of the board with the inscription
and the footrest are also considered integral parts of the cross (KV
249-252). This concern may trivialize theological issues, but, on the
other hand, this issue led to a serious rift within the Russian church
just as did another seemingly unimportant problem, whether people
should cross themselves with two fingers or with three fingers. First

4
. . ,

. - 1904 p. 279. The
Rock of Faith is different from other polemical literature in the scientific statement
of the problem, [namely] on the level of the needs of the science of the time. ..
. XVI XVII . :
1880 s. 145.
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 49
principles of Christian faith are taken as givens and not scrutinized in
The Rock of Faith: the nature of God
5
, of the Trinity, proofs of the
existence of God, Gods economy and energies, the nature of the In-
carnation
6
, the origin of evil and the theodicy problem, and the like.


2. ICONS

An issue that well illustrates a doctrinal division between the Prot-
estants and the Orthodox church is the treatment of icons. The Prot-
estants criticized the Orthodox church for its veneration of icons which
they likened to idolatry. This was far from a new problem, since al-
ready in the past, well before the Protestantism existed, iconoclasm
had been a very strong movement inside the church, even leading to
bloody confrontations (iconoclastic controversy from AD 726 to 843).
The major Orthodox argument in defense of icons is that there is
a difference between the veneration of icons and the worship of God.
Worship () is due only to God (KV 95, 108, 111), whereas
icons are only venerated, which is done not on account of icons, but
on account of what or whom they depict and signify. It is the same
with the veneration of relics (285) and with the OT and NT sacrifices
(791). Icons are thus intermediaries, whereby the venerating of icons
turns into the veneration of the saints and the worship of God. Actual-
ly, any form of veneration is done on account of God, since every-
thing was created by God and thus veneration is a form of worship of
God (110, 111): in the Bible honor and bowing is given to inanimate
objects as much as they come from and are related to God Himself
(15-16). Idols are images of what does not exist mythological gods
that do not exist. Icons are images of what exists, lives, and what is
holy in itself and thus worthy of honor (4-5, 124).
God did not order making images of Christ, but there is no prohi-
bition of making His images (KV 5). Also, although making and vene-
rating icons is not mentioned in the Bible, there are many things not

5
He agreed that Gods nature cannot be exactly determined, but His nature cannot
be expressed in more understandable terms. . . .
: 1992. V. 1 p. 84.
6
A few remarks concerning the unity of two natures in Christ are made at the clos-
ing of the chapter on the Eucharist (443-456).
50 ADAM DROZDEK
mentioned there in which Christians believe, and Iavorskii mentioned
the same essence of God and the Son, which is the doctrine estab-
lished by ecumenical councils, and so is the teaching about icons that
comes primarily from tradition (141). The Protestants may not be alto-
gether convinced by this argument, since they insist on using the Bible
as the only source of Christian dogmas, not on tradition. However, if
not directly, then indirectly the Bible does point to the possibility of
venerating icons. For example, Israelites bowed to the cloudy pillar
when Moses was entering the tent (Ex 33:10); if so, asked rhetorical-
ly Iavorskii, why one should prohibit bowing to and thus venerating
icons? (8).
Veneration of icons is of particularly great benefit for simple
people who cannot read but who surely can look at images of the
suffering Christ, stated Iavorskii. Images of the last judgment and of
hell led the prince Vladimir to accept the Orthodox faith (KV 17,
73). If so, it may appear that the more realistic icons are, the more
strongly they speak to people. However, the tradition of iconography
specifically prohibits realism. Do the stylized images of the suffering
Christ or of hell really have the same power of conviction as very
realistic images of Christ and hell present in Western art? Iavorskii
said that when believers pray before icons, they direct their minds to
the invisible (18). This is where the stylized character of icons may
have more impact: their otherworldly depictions may more easily di-
rect the mind toward the otherworldly originals than very realistic
depictions could do.
Veneration of icons is confirmed by miracles (KV 41-47). It is
easier to count stars of the sky, leaves on trees, grass on all the earth,
sand in all seas than to list miracles by icons of Christ, Mother of
God, () and the saints of God (45). True, there are false miracles,
but true miracles are always for the benefit of people. Icons have pow-
er to bring people to the good (46, 135). Also, miracles are needed:
1. for pagans to be converted, 2. to strengthen the Orthodox faith, 3.
to see that people believe in the same Christian church that at its
origins performed miracles, 4. to show the presence of God in His
church, 5. to glorify God, 6. to see that God cares for people (134-
135). Miracles confirm the validity of icons as an objects of venera-
tion, but the believers must constantly keep in mind that an icon does
not perform miracles by itself, but God performs miracles in the icon
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 51
or through the icon since only God can perform miracles (175),
whereby such an icon should elevate the mind toward the true author
of the miracle. However, the Protestants stated that icons can very
easily become more than just objects of veneration idolatry is a
constant danger. Iavorskiis response was that only the new in faith
or the weakly rooted can idolize icons, not an Orthodox believer. For
us, the holy icons are beneficial; but as for you, they [lead] you to
disgrace and eternal perdition (149), added Iavorskii in an ungainly
comment. Is Iavorskii really convinced that no Orthodox believer can
fall into the snares of idolatrous treatment of icons? He stated that no
distinction should be made between new and old icons and only
mindless schismatics believe otherwise (161). That would mean that
an Orthodox believer will not make such a mistake, because, by de-
finition, he would thereby automatically put himself outside the Or-
thodox church. And thus, no Orthodox believer can idolize icons sin-
ce, in this way, he would cease to become an Orthodox believer.
Such a solution, however, has an air of sophistry and of merely ter-
minological explanation.
It is not any different in justifying an honor for other entities. For
example, the Orthodox believe that honoring relics of the holy saints
of God is an act of piety (KV 261). The Israelites worshipped a bra-
zen serpent and a golden calf (283) to the point of idolizing them,
particularly the latter, which indicated that they all too easily were
becoming idolaters. In order to prevent them from worshipping the
body of Moses, its burial place remained hidden from them: God
through an angel buried it so that no one could find it (261, 276, 283).
However, what would be bad for the Israelites is beneficial for Or-
thodox believers, perfect men, perfect in faith, that is, since they do
not honor relics as gods (283). There is no danger of idolatry among
Orthodox believers (276), simply by definition. However, why rem-
nants of Joseph that were preserved and then carried to the promised
land (261) were not exposing the Israelites to the danger of idolatry
is not explained.





52 ADAM DROZDEK

3. ESCHATOLOGY

Iavorskii did his best to remain within the limits of the traditional
Orthodox teachings, but there are certain areas which this tradition
does not define very firmly. These include the problem of eschatolo-
gy, including the problem of salvation.
Iavorskii was particularly appalled by the Protestant teaching that
faith would be sufficient for salvation. In his mind, the teaching that
we are saved by faith alone means that we can steal, murder, etc. and
be not afraid since faith alone will save us. True, faith saves us, but
faith made alive by good works; otherwise, faith is dead (KV admo-
nition). He was convinced that the Kingdom of God is not given for
faith alone, without good works: good works along with faith lead to
salvation (903-904). When Paul spoke about salvation without works
of law, he meant pagan works and works under Mosaic law, not works
done in Christ (928). However, even Iavorskiis contemporary, Pro-
kopovich, disagreed with the role of good works in salvation by main-
taining that salvation cannot be earned by good works
7
; good works
can only earn a better reward since different levels of glory and
joy are differently measured according to the virtue and works
8
but
not the reward itself. However, both views can be reconciled by
viewing faith as the only condition for salvation, but the genuine
character of the faith can be recognized by the life of the person, by
the works which should be the fruit of such faith. In that sense, works
are necessary for salvation since they testify about the existence of
genuine faith. Iavorskii seemed to agree with this when he stated that
our good works are the gift of Christ (940) and that they stem not
only from faith, but primarily from love for God (994), i.e., they are
not quite our good works.
The afterlife is divided between heaven and hell. However, resid-
ing in hell does not mean an eternal perdition. Members of the same
body the church should care for one another, both for the living

7
. .
. In: .. .
. -- 1916 p. 72, 74. Cf. . . p. 351.
8
. . p. 73.
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 53
and for the dead (KV 631). There is one church and it encompasses
the believers on earth and in the afterlife. Therefore, the church should
make an effort to improve the fate of the souls after death. This is
done by the prayer for souls of the dead, by giving alms for them,
and by bringing to God the bloodless sacrifice the Eucharist for
them (603). In life, a priest forgives a penitent his sin and gives pen-
ance (613). If the penance is not fulfilled before death, the penitent
must be helped by alms, prayers, and bloodless sacrifice of the living
(614). The penitent who did not manage to make penance is saved
but does not go to heaven. Iavorskii rejected the Catholic teaching
about purgatory as the place for just such souls (660-663) by folding
it into hell: just as there are many mansions in heaven and different
rewards (J 14:2), so there are many different punishments in hell
(667) and for some there is a chance for salvation, and it is the task
of the church to pray for salvation of those in hell. In this way, purga-
tory simply becomes a part of hell. Actually, before the Incarnation,
the departed OT saints did not go to heaven and did not see God
(471); thus, hell was also their residence. Therefore, when Ezekiel
spoke about Noah, Daniel, and Job, they were not in heaven but
they were locked in some dark place waiting for the coming of Chr-
ist (516). However, the saints in the Old and the New Testaments are
in the same place (577; 471). When Christ went to hell after death,
he saved all those who believed in Him, which certainly included the
OT saints.
The Orthodox teaching on the subject of eschatology is not quite
settled. Some fathers said that a repented but not yet forgiven soul
encounters various hurdles on its way to heaven, each hurdle asso-
ciated with different sin and on each hurdle angels and demons bar-
gain, as it were, about the amount of a particular sin in a person,
which ends up either with angels lifting the soul to heaven or demons
dragging it down to hell (KV 663-664). Presumably, there may still
be a chance for some souls to be released from hell if assisted by
prayers of the church. Some fathers teach that there is only heaven and
hell (665-666/71), and some souls in hell are there for good, but
some can be released. Either view is fine, stated Iavorskii, since it is
just an opinion, not a dogma, although Iavorskii himself leaned to-
ward the first opinion (667/72).
54 ADAM DROZDEK
There are two judgments after death. One judgment takes place
right after death, and so does a reward, if it is deserved (KV 578).
Judgment after death rewards the soul only; the last judgment re-
wards both the soul and body (590). This is the time of resurrection,
resurrection of some to eternal life and others to eternal perdition (Z
96-97). They will resurrect in their own bodies which are but dust by
then, but God will put them together. Although in Iavorskiis view, the
new body will be of the same nature but with different qualities and
quantities (100), its nature seems to undergo significant transforma-
tion. The new body will be made immortal and in the blossom of its
development as a body a of thirty year old person free of illness
and bodily deficiencies, free from suffering, with no need of nourish-
ment (although eating [for show?] is possible), able to pass through
matter (98-102). The bodies of the condemned will also be immortal,
but will be a subject of suffering, cruelly tormented for eternity in
inextinguishable flames (102). Incidentally, demons suffer already
now (KV 594), but they will suffer to the fullest after the last judg-
ment (594).


4. THE CHURCH

There are several reasons Iavorskii mentioned why Protestants
have no claim on representing the true church and only the Orthodox
church is the true church. 1. It is old (KV 48). 2. The true church has
no end; it cannot cease to exists and be reestablished; thus, by defini-
tion, Luther and Calvin did not reestablish the church (49, 52, 56-57).
3. The Orthodox church is a true church, although it is not based on
the Bible, alone since the Bible and tradition have the same force just
as the written word of the king has the same power as his spoken
word (50). 4. Although there are invisible aspects of the church, the
true church is also visible in the world and thus could not invisibly
exist until Luther (50-51). 5. The Protestant church has many heretical
teachings, and thus cannot be true: it rejects tradition; rejects the true
presence of Christs body in the Eucharist; rejects the sacrament of
anointing with oil and repentance; teaches that the church was visible
and then invisible; rejects veneration of icons; rejects prayer for the
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 55
dead; claims that Mary was not a virgin after Christ was born (58-60).
6. The true church stems directly from Christ and the apostles (60).
The second and the fourth arguments are related, and it seems that
only these two arguments have some force in the context of the con-
trast between the Orthodoxy and Protestantism, although the Protes-
tants could argue that what they reestablished was present as a weak
undercurrent in the existing church. They can just as well claim the
provenance of their teachings as originating with Christ and the apos-
tles. They simply disagree with the role of tradition and did use that as
an indication of perverting the purity of the original Christian teaching.
How can Iavorskii or any Orthodox teacher determine that the
Protestants espouse heretical doctrines? This is the problem of the
foundation of the church. On the one hand, Iavorskii defended the
view that the Bible and the tradition form such a foundation: the
Bible transmits teachings in a written form; tradition does that in an
oral form which only later was put on paper (KV 50, 673). The Bible
states that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15),
whereby it cannot hold to erroneous doctrines (675, 681). In general,
the entire foundation of our faith, the bastion, and an immovable
stone of the spiritual edifice is the true Word of God (356). In par-
ticular, the Protestant objection that the fathers of the church are not
authoritative since every man lies, as the Bible repeatedly states, is
refuted with the statement that a man as a leader of the church of
Christ and as a teacher possessing true rule and being instructed by
the Holy Spirit (...) cannot lie (KV 64). Interestingly, Iavorskii did
not apparently notice that his argument can be used in favor of the
doctrine of the papal infallibility, which is the stumbling block for the
Orthodox believers. He also stated that the Orthodox church has a
teaching about the prayer for the dead; can the Holy, Ecumenical and
Apostolic Church include anything in its general institutions and
laws that is contrary to orthodox faith? If so, then it would be con-
trary to the assurance that the gates of the hell will not prevail against
the church (Mt 16:18) (633, 53). The latter argument, however, can
be appropriated by other branches of Christianity, too, to be used in
support of their doctrines.
On the other hand, the church determines what is the Bible, i.e.,
what are canonical books of the Bible and there are differences
between he Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible (which includes deu-
56 ADAM DROZDEK
terocanonical books), and the Orthodox Bible (the Septuagint Bible,
where the OT is translated into Greek, is the foundational text). More-
over, the church specifies the proper reading of the Bible. Improper
interpretation is made according to ones own false understanding,
without any careful testing, without looking at preceding and suc-
ceeding words, without looking at proper interpretation of the holy
fathers the lights and the pillars of the Church (KV 494). Proper
interpretation of unclear passages of the Bible comes from tradition
(689, 734) and so does the explanation of apparent contradictions in
the Bible (695). Iavorskii mentioned those who say that some Biblical
passages can be clarified by other Biblical passages (738). This almost
certainly was an allusion to Prokopovich who maintained that the
Bible is clear enough for everyone to understand; the Bible itself can
be used for clarification of passages
9
. This reliance only on the Bible
is, however, an unacceptable Protestant teaching and should be re-
jected, according to Iavorskii.
The church also determines what tradition is and what are the
extrabiblical dogmas which should be accepted by believers. Tradi-
tion is necessary for faith since faith can be based only on tradition
and the Holy Scripture without tradition is insufficient for faith (KV
677). If the Israelite priests could establish new laws (Deut 17:10-12),
then all the more Orthodox Church can do the same (839). If worldly
rulers can establish new laws, why not allow ecclesiastical leaders to
do the same? (843). Also, Christ said that what Christians bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, where binding is interpreted as estab-
lishing new laws for believers (840). Therefore, the church is really the
starting point of faith if it determines what is the Word of God, what
is the Biblical canon (688-689). In this way, there is an unsettling
problem of circularity: the Bible is what it is because of the decision
of the church; on the other hand, by definition, the church cannot be
mistaken since it is pronounced (more or less explicitly) as inerrant
in the Bible. This important theological problem of circularity with the
church determining the Bible and the Bible determining the church
was, however, not addressed by Iavorskii.
Iavorskii also stated that Luther and Calvin did not perform any
miracle to show legitimacy of their claims (KV 66), and, as for Luther,

9
. . p. 365.
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 57
his life was not particularly holy. He broke his monastic vows and
got married to a nun; even the gallows would be too little for such
lawlessness (67).
This is the tone which permeates The Rock of Faith. The Protes-
tants are addressed as enemies, as opponents, as adversaries, not even
as separated brothers. The tone is venomous, ill-spirited, with a dis-
quieting absence of an expected Christian charity in someone who,
effectively, was the head of the Russian Orthodox church. In that,
Iavorskii followed the footsteps of his predecessors. From the begin-
ning, Russian theologians considered Lutherans and Calvinists as
heretics, as servants of the antichrist and satan. Starets Artemii was
convinced that their teachings are suited for carnal life, and that they
proclaim the name of Christ only for show. Ivan Nasedka claimed that
they are even worse than Catholics. The Likhud brothers said that
they should not be even considered Christians, and in Nasedkas opi-
nion, the Lutheran church is not the church of God but a house of the
devil
10
. Iavorskii joined them with his statement addressed to the
Lutheran church: it is only a heap of damned heresies and true Ba-
bylonian adulteress that serves pleasures of your flesh, but leading
you along wide and spacious way to perdition (KV 59). Not surpri-
singly, the Protestant accusation that icons are a seduction, meets
with this baneful rebuttal: this seduction stems from you, not from
us; and perdition awaits not us but you; which is not even worthy of
pity, since the source [of seduction] is not your weakness, but your
malice (166).
Incidentally, when presenting his arguments in favor of the true
church, Iavorskii concentrated on his polemic with the Protestants.
Catholicism is also a heretical branch of Christianity for the Ortho-
dox; however, Iavorskii would be very hard pressed to justify this,
since the marks of the true church he listed can be applied to the
Catholic church as well.






10
. . p. 3-8.
58 ADAM DROZDEK

5. HERESY IN THE CHURCH

If the church is all-important, if the salvation can be only in the
Orthodox church (Z 39), if this is the only true church, how did it
translate into practical issues of ecclesiastical policy: the Orthodox
church vs. heresies, and the Orthodox church vs. secular rule?
As for heretics who once have been Orthodox, then for the benefit
of the peaceful building of the church and for the undisturbed peace
of the people, the heretics should be punished (KV 1028). Iavorskii
used many arguments to justify the punishment of heretics. Here are
some of them. 1. Since a heretic should be a subject of an anathema,
then he can even be put to death, since it is worse to be given up to
satan than to endure any bodily suffering (1032). 2. The experience
teaches us that there is no other cure for heretics except for death.
They are not afraid of dispossession, and when they are exiled, they
keep on deceiving others (1032-1033). 3. How come that money coun-
terfeiters are put do death but not those who falsify church teach-
ings? (1033) 4. Change of faith is a sin worse than cheating on ones
wife, and yet the cheater is punished by death (1033). 5. Criminals be-
come useful for the state after they are executed as a warning to others,
so it should be with heretics (1033). 6. Death is a blessing for the he-
retics as well, since it prevents them from becoming more sinful
(1034). It may be actually puzzling why that matters since heretics are
damned, anyway. However, as mentioned, there are different levels
of damnation in hell, and heretics put to death early enough presum-
ably will suffer in hell less than they would when living a longer life.
7. Christ did not command to kill heretics only for them to be to the
believers as a heathen and a publican (Mt 18:17) but He also did
not forbid it (1036). He also allowed his disciples to stop following
Him (J 6:66-67), but it does not mean the free rein to every believer,
and Christ found it more properly not to avenge Himself for insults,
but to leave the vengeance to His spiritual sons (1038/1075ab, 1042/
1079b). 8. Loving of enemies means loving your enemies, presum-
ably, personal enemies, not the enemies of the church (1039).
In punishing the heretics, the church is concerned about the souls
depraved by heresy and about their salvation (KV 1037, 1040), and the
death sentence is applied only after all other means of conversion have
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 59
been exhausted (1043). Also, although faith is Gods gift, God dis-
patches this gift in variety of ways, one way being punishment (1043).
Iavorskiis arguments may not convince many, some of them being
tenuous, some verging on sophistry. Even the Orthodox church vie-
wed them as too controversial and expressed too crudely since the
chapter on the punishment of heretics was included only the first
printings of The Rock of Faith
11
. Iavorskii, however, was very con-
cerned about the purity of the Orthodox doctrine and was convinced
that even capital punishment should be used to maintain this purity in
the minds of the believers. If the death of the few scares off the rest
from diverging from ecclesiastical truth so much the better for the
living. But, in practical terms, who should perform executions? Cer-
tainly not the church, and this brings us to the problem of the church-
state relationship and the role of Iavorskii, who by the fact of his ex-
alted position in the church, willingly or otherwise, struggled with fin-
ding a proper balance for this relationship.


6. THE SYNOD

As already mentioned, Peter I did not allow for a new patriarch to
be nominated, making Iavorskii first the patriarchs stand-in
12
and then
the head of the Holy Synod which was created to make the church a
branch of the government answering to the state, i.e., to the tsar. Ia-
vorskii was not accidentally called to these posts. Over the years, in
his sermons, he acclaimed Peter Is economic, cultural and educational
policies, extolling him in lofty language, comparing him to just any
important Biblical figure, so that he was, for example, the Russian
Noah (S 1875.1.118), Moses (1875.4.129, 131-132, 143), David
(1875.4.149-150, 152), and Samson (1875.3.476). Effectively, the tsar
was also compared to Christ being, along with Christ, a cornerstone
of Russia (1874.4.141-142). He was addressed thus: O stone given
from above, from heavenly mountain! O stone that gloriously crushed

11
. . p. 298.
12
He was not even that; he was sort of an officer of the tsar for sacramental af-
fairs. . . :
. : 2004 s. 123.
60 ADAM DROZDEK
the iron legs of an idol! Who can glorify your firmness the way it
deserves, your strength, your force, your love to your people? ()
[Peter,] the arch-courageous warrior acting magnanimously and ready
to give his life for his people (1875.3.488). Iavorskii commiserated
with the tsar by pointing to the heavy cross the tsar has to carry: he
has to have constant and incessant care for his empire, to protect all
his subjects from attacks of enemies, to listen to everyone, to be just
to everyone, to defend everyone from offenders; on top of it, to listen
to ill-spirited grumbling of some ingrates (KV 257). Iavorskii actual-
ly found references to tsars in the Bible. The woman clothed in the
sun with the moon under her feet (Rev 12:1) is our Orthodox, East-
ern Church, and the two eagle wings on which she flew (12:14) are
unmistakably the sign of the Russian tsars, the defenders of the
church (S 1874.3.86). Peter I, who conquered the seven-headed Swe-
dish snake is also referred to in a prophecy as a rider who brings
salvation (Hab 3:8) (S 1874.3.94-95). Arguably, the main reason for
Iavorskii to have authored his 1703 book about the antichrist was a
defense of the tsar. One Grigorii Talitskii was spreading a heresy that
Peter I was the antichrist and Moscow was Babylon (25). For Iavors-
kii, it was, of course, unacceptable, but acceptable was the view that
the antichrist would be a Jew of a courtesan mother (53, 66) and that
Rome would be Babylon (89).
In this adulation, Iavorskii was not unlike another major figure of
the age, Prokopovich, who theologically justified pretty much any-
thing Peter I fancied to have done. However, at least on one point
there was a disagreement between them: Prokopovich promoted sub-
jugation of the church to the state and was a driving force behind The
spiritual regulation that led to the establishment of the Holy Synod.
Iavorskii, on the other hand, did not abandon the belief that the church
should be independent from the state, just at it was the case with the
church in Russia in the past and is the case with the Catholic church
in the West. He agreed that the rule of the tsar was of divine origin
13
,
but he rejected the possibility of the secular rule to have a say in eccle-

13
KV 82; Cf. Iavorskiis note this is true on a margin of Piotr Skargas book when
Skarga stated that the Caesar has his Empire from God Himself. G.B. BERCOFF.
Stefan Jaworski a historia. Na podstawie dopiskw na marginesach jego ksiek. In
Corona scientiarum: studia z historii literatury i kultury nowoytnej ofiarowane
profesorowi Januszowi Pelcowi. Warszawa: Neriton 2004 p. 389.
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 61
siastical matters since ecclesiastical structure and boundaries and re-
gulations of the ecclesiastical order as being a matter of faith God
handed in to the Apostles and their successors (KV 82). True, some
ecclesiastical rules originated with emperors (e.g., Constantine and
Justinian), but they were related to civic trials and to building the
well-being of the church, but not to articles of faith and, Iavorskii
assured the reader that policies of Peter I were no different (83). We
are always obligated to submit ourselves to the tsar in civic matters.
In matters related to faith to the highest pastor. Tsars rule over pe-
ople in matters related to the body, not to the soul; the spiritual au-
thority is related to the latter, although, as Iavorskii added, the spiri-
tual authority is concerned about life and satisfaction both in the
body and in the soul. () In fact, tsars are protectors of laws of God
and of the church, but do not define them (84). He quoted appro-
vingly the words of Theodore the Studite directed to the iconoclastic
emperor Leo V the Armenian: Sire, it is not for you to scrutinize and
nullify ecclesiastical commands. To your rule belong earthly affairs,
ecclesiastical affairs belong to priests and teachers of the church and
to you it is commanded to follow and subdue yourself to them (102).
Iavorskii believed that the holy church has both spiritual and secular
leaders, like two hands, so it has two swords, spiritual and material,
one useful for another. Thus, when the spiritual sword has little suc-
cess, the material sword should be used (1038).
In his desire for an independent church, Iavorskii represented a
conservative party of the church which was fairly strong. In order to
prevent a complete alienation of this party from his tsarist policies,
Peter I co-opted Iavorskii to the Synod, although Prokopovich seems
to have been a more obvious candidate
14
. However, in practical terms,
it did not matter since very soon Iavorskii became just a figurehead,
and many most decisions were made without him, possibly with
his rubberstamping them. He was weak and ill and yet by making him
a nominal head of the synod, Peter I pacified many conservatives in
the church. The fact that he was as both Iavorskii and Prokopovich
both agreed divinely appointed was used by Peter I to the extreme.
And, arguably, he stayed away from the doctrinal matters of the

14
Cf. .. . . In his:
. : 1880. Vol. 5 p. 300.
62 ADAM DROZDEK
church and thus, on the surface, he fit Iavorskiis vision of a ruler. But
was Iavorskii satisfied?
A case can be made that, of course, The Rock of Faith was a reli-
gious treatise, an apology of Orthodoxy and a polemic with Protes-
tantism and with heretical tendencies in Russia, but implicitly it was
also a polemic with the tsar and with the type of religiosity the tsar
espoused, which was Orthodoxy leaning toward Protestantism
15
. This
was also a vision of Orthodoxy advocated by Prokopovich
16
. In that
sense, such open and severe criticism of Protestantism was a bold
move on the part of Iavorskii
17
. In this way, Iavorskii reciprocated in
kind to Prokopovich and the tsar. They frequently criticized the papa-
cy, which really was a thinly veiled criticism of the Orthodox pa-
triarchy. They did it not only in word, but also in deed. The tsar crude-
ly mocked the papacy with drunkards dressed as the pope and car-
dinals, and he even explicitly mocked the patriarchy with his most
drunken council
18
. In that sense, The Rock of Faith is not only a reli-
gious statement, but also a political statement. Iavorskii, although he
reached the heights in the hierarchy of the church, did not perform
very well as a politician, and the loss of independence of the church
under his watch certainly testifies to this. Although meeker in form,
The Rock of Faith does speak about his opposition to the arrogance
of the state and the tsar in respect to making the church a department
of the government.


15
The book was in reality directed against Peter rather than against Protestantism,
according Iurij erech, Stefan Yavorsky and the conflict of ideologies in the age of
Peter I. Slavonic and East European Review 30:1951 p. 57. The view is contested
by J. CRACRAFT. The Church reform of Peter the Great. Stanford University Press
1971 p. 131, on account of the fact that the tsar was ready to give his imprimatur in
the preface. However, the fact that the tsar did not see the book as a slight against
him does not mean that it may not have been so intended by Iavorskii. Also, the tsar
simply may not have considered the book as a serious threat to himself.
16
Prokopovich was even accused of Protestant heresy, in which accusation Iavorskii
participated, but the tsar ignored it and the whole affair ended with rather humiliat-
ing Iavorskiis recantation of the accusation and apology given to Prokopovich. .
. . -: 1880
p. 188, 192.
17
. . p. 265.
18
CRACRAFT. The Church reform. p. 11-13.
Stefan Iavorskii and Protestantism 63

STEFAN JAWORSKI I PROTESTANTYZM

S t r e s z c z e n i e

Stefan Jaworski, biskup-metropolita riazaski, jest tragiczn postaci w
historii Kocioa rosyjskiego. W odrnieniu od Prokopowicza, niezwykle
wan spraw dla niego bya niezaleno Kocioa od wadzy pastwowej,
a mimo to zosta prezydentem witego Synodu, ktry stanowi organ wadzy
cara Piotra I nad Kocioem. Jaworski by znanym oratorem, poet, wietnie
wyksztaconym czowiekiem. Dzieem jego ycia jest Skaa wiary, monu-
mentalne dzieo stawiajce sobie za zadanie odparcie atakw protestantw
na wiele elementw doktryny Kocioa prawosawnego. W artykule pokrtce
omawia si jego obron ikon. Jaworski nie prbowa wprowadza oryginal-
nych interpretacji doktryn prawosawnych, stara si by jak najbardziej orto-
doksyjny w tym wzgldzie, lecz nie wszystko zostao jednoznacznie ustalone
w tych doktrynach. Jedn z takich dziedzin jest eschatologia i artyku pre-
zentuje pogldy Jaworskiego na kwesti ycia po mierci. Skaa wiary bya
wielokrotnie wznawiana, lecz wprowadzano czsto do niej zmiany, odrzuca-
jc pewne partie i dodajc inne. Jedn z kontrowersyjnych czci by ostatni
rozdzia omawiajcy herezj i rozdzia ten jest pokrtce przedstawiony w
artykule. W sumie Ska wiary uwaa mona nie tylko za krytyk prote-
stantyzmu, lecz, przynajmniej do pewnego stopnia, niejawn krytyk Piotra I
i Prokopowicza, ktrych uwaano za wprowadzajcych protestanckie elemen-
ty do Kocioa prawosawnego.

Sowa kluczowe: Koci prawosawny, protestantyzm, eschatologia, ikony.

Keywords: Orthodox Church, Protestantism, eschatology, icons.