THE PELAGIAN ROOTS OF

SERGIANISM
Written by Vladimir Moss
THE PELAGIAN ROOTS OF SERGIANISM
The Russian Church schism of 1927 associated with the name of Metropolitan, later
Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow was the greatest ecclesiastical tragedy of
the twentieth century, and probably the greatest disaster to befall the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church since the fall of the Roman papacy in the eleventh
century. Moreover, all the Local Orthodox Churches have remained in communion with
the schism to this day, becoming complicit in its crimes and falling under the same
condemnation. It is therefore a matter of the greatest importance that the real nature of
the schism, and its roots in the personal, social and theological consciousness of its
leading protagonist should be thoroughly understood.
At its simplest, the tragedy may be described as the fall of Metropolitan Sergius from
the confession of Christ under the pressure of the God-hating atheists and for fear of
the Jews. Just as the lapsed in the early Christian centuries fell away by sacrificing to
idols, or buying certificates to the effect that they had sacrificed, so Metropolitan
Sergius, in his notorious Declaration of 1927, fell away from the faith by sacrificing
on the altar of the atheist revolution, calling its joys the Churchs joys and its sorrows
the Churchs sorrows. However, if the matter were limited to the fall of Metropolitan
Sergius alone, it would be a tragedy, but only a personal one. What made the tragedy so
massive was the fact that the majority of the Churchs clergy felt compelled to follow
Sergius in his apostasy, agreeing with his justification of his act on canonical grounds,
and condemning those who refused to follow him as schismatics. At this point their
apostasy became, in the words of Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), dogmatized
apostasy: the sergianists not only sinned, they made excuse for excuses in sin,
providing what was in essence a heretical underpinning to their apostasy.
The first bishop formally to break communion with Metropolitan Sergius was
Archbishop, later Hieromartyr Victor (Ostrovidov) of Vyatka. Not only was he the first
to break with him: he was also the first to see the full horrific depth of Sergius fall,
calling it worse than heresy. Moreover, he provided the first clue as to why
Metropolitan Sergius, in spite of his reputation as a brilliant theologian, should have
fallen away so disastrously. The clue he found in certain theological errors in Sergius
masters thesis, entitled The Orthodox Teaching on Salvation.[1] As he wrote to his
friend, Bishop Abraham of Urzhuma: "His errors with regard to the Church and the
salvation of man in her were clear to me already in 1911, and I wrote about him [under
the pseudonym Wanderer] in an Old Ritualist journal [The Church], that there would
come a time when he would shake the Church..."
A little later, in January, 1928 Bishop Victor clarified his remark in the first two replies
to fifteen questions put to him by the Vyatka OGPU:

How would you interpret, from the civil and ecclesiastical points of view, the
appearance of the new church tendency the platform of the Declaration of July 29,
1927?
From the ecclesiastical point of view: as an incorrect teaching on the Church and on
the matter of our salvation in Jesus Christ an error of principle by Metropolitan
Sergius
How do you look at the Declaration? etc.
The Declaration is a separation from the truth of salvation. It looks on salvation as on
a natural moral perfection of man; it is a pagan philosophical doctrine of salvation,
and for its realization an external organization is absolutely essential. In my opinion,
this is the same error of which, as early as 1911, I accused Metropolitan Sergius,
warning that by this error they would shake the Orthodox Church. I said this in the
article, The New Theologians, signing it with the pseudonym Wanderer. They knew
who printed this, and for a long time I experienced their ill disposition towards me. By
dint of this error of theirs, they cannot think of the Church without an external
organization.
Now the phrase it looks on salvation as on a natural moral perfection of man sounds
as if Hieromartyr Victor is accusing Sergius of something similar to the heresy of
Pelagianism; for the essence of that ancient heresy consists in ascribing the primary
cause of our salvation to our own natural will, and not to the Grace of God. However,
neither in the Declaration of 1927, nor in his masters thesis of 1895, does Sergius deny
the necessity of the Grace of God for mans salvation. Nor does he deny original sin, the
other hallmark of the Pelagian heresy. Nor is it immediately obvious that Pelagianism,
even if it could be ascribed to Sergius, leads necessarily to the conclusion that for
salvation an external organization [for the Church] is absolutely essential. I believe,
however, that a closer examination both of Sergius 1895 thesis, and of the comments of
his examiners on the thesis (Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Professor V.A.
Sokolov), and of Hieromartyr Victors 1911 article criticising it, will show that Sergius
did indeed espouse what might be called a twentieth-century variant of Pelagianism, and
that this insight helps us to understand his heretical ecclesiological views and thereby
bring us closer to the heart of his and the Russian Churchs tragedy
*
Archimandrite Sergius thesis is subtitled: An Attempt to Uncover the MoralSubjective Aspect of Salvation on the Basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Works of the
Holy Fathers.
Already in this subtitle is revealed a potential pitfall in Sergius approach: an incorrect
understanding of the relationship between the objective and subjective aspects of
salvation. The objective aspect is the redemptive Sacrifice accomplished by Christ on
the Cross for the sins of all mankind. The subjective aspect is the appropriation of the
fruits of that salvation by each individual Christian through faith and works. Sergius
aim was to explicate the Orthodox doctrine of faith and works, and thereby reveal the
inadequacy of the Catholic and Protestant approaches to the subject, which both
suffered from what Sergius called the Roman juridical theory of redemption. There is

no doubt that Sergius succeeded in accomplishing this aim in chapters one to three and
the first half of chapter four of his thesis (entitled the Juridical World-View before the
Judgement of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, Eternal Life, Reward and
Salvation). He fluently and elegantly built up a powerful case for the Orthodox
understanding of faith and works on the basis of abundant quotations from Holy
Scripture and Tradition. However, by concentrating entirely on the subjective aspect,
and not explaining, even briefly, its relationship to the objective aspect, Sergius ran the
risk of overemphasizing the former at the expense of the latter and thereby distorting the
Orthodox teaching on salvation as a whole.
That Sergius did indeed fall into this trap was pointed out politely and gently, but
tellingly by Professor Sokolov:
As his subtitle shows, the author placed as the task of his work the question of
salvation, that is, the so-called subjective aspect of redemption. He was propelled to this
formulation by the fact that it is precisely this aspect of the Orthodox dogma that, in
spite of its great importance, is usually least expounded in theological systems and
investigations. The author has carried out his task with sufficient breadth and solidity,
successfully filling up in this way a gap that has sometimes made itself felt in Orthodox
theological science. But we think that, thanks to his intense struggle against the socalled juridical theory and a certain obsession with the direction he has adopted, the
authors work is one-sided [my italics V.M.] and for that reason produces a somewhat
idiosyncratic impression on the reader. The author touches so lightly on the objective
aspect of redemption that the reader completely forgets about it and is sometimes
inclined to think that there is, as it would seem, no place for it in the authors line of
thought. In Orthodox theological courses we accept the expression that the Lord Jesus
Christ is our Redeemer, that He brought Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of all men and
thereby won for them clemency and forgiveness, satisfying the offended Righteousness
of God. The Lord accomplished our salvation as the High Priest, offering Himself in
sacrifice for the sins of the world and thereby satisfying for us the Righteousness of God
(Sylvester, IV, 159, 164; Macarius, III, 152, 192, etc.). Moreover, in the investigation
under review this aspect of the matter is not only not uncovered, but we sometimes
encounter such expressions as can give reason for perplexity to readers who are not firm
in dogmatics. The author says, for example: The righteousness of God does not consist
in the demand for satisfaction for sins, but in presenting to each person that lot which
naturally follows from the direction in life that he has accepted (p. 92). Of course,
similar expressions in the authors flow of thought can have a completely Orthodox
meaning; but since he does not adequately penetrate their true significance, thanks to his
one-sided development [of the subject], he can give cause for perplexity. In order to
avoid this, it seems to us that the author should, before realizing the main task of his
work, have stopped to briefly describe the objective aspect of the dogma of redemption,
and only then, having explained the significance of the private question of the personal
salvation of each person in the general system of the dogma, pass on to what now
constitutes the exclusive content of this investigation[2]
We do not know Sergius reaction to this criticism, but he would no doubt have pointed
with disapproval to the juridical expressions used by Professor Sokolov, and pointed
out that the whole purpose of his thesis was to reveal the inadequacy of the juridical
theory. Nevertheless, leaving aside the question of the suitability of these expressions,
Sokolovs main point stands: that to ignore completely the objective aspect of

salvation the Cross of Christ, no less in a long thesis on the Orthodox teaching on
salvation is, to put it mildly, one-sided. We shall see that Hieromartyr Victor
considered this fault to be much worse that one-sidedness; but before examining his
criticism, let us look more closely at what Sergius himself says.
In chapter 4 of his thesis, Sergius discusses the sacrament of baptism, and the necessity
for the will of man to work together with the Grace of God in order that the sacrament
should be truly effective for salvation. His teaching here is Orthodox; but it is also at
this point that he begins to touch on other aspects that elicit, as Sokolov would say,
perplexity. Thus he writes: It is equally incorrect to represent salvation as something
imputed to man from outside, and as a supernatural transformation taking place in man
without the participation of his freedom. In both the one and the other case man would
turn out to be only a will-less object of somebody elses activity, and the holiness
received by him in this way would be no different from innate holiness that has not
moral worth, and consequently, is by no means that lofty good which man seeks
Salvation cannot be some external-juridical or physical event, but is necessarily a moral
action, and as such, it necessarily presupposes, as a most inescapable condition and law,
that man himself carries out this action, albeit with the help of Grace. Although Grace
acts, although it accomplishes everything, still this is unfailingly within freedom and
consciousness. This is the basic Orthodox principle, and one must not forget it if one is
to understand the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the very means of mans
salvation. (chapter 4, pp. 9-10)
It is true, of course, that the salvation of the individual is impossible without the active
participation of the individual himself. But it is also true that the objective side of
mans salvation was accomplished from the outside, as it were that is, without the
active participation of any other man than the Son of Man, Christ God. When Christ
died on the Cross, and the rocks were rent asunder, and the veil of the temple was rent
in twain, and the graves were opened, and the dead that were in them arose, and the
gates of hades were destroyed, and the prisoners were freed, and the gates of Paradise
were opened, all this was the work of one man only, the Saviour. Nor was this a halfaccomplished salvation: Christs last words, It is finished, were a precise witness to
the fact: the work of our salvation was now accomplished, the Sacrifice was now
completed. It remained for this salvation, and the fruits of this Sacrifice, to be
assimilated by individual men through the Descent of the Holy Spirit and the repentance
and good works of the men who received Him. But objectively speaking salvation was
accomplished; Christ had saved us. This central fact receives no acknowledgement in
Sergius thesis with consequences that will be discussed later
He goes on: The juridical point of view presents two absurdities in the teaching on how
man is saved. First, it teaches that God does not impute sin to man and proclaims him
righteous at the same time that man remains the same sinner in his soul. And secondly,
salvation itself more exactly, the sanctification of man is presented in the form of a
supernatural recreation that takes place independently of the will, an almost material
transformation through Grace of what is being accomplished in the soul. Orthodox
dogmatics can use the same expression, but their content, of course, will be very
different. (p. 10)
Here we see the first signs of a Pelagian tendency in Sergius thought not necessarily
an acceptance of the British heretics precise formulations, but an imitation of his

general tendency to overestimate the contribution of human freewill to our salvation at

the expense of Gods work.
First, it is not the juridical theory that proclaims the baptized man righteous: it is the
Holy Church. Thus immediately after baptism the priest says: The servant of God, N.,
is clothed with the robe of righteousness. And immediately after chrismation he says:
Thou art justified. Thou art illumined Thou art sanctified. This justification,
illumination and sanctification are objective facts accomplished entirely by the Grace of
God by virtue of the Sacrifice of God on the Cross. Even if the baptized person receives
this Grace with an impure heart or insincere disposition, it is a fact that his past sins are
remitted, even if the sins he is now committing are not remitted, as St. Gregory the
Theologian says.[3] And even if in the future he buries this talent in the ground, this
talent has undeniably been received
Secondly, this is indeed a supernatural recreation that takes place independently of the
will and there is nothing material about it. Or does Sergius seriously think that the
will of the man being baptized accomplishes his own salvation?! But the Prophet David
says: A brother cannot redeem; shall a man redeem? He shall not give to God a ransom
for himself, nor the price of the redemption of his own soul, though he hath laboured for
ever, and shall live to the end (Psalm 48.7-8). It is Christ Who offered the ransom for
man, and the Holy Spirit Who descended into the font to sanctify the water. In neither of
these acts does the individual to be baptized play any part. His part lies in his
preparation for the gift in the period before baptism, and in his cultivation of the gift
after baptism. Sergius is right to emphasize the important of this prior preparation and
consequent cultivation of the gift of Gods Grace, without which the gift is ultimately
lost, and salvation with it. But the gift itself is Gods alone. More precisely, it is God
alone, since the Grace of God, as St. Gregory Palamas teaches, is God Himself.
Sergius continues: After our explanation of the Orthodox understanding of the
righteousness of God, of the reward, of the essence of salvation, we must not suppose
that at the moment of baptism or repentance some kind of non-imputation of sin is
accomplished, some kind of proclamation or pronunciation, as the Protestants say, of
man as righteous. According to the Protestant teaching it turns out that God was always
angered against man, and could never forgive that offence that man inflicted on Him
through sin. Then, suddenly, seeing the faith of man in Jesus Christ, God is reconciled
with man and does not consider him to be His enemy any longer, although man can sin
after this, but now with impunity. Here is clearly revealed the basic principle by which
the juridical world-view lives: everything is constructed on offended self-love once
self-love has been pacified, sin, which before had been condemned and cursed, loses its
sinfulness. The Orthodox Church does not teach this. (p. 10)
Of course, the Orthodox Church does not teach this parody. When the holy Apostles and
Fathers of the Church speak about the wrath of God, or of offences to His Majesty, or of
the satisfaction of His offended Righteousness, they use images taken from the ordinary
life of sinful men but purge them of all sinful connotations. The fact that some
Catholic and Protestant writers appear not to have purged their minds of these sinful
connotations is not a fault of the juridical theory itself, but of those who interpret it
too literally and these over-literal interpreters appear to include Sergius. Of course, it
was not offended self-love, but a supremely dispassionate love of man, that led the Holy
Trinity to plan the Sacrifice of the Son of God on the Cross. The Sacrifice was

necessary because only in this way could sin be paid for and justice done but justice
understood, not in a sinful, human way, but as the restoration of the Divine order of
things. So the Sacrifice demonstrated perfect love in pursuit of perfect justice; and it is
this satisfaction of justice in love that saved us.
Can we imagine, continues Sergius, that God was at enmity with man for his sin, and
that God could not be reconciled with man even if he thirsted for God with all his soul
and prayed for communion with Him? Remaining faithful to the Word of God and the
teaching of the Fathers, we can only say: no. To be convinced of this, let us open the
Bible and there, on the very first pages, we shall find a refutation of this Protestant view,
although the Protestants praise themselves that they believe only what the Bible
teaches. (p. 10)
But what does the Bible in fact teach? It teaches that before the Death and Resurrection
of Christ, every single man who lived and died on this earth went to hell. And not only
the great sinners, not only those who were drowned in the flood of Noah, or who were
burned in Sodom and Gomorrah, but even the most righteous of the patriarchs and
prophets. Thus the Patriarch Jacob, on hearing of the supposed death of his son Joseph,
cried: I will go down mourning to my son in hell [hades] (Genesis 37.34). Even the
great Moses was not allowed by God to enter the Promised Land, both literally and
figuratively; and when he appeared with the Lord at the Transfiguration, he came, as the
Holy Fathers explain, from hell. These great men most certainly thirsted for God with
all their soul as the hart panteth after the fountains of water, so panteth my soul after
Thee, O God, says David (Psalm 41.1) but they did not receive what they desired.
Indeed, as St. Paul says, all these great ones of the Old Testament, in spite of having
obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having
provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us
(Hebrews 11.40), the New Testament Christians. Why? Because in the Old Testament,
justice had not yet been done, the great Sacrifice for sin had not yet been offered and
accepted. So faith was not enough, the desire for God was not enough, a whole life
spent in labours and struggles was not enough. For even the most holy man shall not
give to God a ransom for himself, nor the price of the redemption of his own soul,
though he hath laboured for ever, and shall live to the end (Psalm 48.7-8). That
ransom, that price for the redemption of the souls of all men, was given only by Christ
on the Cross.
So Sergius error here was not a small one. It involved, in effect, a denial of the
necessity of the Cross for our salvation. He could not imagine that God could not be
reconciled to man even if he thirsted for God with all his soul and prayed for
communion with Him. But if simply thirsting for God with all ones soul were
sufficient for reconciliation with God, why did the Old Testament righteous go to hell?
And why did Christ have to suffer?
*
For a deeper understanding of Sergius error let us now turn to Hieromartyr Victors
article, which he entitled The New Theologians, referring first of all to Archbishop (as
he then was) Sergius.

According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the holy sacrament of Baptism is
the spiritual, Grace-filled birth of man from God Himself. In it man acquired the saving
power of Christs death on the cross, that is, all the sins of man are taken upon Himself
by the Saviour of the world, and for that reason man is completely cleansed from all his
sins and, by virtue of this, immediately becomes a member of His Kingdom and a coheir of His eternal glory. And this action of the holy sacrament takes place not in
imagination and thought only, but essentially, that is, there takes place in very deed the
renewal of man by Divine power, which directly gives to man: the remission of
punishment, the loosing of bonds, union with God, the freedom of boldness and, instead
of servile humiliation, equality of honour with the angels (St. Gregory of Nyssa). The
Lord voluntarily died in order to destroy sins Sin was nailed to the cross, sins were
destroyed by the cross, teaches St. John Chrysostom. And for that reason the Saviour
is the cleansing sacrifice for the whole universe, for He cleanses and abolishes all the
sins of men by His voluntary death on the cross. And every believer is made a
participant of this cleansing sacrifice, and together with it a co-heir of heavenly good
things only in the holy sacrament of Baptism. In the sacrament of Baptism, writes
Chrysostom, God cleanses our very sins, for Grace touches the soul itself and rips out
sins from the root. For that reason the soul of the person who has been baptized is
cleaner than the rays of the sun The Holy Spirit, remoulding the soul in Baptism, as if
in a crucible, and destroying sins, makes it purer and more brilliant than any gold.
This Orthodox teaching on the holy sacrament of Baptism is also contained in the
works of many of the bishops of the Russian Church. Thus Bishop Theophan the
Recluse says: Having died on the cross, the Lord and Saviour raised our sins upon the
cross and became the cleansing of our sins. In the death of the Lord on the cross is a
power cleansing sin. He who is baptized, immersed into the death of Christ is immersed
into the power that cleanses sin. This power in the very act of immersion consumes
every sin, so that not even a trace of it remains. What happens here is the same as if
someone were to prepare a chemical solution which, when things were immersed into it,
would consume every impurity. In the same way the death of Christ, as a power
cleansing sin, consumes every sin immediately anyone is immersed into this death by
baptism. Not a trace of sin remains in the person who has been baptized: he dies to it
In this way, that is, by means of the holy sacrament of Baptism, everything that is
necessary for the salvation of man passed from Christ the Lord to the believer who is
being baptized and he acquires this, not nominally (that is, in words), but essentially.
That is what the Universal Church taught and teaches to the present day on the holy
sacrament of baptism, but the new theologians do not want to agree with this teaching,
and Archbishop Sergius tries to affirm that Bishop Theophan supposedly did not want to
say what he said: Here in the words of Bishop Theophan another would see the most
extreme, because of its materialism, idea of the justification of man However, all
these comparisons remain only comparisons, without expressing the very essence of the
matter they do not touch the real meaning of the sacrament, for the expression of
which it is necessary to abandon the scholastic formulas For Orthodoxy there is no
need to resort to a transformation of the sinner into a righteous man that is so contrary
to all the laws of the souls life.
After all, theologises Archbishop Sergius, the soul is not some kind of substance
such that in it one could transform a man against his will, and man cannot be a passive
object for the action of supernatural (Divine) power, while baptism itself is not some

external magical action on the person being baptized, it is a great trial of the
conscience of a man, a crucial moment in his life. After all, if the holy sacrament of
baptism, in itself and through its own essence, through the faith in the Crucified One of
the person being baptized or of his sponsors, could give complete renewal of life, man
would turn out to be without will, the object of anothers influence, and the holiness
received by him in this way would differ in no way from innate holiness having no
moral worth. Man cannot undergo salvation in spite of his will, and for that reason it is
impossible to imagine that at the moment of baptism or repentance there should be
accomplished a certain removal of responsibility for sin, a declaration that man is
righteous or holy, or, which comes to the same thing, worthy of the Heavenly
Kingdom. The essence of justification consists not in a change in his spiritual-bodily
nature which is independent of his will, but in a change in the direction of his will,
while the Grace of baptism only strengthens the determination of man to such a degree
that he begins to hate sin. And so justification for the Orthodox is a free, moral
condition; it depends on man himself, although it can be accomplished only with the
help of the Grace of God And the forgiveness of sins does not consist in the fact that
existing sin is covered or forgiven; there is no such forgiveness, teaches Archbishop
Sergius, in Christianity. The forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism or
repentance consists in the fact that, as a consequence of a radical change in the soul,
which is as much of Grace as of free will, there appears in man an attitude to life that is
completely contrary to his former, sinful one, so that former sin ceases to influence the
life of mans soul and ceases to belong to the soul, but is annihilated. The thread of
mans life is as it were broken, and the sinful past that was formed in him loses its
defining, compulsive power This voluntary cutting off of evil is the most essential
part of justification, it is, so to speak, the very means whereby sins are forgiven to
man Man has abandoned his former sins and for that reason they are not accounted to
him, but what is done remains done, it is impossible for man to forget his past sins,
the consciousness of his past sins only teaches man to understand the mercy and allforgiving love of God.
Yes, the presence in a man of his former sins, as exactly defined acts of his will, are not
important after his baptism or repentance, for, you know, a new man emerges from the
font, not by dint of the annihilation of his sins, but insofar as he determines himself
towards the good; by this self-determination towards the good or inner, freely willed
revolution, mans sinful covering is sloughed off, whether this is original sin or the
consequences of the acts of the person himself who is being baptized. So as to come
out of the sacrament a new man, he must himself strive to be new, and, insofar as he has
the power, he must destroy in himself the slightest remains of his former sinful makeup, so that the righteousness in the proper sense that man receives in baptism is rather
a possibility than a reality. But if that is the case, then even the non-reception of the
sacrament in the prescribed form may not harm man, since the essence of true
Christianity has been formed in him the desire for the Kingdom of Christ. Hence it
becomes clear that if justification is not a magical, but a moral matter, if its essence
consists in the change in the mans attitude to life, a change which is only brought to
completion by Grace, but is produced by the will of man, then for the cleansing of the
sins of him who is being baptized, the cleansing sacrifice of Golgotha is, of course, not
required at all. For justification, according to the teaching of the new theologians,
everything depends not on assimilating the fruits of the expiatory death of the GodMan, but on a moral, psychological revolution. Sin is not forgotten and is not remitted
to a man because of some reasons that are extraneous for the soul of the man, and for

that reason if it is possible to speak of Gods remitting sin to a man, this is only as an
intention from before the creation of the world of the whole economy of God
concerning our salvation, an intention which brought the Son of God down to earth and
raised Him onto the cross, and which, on the other hand, is an eternal earnest of mercy
for us, for every sinner who comes to God. Every other concept of the sanctification of
man and the forgiveness of sins is, in the opinion of Archbishop Sergius, a crude error
of the West, and arises not because man in fact had no means of salvation, but because
such an error was dear to the self-loving nature of man.
This briefly is the teaching of the new theologians, and in particular Archbishop
Sergius, on the holy sacrament of baptism, from which we can gain a clear idea of their
general view of Gods work of the salvation of man, which salvation in the proper sense
of the word does not and did not exist, while man was only given help to accomplish his
own salvation. The new theologians cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the
Orthodox Church on the real significance of Christs death on the cross as a sacrifice
cleansing sins, for such an understanding of salvation, in their opinion, by ignoring
mans own means [of salvation], is deprived of common sense, since it denies the laws
of the psychological life of man, in which everything must take place in the natural
order. Salvation is not some kind of external-juridical or magical action, but a gradually
accomplished development in man through the action of the Grace of God, since there
can be degrees of redemption, says Archbishop Sergius.
Not having in themselves enough strength to receive the mystery of Christs coming
into the world as a precisely defined historical act of Gods salvation of man, as a
certain moment whose value lies in itself as such, the new theologians try to
conceptualize Christianity in another way, that is, by adapting different dogmas of the
Christian teaching to the spiritual life of man. Instead of firmly and boldly judging the
whole present life by the truth of the teaching on Gods perfect salvation of the world,
they conceptualize this truth in terms of its possible suitability and usefulness for the
life of man. They hope somehow to link the Nicene Creed and the Sermon on the
Mount, that is, the truth of the dogmatic teaching of Christianity with the voluntary life
of man. And they forget that the moral content of life is for every believer only the
inevitable, natural consequence of Gods determined work of the salvation of man. And
thinking by means of an artificial broadening of the moral autonomy of man to enliven
Christianity, the new theologians in reality only repeat in themselves the sorrowful
destiny of the well-known heretics of the 16th century the Socinians. The Socinian
theologians also ascribed the accomplishment of salvation to the moral forces of man
himself, albeit with the cooperating Grace of God, so that the death of Jesus Christ on
the cross, according to their theological ideas, was not an expiatory sacrifice for the sins
of men, but only an exceptional witness of Gods readiness to forgive people all their
sins and give them Grace-filled help to attain eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven.
With this idea of Christs work they evidently not only destroyed the Christian dogma of
salvation, but also opened a broad path to a decisive rejection of the whole of Christian
dogmatics; because if in actual fact Gods participation in the salvation of men is limited
only to the simple demonstration of Gods readiness to cooperate with their real
salvation, then for this demonstration the coming into the world of the Son of God was
by no means required And the Socianist theologians truly arrived at the complete
destruction of Christianity, although in actual fact they did not think or want to destroy
Christianity, but on the contrary to affirm it as the absolutely true religion.

Such an end is inevitable also for the new theologians: for them, too, the work of
Christ the Saviour in that form in which it was accomplished must without question
lose, and has already lost for many unfortunates, its meaning and significance. And man
again returns to the path of natural thinking and the still no more than possibility of his
salvation, and in the torments of despair he will again cry out to Heaven in the words of
the Apostle Paul: Wretch that am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?[4]
*
Let us now turn from Sergius theoretical theologising to his practical incarnation of his
theology in life. And here we find a paradox. He who, in his theoretical works,
emphasized that salvation lies in the exercise of will, in ascetic struggle against sin,
rather than in magical sacramental transformations, demonstrated in his life an almost
slavish subjection to the elements of the world, especially the political and social world
in which he lived. And yet this paradox is easily explained. The true ascetic is not he
who believes in the power of his own will, as did Sergius, but he who can say with Paul,
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me
(Galatians 2.20). For as the Lord said: My Grace is sufficient for you, for My strength
is made perfect in weakness (II Corinthians 12.9).
And so Sergius again and again showed an alarming flexibility, or ability to
compromise with the prevailing ethos of democratism and socialism. Thus when Lev
Tolstoy was excommunicated by the Church in 1901, Sergius joined those who
defended the inveterate heretic. Again, when the revolutionary Peter Schmidt was shot
in 1906, Archbishop Sergius, who was at that time rector of the St. Petersburg
Theological Academy, served a pannikhida at his grave. He also gave refuge in his
hierarchical house in Vyborg to the revolutionaries Michael Novorussky and Nicholas
Morozov. Having such sympathies, it is not surprising that he was not liked by the
Royal Family: in 1915 the Empress wrote to the Emperor that Sergius must leave the
Synod.
Not surprisingly, Archbishop Sergius was among those who welcomed the February
revolution in 1917. He was one of only two members of the Synod who approved the
over-procurator Lvovs transfer of the Synods official organ, the TserkovnoObshchestvennij Vestnik into the hands of his friend, the liberal Professor Titlinov. Lvov
rewarded Sergius for this act by not including him among the bishops whom he purged
from the Synod in April. He thought that Sergius would continue to be his tool in the
revolution that he was introducing in the Church. And he was right in so thinking.
For the new Synod headed by Archbishop Sergius accepted an Address to the Church
concerning the establishment of the principle of the election of the episcopate. This
Address triggered a revolution in the Church. The revolution consisted in the fact that
all over the country the elective principle with the participation of laymen replaced the
system of episcopal autocracy which had prevailed thereto. In almost all dioceses
Diocesan Congresses elected special diocesan councils or committees composed of
clergy and laity that restricted the power of the bishops. The application of the elective
principle to almost all ecclesiastical posts, from parish offices to episcopal sees, resulted
in the removal of several bishops from their sees and the election of new ones in their
stead (Sergius himself was elected Metropolitan of Vladimir).

Worse was to follow. When the pro-Soviet renovationist movement seized power in the
Church in 1922 when Patriarch Tikhon was under house arrest, Sergius immediately
joined it. Moreover, he called on all true pastors and believing sons of the Church, both
those entrusted to us and those belonging to other dioceses, to follow our example.
Sergius later repented of his membership of the renovationists (although, as Hieromartyr
Damascene of Glukhov pointed out, he took his time over it). However, the people did
not trust him, shouting to the Patriarch not to receive him; while the renowned Elder
Nectarius of Optina said that the poison of renovationism was in him still. It was only
the generosity of the Patriarch that gave him another chance. That generosity was to
prove fateful for the Russian Church. For in 1927 Sergius effected the third, most
successful revolution in the Church since 1917, a revolution whose leaders are still in
power to this day
The essence of Sergius Declaration of 1927 consisted in his exhortation to the people to
be reconciled with communism, to work together with the revolution rather than against
it. Soviet power, he said, was there to stay and therefore could not be opposed. Only
ivory-tower dreamers can think that such an enormous society as our Orthodox Church,
with the whole of its organisation, can have a peaceful existence in the State while
hiding itself from the authorities. Now, when our Patriarchate has decisively and
without turning back stepped on the path of loyalty [to Soviet power], the people who
think like this have to either break themselves and, leaving their political sympathies at
home, offer to the Church only their faith and work with us only in the name of faith, or
(if they cannot immediately break themselves) at least not hinder us, and temporarily
leave the scene. We are sure that they will again, and very soon, return to work with us,
being convinced that only the relationship to the authorities has changed, while faith and
Orthodox Christian life remain unshaken
Here we see a doctrine of faith and works fully consistent with the heretical one he
developed in his masters thesis. Here is the same lack of emphasis on the Grace of
God, the same reliance on human will and human reason. Here also is the same
emphasis on asceticism; but the ascetic task of breaking oneself, according to Sergius,
consists not in the struggle against evil, but in non-resistance to it (Tolstoyism). For we
must be sensible; we cannot overthrow kingdoms, we must keep in step with the times
although St. Athanasius the Great said that Christians keep in step, not with the times,
but with God! Faith and work consists in working with the enemies of the faith, and
in exhorting those who do not share this faith to leave the scene - in reality, as life
would soon demonstrate, leaving meant torment and death in the concentration
camps. The relationship to the authorities has changed, he admits, while faith and
Orthodox Christian life remain unshaken. But how can faith and life remain unshaken
when there has been a fundamental change in relationship to such an important
phenomenon as the revolution, which persecutes faith and destroys0 life?
Hieromartyr Victor especially noted the phrase: Only ivory-tower dreamers can think
that a society as tremendous as our Orthodox Church, with its whole organization, can
exist throughout the country hidden from the authorities of the State. He saw in this an
over-valuation of the outer, human aspect of the Church, its organization, and an undervaluation of its inner, Divine aspect, its Grace-filled life as a mystical organism.[5] The
external organization of the Church is something that human will and resourcefulness
can do something to save and Sergius, with his practical, Pelagian bent was
determined to do what he could to save it. The problem was that if this meant

compromise with evil, then the inner, Divine essence of the Church, her Grace-filled
life, would be lost. But Sergius cared less about that
On December 29, 1927 St. Victor wrote to Sergius: The enemy has lured and deceived
you for a second time with the idea of an organization of the Church [the first time was
his fall into the renovationist schism in 1922]. But if this organization is bought at the
price of the Church of Christ Herself no longer remaining the house of Grace-giving
salvation for men, and he who received the organization ceases to be what he was - for
it is written, 'Let his habitation be made desolate, and his bishopric let another take'
(Acts 1.20) - then it were better for us never to have any kind of organization.
What is the benefit if we, having become by God's Grace temples of the Holy Spirit,
become ourselves suddenly worthless, while at the same time receiving an organization
for ourselves? No. Let the whole visible material world perish; let there be more
important in our eyes the certain perdition of the soul to which he who presents such
external pretexts for sin will be subjected.
And he concluded that Sergius pact with the atheists was not less than any heresy or
schism, but is rather incomparably greater, for it plunges a man immediately into the
abyss of destruction, according to the unlying word: Whosoever shall deny Me before
men (Matthew 10.33).
For in truth, as he wrote a few weeks later to Bishop Abraham, these people [the
communists] who think evil against the Church are not from men, but from him who
was a murderer from the beginning and who thirsts for our eternal destruction, whose
servants these new traitors [like Sergius] have become, subverting the very essence of
the Orthodox Church of Christ. They have made it, not heavenly, but earthly, and have
changed it from a Grace-filled union into a political organization.
With childlike simplicity we believe that the strength of the Church is not in
organization, but in the Grace of God, which cannot exist where there is betrayal and
renunciation of the Orthodox Church, even if it is under the guise of the attainment of
the external good of the Church. After all, here we have not simply the [personal] sin of
M. Sergius and his advisors. Oh if it were only that! No! Here we have the systematic
destruction of the Orthodox Russian Church according to a definitely thought-through
plan, the striving spiritually to mix up, defile and degrade everything. Here is laid the
destruction of the whole of the Orthodox Church.
*
The most famous demonstration of Sergius Pelagian understanding of salvation is to be
found in the interview he gave to the future leader of the Catacomb Church,
Hieromartyr Archbishop Demetrius of Gdov and several representatives of the
Petrograd clergy in Moscow on December 12, 1927.
There are two accounts of the critical part of the interview. According to the first, from
the materials of Hieromartyr Demetrius investigation in 1929-30, the conversation went
like this:

We havent come to quarrel with you, but to declare to you from the many who have
sent us that we cannot, our religious conscience does not allow us to recognize, the
course that you have embarked on. Stop, for the sake of Christ, stop!
This position of yours is called confessing. You have a halo
But what must a Christian be?
There are confessors and martyrs. But there are also diplomats and guides. But every
sacrifice is accepted! Remember Cyprian of Carthage.
Are you saving the Church?
Yes, I am saving the Church.[6]
The Church does not need salvation, but you yourself are being saved through her.
Well, of course, from the religious point of view it is senseless to say: I am saving the
Church. But Im talking about the external position of the Church.
According to the second account, Sergius said: By my new church policy I am saving
the Church. To which Archpriest Victorinus Dobronravov replied: The Church does
not have need of salvation; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You, yourself,
Vladyka, have need of salvation through the Church.[7]
Both accounts are instructive. In the first we see that Sergius mocked the confessional
stance of the True Orthodox representatives (you have a halo). There are two ways,
according to him: that of the confessor and that of the diplomat. But his path of
diplomacy involved not only non-resistance to the evil of communism, but also open
lying (for example, about the non-existence of persecutions against the Church) and
betrayal of those who took the path of confession (by calling them counterrevolutionaries).
The justification for this is that he is thereby saving the Church. Sergius qualifies this
somewhat by saying: Im talking about the external position of the Church. But this
reveals still more clearly the falseness of his position. For if he can be saving the
external position of the Church, this can only be in the conditions of Soviet power at
the expense of her inner faithfulness to Christ. In conditions of the merciless persecution
of the Church, the external and human can be saved (if it can be saved, which depends,
not only on the will of man, but also on the will of God) only at the expense of the inner
and Divine, whereas the path of Christian asceticism is always the exact opposite: the
sacrifice of external comfort and peace for the sake of the one thing necessary, the
pearl without price, communion with Christ
However, it is the words of Hieromartyr Victorin that pinpoint with the greatest
exactness the essence of Sergius fall, and the fall of the sergianist church in general.
Sergius sought to save the external organization of the Church (and thereby his position
at the head of it). But the Church does not need saving: the salvation of the Church was
guaranteed once and for all when Christ shed His Blood for it on the Cross. This is the
objective aspect of our collective salvation which Sergius sought to ignore, just as he

ignored the objective aspect of our personal salvation in his masters thesis. So whatever
the gates of hell may hurl at the Church, the Church will remain. The only question is:
who will remain in her? And the answer is: only he who believes in the Church, in her
Grace-filled capacity to ride every storm and defeat every enemy, and who believes that
he can be saved only by remaining loyal to her in whatever position glorious or
humble, at peace or at war that she may find herself.
Sergius did not believe in the Church, in the complete sufficiency of her Grace-filled
life with or without the external organization and material support that times of peace
give her. He believed in the relative value of her external organization, and he believed
in his own ability to salvage something of value from the wreckage of that organization
a faith that was shown to be woefully misplaced in the unprecedented destruction of
the sergianist church that took place in the 1930s. He was like Uzzah who put forth his
hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the
Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he
died by the ark of God (II Samuel 6.6-7). Like Uzzah, Sergius forgot that God does not
need the feeble hand of man to keep the ark of the Church from falling from the shaking
of oxen-like men. What He does need or rather, what we need if we are to remain in
the ark, and partake of her holiness and salvation is the bold and uncompromising
confession of faith in Him and His Holy Church. Pelagian that he was, Sergius believed
more in the sufficiency of his own powers than in the power of God. And so he saved
neither the Church nor his own soul. For he died, not in the Ark, in the One, Holy,
Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church, but beside it, in a man-made church devoid of
the Grace of God.
For outside the Orthodox Church, said Hieromartyr Victor, there is no Grace of God,
and consequently, no salvation either. Nor can there be any true temple of God, but it is
simply a house, according to the word of St. Basil the Great. In my opinion, without the
Grace of God, a temple becomes a place of idolatry
Vladimir Moss.
February 24 / March 9, 2010.
First and Second Finding of the Precious Head of St. John the Baptist.
Tuesday of the Week of the Holy Cross.

[1] The second edition was published by Kazan Imperial University in 1898. All
quotations from this work here are from this edition, which is to be found at
http://www.pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=91 (in Russian).
[2] Sokolov, in Appendix to Bogoslovskij Vestnik, July, 1895,
http://www.pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=99, pp. 4-5 (in Russian).
[3] St. Gregory, Word 40; quoted by Sergius in his thesis, chapter 4, p. 19.

[4] Hieromartyr Victor, The New Theologians, The Church, 1912; reprinted in the
series On the New Heresies, Moscow: Orthodox Action, 1 (11), 2000 (in Russian).
Cf. also the analysis by Fr. George Florovsky in The Ways of Russian Theology (Paris,
1937, 1991, in Russian): Much closer to Anthony [Khrapovitsky] is Sergius
Stragorodsky, the present Metropolitan of Moscow (born 1867). In his book, The
Orthodox Teaching on Salvation (1895) he stops on the moral-objective aspect of the
dogma. The Orthodox teaching is revealed in opposition to the western. It is an
opposition between the moral and the juridical viewpoints. Sergius tries to exclude any
kind of heteronomism from teaching and salvation. One should not ask for what man
receives salvation. One should ask: How does man work with salvation. Sergius very
convincingly shows the identity of blessedness and virtue, salvation and perfection, so
that here there can be no external reward. Eternal life is the same as the good, and it not
only is awaiting us as something on the other side, but it is also acquired already now.
Sergius faithfully portrays the process of moral conversion, from sin to God. But the
objective side of the process remains too much in the shade. Even Anthony in his time
pointed out that Sergius spoke very carelessly about the sacraments, especially about
baptism (or repentance already this one word or is characteristic). The impression
is given that what is decisive in the sacrament is the moral revolution, the decision to
stop sinning. Through repentance man is renewed, the thread of life is as it were
broken. The co-working of Grace only strengthens the will, the work of freedom.
Therefore the very accomplishment of the sacrament is not so absolutely necessary,
since this essence of the true Christian the desire for the Kingdom of God has
already been formed in a man. Martyrdom, even without blood, is in accordance with
its inner meaning identical to baptism both the one and the other proceed from an
unshakeable decision to serve Christ and renounce ones sinful desires. And still more
sharply: the essence of the sacrament consists in the strengthening of the zeal of a man
for the good. We are saved by mercy through faith. By faith we come to know mercy,
we recognize the love of God, that is, that our sin is forgiven and there is now no
obstacle on our way to God. We recognize in God the Father, and not the Awesome
Master Sergius set himself the task of theologizing from experience, from the
experience of the spiritual life. And this is what makes the book significant However,
it is quite wrong to reduce the whole content of patristic theology to asceticism and
asceticism, moreover, interpreted psychologically. No less characteristic for the Fathers
is their metaphysical realism. Which makes it all the less possible to justify moralism
and psychologism from patristics. Hardly acceptable also is the exaggerated voluntarism
in asceticism itself. After all, contemplation remains the limit of ascent. And in any case,
one cannot substitute asceticism in the place of dogmatics, or dissolve dogmatics in
asceticism. This temptation is always an indicator of theological decline. There were
elements of decline also in the Russian school of moral monism. There was no
contemplative inspiration in it, and too much psychological self-analysis. This was
undoubtedly a reflection of western theological moods, and of an excessive attention to
the problem of justification. It was necessary to return to the Fathers more fully and
with greater humility (p. 439)
[5] This distinction between the Church as organization and the Church as organism was
developed also by Hieromartyr Mark (Novoselov) in his Letters to Friends, Moscow,
1994.
[6] L.E. Sikorskaya, Svyaschennomuchenik Dmitrij Arkhiepiskop Gdovskij, Moscow,
2008, p. 88 (in Russian).

[7] I.M. Andreyev, Russias Catacomb Saints, Platina, Ca.: St. Herman of Alaska Press,
1982, p. 100.