In mid-May 1912, Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) took up his main theological work, a voluminous work entitled "Apology of Faith in the Divinity of the Names of God and the Name of Jesus" (Against the Name-Fighters)." The idea of collecting all the testimonies available to him from the Holy Scriptures, the works of the Church Fathers and liturgical texts dedicated to the name of God matured in him throughout the spring of 1912, but a severe inflammation of both eyes (an illness that had haunted him since his travels in Abyssinia) prevented him from taking up the work. In May, Fr. Anthony went to the relics of St. Nilus the Myrrh-streaming with the hope of receiving healing. On his return, the inflammation passes, and he sits down at the typewriter. Bulatovich also attracted other monks to work on the Apology, who sent him extracts from the Fathers dedicated to the name of God. After finishing the book, Fr. Anthony copied it on wax sheets and reproduced it on a hectograph in the amount of 75 copies. In this he was assisted by Pavel Grigorovich, the former staff captain of the Pereyaslav Dragoon Regiment, who came to Athos and became "a most precious collaborator for Fr. Anthony" [1097]. While Fr. Anthony was ill, he was constantly visited by the abbot of St. Andrew's Skete, Jerome, who then fully shared his views:

At that time, Hegumen Jerome, whom I revered and loved, and then enjoyed his mutual respect and love, which he expressed with special signs of his attention to me, repeatedly visiting me during my illness, also shared my understanding of the Name of the Lord," writes Fr. Anthony. "He said then: "If Father John said that the Name of God is God Himself, then this is what we should believe, for Father John was a man of special grace." He also said that he would never agree with the opinion of the imiabortsy that the Name "Jesus" is a simple human name and only recently existing<... >Once, Fr. Jerome even brought me a testimony found by St. John Chrysostom, in which St. John<... >says that the Name of the Lord" demands faith in itself," for it works miracles [1098].

However, the relationship between Hegumen Jerome and Hieroschema-Monk Anthony deteriorated sharply after Hieromonk Alexy (Kireevsky) visited the abbot on July 19 and handed him a letter from the spiritual father of the Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Agathodorus: the letter said that Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn was very angry both with Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) for his open letter, and with Fr. Jerome himself that he allows such activity in his skete. Fr. Alexis demanded that Hegumen Jerome forbid Bulatovich to write anything about the name of God and to receive the hermits of the Thebaid Skete. The abbot, frightened by the threats, promised to fulfill all the demands to the letter.

On July 23, 1912, Hegumen Jerome sent for Fr. Anthony; He comes on July 24. The abbot received Fr. Anthony "unusually severely" and reproached him for "the audacity to object to Archbishop Anthony, Doctor of Theology and the first Russian hierarch." The abbot demands that Fr. Anthony cease his literary activity and break off relations with the imiaslavtsy of the Thebaid Skete. In response to these demands, Fr. Anthony handed the abbot his just-completed "Apology" (which, therefore, took him about two months to compile). The abbot promises to read the Apology, but instead of reading it himself, he gives it to Fr. Clement for review. Further events develop quickly:

<… >The next day he called me again," writes Fr. Anthony, "and, rudely pointing to the apology, said: 'You have a whole salad written here.' He apparently called the apology salad because of the abundance in it of various testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. It was strange to hear from the lips of a monk such an irreverent name for the texts of the Holy Fathers and the Gospel. But I asked the abbot what he found in this "salad" that did not agree with the teaching of the Holy Church. The abbot was unable to answer me and sent for Fr. Clement to point out to me the passages in my apology that do not agree with the teaching of the Church. Obviously, the abbot did not read the apology, as he had promised to do, but instructed Fr. Clement to read it and express his opinion on it. Clement opened the apology and showed me the text: "The words I have spoken to you are the Spirit and the Life," and asked by what right I had written these words with a capital letter, when in the Gospel they stand with a small letter, and by what right I deified the words of the Lord. To this I replied that in the Gospel in general in Greek and Slavonic everything is written with small letters, except for capital words and after the period, but that in meaning, since the words of God are spirit and life, it follows of itself that they cannot be creatures, and that the Lord Himself testifies by this that they are His Divine activity. But the abbot interrupted our theological argument and said rudely: "Well, in a word, I order you to burn this book immediately and no longer dare to accept the Thebaid desert dwellers." Then I said that I could not fulfill this requirement. In response, the abbot announced to me that he forbade me to serve as a priest. But then I said: "Your Reverence, I am no longer your novice, and you are no longer my abbot, and I ask you to let me go to all four sides." But I did not answer a word more, I made a prostration before the holy icons, venerated them, made a prostration to the abbot, as was customary, but did not take the blessing and, saying: "Forgive me," left<... >[1100]

On the same day, Fr. Anthony left St. Andrew's Skete and moved to the Annunciation cell of the famous ascetic Elder Parthenius, who willingly accepted him. Less than three weeks later, Hegumen Jerome visited Fr. Anthony in the Annunciation cell and, having made him a prostration to the ground, asked him "not to impute to him his ignorance and foolishness and rudeness, to forgive and reconcile with him." Fr. Anthony responded with the same prostration, kissed his lips and reconciled with the abbot, but refused to return to the skete [1101].

On August 20, 1912, the opponents of imiaslavie in the Panteleimon Monastery, headed by Hegumen Misail, drew up the "Act on the Non-Worship of the Name "Jesus", which contains a clause that is unacceptable to the imiaslavtsy that the name of God cannot be worshipped:

We believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is the true God<... >In two natures are inseparable, inseparable, unchanging, inseparably united. Therefore, when we pronounce His Most Holy and Divine Name, i.e. Jesus Christ, we imagine the invisible presence of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, not separating His Name from essence and not merging Him, but in Him, according to the Apostle, it behooves us to be saved, but to honor Him and worship Him the Lord God Himself [1102].

In August, Hieromonk Alexis (Kireevsky) and Hieroschemamonk Kirik went to Constantinople to Patriarch Joachim III to seek the condemnation of the imiaslavtsy. Upon learning of this, Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) wrote to the Patriarch with a request to defend imiaslavie [1103]. Patriarch Joachim III, although he did not accept Fr. Alexis, nevertheless took the side of the opponents of imiaslavie. He instructed the theological school of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the island of Halki to consider the imiaslav teaching: on August 27, the school recognized the teaching as heretical [1104]. On September 12, 1912, the Patriarch sent an epistle to Mount Athos prohibiting the reading of the book "On the Mountains of the Caucasus" [1105]:

"To those of the monks," writes the Patriarch, "who senselessly theologize and spread the erroneous theory of the divinity of the name "Jesus," we advise and command them to immediately and strictly abandon the soul-damaging error and to cease arguing and interpreting about things they do not know. They must first of all be concerned about the salvation of their souls, and they must seek and find the solution of any of their perplexities in the teaching of the Church handed down, beyond which and apart from which no one is allowed to innovate or use new expressions. Otherwise, against those who spread this senseless, blasphemous teaching and disturb the Holy Mountain, the Church will take the strictest measures, such as are indicated by the sacred canons against the impious and disobedient, and which are required by the tranquility and order of your sacred place. And since the beginning and cause of the temptation is the book of the monk Hilarion "On the Mountains of the Caucasus", which was inattentively and unfounded in many places, we, condemning and condemning the incorrect and dangerous expressions in it about the name "Jesus", forbid the reading of this book to everyone on the Holy Mountain, as a book containing much that is erroneous and leading to error and heresy [1106].

Immediately after receiving the Patriarch's message, Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) made an analysis of this document and sent it to the Patriarch. At the same time, he submitted a complaint to the Patriarch against Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky). A similar complaint is sent to the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church [1107]. Not limiting himself to complaints, Bulatovich also composes a detailed commentary on the epistle of Patriarch Joachim, questioning the legitimacy of the epistle.

Touching upon Patriarch Joachim's attitude to the book "On the Mountains of the Caucasus," Bulatovich notes that the Patriarch "does not express exactly what expressions he finds incorrect, does not discuss the entire book, does not call it heretical, but condemns only some "certain expressions." Among these expressions, however, His Holiness the Patriarch could hardly understand the words "The Name of God is God Himself," for the Holy Fathers also spoke of the Name of God in this way. The Patriarch, in Bulatovich's opinion, "condemns those who introduce a new teaching about the Name of God. But the Athonite confessors confess not a new, but an old patristic teaching about this." The commentary to the epistle ends with the thought that "one should not exaggerate the official authority of Patriarch Joachim's letter, nor attach to it a decisive dogmatic significance, which, apparently, His Holiness did not intend to give to his conciliatory instruction" [1108].

Such an interpretation of the patriarchal epistle, however, is an attempt to pass off wishful thinking as reality. In fact, the position of the Patriarch is quite unequivocal, and his attitude towards the imiaslavtsy is quite negative. It should be noted, however, that the text of the epistle, completely devoid of theological content and built exclusively on general phrases without a single concrete indication of the erroneous opinions of the imiaslavtsy, testifies to the fact that its author was not familiar with the book "On the Mountains of the Caucasus" and in general did not know anything about the essence of the teaching of the imiaslavtsy, except for what he could hear through Hieromonk Alexis (Kireevsky). It is not surprising that the text of the Patriarchal Epistle did not make any impression on the monks of the Thebaid Skete. On December 2, 1912, the fraternal council of the skete unanimously recognized the opinions set forth in the book "On the Mountains of the Caucasus" as correct and condemned the opponents of Schema-monk Hilarion [1109]. According to the surviving protocol, more than 100 monks took part in the council. After a short prayer, the abbot of the skete, Hieromonk Seraphim, made an introductory speech and read out a note by Schema-monk Martinian [1110], in which he proved the falsity of the opinions contained in the "blasphemous review" of the monk Chrysanthos. Then a debate took place, after which the monks discussed the main provisions of Schema-monk Hilarion's book "On the Mountains of the Caucasus" and the reviews of the monk Chrysanthos. On all points, the monks supported the position of Schema-monk Hilarion and condemned the views of his opponent [1111]. The protocol is concluded by the following definition:

On the basis of the Holy and Patristic Scriptures, we confess that the name of God is God Himself. The name of Jesus Christ is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, equal to the other names of God. As for the review of the monk Chrysanthos, as not agreeing with the Holy Scriptures, we recognize as heretical, which we reject with its followers, and, as a sign of the firmness of our confession, we kiss the Cross and the Holy Gospel [1112].