Abridged history of the Russian Church

Contents Period one. From the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion. 988–1237. I. Spread of Christianity § 1. The beginning of Christianity in Russia in the south: a) before Askold and Dir and b) under them § 2. Under Oleg, Igor and St. Olga § 3. Under Vladimir: a) conversion of him and the boyars § 4 b) Baptism of the people in Kyiv, in near and far places § 5. The spread of Christianity in the 11th and 12th centuries. § 6. Obstacles to Christianity - the Magi, the attitude of foreigners to Christianity II. Teaching § 7. Schools § 8. Teachers: St. Nestor and Simon § 9. St. Cyril and Metropolitan Hilarion § 10. Fidelity to Orthodoxy. Bogomils § 11. Attitudes towards Western Christians III. Divine services § 12. Churches § 13. Shrines of churches § 14. Liturgical books and singing § 15. Celebration of St. Eucharist and communion § 16. Sign of the cross § 17. Holidays § 18. Disputes about fasting IV. Church administration § 19. The Metropolitan and his relationship to bishops and princes § 20. Bishoprics and the power of the bishop § 21. The lower clergy and the maintenance of the clergy V. Christian life § 22. Obstacles; martyrs: St. princes Boris and Gleb § 23. Pious customs § 24. St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir § 25. Three types of monasticism: St. Anthony the Recluse § 26. St. Theodosius, head of the hostel § 27. Stylite life. Ave. Nikita Period two, Mongolian. From the devastation of Russia by the Mongols to the division of the metropolis I. Disasters of the Church and the spread of faith § 1. Devastation of Russia by the Mongols § 2. Holy Martyr Michael, Prince of Chernigov § 3. Relations of the Mohammedan Tatars to Christianity; St. Michael Prince of Tver § 4. Special protection of God for Christianity from the Tatars § 5. Conversion of some Tatars to Christianity § 6. Orthodox faith in Lithuania § 7. Enlightenment of Perm by Saint Stephen II. The teaching of the church § 8. The state of enlightenment § 9. Studies of the Holy Scriptures § 10. Blessed Preacher Serapion: the appearance of forged writings § 11. Strigolniki and their denunciation III. Divine services § 12. Disorders in worship from the Tatars § 13. Concern of pastors about the order of worship § 14. Multiplication of liturgical books and rites § 15. Differences in the order of worship and the efforts of Metropolitan Cyprian to ensure its uniformity § 16. New holidays IV. Church administration § 17. Transfer of the metropolitan see to Vladimir and Moscow § 18. The power of the metropolitan in the dioceses and the indignation against it of the Novgorodians § 19. Promotion of spiritual power for the benefits of the state V. Christian life § 20. Christian life under the Tatar yoke § 21. Excellent virtues of many shepherds and princes § 22. St. Sergius § 23. St. Demetrius and Kirill § 24. Euphrosyne Princess of Suzdal and Euphrosyne Grand Duchess § 25. Strengthening proper community life in monasteries § 26. Foolishness about Christ Third period. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate I. Church administration § 1. Division of the metropolis § 2. The attitude of the northern and southern metropolitans to the patriarch § 3. Promotion of the Church for the benefits of the state; Saints Jonah, Joasaph and Philip II. Spread of Christianity § 4. In Perm and in the Vyatka country § 5. Baptism of the Lapps § 6. Conquest of Kazan to Christianity § 7. Conquest of Astrakhan; restoration of Christianity in the Caucasus; successes of the gospel in the Ryazan diocese III. Orthodox teaching § 8. a) In the south: zeal for enlightenment; schools and printing houses § 9. The integrity of Orthodoxy in the fight against papism § 10. Attitudes to the Reformation § 11. b) In the north; triumph over papism under Isidore and St. Jonah § 12. The fight against the Judaizers until 1491 § 13. The fight since 1491 § 14. The teaching of the Judaizers and the denunciation of the teaching by St. Joseph § 15. The sad state of enlightenment § 16. The lack of living preaching: superstition and the seeds of schism § 17. Maxim the Greek § 18. His struggle with respect for forged and corrupted works IV. Divine services § 19. The state of liturgical books § 20. Maxim and Zinovy’s denunciation of arbitrariness in reading the creed § 21. The suffering of Maxim the book corrector and his defense of the cause of book correction § 22. Council of 1551; printing house § 28. Particular arbitrariness of ignorance: a) Walking on the sun § 24. b) In singing hallelujah § 25. c) About the sign of the cross V. Christian life § 26. Ancient way of life in this period; strengthening of Mongolian vices § 27. Northern monasticism of the 15th century: St. Savvaty and Zosima § 28. Strict hermits: Nil Sorsky § 29. Community life in the 16th century § 30. Ascetics of the 16th century: St. Nikander and Alexander of Svirsky § 31. Holy Fools Fourth period. The period of patriarchy. 1589 – 1720 I. Administration: a) in the north § 1. The beginning of the patriarchate in Moscow § 2. The rise of departments and diocesan administration § 3. Service of Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes to the Fatherland § 4. Service of Patriarch Philaret § 5. Patriarch Nikon in the service of the Fatherland § 6. Nikon’s sad fate: breaking friendship with the Tsar § 7. Council of 1660; Paisiy and Babarykin; response of the patriarchs; decision of the council of 1666 II. Spread of faith § 8. Conversion of foreigners in Siberia § 9. Advances of faith between the Tatars and Mordvins III. Teaching and worship § 10. In the South-West: the introduction of the union § 11. The bloody suffering of the Orthodox under Sigismund. 1597–1631 § 12. Suffering under Vladislav, Casimir and their successors until 1720 § 13. Teachers and defenders of Orthodoxy § 14. In the north: education, schools § 15. The fight against papism, which was introduced with impostors § 16. Correction of external worship; differences in worship with the introduction of the patriarchal rank; correction of books and rituals: a) under Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes § 17. b) After Hermogenes and under Patriarch Philaret § 18. c) Under Patriarch Joasaph I: damage to books and a return to better things under Patriarch Joseph § 19. Correction of books and rituals under Patriarch Nikon; communication with the eastern cathedral § 20. Sukhanov's departure for books; council, three patriarchs, subsequent orders until 1658 § 21. Fall of self-will from the church; schismatic opinions § 22. In the Solovetsky monastery: disobedience to the council and rebellion against the sovereign § 23 Revolt of Nikita Pustosvyat § 24. Fragmentation of the schism into rumors § 25. New dogma of schismatics - do not shave beards and mustaches; denunciation of the schism by Saint Demetrius IV. CHRISTIAN LIFE § 26. The nature of the times: the fight against violent self-will; devotees of truth § 27. Monasticism in the north and south Period one. From the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion. 988–1237. I. Spread of Christianity § 1. The beginning of Christianity in Russia in the south: a) before Askold and Dir and b) with them The spiritual revival of a people, as well as one person, is not accomplished in the same way; in some early, in others late, in one quickly, in another slowly and in parts. The wise and good will of God comes here in line with the will of man, but including in orders about one person and people orders about many. “The Russian country,” says St. Nestor, “was in idolatry (when the Greeks and Romans already believed in Christ). She did not hear a word from anyone about our Lord Jesus Christ; the apostles did not go to them (to the Russians); no one has preached the word of God to them.” This is what Nestor writes in the lives of princes Boris and Gleb. In another essay, which was written later, he conveys news that came to him, probably from Korsun, about the visit of St. Andrey of the Kyiv mountains; but conveys this news as a private opinion. Moreover, in this work he does not say that under the apostles the seed of the word of God bore fruit on the soil of Kievan Rus. Only in the first quarter of the fourth century did private conversions of Russians to Christianity begin in southern Russia, and then only by individuals, and not by entire tribes. “The Russians accepted the Christian faith already in the 4th century, under Constantine the Great,” says the Arab writer. This is not entirely unfair. Blessed Jerome wrote: “The Huns study the psalter, cold Scythia is warmed by the fire of true faith; an army of red-haired and blond Getae or Dacians carries marching churches with them everywhere.” The cold Scythia of Jeronimov cannot be separated from Russia by its very name, since small Scythia, which lay beyond the Danube, could not be called cold; the rapprochement of cold Scythia with the Getae and Huns also shows that Jerome means that Scythia that extended on the left bank of the Danube to the Don, where, as Nestor says: “The Dulebs lived along the Bug, the Uglichs and Tiverts sat along the Dniester and extended to the Danube.” The Getae or Goths, who lived together with the Slavs in what is now Bessarabia and further to the west, formed the Gothic diocese under Constantine the Great. Under Valens, St. the faith experienced severe persecution here from the pagan Athanarik and the Arian Friedigern. St. tried more than anyone else to spread the faith in Scythia and Gothia. Chrysostom Blessed Theodoret wrote about him: “And you have another affinity with the apostles: you were the first to erect altars among the Scythians amaxobs (nomadic), and the one who did not dismount from his horse learned to kneel and began to throw himself to the ground; not touched by the tears of captives, he learned to mourn his sins.” In another place he writes that St. Chrysostom, having heard that the Scythians who lived (in the direction from Constantinople) beyond the Danube were thirsty for salvation, sent shepherds and teachers to them. He sent missionaries to Gotthia and ordained Bishop Unilu. Chrysostom himself said with delight: “The Scythians, Thracians and Sarmatians glorify Christ.” But the Huns, Avars, and Bulgarians devastated, one after another, great Scythia, and Christianity, already weak among the Scythians, died out. Only in Tauro-Scythia, later called Gothia, and today's Crimea, did a bishop remain. The miracles of God's Providence awakened the Scythian from his sleep, but not as much as Providence wanted. Thus, according to historical monuments, Christians until the 9th century were guests in southern Russia: several individuals, several families appeared in it with Christianity in their souls, but were then reaped by war or the persecution of paganism, leaving no movement in the general mass of the people. According to the undoubted voice of history, Kievan Rus listened to the gospel preaching under the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. Bl. Patriarch Photius, who cared so much about the better fate of the Slavs, was an instrument of the initial enlightenment of the Kievan Russes. Askold and Dir, with a pagan squad on 200 armed ships, entered the Bosphorus, devastated the shores and islands of the Propontis, then approached Constantinople and made the capital of the Empire tremble. The pious patriarch turned to God with prayers; All-night singing was performed in the Blachernae Church; Tsar Michael himself, distracted in happiness, prayed with the people; Blessed Photius carried the robe of the Mother of God out of the church with songs, plunged it into the waves of the bay, and the storm-boiled sea broke the Russian ships. Askold and Dir, overwhelmed with fear, believed in the Lord punishing them. “The Russians,” His Holiness Photius wrote then, “transferred wicked pagan superstition to the pure and unblemished Christian faith, and, having accepted a bishop and teacher, behave like obedient children and friends. They accepted the bishop and Christian rites." Emperor Constantine describes what was happening in Kyiv itself: “When the bishop arrived in the capital of the Russians, the sovereign of the Russians assembled a council (veche). There were a lot of people here; The sovereign himself presided with the boyars and elders, who, due to a long-standing habit of paganism, were more committed to paganism than others, began to talk about their faith and Christian faith, and, inviting the archpastor, asked: what does he want to teach them? The bishop opened the Gospel and began to talk about the Savior and his miracles, and spoke about various miracles performed by God in the Old Testament. The Russians, listening to the preacher, said: if we don’t see something similar to what happened to the three youths in the oven, we don’t want to believe. The servant of God did not waver; he boldly answered them: we are insignificant before God, but tell me, what do you want? They asked that the book of the Gospel be thrown into the fire, and promised to turn to the Christian God if it remained unharmed. Then the bishop cried: Lord! glorify Your name before this people,” and put the book into the fire. Some time passed, the fire destroyed the material, but the Gospel remained intact; Even the ribbons with which it was tied have been preserved. Seeing this, the rude people, amazed by the miracle, began to be baptized.” This was in 867. Under Askold and Dir, Christianity succeeded in Russia, at least as much as Massudi, almost a contemporary, but a resident of the East, wrote: “of the Sklabs (Slavs), some are Christians, others are pagans,” and then said: “of all the Sklab kings, Dir is the strongest.” § 2. Under Oleg, Igor and St. Olga Although the unfortunate death of Askold and Dir, killed by the pagan Oleg in 882, could not but weaken the success of Christianity in Kyiv, Oleg, and not intentionally, introduced the Russians to the evangelical faith. When in 911 his ambassadors were in Constantinople to conclude peace, they, by order of the emperor, were shown: “the passion of the Lord, the crown and nails, and the scarlet mantle, and the relics of the saints, and taught them the Greek faith, showing the true faith in it... Those sent by Oleg, returning to Oleg, conveyed all the speeches to their own.” The faith of Christ had more peace and freedom in Russia under Igor. The Arabs in 922 knew that the Russians were turning to the Christian faith. When the ambassadors of the Tatar prince presented themselves (946) to the emperors, many baptized Russians stood in the palace with swords and banners. In 946, the Russians, in an agreement with the Greeks, said: “If anyone from the Russian country decided to violate this love: then those who have received baptism will receive execution from God the Almighty... and those who are not baptized will have no help from God and from Perun” (Article 1). “If the escaped slave is not found, then the Christian Russians swear by their faith, not Christians by their law” (v. 3). “In confirmation of the agreement, we Russians, those of us who were baptized, will swear (in Kyiv) in the cathedral church of St. Elijah by the church and the honorable cross that was presented.” Thus, among the Russians there were already Christians in such numbers that it was necessary to talk about them in the agreement, and they confirmed the agreement with an oath before St. cross. Moreover, there was already a cathedral church in Kyiv, which may indicate the existence of other churches. The agreement between the Russians and the Greeks was concluded as a result of the Russians’ campaign in Greece. In all likelihood, the miracle that happened over the Russians at the tomb of St. George of Amastris, described in the life of this saint. “The barbarians came to the church of the saint; They thought that there were treasures here and began to dig them up. But those who dug up lost their arms and legs; bound by invisible bonds, they remained motionless. Their prince, seeing this miracle, came into awe and horror and asked one prisoner what this meant? Hearing that this was accomplished by the power of the Christian God, and that by His power, after the all-night singing, health was restored to the stricken, the prince made peace with the Christians.” This miracle, of course, did not remain without consequences in Russia; at least, there is no doubt that those who experienced the wrath and mercy of God at the tomb of St. George, turned to the Christian God. The light of the gospel shone even brighter in Russia under Grand Duchess Olga, after the death of Igor. Gifted with a bright, insightful mind, Olga saw the immaculate life of Christians and understood that paganism did not raise such people; Conversations with Christian teachers (we see one of them with her on her way to Constantinople) revealed to her the heavenly purity and height of the teachings of Christ. And her heart was captivated by the truth of the Gospel. Out of respect for the capital of Christianity, and also in order to become more accurately acquainted with Christianity, she herself went to Constantinople with a large retinue. Here the patriarch was her mentor and himself baptized her, and Emperor Constantine was the recipient of the font. The Patriarch blessed the blessed Olga, who was named St. baptism by Helen, a cross that she brought to Kyiv, and predicted her glory in her descendants. Olga presented it to the patriarch as a sign of love for St. faith, a golden dish with the image of the Savior on a precious stone. This happened in 957. With the Grand Duchess at the same time in the Christian capital were her relatives and relatives, among others: one nephew, up to 10 noble wives, 18 most honorable servants, up to 20 boyars and several officials. It is absolutely incredible that none of them followed suit. princesses in Constantinople itself; rather, it can be assumed that few did not follow, unless they were already baptized. According to another monument, it is known that subsequently (971) Svyatoslav killed his brother (cousin) Gleb for his adherence to Christianity. In Kyiv, the example of the wise mother of the people, in all likelihood, also did not remain without effect, especially since she herself tried to arouse in others love for St. faith. At length, and with maternal tenderness, she urged her son Svyatoslav to accept that faith, the dignity of which her soul vividly felt. The proud warrior valued only military glory. “He,” says Nestor, did not forbid those who wanted to be baptized: but in the circle of those like himself, he laughed at such people, remaining among those for whom the faith of Christ seems foolishness.” At least others did not remain so deaf to the voice of love and heavenly truth. Nestor, in his very review of Svyatoslav, makes it clear that there were those at that time who expressed a desire to be baptized. Some even of the soldiers sincerely fell in love with the Christian faith: a faithful witness to this is the martyrdom of the Varangian and his son under the pagan Vladimir. The power book says: “many, marveling at her (Olga’s) verbs, having never heard them before, kindly accepted the word of God from her lips - and were baptized.” It is also known that the pope, 15 years after Olga’s baptism in 972, already considered southern Russia a refuge of the Orthodox faith. Olga, in the correct expression of the chronicler, was for our country “the morning star, preceding the sun, the dawn of the morning, foreshadowing the light of day; she shone like the full moon in the night, she shone among the infidels like a pearl.” This sun, to whom Olga foreshadowed, was Grand Duke Vladimir. § 3. Under Vladimir: a) his conversion and the boyars What Constantine the Great was for the Roman Empire, the Lord blessed Vladimir, the grandson of the blessed Olga, to be the same for Russia. It was not long before the Faith of Christ won the heart of Olga’s grandson. Christianity, after the death of Olga (in 969), under the warlike Svyatoslav and during the bloody civil strife of Svyatoslav’s children, of course, did not spread in Russia, unless it was reduced: however, Christians remained in Kyiv. In the first years of his reign, Vladimir was not only busy with bloody wars, but lived like the most unclean pagan. The terrible fratricide, victories bought with the blood of strangers and their own, coarse voluptuousness could not help but burden the conscience of even a pagan. Vladimir thought to ease his soul by erecting new idols on the banks of the Dnieper and Volkhov, decorating them with silver and gold, slaughtering fat victims in front of them; Moreover, he even shed the blood of two Christians on the altar of idols. But all this, as he felt, did not bring peace to the soul - the soul was looking for light and peace. And memory also spoke about the great Olga, about her God, about the God of Greek Christians. Vladimir felt anxiety, movements and doubts in his soul. At the court of the famous prince there could not be a shortage of people willing to offer peace of mind to the prince. Bulgarian Muslims praised their faith, and the description of Mohammed’s paradise pleased the voluptuous prince: but circumcision seemed to him a hateful rite, and the prohibition of drinking wine was incompatible with the customs of Rus'. The pope's zealous servants spoke of the greatness of the invisible God and the insignificance of idols; the glorious prince, knowing the pope’s policy, answered; “Our fathers did not accept faith from the pope.” Having listened to the Kazar Jews, he asked: where is your fatherland? – In Jerusalem; but God in anger scattered us across foreign lands, the Jews said.” “And you, punished by God, dare to want others to lose their fatherland?” answered the wise prince. Finally, the philosopher, a Greek monk, was heard. He, having shown the injustice of other faiths, presented the contents of the Bible, the history of Orthodoxy, and in conclusion showed a picture of the Last Judgment of God with the participation of the righteous and sinners. “Good is at this right hand, and woe to the sinners,” said the prince with a deep sigh. Be baptized, and you will be in heaven with the first,” said the humble monk. The last preacher struck Vladimir. Having released him with rich gifts, the Grand Duke in 987 gathered a council of boyars, since he realized that the change of religion by the prince, in any case, should entail changes in his entire state. Vladimir announced to the boyars the proposals of ambassador-preachers. “Everyone praises his faith,” the boyars said, “You have a lot of smart people, let’s go and test whose faith is better.” Vladimir sent ten kind and intelligent men. They were among the Bulgarians, in German land; finally arrived in Greece. Emperors Vasily and Constantine, having learned the reason for their arrival, announced this to the patriarch, and the patriarch, in the presence of the ambassadors, performed a solemn service. The splendor of the Sophia Church, the presence of all the clergy, the harmonious singing, the majesty and simplicity of the entire service delighted the ambassadors. Convinced of the dignity, of the superiority of the Greek faith, they returned to their fatherland already Christians in soul, and, not approving other confessions before the prince, said about the Greek: “in the church of the Greeks we did not know whether we stood on earth or in heaven: truly God is there with men. And just as every person, having tasted the sweet, does not want the bitter, so we, having learned the faith of the Greeks, no longer want to serve our gods.” The boyars and elders told Vladimir that if the faith of the Greeks had not been the best, their grandmother, Grand Duchess Olga, the wisest of people, would not have accepted it. “So we are baptized, but where?” Vladimir said. The warlike prince, who had just decided to accept the new faith, could not yet rise so high in his soul as to renounce everything earthly: humbly asking for instruction in the new faith from the Greeks seemed to him indecent for a prince and people famous for his victories; on the other hand, the Byzantine court of that time, unfortunately, was magnificent disproportionately with its weakness and the weakness of the people; he despised the barbarians when they came to him without weapons, although he trembled at them when he saw their sword: even bl. Olga experienced this herself. Vladimir, a year after the council, decided to conquer faith with weapons. He went to war in Taurida and besieged the Greek Kherson (two versts from present-day Sevastopol). The thirsty inhabitants gave up; In order to more subdue the Greeks, the conqueror demanded the hand of the princess from Byzantium, threatening, in case of refusal, to take the capital. Emperors Vasily and Constantine answered: let him accept the faith, and the princess’s hand will be given to him. “I have long experienced and fallen in love with the Greek law,” answered Vladimir. And yet, Vladimir was in fact not so much ready for a great change as it seemed to him; He still needed a special testing visit from God: before Anna arrived in Kherson with the clergy and sacred things, something similar to what Saul, the persecutor of Christ, experienced on himself happened to the pagan prince - he was struck by a serious eye disease, completely blind. The arriving princess suggested that he should not delay baptism as a means to health. He agreed. When the bishop of Korsun laid his hand on the prince emerging from the font: Vladimir, at the baptism of Vasily, received his sight both mentally and physically, and exclaimed in delight: “Now I have seen the true God.” Some of Vladimir's squad, amazed by the miraculous event, were baptized at the same time, following the prince. Vladimir returned to Kiev new. § 4 b) Baptism of the people in Kyiv, in near and far places Vladimir was not looking for a better faith for himself alone, he was looking for it as a ruler of the people, for his people. Having learned by experience the superiority of the Christian faith, he became even more confirmed in his intention to introduce Christianity among his subjects. His first task upon returning to Kyiv was the baptism of his 12 sons: this was the work of his father-prince. Following this, he began to destroy the idols. Some were burned, others were hacked to pieces; Vladimir ordered Perun, the main god, to be tied to a horse’s tail, dragged from the mountain and thrown into the Dnieper; The superstitious people shed tears out of regret for their antiquity, followed for a long time after the sailing fool, who was pushed away from the shore by the soldiers, but out of their kindness they did not dare to grumble. Meanwhile, Vladimir ordered an announcement in the city that the next day all residents, regardless of age and condition, would gather on the banks of the Dnieper to be baptized, fearing the prince’s disfavor for disobedience. The people of Kiev had long known the Greek faith, they knew about the meetings and determination of the prince regarding this faith. “If the new faith were not better, the prince and boyars would not have accepted it”; - this is how the people reasoned, and hurried to fulfill the will of the respected prince. Immense crowds of people, old men and young men, mothers with infants, appeared on the banks of the Dnieper. Vladimir also appeared with a council of priests; people entered the Dnieper, some up to their necks, others up to their chests, adults holding babies in their hands. Priests from the shore read prayers. Vladimir, overwhelmed with delight, prayed to the Lord and entrusted himself and the people to Him. “On that day,” the chronicler rightly says, “earth and heaven rejoiced.” St. Vladimir did not limit his holy work to Kyiv. Metropolitan Hilarion said that he wanted to impart to all his subjects a better faith, and then he adds: the cross sanctified the cities. The chronicler writes: “and he began to erect churches and priests in the cities, and bring entire cities and villages of people to baptism.” Neither Metropolitan Hilarion nor Nestor determines, however, in which cities, in which areas did Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir plant the faith? Based on the course of events and the geographical position of the cities, we can see that the words of the saints, first of all, should be attributed to the families and places surrounding Kyiv. These were Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Belgorod, Vladimir Volynsky. This is also what some chronicles show. The testimony of the monk Adelmar, contemporary to Vladimir, is very important in this regard. He says that soon after the Slavic Russians converted to the Christian faith, a Greek bishop came to the interior of Russia, converted and taught Greek customs. The later chronicle extends the activities of Vladimirov’s clergy to remote Russian cities. She says that Vladimir, sending his sons to fiefs, sent priests with them, and ordered his sons that each in his own area should take care of the construction of Christian churches and the enlightenment of the pagans with the faith. The subsequent events themselves justify this news. But they also show that the will of the Equal-to-the-Apostles could not be carried out with equal success everywhere. It is undoubtedly known that Novgorod, so distant from Kyiv, adopted Christianity under St. Vladimir. Four years after Vladimirov's baptism, Bishop Joachim, one of the Korsun priests, was there. “And Bishop Joachim came, and destroyed the treasury, and flogged Perun, and ordered him to be dragged to Volkhov, and tied the snakes (with ropes) and dragged him along the feces with a rod, and brought him to Volkhov. And the commandment (bishop) cannot be adopted by anyone anywhere. And the Piblyannik (a resident of the town of Pibla) went early to the river, and Perun swam to the shore, and I pushed him away with a pole. You, speaking, Perunishche, drank and yaked to your fill, and now swim away.” However, in Novgorod, not only not without sorrow, as in Kyiv, but also not without resistance, they parted with the old. It is not without reason that the people say: “Cross the Lord with the sword, and Dobrynya with fire.” This indicates that the Novgorodians, as in other cases, refused to obey the will of the leaders. the prince about baptism, and they had to be pacified as troublemakers. Joachim's chronicle directly says that the Novgorodians openly rebelled against the preachers of the faith, burned Dobrynya's house, killed his wife, and that to pacify the rebellion it was necessary to use the sword. According to her news, the Novgorodians, after the rebellion was pacified, were baptized; but others, under various pretexts, tried to avoid baptism. According to the Nikon Chronicle and the Book of Degrees, many were baptized in the Novgorod region, and churches were erected in towns and villages. § 5. The spread of Christianity in the 11th and 12th centuries. Nestor speaks about the time of Yaroslav the Great: “the Christian faith began to be fruitful and expand.” This meant that under Yaroslav, pure, holy faith began to penetrate deeper into the hearts of recent pagans, and its area expanded throughout vast Russia. But the human heart does not quickly part with its habits and passions. Feats were needed, sometimes even bloody, in order for complete victory to remain for the holy faith, and especially where little else had been worked for the holy faith. faith. By the end of the 11th century, there were 7 bishops in the south of Russia (in Kyiv, Chernigov, Belgorod, Yuryev, Pereyaslavl, Vladimir Volynsky and Tmutorokan), and 4 in the north-west (in Turov, Polotsk, Novgorod, Rostov). This position of the dioceses itself shows where by the end of the 11th century Christianity had achieved a lot, and where there was still a lot to fight against paganism. In the south of Russia there were already Christian churches in the villages. But the east of Russia was still little familiar with Christianity, and the northeastern forests and swamps were still dedicated to paganism. In remote places, paganism still lived among the Russians at the beginning of the 12th century. The zeal of sincere zealots of the faith persecuted with denunciations the remaining disposition towards paganism. All the more humble monks took upon themselves the feat of illuminating with the light of the truth the crude superstitions of wild places, although history has preserved little for us about their labors. In Rostov, Christianity grew only if it was watered with the blood of its sincere preacher. Theodore and Hilarion, the first bishops of Rostov, were forced to flee Rostov from the rage of the pagans, and the first had some success only near Suzdal. St. Leonty, one of the disciples of St. Anthony of the Kiev-Pechersk, arriving in Rostov, found strong resistance among the inveterate pagans. They drove him out of the city, and he needed to arm himself with apostolic patience for faith; remaining proud, he first attracted children to himself with affection and began to teach them; The old pagans again became agitated and surrounded Leontius, breathing with rage: but this time the meek word of faith was so successful that many were baptized. However, even after that, the pagans more than once armed themselves against the saint, and finally killed him. The Rostov Chronicle speaks about the fruits of the exploits of St. Leonty: “Holy Leonty enlightened the city of Rostov with baptism.” St. Simon, saying that many from the Pechersk Monastery ascended to the episcopal cathedra, writes: “the first Rostov martyr Leonty, God glorified him with incorruptibility, and behold, he was the first throne, but his unfaithfulness, tormenting him a lot, killed him; and behold, the third citizen of heaven became the Russian world with the onema Varangians (killed at Vladimir), having been married by Christ.” The martyrdom of St. Leonty and at the same time the planting of Christianity in Rostov followed around 1070. Leonty's successor, St. Isaiah still had to work hard to spread Christianity in the Rostov region. And this Pechersk ascetic traveled to different places preaching about Christ; the fruit of his labors was the conversion of many idolaters. His feat ended in 1089. The Rostov preacher of the faith, St. Avramiy, is also known. His life says that with him at the Chud end of Rostov stood the idol of Veles, and that Avramy crushed the idol with a cane given in a vision by John the Theologian. It is difficult to determine the time when this was: but the rank of archimandrite with which Abramius was invested, and the prince of Vladimir of Suzdal, with whom he had intercourse, show that this was not before Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125), and, therefore, under Monomakh they still stood so firmly for Veles that the miraculous help of the Apostle John was needed to crush him. Ave. Nestor, having described the pagan customs of the ancient Russian Slavs, adds: “the same things the Vyatichi are doing now,” that is, at the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century. Kursk was a Christian city even in the youth of St. Feodosiya. But the Vyatichi settlements close to Kursk, Mtsensk, Bryansk, Kozelsk, remained pagan until Ave. Kuksha came to the Vyatichi. Animated St. Zealous for the faith, he and his disciple left the quiet Pechersk monastery to preach the truth of heaven to the rude pagans; the sermon was accompanied by miracles, and miracles confirmed faith in the hearts of the simple; most were baptized; but those stubborn in superstition tortured St. preacher “Everyone will know,” wrote Simon about St. Kuksha, “how the demons drove away and baptized the Vyatichi, brought down the rain and dried up the lake, and performed many miracles, and after many torments, he was beheaded with his disciple Nikon.” Christianity did not soon win in Murom. St. Gleb, having not been Prince of Murom for long, did not see this victory. After his death, the wealthy residents of the Murom region were left without close princely supervision, and, being in the neighborhood of the Mohammedan Bulgarians, and at times under their power, they stubbornly adhered to paganism, and partly, as likely, to Mohammedanism, “And in this city, as I told us, people are alive with filth, diversity and diversity of paganism.” This is what the biographer of the blessed Konstantin Svyatoslavich says. This prince, following the same news, having asked for the Murom region as his inheritance, decided to clear it of errors. He sent his son Mikhail to Murom to convince the people to come to St. faith and civil obedience. But Mikhail was killed. Constantine took Murom with an armed hand, and for a long time tried with love and persuasion to persuade the people to Christianity; there was no success. The friends of antiquity formed a conspiracy and vowed to kill or drive out the prince. Constantine, having learned about this, came out to the conspirators with an icon of the Mother of God, and they became afraid, changed their minds, and themselves asked for baptism. The delighted prince glorified God, and the people were baptized on the river. In 1092 we see from the chronicles the Murom Spassky Monastery. In all likelihood, the feat of the blessed Constantine dates back to this time, especially since from the same time a number of individual Murom princes and branches of Chernigov began. In 1147, the Kiev ascetic Ave. Gerasim left the Kyiv Glushevsky monastery to settle in the then most remote country on the Vologda River; he chose a place for himself “in the great forest, near the trading town of Vologda”; It was not without difficulty that he founded a monastery and a church in the name of St. Trinity, and for 30 years he preached the name of Christ for the wild country. § 6. Obstacles to Christianity - the Magi, the attitude of foreigners to Christianity The people, and out of one habit of antiquity, whatever it may be, not without sorrow, and sometimes not without persistence, accept new thoughts, new beliefs; and paganism everywhere flattered the passions of sensuality. The same thing happened in Russia. Habit and sensual passions interfered with the success of St. faith. Especially the Magi, friends of ignorance and passions, were evil, internal enemies of heavenly truth in Russia. They wanted to be a support for the falling paganism that fed their passions, and presented themselves as messengers of their gods, as people endowed with extraordinary power and knowledge; In place of pure Christian concepts, they sowed old errors with which everyone was familiar. According to the chronicles, for the first time in 1024 they incited the people in Suzdal against women on the occasion of a famine. During the secondary reign of Izyaslav, with the same hatred for women, they marched from Rostov to White Lake, accompanied by a gang of 300 people, ordering the killing of women. Boyar Yan forced the Belozersk people to catch them and bring them to him. The Magi revealed their beliefs to Jan about man and God. “God,” they said, “after washing himself, wiped himself with a rag and threw it to the ground; then came Satan's dispute with God about the creation of man; the devil created him, and God put his soul into him; our gods reveal secrets to us and so on.” With the same mistrust, the Magi appeared in other places in two ways, and superstitions were maintained among the people for a long time through their efforts, sometimes obvious, sometimes hidden. Finally, their power over the people was weakened by the exploits of the shepherds of the Church. In 1223, four wise men appeared openly in Novgorod; but the people themselves seized and burned them, whereas in previous times the same Novgorodians defended similar people with an armed hand. Strong obstacles to the success of the faith in Russia were provided by the enemies of its civil status, foreign peoples. But faith triumphed over them too. In the southeast, the hordes of the Polovtsians, in the half of the 11th century, occupied the space from the Dnieper to the Don, and then to the Volga; They devastated the southern settlements of the Russians, took them captive and tortured Christians, not just because of savagery. In 1091–1094 they devastated the cities surrounding Kyiv, brutally tormented Christians, and took many of them into grave captivity; and in 1095 they attacked Kyiv at night, broke into the Pechersk Monastery and its church, cursed at St. icons, burned utensils, spewed blasphemies against Christianity: where is their God? let him help them! they said. The monks were killed, others were taken captive. Ave. Evstratiy with 30 monks was sold to the Korsun Jew; he, forcing him to renounce Christ, starved Eustratius’s comrades to death, crucified Eustratius himself on the cross on Easter, mocked him and his faith, and finally pierced him with a spear. According to the martyr’s prediction, the Jews then drank the cup of God’s wrath, and some turned to Christ. At the same time, etc. Nikon, with many other captives, was left with the Polovtsians themselves. They were brutally tortured. The monk calmly endured hunger, thirst, and severe beatings, and spoke freely about the power of faith and that he would soon be delivered by this faith. The Polovtsian, so that the prisoner would not escape, cut his veins. But as Nikon said, this is what happened. The Polovtsian met Nikon already in the Pechersk monastery. Struck by his miraculous salvation, he no longer returned to his family, and was baptized along with his wife and children. Christian patience, firm faith in the midst of suffering, the miraculous victory won over the Polovtsians in 1111, when the Polovtsians themselves saw and recognized heavenly help for Christians, produced effects on the Polovtsians that were beneficial for the faith, and some of them accepted Christianity. Thus, among the Polovtsian ambassadors who came to Kyiv in 1147, we see the Polovtsian Vasily. The Polovtsian princesses, marrying Russian princes, adopted Christianity, and with their connections weakened the dislike of the wild Polovtsians towards St. faith. The Bulgarians, neighbors of the Russians in the east, both because they consisted of a mixture of Chuds and Slavs, and because of their inclination to trade, rarely violated the peace with the Russians. Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, throughout his life, often succeeded in the fact that, according to his conviction, Bulgarians were baptized, not only captives, but also those who freely visited his Bogolyubov or Vladimir. He also baptized many pagans, most likely the Cheremis and Mordovians, who were under the rule of the Bulgarians, and baptized the Jews, the inhabitants of every trading place; consequently, the inhabitants of Bolgara, the famous city, now known only by its ruins. But the Mohammedanism of the Bulgarians did not allow them to calmly look at the successes of the cross of Christ and shed the blood of the faithful preachers of Christ. St. Abramius, himself a Bulgarian and a wealthy merchant, died as a victim of their hatred of Christ. Arriving in the city of Bolgars, he was captured solely for his faith in Christ; for many days they forced him, either by caresses or by torture, to renounce Christ; he remained adamant, and (1229) was deprived of his head. Russian Christians, the chronicle says, laid his body in the coffin where all Christians lie. Whether these dead were Christians from Bulgarians or Russians, the chronicle did not say. She only noticed that the Lord avenged the blood of His martyr: first half of the city burned down, then the other caught fire two, three times a day; A lot of goods were burned, and little survived the destructive fire; Frightened by this disaster, the Bulgarians next year (1230) asked for peace from the Prince of Suzdal, while they waged war with the Russians for six years. Relics of St. The martyr was honorably transported to Vladimir. In the northeast, the Chud, Votyak, and Cheremis did not always give peace to Christianity. In 1174, several hundred Novgorodians decided to settle in the Vyatka region. They began the work with piety: they fasted for several days, prayed, and called upon St. for help. Princes Boris and Gleb, and on their memorial day they received what they wanted, they took the town of Bolvanovsk fortified on the mountain, which was probably called so after the idol - Bolvan. At the same time, another part of the same immigrants built the city of Khlynov with the Church of the Mother of God. The natives entrusted power over their republic to the clergy; Christianity little by little began to spread among the rude inhabitants of that country. In the north, the Zavolotsk Chud and Ugra (Ostyaks) from Belaozero to the river. The Pechoras were ardently devoted to their Yomal. But in the 12th century, Novgorod settlers already had monasteries on the banks of the Dvina, which did not remain without an effect on the savages. In 1227, Prince Yaroslav of Novgorod sent a mission of priests to the Karelian land (part of present-day Finland). The Karelians have long been subject to Novgorod, and their very acquaintance with the Russians was favorable to St. faith. Therefore, the priests, without any measures of violence, baptized almost all Karelians. In western Russia, Lithuanians and Latvians were tributaries of the Polotsk princes, and the Chud tribes were dependent on Novgorod. But Russia paid them dearly for their taxes. On each occasion, one or the other of them, and sometimes uniting with each other, invaded Russian settlements, robbed, burned and killed Christians. However, Christianity also won victories over these tribes. The Russian princes did not use violent measures in favor of the faith, as the pope's vassals did. Yaroslav I founded Yuriev-Dorpat with the Church of the Great Martyr George between Chud, and the church remained a school of faith. Pskov priests traveled to the Estonians and their neighboring northern Latvians, preaching the faith. By the end of the pre-Mongol period, the Greek pure faith had made quite some progress in those places. In the middle of the 11th century, two appanage principalities of Polotsk were formed on the banks of the Dvina, with Christian churches: and Christianity did not remain without confessors among the Lithuanians, and even more so among the Latvians. The Christian faith is light and loves light; it does not constrain, but develops our soul’s desire for truth. She was like this everywhere, and she appeared like this in Russia too. The Great Vladimir, after the baptism of the people took place in Kyiv, “ordered to gather the children of famous people and teach them.” Paganism taught us to love darkness, and Vladimir’s good deed seemed like a misfortune; famous wives, from whom they unwittingly took children into science, mourned the children as if they were dead: “they had not yet established themselves in faith,” says the clever chronicler. Despite this, under Yaroslav in 1025 a school was opened in Novgorod. “And Yaroslav (Yaroslav) gathered 300 children from the elders and elders, and ordered them to teach books. And he (Bishop Joachim) was his disciple Ephraim, who taught them,” adds one of the students of the Novgorod school. The purpose of these schools was not only to prepare worthy servants of the faith, but to more and more root and spread Christian thoughts and feelings among the people, to destroy superstition and ignorance. This is shown by the very persons who are appointed to teach in schools, as well as by the chronicles. It is more than likely that similar schools were established in other cities, especially where there were bishoprics. In Kursk, before 1032, there were teachers; Young Theodosius studied with one of them along with other children. “Yaroslav,” writes Nestor, “ordered the priests to teach people, since they were entrusted with this by God.” The bishops reminded the priests of this commission from God. “I pray you,” said Saint Cyril of Turov, “diligently read the holy books, so that, having been satiated with divine words, you will acquire zeal for unspeakable blessings.” Among the princes who, with all the warmth of love, tried to establish and maintain schools, are known: the Smolensk prince Rostislav († 1180), the Galician prince Yaroslav, nicknamed Witty for his great mind, and the Rostov prince Konstantin († 1218). § 8. Teachers: St. Nestor and Simon The number of Russian teachers of the first period of the Russian Church turns out to be significant even according to the monuments now known. We leave the instructions of St. Theodosius, Bishop Luke of Novgorod, Metropolitan Nicephorus, Russian in spirit, although not by origin, and some others. Ave. Nestor is a historian, Kirill of Turov is a preacher, Simon is an edifying storyteller, Metropolitan. Hilarion, a teacher of faith, rightfully attracts special attention. Ave. Nestor the chronicler, not a Greek by birth, because he allowed himself to say: “the essence is that the Greeks are flattering to this day,” but, without a doubt, a Kievite; entered the Pechersk monastery for 17 years, before the death of St. Theodosius, and was tonsured by Stephen, and was recognized by him as worthy of the rank of deacon. The quick tonsure and ordination to the rank of deacon shows that Nestor, even before entering the monastery, had achieved enough success in spiritual enlightenment. He gave his education mainly to reading books, which he continued, according to the commandment of Theodosius, in the monastery. A monument to his success in spiritual perfection is the fact that he participated in prayers that healed the ascetic Nikita from demonic seduction, and in 1091 he was the first to discover the relics of St. Theodosius. His death followed, most likely, in 1114. The Russian Vremennik, in which St. Nestor wanted to describe the times of the Russians from 852 to 1113, but managed to bring it to 1110, is a wonderful monument to Nestorov’s piety and rare mind, and high experience, and extraordinary talents. His stories about the martyrdom of princes Boris and Gleb and the life of St. Theodosius are as edifying as they are eloquent. Simon was the first bishop of Suzdal and Vladimir. He spent his young years in the Pechersk Monastery, where he took monastic vows; then he was archimandrite of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery; and when Grand Duke George II wished to have a special bishop in his capital, Vladimir on Klyazma, which until that time depended on the Rostov bishop, Simon was elected bishop of Suzdal and Vladimir. Not captivated by either the celebrity of the rank or the respect shown to him by everyone who knew him, even then, as he had spiritual consolations in Vladimir, only reverence for the title of God and the love of the pious prince for him kept him away from the saint. the Pechersk monastery, to which his soul yearned. “And I, Bishop Simon, the great sinner,” he wrote, “I grieve and mourn and cry and wish for death in that place, just to be laid in that blessed dust, in order to receive at least a little consolation and freedom from my many sins, for the sake of those holy prayers.” In 1226 he was buried in the Vladimir Cathedral; but after his desire was fulfilled, his relics were transferred to the Kyiv caves. In the chronicles of St. Simon is called teaching and merciful; According to his writings, he is known as a pious and skillful life writer. The Greek Church was decorated with a host of St. ascetics, and their lives, their sayings, were described with reverent zeal, as an example and excitement to the zealots of their lives. And the Russian Church, especially the monastery of the great ascetics Anthony and Theodosius, had already flourished before the time of Simon with many travelers along the way of the cross of Christ. The situation of Simonov's friend, Polycarp, who was carried away by the spirit of impatience and curiosity, presented the case for bl. Simon to depict for Polycarp the features of the ascetics who worked in the very monastery from which Polycarp wanted to flee. First of all, in a special message, he depicted the state of his soul to Polycarp, and then he concluded each private narrative with the convictions that the narrative presented to reflection. This message, with the narratives attached to it, was a favorite reading not only in the Pechersk monastery, but throughout Russia, as the lists show. Like Nestorov’s story about Feodosia Ave., the work of Bl. Simon became part of the Patericon of Pechersk. § 9. St. Cyril and Metropolitan Hilarion Saint Cyril, Bishop of Turov, son of wealthy parents; having rejected a rich inheritance, he accepted monasticism at the Turov monastery and then imprisoned himself in a pillar, following the example of the great stylites Simeon. The holiness of his life drew general attention to him during the election of a new bishop; the prince and citizens begged him to accept the priesthood; In the rank of bishop, Cyril did not abandon the deeds of piety and added to this zeal for the salvation of others. He offered teachings to his flock, and these teachings glorified him so much that Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky wanted to read them. Loving most of all a prayerful conversation with God, he left approx. 1182 department; but, without ceasing to love the brethren, he wrote instructions for Vasily, the rector of Pechersk, who was suddenly chosen from the white priests and his brethren. The ascetic saint died not before 1183. According to the ancient handwritten life of the saint, it is known that he wrote words for the Lord's feasts. Up to 11 celebratory words of St. are still known today. Kirill. These words rightly left behind Cyril the name of the Russian Chrysostom, but of the 12th century; they breathe the ornate spirit of Chrysostom, his love for the word of God and the salvation of others. Before the title of shepherd of all Russia, Hilarion was a priest of the village of Berestov, where there was a palace. prince and where, following the example of his father, Yaroslav loved to live, enriching the apostolic church and its clergy with the gifts of his piety. Even then Hilarion was known as “a good man, a bookish man, and a faster.” Not content with performing a difficult priestly service, he performed special feats. From Berestov he walked to the secluded Dnieper hill, then covered with forest. Having dug a small two-story cave in the mountain, he retreated into it from the noise of everyday life: here he solitude sang the Hours and secretly prayed to God. Such exploits endeared him to the pious prince and elevated him in general opinion. In 1051, he, a monk and presbyter, was ordained metropolitan, but did not abandon his strict life, and after his death († 1067) he was considered among the righteous men of the Russians. § 10. Fidelity to Orthodoxy. Bogomils By the grace of God, the Russian Church for the first two centuries observed Orthodox teaching faithfully, calmly, without being shocked by the plans of criminal curiosity. This, of course, was not a consequence of the small development of education; the ignorance of famous people of the 15th century did not prevent these people from rebelling with bitterness against the Church. On the contrary, this peace shows that Christian teaching is accepted and observed with deep reverent faith. In the depths of Russia, from the time of Vladimir until the invasion of the Mongols, only two persons appeared with hostility against church teaching. Under 1004, the chronicle noted that the heretic Adrian, a monk and eunuch, appeared in Kyiv, that he blasphemed the Church and its statutes, bishops, presbyters and monks; but Metropolitan Leonty (Lev) excommunicated Adrian from the Church, placed him in custody, and the culprit repented. In 1123, the Nikon chronicler reported that the heretic Dmitry appeared then, and Metropolitan Nikita ordered him to be kept in custody in his city of Sinelets (Sinets on the Sula River). The chronicle says nothing about Demetrius' heresy itself, but calls him an evil heretic. Taking into account the connection of the Bulgarian Church with the Russian, the warnings against the Bogomils found in Russian manuscripts, and the strong spread of their heresy from the 10th century. in Bulgaria, Greece and throughout the West, finally, the similarity of Adrian’s teaching with the teaching of the Bogomils, we cannot but recognize as most certain that Adrian and Dmitry were listeners of the Bogomils. § 11. Relations with Western Christians The Church, in its early times, as in subsequent times, was distinguished by its tolerance towards people of other faiths; Russian princes tolerated Jews in their domains. Moreover, the Latin Christians were tolerated. Whether the latter were Russian subjects or foreign merchants, they had their own churches near Kyiv and in Kyiv, in Novgorod and Ladoga. The second Russian Metropolitan Lev already denounced the Romans. But his reproofs are gentle. He does not use a single harsh expression or reproachful comment, but through calm reflection he brings the Romans into the consciousness of the injustice of their tyranny. He talks at length about unleavened bread, then shows the inappropriateness of Saturday fasting, the celebration of the full liturgy throughout Lent, the wifelessness of priests, the use of strangled meat for food, and, finally, the injustice of the teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. Metropolitan John (1080–1089), not allowing divine services to be performed together with those serving on unleavened bread, wrote: “but eating with them when necessary, for the sake of the love of Christ, is not at all forbidden. If anyone wants to avoid something under the guise of purity or weakness, let him avoid it. Just beware that temptation does not arise from this, and great enmity and resentment are not born; To avoid greater evil (such as temptation and enmity), it is necessary to choose the lesser.” An excellent, apostolic rule! We see the same spirit of apostolic meekness, and even in a greater light, in his letter to Pope Clement. “I don’t know,” wrote the humble shepherd of Orthodoxy, how temptations and stumblings occurred on the divine path, and why they are not corrected? I cannot quite marvel at what evil spirit, such an evil and hateful enemy of truth and opponent of unanimity, alienates your brotherly love from the entire Christian flock, suggesting that we are not Christians. But at first we always considered you Christians by God’s grace, although you do not retain the Christian faith in all its purity and differ from us in many ways.” The consequence of such relations between Orthodoxy and other faiths was that Roman Christians, without any compulsion, were aware of the action of the Spirit of God in the Russian Church and joined Orthodoxy. So the Varangian prince Shimon, with 3000 of his retinue, with priests and family, leaving “Latin buest” (stupidity), joined the Russian church, “for the sake of miracles that happened from Anthony and Theodosius.” This is not how the popes wanted to act on the Russian Church. From the beginning of the 9th century they began to openly consider themselves the head of the entire Church. From that time on, the wrath of God apparently aggravated Rome. Since the time of the great Photius, people began to sit on the Roman pulpit for whom it is difficult to give a real name; the darkness of ignorance, superstitions and absurd rituals began to thicken more and more over the West. But people are not brought to their senses by the wrath of God. Crowds of missionaries under different names rushed to the north to conquer everything to the pope; The Lord alone saved the Church and the Russian Fatherland from the Western flood. Even during the reign of the faithful Olga, the German emperor made an experiment to involve Russia in the circle of papal power. After a useless attempt to convert the pagan Vladimir to Latinism, papal missionaries tried to act on the Christian Vladimir; at the same time they managed to introduce Roman service in Bohemia in place of the Greek, with the help of the weapons of Boleslav the Polish. Otto invested Boleslav with power (which he himself did not have) over all the Slavs: this included Russia. Boleslav, having married his daughter to Svyatopolk, Vladimir’s son, sent the Kolberg bishop Rheinberg to Kyiv, and the pope, for his part, sent an ambassador to Vladimir. The German began by restoring Svyatopolk against Vladimir, and finally persuaded him to embrace Latinism. Vladimir sent Reinberg to prison, where he died. Svyatopolk and his wife were also imprisoned, and although, at the insistence of Boleslav, Vladimir freed him from prison, he left him without any possession. Boleslav came with a new biskup to burn Kyiv. The death of Svyatopolk the Accursed put an end to Boleslav's plans for Kyiv. The Galician region, by the end of this period, experienced for itself what it meant to be dependent on Roman power. At the end of the 12th century it was in the hands of the Hungarians, and the Hungarians allowed themselves to make all the insults to Orthodoxy. The courageous and intelligent Prince Roman freed her from foreign power. Pope Innocent IV, knowing Roman, decided to take advantage of his pride. In 1207, in a letter to all archbishops and bishops of Russia, Innocent invited everyone to unite with Rome. Unable to hide the fact that Russia had not previously thought of knowing the pope, he wrote: “The Greek empire and the Church submitted to the apostolic seat: is it not reckless if the part does not agree with the whole?” And the pope’s legate assured Roman that the pope used the sword of St. Petra will conquer the nations for the prince and make him king. “Is this the kind of sword dad has? - Roman answered, pointing to his. While my sword is with me, he will give me lands; I have no need for anything else.” But soon Roman died. His young sons were not yet able to firmly hold on to the legacy of their glorious father; For 10 years the region was troubled by unrest, then it fell to the Hungarian prince Koloman, and the Roman clergy did not lower its measures. Coloman was crowned Latin archbishop; The Orthodox bishop and priests were expelled, churches began to be turned into churches, and the people were forced to embrace Latinism. Mstislav the Brave expelled the Hungarians and Latins from Galich. This is where the pope’s efforts to subjugate the Russians ended. The Orthodox Church is the house of God of grace and the school of faith. Imbued with this thought about the church, blessed Vladimir, following the baptism of the people, began to erect churches of the new faith. In Kyiv, on the site of the overthrown Perun, a church was erected in the name of the great Vasily - the angel of Vladimirov and the universal teacher. On the site of the painful death of the first two Russian martyrs, with special generosity, a stone church of the Mother of God - Mother of the Savior of the world, called tithe, was built. At the site of the baptism of the people, near the place where the idol of Tours previously stood, a church was erected in the name of the Apostle Peter, a strong preacher of the faith. Of the churches built by Vladimir in other cities, in addition to the Vyshgorod Vasiliev Church, three churches to the Savior are known, one in Vasilyev, another in Berestovo and the third in Belgorod, Vladimir’s favorite places, not far from Kyiv. The Church of the Savior in Vasilevo was a matter of pious vow. The Pechenegs (in 997) unexpectedly attacked Vasilyev. Vladimir, who hastened to defend the city with a small squad, could not resist the strong number of the enemy and disappeared under the bridge. The danger was formidable. Vladimir fervently prayed for heavenly help and vowed to be grateful to God. Saved by prayer, he, in accordance with his vow, immediately erected a church to the Savior, and celebrated for 8 days after the consecration of the votive church, distributing 300 hryvnia to the poor. It was a wooden church, built in one day. Subsequently it was replaced by stone. Vladimir’s son Yaroslav also generously “wasted his treasury for the glory of the name of God. The chronicle noted the deeds of his piety: a) the Sophia Church, for the glory of the Hypostatic Wisdom of God, a photograph from the Constantinople Sophia, but in a smaller size. This church was decorated with all the generosity that funds allowed - gold, silver, precious stones, expensive vessels and mosaics, so that it aroused the surprise of neighboring peoples. It was a monument to high faith and, at the same time, living gratitude for the victory won over the Pechenegs. b) The Church of the Annunciation, above the golden gates of the new fortress, was built with the thought that there would always be joy in that city through the prayers of the Most Pure Mother of God and St. Archangel Gabriel. To this day, the Church of the Savior in Chernigov, founded by another son of Equal-to-the-Apostles Mstislav and completed by his grandson Svyatopolk, is still intact. The inscription on its silver royal doors says that they were cast in 1702 from idols found in the ground, and to the investigator, this Christian church stands in the place where the idols previously stood. The Sofia stone church in Novgorod - a monument to the piety of Yaroslav's son Mstislav, which replaced the wooden Sofia church of Vladimirov's time, almost stands in the place where the idol of Perun stood. Princes, boyars and bishops erected churches one after another and lavishly decorated them. The Vladimir Cathedral Church was decorated with amazing generosity by Andrei Bogolyubsky: 5 domes were gilded, three church doors were decorated with gold, silver chandeliers were gilded, the vestments on the icons were forged from gold and sprinkled with pearls: three vestibules for storing Gifts were made of pure gold and with expensive stones, priestly vestments embroidered with gold. In 1124 in Kyiv, in Podil alone, 600 churches burned down. In other cities, the number of churches appears to be more limited according to the chronicles. In terms of internal and external layout, churches in Russia were Byzantine: cathedral with galleries (chambers) on the sides and on the western side, in two or one tiers. Depending on what thought of faith the art and means allowed to express, they were built with 3 and 5, with 13 and 15 chapters (tops), and sometimes with one dome. To build the best stone churches, they did not consider it a sin to call on foreign artists, even German ones: on the contrary, they said: “God brought masters from smart lands”; We saw from experience that the works of art are not the same as the thoughts of faith - the churches of Russian artists often fell. The shrines of churches included the cross and the gospel, icons and relics of saints. The cross and the gospel were usually placed on the throne and were the subject of the deepest reverence, so much doubt had to be resolved about when and to whom to venerate them. Monuments testify that at that time the four-pointed and six-pointed and eight-pointed cross were equally revered, and nothing says that they even showed preference to the latter over the former, and there is no reason for that to be the case when they actually honored the cross of Christ 1 . The thrones of the churches of Christianity, from the very first times of Christianity, were based on the relics of saints (Rev. 6:9); Due to the lack of holy remains, it was decided to be content with small particles, and, putting them into antimensions, to consecrate a new church with the suffering part. With this biblical meaning, St. relics, it is natural to have reverence for them and zeal to see them, whenever possible, in churches; the miracles emanating from the remains of the blessed ones were obvious. Thus, St. Vladimir, at the same time as he carried the news of the new faith to his subjects, brought with him from Korsun icons and relics of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, and his disciple Thebes, and subsequently placed them in the Church of the Tithes. Constantinople, then the repository of relics, then delivered the remains of saints at the zealous pleas of Russian piety. Thus the relics of St. Great Martyr Barbara, a precious gift for the Russian Church. Zeal for St. icons, which animated everyone, from the bishop and prince to the commoner, were awarded special gifts of God's grace - the manifestation of miracles from some saints. icons Among the latter, the following are especially famous: a) The Pechersk image of the Mother of God in 1085, as a result of a vision, was brought from Greece to Kyiv, and has since become famous for many miracles. b) The image of the Mother of God, according to legend, written by the Evangelist Luke, brought from Constantinople to Vyshgorod, and from there, in 1154 by Prince Andrey, to Vladimir, and in 1164 glorified by the victory over the Bulgarians, c) the Novgorod icon of the Sign of the Mother of God. In 1170, the Suzdal army, led by 72 princes, having inhumanly devastated the Novgorod region for 300 versts, proudly approached Novgorod; Novgorod courage could not resist such a numerous enemy: St. John of Novgorod turned with fiery prayers to God and the Mother of God; The siege had already been going on for four days when a heavenly voice announced to John: “Go, take the icon of the Mother of God in the church on Iliina Street, and you will see salvation.” The next morning St. the shepherd, with all the clergy, took the icon to the outer fortification of the city; the people prayed with screams and tears. The besiegers extended their military courage to the point of insolence against the shrine; they rained arrows on the worshipers and “the Suzdal residents shot the icon of the Mother of God.” The besieged were encouraged, and fear fell on the besiegers. The Suzdal residents suffered a terrible defeat: so many of them were captured that for the ransom of a Suzdal resident they willingly took two legs, i.e., a penny of silver. Reverent zeal for St. icons were awarded special gifts of grace: thus St. Alypiy, the reverent Pechersk icon painter, was himself known for the gift of miracles. § 14. Liturgical books and singing Even if the historical monuments do not say so, it is in itself probable that, with the introduction of Christianity into Russia, they used those liturgical books that were translated into the Slavic language of St. Cyril and Methodius. Bulgaria, which lovingly accepted the works of the Slavic enlighteners, passed them on to the Russian Church. Pannonian biographies of Slavic teachers, news from Exarch John, Nestor and Western narrators show that Cyril and Methodius translated for worship: Readings from the Gospel and the Apostle, Psalter, Book of Hours, Parameinic, Liturgy, Rites of the Sacraments, Octoechos, Services for Great Feasts. This is all that could be used from Bulgaria in Russia and before Vladimir, especially under St. Vladimir. In Russia itself, Greek services began to be translated under Yaroslav the Great. Ave. Nestor says directly that Yaroslav forced him to translate “many books, in which I learned the truth,” and he also notes: “and Yaroslav loved the church statutes.” The last words, in connection with the first, leave no doubt that liturgical books were translated then. It was then that the services to selected saints, written by Theophan of Nicaea in 857 and Joseph the Songsinger in 887, the most prolific writers of the canons, began to be translated. The Triodion of Theodore and Joseph the Studites, no doubt, was not left without translation when the studio charter was introduced by St. Theodosius: the difference between the studio charter and the others, by the way, is that they were supposed to sing the canons of the studio fathers. The following liturgical books of the Russian Church of the 11th and 12th centuries have reached us: the Gospel, the Stichirarion, two Missals, the Octoechos with the songs of Joseph and Theophan, the emperors Leo and Constantine, the Festive Menaion. The chronicles and other monuments also show the use of the above-mentioned books of the Greek Church with the inclusion of the Breviary; but nothing shows the use of Menstrual Menyas. At the end of the 11th century, the Russian hymn singer, a contemporary of St. Nestor, Gregory the Creator of the Canons, was also famous. He probably wrote a service to St. Theodosius, when his relics were discovered in 1090, also tormented. Boris and Gleb and the Great Martyr. George. Hilarion wrote “prayers for the prince and for all Orthodoxy.” This was on the occasion of the consecration of the St. George Church. Also known are the prayers and songs of St. Kirill Turovsky. Before Yaroslav, the leaders of church singing were people from the Bulgarian Slavs; and in 1053, “three Greek singers with their own notes arrived in Russia, and from then on a fair amount of osmosis began in the Russian land” - singing in 8 voices of the Octoechos, especially the three-part sweet voice - singing with the addition of upper and lower tones, or in three voices, which the imaginary Old Believers did not like so much, and the most demonic singing - melodies composed by court and patriarchal domestic regents - singing to the glory of God and His Most Pure Mother and all the Saints. § 15. Commitment of St. Eucharist and Communion Kirik asked Bishop Nifont: should he serve at one prosphora? Nifont answered: “If it is far away in the village, and there is nowhere to get another prosphora, he is worthy to serve; if there is a trade nearby where you can buy, then it’s not worthy.” The answer is reasonable and quite remarkable. He shows that the Novgorod shepherd correctly understood the essence of the sacrament, that is, that one bread is necessary for the Eucharist: one bread, one body, we all partake of one bread, says the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17). Giving instructions about the funeral liturgy, the same saint says: “always serve the funeral liturgy in three prosphoras, one great, separate the lamb from it, here the dead are not remembered; and those two for repose.” Here too, the necessary, most important prosphora seems to be one. Regarding other prosphoras that existed, we note that in the ancient Service Books there is no count of prosphoras at all, and there is no definite provision about their number. For example, according to the service book of the Anthony Monastery of the 12th century, the count of prosphoras is not indicated; after the description of the action over the main prosphora, the following are shown: a) prayer: “may the Lord accept the sacrifice in honor of the saint”; b) prayer: “may he receive health and salvation”; c) prayer: “may the Lord remember the souls of the departed,” and nothing more. We see the same thing in the above rules of Nifont: if need did not pose any obstacles, then they served in more than one; but on how many exactly, there was no rule about that, and due to a lack they served on only one; The Service Book is now also known, where the rite of proskomedia is limited only to the preparation of the lamb. It is known that in the first times of Christianity, each of the communicants brought his own offering and, therefore, there could not have been a determination on the number of prosphoras. Nifont considered it proper that for a custom funeral liturgy two funeral prosphoras should be brought, i.e., one for the commemoration of the deceased for whom the service itself is being performed, the other for the commemoration of others. Metropolitan Clement made a remark against those who brought prosphora to the funeral service along with the koliv and said that this does not happen in Constantinople, where the funeral prosphora is brought to the altar. It is known that in the 11th and 12th centuries in the very east, not like in ancient times, they did not often approach the Lord's Table, and most of them were out of coldness towards piety, and some were out of a feeling of unworthiness. And in the Russian Church they decided to be content with some antidoron instead of communion. However, as many of Kirik’s questions about St. secret, so some clear words of the ancients show that at that time in the Russian Church reverent laity often received communion. The chronicle says about Grand Duke Rostislav that during Lent he “celebrated communion throughout the week, washing his face with tears.” For this reason, Metropolitan John gave a strict rule not to consider anyone a Christian who did not receive communion once a year. Especially the time of Easter was the usual time of communion. On its first day (“great day”) everyone took communion: both elders and children. Regarding the latter, Niphon, resolving several perplexities, among other things, says that since they cannot always and not all wait for the general liturgy, then leave gifts from the liturgy of Great Saturday, and thus give them communion on Easter day after Matins. § 16. Sign of the cross Judging by the deep reverence that the ancient Christians of the Russian Church had for the power of the cross of Christ, there is no doubt that they often protected themselves with the sign of the cross. But how were they fenced? Only a few icons and relics remain for us as monuments of how the sign of the cross was used in the ancient Russian Church. On the mosaic icons of the Sofia Yaroslav Church, Saints Gregory and others are depicted teaching a blessing - a blessing that comes close to the so-called now-named blessing. The frescoes recently discovered under four layers of paint in the same church represent the saints in the same way; The saint's thumb is inclined towards the fourth, the little finger is raised, not bent, and the index finger is slightly inclined towards the middle one. On the ancient chalice, the Savior and John Chrysostom give a blessing in the same form; and the Forerunner of the one praying has his first three fingers bent one to the other. Among the relics of ancient Russian saints, the most remarkable, in this case, are the relics of St. Spyridon, who labored in the 12th century. The first three fingers of his right hand are folded together, the last two are bent to the palm; the hand is folded so tightly that if anyone wanted to give a different position to its fingers, he would probably break them rather than fulfill what he wanted; and, consequently, the monk remains in the prayerful position in which the moments of death found him, and therefore remains a preacher-accuser for the said Old Believer, and - if not in vain! The Spirit of God's grace, living and acting in the Church of Christ, deigns, at His discretion, to reveal His special glory in certain persons and at certain times. The young Russian Church, attentive to the wills of the Holy Spirit, sanctified the glory of His ways, shown in former times, accepted the festivities of the Orthodox Greek Church in their then form; She also lovingly accepted the days of spiritual joy for the modern Slavic Church, such as the days of St. Cyril and Methodius - Slavic enlighteners, St. Vyacheslav of Czech and his grandmother Lyudmila, Protection of the Mother of God, seen by the Bulgarian Slav St. Andrey. Due to the same attention to the works of the Spirit of grace, the Russian Church established festivities in honor of the benefits shown to itself, and some saints, until their glory was fully revealed, celebrated locally. 1. In the 11th century: a) The most joyful holiday for the Russian Church was the celebration of the glory of St. passion-bearers princes Boris and Gleb. Their glory and power in heaven constituted a guarantee for her integrity in the future, a joyful thought about the recently past. The miracles performed at the grave of the passion-bearers testified to their holiness. In 1020, Metropolitan John I and the clergy removed their relics from the grave, opened them and found them incorrupt, while the holy body of Prince Gleb remained in the forest for about 4 years, where his killers threw him, under the influence of air changes; The coffins are placed in the chapel. New miracles followed, and on the advice of the same metropolitan he led. book Yaroslav erected a wooden church in Vyshgorod in the name of St. passion-bearers; The church was consecrated on June 24, the day of the murder of St. Boris, and the relics were placed in triumph in this church; It was established to celebrate this day every year, “as it is now being done,” adds St. Nestor. This time the celebration lasted eight days; Yaroslav treated the rich and the poor like a prince. In 1072, a new church was built in Vyshgorod and a new celebration took place. On the 2nd day of May, a council of bishops, princes, monks, “in them was our holy father Theodosius, abbot of the Pechersk monastery, like the sun,” witnessed the glory of the saint. princes; the relics were transferred to the new church by three princes. Metropolitan George opened the shrine, and the incense poured into the air. George, hitherto distrustful of the glory of the Russian princes, fell before the tombs of the martyrs, prayed for forgiveness of his sin, kissed the hand of St. Boris, he blessed her. book Vsevolod and others: book. Svyatoslav received healing from a long-standing illness. The holy passion-bearers did not cease to pour out blessings on their suffering fatherland, and once again (in 1115) all of Russia gathered to celebrate the transfer of their relics to a new stone church, erected by the piety of Monomakh; this time the celebration was as magnificent as it had never happened before. b) In 1089, the Pechersk Church, famous for its signs, founded in 1073 by St. Theodosius, was consecrated by Metropolitan John II and the Council of Bishops, and in 1091 the reverent zeal of St. Nestor discovered the incorruption of the relics of Theodosius himself, and they were transferred to the Pechersk Church by the Council of Bishops; the wise Metropolitan Nikephoros in 1108 conciliarly inscribed the name of St. Theodosius among the saints of the entire Russian Church. c) Since the time of St. Vladimir celebrated the consecration of the tithe church he built, precisely on May 11. Yaroslav, after the completion and consecration of the St. Sophia Church (in 1037), decided to build a monastery church in honor of his Angel the Great Martyr George. The construction of the church was unsuccessful; there were few workers because they were afraid of losing payment for work for the prince; the good prince “ordered the kunas to be taken to the mosquitoes (under the arches) of the golden gates and announced to the people at the auction, so that each person would receive a nogat (12 1/2 kopecks) for the day.” Many workers showed up, and the church was finished. Metropolitan Hilarion consecrated it on the 26th day of November, and established that the 26th day of November should be the annual feast of St. George. According to the chronicles, we see that churches and monasteries were dedicated to the name of the Victorious, seeking his help in the days of battle. d) Around 1092, Metropolitan Ephraim ordered the celebration on the 9th day of May of the transfer of the relics of the great wonderworker Nicholas from Myra in Lycia to Bar, a city in Apulia; This led to the miracles of the saint on water and land, in public and family life, which our ancestors also saw, dedicating as many churches to the name of this saint as to any other saint. e) There is no doubt that in the 11th century the memory of Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and his blessed grandmother Olga was already gratified. In the 12th century, fewer new festivals were introduced for the entire Church than in the 11th century. a) In 1160, when, by the will of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, they were digging ditches for a new church in Rostov, the incorruptible relics of Rostov saints Leonty and Isaiah were discovered; Then it was established to celebrate their memory. b) In 1164, the victory of the same pious Prince Andrew over the Mohammedan Bulgarians glorified the power of the cross of Christ, and at the same time in Greece, Emperor Manuel defeated the Mohammedan Arabs. Therefore, in both Greece and Russia it was confirmed to celebrate the Cross of Christ on the 1st day of August, while even according to the month of the Ostromir Gospel (1070), July 31 was supposed to be “worship of the Honest Tree.” 2. The memory of some other Russian saints of God was honored locally, awaiting the special will of God to glorify them throughout the Church. This is how St. Anthony and some other Pechersk ascetics were honored, Prince. Igor and the Novgorod shepherd Nikita. Around the half of the 12th century, disputes arose in the Russian Church about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, or about how to spend these days if they happened to be holidays. In 1157, the Rostovites kicked out the pious Bishop Nestor because he did not allow them to eat meat on Wednesday and Friday and on the Lord's holidays, excluding the days of Easter and Pentecost, the days of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany. Some Theodore, deprived of his place, the nephew of the Greek Manuel, the Smolensk bishop, increased his dislike for the thoughts of Nestor in Rostov; he taught something completely different, i.e., that Wednesday and Friday fasts could be allowed not only for all the lord’s holidays, but even for the memory of a famous saint. In 1161, the new Metropolitan Theodore acquitted Nestor, and, however, Nestor was forced to go to Patriarch Luke Chrysovergus; the patriarch condemned the thoughts and actions of the unauthorized Theodore and acquitted Nestor. Meanwhile, Leon, Bishop of Rostov since 1158, extended his severity to the point that he condemned the thoughts of not only Theodore, but also Nestor, and demanded that fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays should not be allowed for any holidays. A heated argument began. Condemned at a local council and expelled for resistance, Leon went to seek trial in Greece. Having found the emperor in Bulgaria, he stubbornly and boldly argued with the Bulgarian bishop Adrian: but was condemned. In 1168, the dispute opened in southern Russia. In Kyiv, Polycarp, the pious abbot of Pechersk, was subjected to trial and condemnation for the fact that in his monastery he did not forbid allowing the fasting of Wednesday and Friday not only on the master's holidays and Pentecost, but also on the celebration of deliberate saints. Polycarp's opinion was approved in the south by some bishops and the prince of Chernigov, but not the metropolitan, and not the Chernigov bishop Greek, who remained with the opinion of Nestor; Polycarp protected himself with the Studite charter. Although even after the council, which condemned Polycarp to imprisonment, many remained with Polycarp’s opinion, the dispute was never resumed. It is not difficult to see what gave rise to such disagreements in the Russian Church. Our very chronicles mention that Polycarp pointed in his favor to the studio charter; and this makes it clear that others had in mind a different charter, or other decrees. In fact, Wednesday and Friday in ancient times were days of fasting or semi-fasting; and in ancient times restrictions were made on this fast for a few great holidays. But over time, holidays multiplied in the Church; At the same time, according to the concept of holidays, restrictions on fasting Wednesday and Friday were added. Thus, the statutes of Jerusalem, Studio, - the Holy Mountain, in the 11th century turned out to be in disagreement with the customs adopted in one place or another after the 8th century. Hence, just as in Russia, doubts arose about the same fast in Greece; only here they appeared before - in the 11th century, and by the end of that century they gave way to new decisions about fasting. Considering the well-known Greek customs of piety, we see that Leon had in mind the most ancient rule about fasting: but his excessive severity neglected even the ancient rule about Pentecost; Theodore and Polycarp wanted to follow the studite rule of the 10th century; Nestor and the Metropolitan wanted to obey the rules adopted in Greece in the 11th century, and their desire remained, finally, the rule of the Church. Here are examples of how not every thought of antiquity can earn the approval of the entire Church, and its stubborn defense can turn to the detriment of the soul! Let us note the difference in thoughts about this matter in Greece and Russia: a) in Greece only doubts arose about the fast of Wednesday and Friday, and doubts were hastened to be resolved by recalling the patriarch, without starting heated disputes; in Russia, on the contrary, they argued heatedly about the difference between days; b) in Greece nothing similar was seen to raise the question of days in connection with faith; in Russia they said: the Leontian heresy has risen, and of course, as an insult to the pure Christian meaning. § 19. The Metropolitan and his relationship with bishops and princes Although Nestor, in his chronicle, mentions the metropolitan for the first time only in the narrative about the time of Yaroslav the Great and specifically about Metropolitan Theopempt (1038–1049); but this does not mean at all that Theopemptus was the first metropolitan of Kyiv, a) Nestor himself, without speaking anywhere about the discovery of the metropolis of Kyiv, in the life of the noble princes Boris and Gleb, speaks of Metropolitan John, who discovered the relics of these princes in 1020 b) Equally, the predecessor of Metropolitan John I, Leontius, is undoubtedly known, according to his own essay, c) Dietmar, a contemporary of Vladimir and Yaroslav, speaks of the Archbishop of Kiev in 1017. Thus, the news of the Nikon Chronicle, Degree Book and other monuments is quite certain that the first metropolitan was St. Mikhail. Since 1035, when Yaroslav set up a metropolitan house with accessories at the St. Sophia Cathedral, the metropolitan lived in Kyiv; but before that, and sometimes after, he lived in Russian Pereyaslavl (Kiev). The spirit of love, which united the bishops under the authority of the metropolitan, appeared in all the relationships of the metropolitan. a) In accordance with the spirit of the original Christian Church, the Metropolitan of Kiev, as the first bishop, was the shepherd of Russian shepherds. He accepted complaints against them, judged their actions, justified or accused them, and appointed new bishops, as required by the rules of the first Ecumenical Council (5th and 6th). But in important cases, he did not decide anything on his own, did not introduce anything new without a council of bishops. The departments of three bishops (Yuryevsk, Pereyaslavl, Belogorodsk), apparently for this purpose, were placed so close to Kyiv so that, in case of need, at least some of the bishop advisors could come to the metropolitan every time. The Metropolitan, for his part, did not change the bishop’s orders without communicating with the diocesan bishop. He supervised the purity of faith and piety throughout the Russian Church; every bishop saw in him a ready adviser for doubtful cases, an assistant in difficult circumstances. And the Metropolitan mutually expected assistance from their love, especially prayer. “And pray for my honor, teachers and rulers of the Russian land,” said Hilarion. b) In relation to the Grand Duke and appanage princes, the Metropolitan was a teacher of faith and piety. And in this only rank he spoke the word of salvation to the prince, spoke with humility and love of the Gospel, as a messenger of heavenly love. He did not intervene in civil matters on his own, did not pose as a judge of princes, as was the case in the West. The princes themselves, in the event of mutual strife, surrendered themselves to the metropolitan’s reasoning, listened to him, like children of a father; all this was a matter of piety for the metropolitan and the princes, and a high matter worthy of the gratitude of posterity. In disastrous times of civil strife, metropolitans were the guardians of the Russian land; meek as angels, they tried with evangelical love to put an end to the bloody strife of the princes; they went themselves, or sent bishops, to places of contention; pacified the wild passions of people with the word of the Gospel. Thus, Metropolitan Nicholas persuaded Monomakh to make peace with Svyatopolk; through the metropolitan, Vyacheslav made peace with Vsevolod. When Yuri Dolgoruky wanted to hand over his cousin to Yaroslav Galitsky, the Metropolitan said to Yuri: “It’s a sin for you, who kissed the cross, to keep him in such need, and you still want to hand him over for murder.” And Yuri obeyed. “Princes! “We have been placed by God on Russian soil to keep you from bloodshed,” the Metropolitan said to Prince Rurik, and showed him a way to prevent war with the Great. book Vsevolod. In important cases, metropolitans gave advice for the benefit of the state, such as to Vladimir I about stopping the robberies: but they did not cancel a single civil resolution, did not introduce a single secular rule, as was the case in the West. The great princes and people greeted the metropolitan teacher and father of Russia with triumph and joy; everyone considered it a blessing to receive the blessing of the high priest. But, as the sovereign of the land and the head of the people, the Grand Duke could refuse the metropolis to a person who turned out to be useless to the country. § 20. Bishoprics and the power of the bishop Although St. Nestor does not say when and for whom episcopal departments were appointed for the first time after the introduction of faith in Russia: but he speaks about priests who, of course, were not themselves. He speaks about the time of Vladimir: and the bishops decided to Vladimir. The latter is said about the time of Leontius, the second metropolitan (992–1008). Metropolitan Hilarion said the same thing about the time of Vladimir even before Nestor: “You often,” he says to St. Vladimir, “gathering with our new fathers, bishops, with great humility I consulted with them on how to establish this (church) law among people who have recently come to know the Lord.” Let it be enough for the time of the first saint of Kyiv to choose and install priests capable of teaching the faith through preaching and worship. But during the time of Metropolitan Leo, it was necessary to install bishops both for the success of the faith and the preservation of deanery, and for replenishing the temporarily depleted number of priests, especially in the remote regions of Russia. This definition of the time of the first bishops of Russia is also consistent with the few indications of the chronicles that have survived to our time... There is no doubt that in 992 the first bishop of Novgorod was Joachim, and Theodore was the first bishop in Rostov. Nikon's Chronicle and the Degree Book date back to the same year 992 the appointment of episcopal sees in Chernigov, Belgorod and Vladimir Volynsky. And this cannot but be accepted: for the Novgorod and Rostov bishops, distant from Kyiv, could not often gather in Kyiv for meetings, which, however, Metropolitan Hilarion says in 1180. Metropolitan John was asked the question: is it permissible to increase the number of bishops? And the Metropolitan replied that “opening new departments, especially where there is a large population and many cities, is a kind thing, but requires caution. However, when it pleases the first steward (the Grand Duke) and when the local residents want the same, then the rules do not prohibit.” The question and answer show that they felt the need to increase the number of dioceses, but Metropolitan John also saw obstacles. The department was known in Tmutarakan since 1068, but it soon closed due to the destruction of Tmutarakan by the Polovtsians. In Pereyaslavl, Yuryev on the river. Rosi, and Turov on the river. There were chairs in 1072. According to monuments, at the beginning of the 12th century 10 dioceses are known, and at the beginning of the 13th century - 14 dioceses. The Russian hierarchs who were entrusted with dioceses were called bishops. In Novgorod alone, and then only in 1165, St. Bishop John was honored with the rank of archbishop, with the same being granted to his successors. He was known for his strict virtuous life; and Novgorod, due to its significance for all of Russia, has long had the right to desire distinction for its shepherd. That is why Metropolitan John willingly agreed to the request of the Novgorodians to grant their pastor the title of archbishop. By the pious will of the princes, the following were placed under the jurisdiction of the shepherds of the Church: a) “all church people,” with the inclusion of charitable institutions; b) all crimes of the laity against faith and church decorum, including blasphemy; c) all cases related to marriage and the rights of parents, including disputes about inheritance; finally, d) monitoring the accuracy of trade weights and measures. The existence of such rights of Russian spiritual power in pre-Mongol times is visible in the charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav, in the charter of the Smolensk prince. Rostislav, Prince of Novgorod. Vsevolod and life experiences. Moreover, this order of affairs is partly consistent with the Greek Nomocanon, and even more with the ardent zeal of our princes for St. Church, with zeal, which was quite ready, in reverence for spiritual authority, to do much more for the Church than was required by the customs of the Greek Church, although not without attention to Russian civil life. The instruments of the bishop's power were district judges, called volostels, who considered spiritual matters at the will of the bishop. From time to time the bishop himself surveyed his diocese. § 21. The lower clergy and maintenance of the clergy Under the Metropolitan of all Russia, especially under the Russian bishops, there was not that many spiritual ranks that we see in the Official of the Church of Constantinople. The Russian Church in this respect was distinguished by its simplicity and modesty. The number of members of the lower clergy was limited to one need. The monuments of ancient Russia show us in the clergy of the white, lay, clergy only a priest, a deacon and a sexton, with a bishop - a subdeacon, and very rarely an archpriest; in the monastic clergy - hegumen, hieromonk and archimandrites, no more than three in all of Russia, and then already by the end of the first period of the Russian Church. In 1228, Patriarch Herman, on behalf of the council, wrote to Metropolitan Kirill I: “it has come to the attention of our humility that some in the Russian country first buy people, then make them their slaves, give them to teachers to teach sacred literacy and doctrine, and then bring them to the bishops for ordination, without first freeing them from the yoke of slavery. The bishop supplies them, and the gentlemen gain profit through them. It is dishonorable to be a slave to one who through baptism grants adoption to God.” The Patriarch conjures the Metropolitan and the bishops to stop this disorder and convince the masters not to humiliate the clergy as an insult to the faith. However, all the clergy in Russia since the time of St. Vladimir enjoyed the benefits. These were: independence from the civil court, freedom from civil service and taxes. “Let them pray to God,” they said. In the same spirit they tried to provide maintenance for the clergy. 1. The departments of the hierarchs used: a) tithes or immovable estates. Vladimir assigned a tithe from his income to the Church of the Mother of God that he built. Metropolitan Kirill wrote that the princes of Russia complied with Vladimir’s charter on tithes, even did more - “they contributed a lot to this... and they gave profits to the volosts along with everyone.” The inhabited estates of the Kyiv Church of the Tithes are known from the chronicles. The charters of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav and the Smolensk Rostislav show that Vladimir's will on tithes was applied to all bishops' sees, but with application to the funds of one or another region. Prince Svyatoslav, finding that collecting tithes from the products of the land was difficult for both the prince and the bishop, instead determined for the department of the Novgorod bishop a monetary salary equal to a tenth of the prince’s income. Other princes replaced the same tithe, partly with a salary, partly with land. It is said about the Vladimir Cathedral Church that the God-loving prince. Andrei endowed her with the best estates, bought peasants for her, and gave her duties on the tenth auction and the prince's herds. Obviously, Bogolyubsky did more than Vladimir; but he also made a retreat, replacing a tenth of the land tax with permanent inhabited estates. b) Court fees were determined in favor of the bishops, as a fine from the guilty and remuneration for the work of the judge. c) It is clear from the monuments that they also charged additional fees to newly appointed clergy and churches. The metropolitan and bishops did not use this income for themselves alone. Metropolitan Kirill wrote that the property of the department goes to the maintenance of the clergy, the cathedral church and the house, to the maintenance of the poor, sick, wanderers, orphans and widows, to benefits for victims of fire and unfair trials, to the restoration of churches and monasteries. Thus, the bishop's house was a house of charity for all poverty. 2. According to Nestor’s life of St. Theodosius, we see that estates were donated for the Pechersk monastery during the life of St. Theodosius. The same was done for other monasteries. The monasteries, for their part, like the bishops, donated part of the donations to the benefit of suffering people. Thus, St. Theodosius allocated a tenth of his income for the maintenance of the sick and poor, and in addition, every Saturday he sent a cart of bread to those imprisoned. 3. Parish churches were sometimes supported by donations from their builders and benefactors; for example, tithes were assigned to the Vyshgorod church. Yaroslav the Great, at the same time as he built churches in cities and villages, gave the priests a lesson from his estate. The common source of maintenance for the clergy were voluntary donations from parishioners, as had been the case since the first times of Christianity. In addition, priests were allowed to use income from the sale of incense and church wine to their advantage. § 22. Obstacles; martyrs: St. Princes Boris and Gleb Together with pagan habits, the spirit of the times, ignorant and breathing blood throughout Europe, and rather gloomy among the Greeks, acted to the detriment of Christian life. They say that the age excuses a person: but, nevertheless, Christians suffer from the passions of the age, and suffered in ancient Russia. The history of ancient Russia presents a sad picture of wild strife. The appanage princes fought with each other for plots, and at the first opportunity they rushed at the Grand Duke for his throne; brother rebelled against brother; Often the children raised weapons against their father, and the father against their children. The best fosterlings of Christ's love emerged from the struggle against the evil spirit of the times as lofty victors, martyrs. Such were the St. Boris and Gleb are the beautiful colors of the newly baptized Russian land. Out of deep, tender love for the new one, St. faith, they were the best of the sons of St. Vladimir; the new faith was reflected in their soul and life, like a heavenly ray of light in streams of pure water. Svyatopolk was not like that. Paganism lived in his soul with a wild passion for power; Reinberg's instructions sanctified this passion. Christian love was unfamiliar to his heart. He was a Christian in name, fierce in deed. St. Vladimir already saw in Svyatopolk hatred for his brother Boris. Fearing that this hatred would not be the cause of some misfortune, Vladimir called the good Boris to him in Kyiv from Rostov. This did not soften, but irritated Svyatopolk. He saw that they wanted to give Boris, and not him, the rights of the Grand Duke. Soon a rumor spread about the Pechenegs' invasion of Russian settlements. Vladimir sent Boris against his enemies, and died in his absence. Having received the news of his father’s death, Boris was invited by his squad to take his throne: he had sure hope in the people of Kiev, who knew his excellent qualities and his father’s intentions. Boris answered the squad: “I can’t raise my hands against my older brother; my father died, but he will be my father.” Svyatopolk did not understand Boris, nor did he understand Gleb, whom Boris loved. He sent hired assassins to kill Boris. Informed of his brother’s intentions, Boris prayed: “Lord, do not put this sin on them,” and suffered as a martyr of meek love (July 24, 1015). The same fate followed after that for Gleb. Svyatopolk informed him that his father was sick and wanted to see him. Gleb, not suspecting his brother of anything, hurried to Kyiv; near Smolensk, his brother Yaroslav informed him of the death of his father and brother; Gleb bitterly mourned especially the latter; but at the same time the murderers sent by Svyatopolk also appeared and stabbed the saint to death. prince (Sept. 5th 1015). § 23. Pious customs Folk pious customs serve as experiences of living piety, which embraced all states of society in the early times of the Russian Church. a) Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh, so famous for his victories and exploits for his homeland, wrote in his will to the princes - his children: “accept with love the blessing of the spiritual... Do not have pride in your mind or heart and think: we are perishable, now alive, and tomorrow in the grave... On the way on horseback, without anything to do, instead of vain thoughts, recite prayers by heart, or repeat the shortest but best prayer: Lord, have mercy. Never fall asleep without bowing to the ground; and when you feel unwell, bow to the ground three times. May the sun not find you on your bed. Go early to church to give morning praise to God: this is what my father did; All good people did this. When the sun shone on them, they praised the Lord with joy.” If princes lived this way, obligated to care not only for themselves, but for thousands of subjects, then, without a doubt, this was how people of the lower classes lived, not so entertained by life. This is where that warm love came from, which built and decorated the churches of God with amazing generosity, despite the paucity of abundant means at that time. b) The battle with the enemies of the cross of Christ, the princes and the army began and ended no other way than with a warm prayer to God; In general, when going to war, they prepared themselves with confession and St. communion. In 1103, entering into battle with hordes of Polovtsians, princes and warriors made a vow in prayers, some to commemorate the dead, others to distribute alms to the poor and monasteries. And the glorious victory ended with grateful praise to God. In 1111, in a new war with the Polovtsians, “priests preceded the army and sang troparia and kontakion of the Holy Cross and the canon of the Most Holy. Mother of God. “Entering the very battle, the warriors kissed each other, raising their eyes to heaven, they called on God on High.” And again the Christian hope was glorified: “God on high looked upon the foreigners with anger, I fell before the Christians.” The prisoners themselves said to the Russians: “How can we fight you? and others ride on top of you in weapons, bright and terrible, and those who help you.” The Russians gave heartfelt praise to God. Mstislav Izyaslavich in 1152, on his name day, gave freedom to all prisoners. Saint John of Novgorod laid down the rule that if someone is under penance, but goes to war, to allow him and honor him with St. secrets And from the chronicles we see that Prince. Andrei Bogolyubsky did not go to war with the Bulgarians until he prepared himself and the entire army with a life-giving secret. c) Christian love for the poor, including monks and church servants, was the dominant virtue of the first Russian Christians. The kind Russian heart, sanctified by the grace of Christianity, freely opened to compassion, and shared what it could with the poor. In the chronicles there is a very common comment about the princes of that time: “he was more merciful than measure, yet he did not spare his property, distributing it to those who demanded it”; or: “having love for everyone, and diligence above all else, loving and glorious alms.” Especially before their death, princes considered it a rule to distribute their property to their servants, the poor, the sick, churches and monasteries. So, the chronicle speaks of the book. Yaroslav Ostromysl: “Before his death, being in a serious illness, he gathered his husbands and the entire Galich land, convened all the cathedrals, monasteries, the poor, the healthy and the sick, and so spoke with tears: fathers, brothers and children, I have sinned more than anyone else, like no one else: fathers and brothers! forgive and let go! - And he ordered that his property be distributed to monasteries and the poor. And he distributed it throughout Galich for three days.” d) Naturally, after the introduction of Christianity into Russia, everyone’s eyes turned to the east, from where the light of faith illuminated Russia. Hence the natural desire to travel to the east. The first pious traveler to Athos was St. Anthony. The Monk Varlaam, around 1060, traveled to Jerusalem to worship its holy places; this was, as far as is known, the first Russian admirer of the Holy Sepulcher, and he, upon returning from Palestine, traveled to Constantinople. At the very end of the same century, Abbot Daniel said: “I placed a candilo on St. the tomb and bowed to the honorable tomb, and kissed with love and with tears the holy place where the most pure body of our Lord Jesus Christ lay.” There he prayed for his homeland, for its princes, friends and acquaintances. There he found other Russian admirers. In 1175, the famous traveler, Abbess Princess of Polotsk, Ave. Euphrosyne, visited the holy places. In the middle of the 12th century, there were so many people who wanted to go to the east that the shepherds of the Church had to stop others. Although we did not have what was at the same time in the west - crowds of idle people did not go with a sword in their hands to protect the monuments of eternal love: but Abbot Daniel also noted: “many, having walked to the holy places and seen the city of Jerusalem and ascended in mind, as if they had done something good, they are destroying their reward.” Nifont, the Novgorod bishop, not allowing everyone to go to the east, said: “others go to wander here and there, eating and drinking - this is bad, it must be prohibited.” And St. John, to Cyric’s question: what to do with those who have bound themselves with a vow to go to Jerusalem, answered: “impose penance, for these vows are destroying the earth.” These prohibitions, as is obvious, do not degrade, but elevate the dignity of travel, which the Russian Church allowed. § 24. St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir Piety among the people is supported by the example of the rulers of the people. A high example of Christian piety was set for Russia by the life of Vladimir, who baptized the Russian land. Vladimir, having adopted the name of a Christian, became a completely different person in his life; pagan life and Christian life in Vladimir differed in everything. A voluptuous pagan, Vladimir, in Christianity, became an example of a pure married life, let go of all his wives and concubines, and lived with one faithful Anna. Cruel and vindictive, a bloodthirsty fratricide in paganism, in Christianity he was the most tender friend of the unfortunate. The entrance to him was forever open to the poor, and he distributed food and money to them with a generous hand. This is not enough; - sick, he said, unable to reach my yard, - and ordered meat, fish, bread, kvass and honey to be delivered through the streets. The words of the Gospel: the blessings of mercy, penetrated into the very depths of it and were the law for life. He ransomed debtors and prisoners; gave rest to strangers, comforted the sick. Before baptism, Vladimir expanded his borders with fire and sword; Having become a Christian prince, he took care to arrange the internal well-being of the people, erecting cities one after another, so necessary for the development of the internal life of the people and for protecting them from the attacks of predatory enemies. In order to protect his people against external enemies, Vladimir the Christian also took up arms: but this was only out of necessity for the people. And at the same time, he began to distinguish more than ever with his love those who helped him organize and protect the well-being of the people. After the war with the Pechenegs in 996, he, having distributed rich alms to the poor, began to call boyars and military leaders to him every week and treat them to the princely table. Vladimir died in bliss in 1015. § 25. Three types of monasticism: St. Anthony the Recluse Monastic life was not lived out in the same way in the ancient Russian Church, depending on what self-examination found more inclination and motivation for. We see three types of monasticism among Russian monks in the first period of the Russian Church: life in seclusion, social life and life on a pillar. The first was brought from Athos and glorified by his example by St. Anthony; after him, others elected her. Anthony, in the world Antipas, was from Lyubech (in Little Russia). “God put on his mind,” says St. Nestor, “the desire to wander, and while wandering, he reached St. mountains (Athos); here he examined many wonderful monasteries, and, desiring to be clothed in Chernechesky vestments, he begged the abbot of one of the monasteries to tonsure him; he placed a monastic image on him, named him Anthony, taught him the monastic rite and said: go to Rus', receive the blessing of St. mountains; There will be a lot of monks from you. Having blessed him, he sent him away with the parting words: go in peace. Anthony came to Kyiv and pondered where to stay.... And he came to the hill where Hilarion dug a cave, and fell in love with that place and settled in it. Dry bread, and then every other day, was food, plain water, and then in moderation, was Anthony’s drink; prayer and work day and night were his occupation. Even under Yaroslav, he had already become known for his exploits, and people came to him for his blessing. After Nikon and Theodore, Varlaam, the son of a boyar, and Ephraim, the treasurer, arrived to Anthony. Prince Izyaslav. But the tonsure of these two favorites of the court aroused (in 1054) anger. book Izyaslav, and Anthony, giving way to anger, prepared to leave the cave with his disciples; the prince changed his mind and begged Anthony not to leave Kyiv; Up to 15 brothers gathered to Anthony; and Nikon, who tonsured the monks, left soon after the trouble of tonsuring Varlaam and Ephraim. Anthony, “as if he were in the habit of living alone and not tolerating any rebellion and rumors,” locked himself in a cave cell, making Varlaam abbot; and soon, in order to be even less in communication with anyone, he moved to another hill and, having dug a cave, shut himself up in it. Exhaustion of the body by fasting, purification of the spirit by prayer and contemplation of God, were glorified in Anthony by the gift of insight and miracles. The sick received healing by taking Anthony's simple food. In 1067 the Cumans invaded Russia. The princes - three brothers: Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod - decided to fight the predators on Alma and came to Anthony for a blessing; but Anthony with tears predicted an unhappy battle for the princes, and for the commander Shimon the circumstances that would follow long after the battle. Soon after (1068), Anthony's peaceful solitude was again disturbed by an everyday storm: Izyaslav, expelled from Kyiv by Vseslav, returned to Kyiv and began to be angry with Anthony “for Vseslav,” thinking that Anthony favored Vseslav. Svyatoslav sent for Anthony at night and took him to Chernigov; A friend of solitude liked the Boldin Mountains here, he dug a cave in them and settled in it. How long Anthony lived in the Chernigov cave is unknown; from the words of Nestor, all that is known is that he died in the Kyiv cave and precisely in the one where he lived recently, after moving away from the Pechersk brethren; and Simon says that St. Anthony died a year before Theodosius, who died in 1074, blessing and marking the place of the church of St. Mother of God. The solitary, reclusive life of the great Anthony was followed by many during his time and after him. Chronicles show such ascetics even in 1154 and 1174. Well-known Orthodox ascetics of solitude: Isaac, Nikita, Lawrence, John and Pimen, the long-suffering John and Athanasius. The exploits of St. John the Recluse are especially amazing. “Truly blessed is he who dedicated himself,” writes Polycarp, “to the will of God and kept His immaculate commandments, keeping body and soul without defilement of the flesh and soul: I am talking about St. John the Venerable, who shut himself up in a narrow place in a cave. For thirty years he remained in great abstinence, suppressing his body with strong fasting, wearing iron all over his body.” At first, for three years in a row he spent two or three days without food, and sometimes a whole week; heavy iron on the body increased the severity of hunger and thirst; but the carnal passion did not go out. He went to the cave of St. Anthony and stayed there day and night, praying at his tomb. The saint announced to him: “John! John! you need to shut yourself up here in order to at least weaken the abuse through invisibility and silence; The Lord will help you with the prayers of the saints.” And John shut himself up in the narrowest and darkest cave; the swearing did not stop; 30 years were spent in this cave, and 30 years were a time of painful struggle. Not knowing what to do with himself, John decided on an even more difficult feat; he dug a hole, sat down on his chest and covered himself with earth; I spent the entire Great Lent in this position; his legs were burning, his veins were writhing, the heat was consuming his insides; John rejoiced in spirit, not feeling the fire of sin. Only the terrible vision terrified him. “Lord my God, have you forsaken me? have mercy on me, for you are the only one who loves mankind,” the sufferer prayed. And when he finished the prayer, the light shone, and the terrible serpent, hitherto ready to devour him, disappeared. And he heard a voice: “Here is help for you, John; but take heed to yourself so that no worse thing happens to you. According to the strength of your patience, it was allowed to you, so that you will be burned like gold; The master assigns hard work to the strong and strong servants, and bad and easy work to the weak and weak.” St. John himself spoke about such exploits to one brother who was in great despondency. § 26. Pr. Feodosius, head of the hostel The Monk Theodosius introduced communal life and was an example of its perfections. From a young age, Theodosius strove with his soul to live for God. Having lost his father at the age of 14, he knew no other consolation than going to church. Once he happened to meet strangers; captivated by the thought of their feat, he secretly goes with them to the holy land. His mother, having learned about this, catches up with him, beats him, brings him into the house, and puts him in chains for several days. Continuing to go to church, Theodosius sees that sometimes there is no liturgy due to a lack of prosphora and decides to bake prosphora; Two years pass in this lesson. His mother persuades him to leave an occupation that she considers low; the son continues the same work for another year. His mother, either with threats or beatings, drives him to the point where he retires to another city, and there, with one presbyter, he continues to bake prosphora. Quite a while later, his mother finds him and brings him back to the house. Then the ruler of the city, seeing his humility and piety, allows him to stay at his church. Theodosius secretly orders chains and wears them. Once the ruler gave a feast; Theodosius had to appear for the treat in clean clothes; while changing clothes, the mother, who had heard about chains before, saw blood from the chains on her clothes, and with rage she took the chains off her son. All these obstacles to a holy life did not extinguish the desire for a holy life in Feodosia; he yearns for monastic life. In the absence of his mother, he leaves home for Kyiv, finds Antonia, and, having been tonsured by Nikon, begins his exploits. This was in 1032. Four years later, the mother came to Kyiv for her son: but the son was already so strong in spirit that, through his prayer, the mother herself changed her desires and remained in the nunnery. Theodosius was appointed presbyter. The life of the brethren who gathered to Anthony was generally strict, but Theodosius did not spare himself. The food was rye bread, and only on Saturday and Sunday - sochi, and for lack of it, herbal food; in order to have bread, they did simple handicrafts, and, having bought grain, ground it themselves; at the end of matins they went into the garden and dug; after the liturgy, work again. Theodosius, strong in body, took on part of the work from others; carried water to others, chopped wood, ground rye and took flour to everyone. Sometimes, on a hot night, the naked man gave his body as food to mosquitoes and midges, blood flowed through him, and he calmly spun a wave. At the beginning of 1062, the brethren, with the blessing of Anthony, elected Theodosius as abbot; Theodosius added to his previous exploits the heavy vigilance of the abbot, built a monastery and a hostel. At night he walked around the monks’ cells to see their lives; Whoever he found praying, he thanked the Lord; and if he heard a conversation between two or three, he knocked on the door and in the morning gave meek instructions about paying attention to his soul. Both by word and example he inspired his flock to exploits. “Every day he did it with his own hands, came to the bakery and worked happily with the bakers, kneaded dough, baked bread; He taught, strengthened and consoled all the weak. Once before the holiday, the cellarer said that there was no one to carry water; the blessed one hastily stood up and began to carry water”; one of the brethren saw this and hastened to tell several brothers about it; they ran to share the labor with the abbot. Another time there was no one to chop wood for the communal kitchen. “I am idle,” said the abbot, and will go: he ordered the brethren to go to the meal, since it was time for that, and he himself began to chop wood. At the end of the table, the brothers saw that their venerable abbot was chopping wood and working like that, they each took their ax and prepared firewood for many days.” At meals he was content with dry bread and cabbage soup without butter; but he was never seen decrepit and cheerless at meals. No one had ever seen him lie down on his side to sleep, but he usually fell asleep sitting and, when he woke up, stood to pray; I never washed my body with water, except my face and hands. His clothes were woolen, and very thin, which he often covered with patches so that the hair shirt on his body would not be visible; They often criticized him for his thin clothes, but he listened to the reproach with joy. Once the Grand Duke Izyaslav, who loved and respected him, ordered, on the occasion of the late hour, to take him in a late cart; the servant sees the monk in thin clothes and says: you, monk, are idle every day, but I live in troubles and labors; sit on the horse, and I will lie down in your place and rest. The monk, without saying a word, exchanged places and at the monastery treated the servant in the best possible way. His nights passed without sleep, in tearful prayer for himself and for his brethren, which was noticed many times by church alarm clocks, although the ascetic of God tried to hide this feat from people. Such labors purified and elevated his spirit so much that the monk received the gift of healing and insight, and performed signs according to his faith. Full of love for the poor and suffering, for whom he built a house, he gave his last to those in need, and was rewarded a hundredfold. Boyars and princes came to confess their sins to him and listen to his instructions; he told everyone the truth with love, and sometimes with severity. Prince Svyatoslav experienced the latter, expelling his brother Izyaslav from Kyiv. Since the number of brethren increased greatly and the place became crowded, the venerable abbot chose another place for the monastery; various signs marked the foundation of a new stone church in honor of the Mother of God; Having laid the foundation for it, the Monk Theodosius died the following May 1074, 3 days. § 27. Stylite life. Ave. Nikita Nikita Choniates writes that the custom of saving oneself on a pillar, following the example of St. Simeonov Stolpnikov, continued in Greece until the 12th century. This image of asceticism, being unusually difficult, found few imitators in the east. There are few stylites visible in the ancient Russian Church: only two are known: Cyril, who was later a bishop and great teacher of Turov, and St. Nikita, stylite of Pereyaslavl. “Nikita, our great father, was born and raised in the city of Pereyaslavl (Zalessky). When he came of age, he became a friend of publicans, worked with them around judges, and caused a lot of confusion to innocent people; By collecting unrighteous bribes, he fed himself and his wife.” It went on like this for many years. One day he went into church and heard the preaching of the Prophet: wash yourself and you will be clean, take away wickedness from your souls, and so on. These words amazed him; He spent the whole night without sleep; untruths lay like stones on his conscience. The next morning he went out to his friends, and to entertain himself, invited them to his place for the evening. Having bought what he needed for the treat, he ordered his wife to cook. But when she began to cook, she first saw blood on top of the water, then a head, then another part of the human body. In horror, she told her husband about it. He came and saw the same thing. “Woe to me who has sinned greatly!” Nikita said; and without saying another word, he left the house. The abbot of the Nikitsky monastery, where Nikita came, appointed him to stand at the gates of the monastery for three days; Nikita did more: he went and sat down naked in a swampy place; swarms of mosquitoes and midges showered him and covered his body with blood. Taken to the monastery, Nikita put very heavy chains on himself and locked himself in a pillar. There he prayed for his sins, exposed to the frost and heat. Several years were spent in such a feat, and his soul was filled with grace and awarded the gift of healing. Prince Mikhail of Chernigov (then still young, and later a martyr) was seriously ill, and was healed by St. Nikita; Having placed a cross at the place of healing, the blessed prince wrote down on it the year and day of the event - May 16, 1186. Not long after this, thieves, mistaking the iron chains, which had become worn and shiny, for silver, killed the venerable ascetic. The second period, Mongolian. From the devastation of Russia by the Mongols to the division of the metropolis 1237–1410 I. The Disasters of the Church and the Spread of the Faith § 1. Devastation of Russia by the Mongols For more than 200 years, the Lord preserved the freedom of the people and the Church in Russia. But the princes of Russia did not spare the people in their power-hungry feuds; the people, in turn, did not remain faithful to their duty. And the Lord sent a terrible test to Russia - a wild Mongol. The time of great suffering has come. At the end of 1237, Batu led more than half a million wild steppe people to Russia, thirsting for blood, robbery, and ruin. He demanded from the princes of Ryazan: “let a tenth of all yours be ours.” The princes asked the Grand Duke for help: but the blindness was so great that even in the midst of a general misfortune they thought only about themselves, according to the calculations of petty pride. Batu took Ryazan, but not like an ordinary winner. The Mongols crucified and cut up the captives, or, having tied their hands, shot at them as if they were targets; they desecrated the sanctity of churches, the purity of virgins and nuns, priestly and noble wives; they burned the priests or stained their altars with blood. Ryazan with its churches and surrounding monasteries was reduced to ashes. Having devastated Kolomna, Batu in Moscow, for loyalty to faith and duty, poured out cruelty on the governor, the courageous Christian Philip, and put its inhabitants, from old man to infant, to death. Then he moved towards Vladimir. Death was in everyone's mind; there was no strength to ward off the terrible danger. Bishop Mitrofan urged to face death without trepidation. Everyone's hearts turned to heaven. Prince Vsevolod and his wife, the boyars and their wives, wanted to accept a painful death in a monastic form; the pious Mitrofan fulfilled their desire. The walls of the city were broken through, and the wife of the Grand Duke with her daughter, daughters-in-law and grandchildren, many of the boyars and people shut themselves up in the cathedral church with the bishop. The saint prayed with them and for them: “Lord! stretch out Your invisible hand, and receive the souls of Your servants in peace.” The Tatars first set fire to the church, then broke into it. And almost none of those preparing for death saw life again: some suffocated in the flames, others fell from the sword of their enemies: “thus giving up their souls in the hands of God.” In the same month of February 1238, the Tatars burned 14 cities of the Grand Duke. George was waiting for the enemy on the river. City, and, having learned about the death of the family, prayed to God to grant him the patience of Job. In a fierce battle with the Tatars, George fell, deprived of his head; thousands of Christian soldiers reaped by death; Vasilko, Prince of Rostov, was captured. The Tatars offered to exchange loyalty to the Christian fatherland for Batu’s friendship. "Dark Kingdom! answered the Christian prince, you will not separate me from my Christ, no matter how severe my misfortune. There is a God, and you will perish when the measure of your atrocities is fulfilled; He will exact from you the blood of his faithful.” Exhausted by hunger, the prince prayed for the salvation of those close to his heart, and finally thanked God that he was dying in the prime of life, a death worthy of a Christian. The Tatars savagely killed him; and he was known as the father of orphans and beggars, formidable in war and affectionate towards nobles, respectful towards the clergy and sincerely loved by all his subordinates. Batu was close to Novgorod with the devastation, but unexpectedly turned back. The inhabitants of Kozelsk, weak in number, but strong in faith, declared among themselves: “Our prince is a baby: but we, as faithful servants, must die for him; Leaving good glory here, we will receive crowns from Christ God in heaven.” As they said, so they did: they fought with the Tatars for seven weeks and everyone fell. In 1239, three separate masses of Tatars devastated Russia. One attacked Pereyaslavl, and its cathedral was destroyed to the ground; the inhabitants, including Bishop Simeon, were killed. The inhabitants of Chernigov reflected the other, but Chernigov disappeared. The third devastated the banks of the Oka and Volga. People didn't know where to run from fear. In 1240, it was the turn of Kyiv, the cradle of Christianity in Russia. The people of Kiev defended the shrine of Russia with complete selflessness: after bloody defense on the walls, every famous church was turned into a fortress; but one after another they fell: St. Sophia Cathedral, the Church of the Tithes, and the Pechersk Lavra. And everything was either robbed or burned and destroyed. Volyn and Chervonnaya Rus experienced the same thing. This is how God’s wrath poured out on Russia! But the test was not assigned to her for a short time. Russia became a tributary to the wild Mongols for a long time. § 2. Holy Martyr Michael, Prince of Chernigov The Mongols, who enslaved Russia, were at first pagans, then became Mohammedans. While they were pagans, they were quite patient with Christianity, as with any faith; this was required by the charter of Genghis Khan. But for a savage conqueror, his arbitrariness is highest. In 1246, the noble Prince of Chernigov, Mikhail, received an order to appear in the horde, where other princes appeared. Submissive to the fate of the Most High, he turned to his spiritual father for blessing and guidance. He told him that many princes went to the horde, but few remained faithful to the Christian conscience, “walking through the fire, and bowing to the bush and the sun and destroying their souls for the glory of this light; “You, prince, don’t do this,” added the pious confessor. “I would like,” answered the prince, to shed my blood for Christ.” The prince went to Batu with his friend the boyar Theodore and his nephew, the Rostov prince Boris. Batu knew well what every Russian prince did, what Mikhail did; and Michael loved St. faith and, out of love for faith, strongly encouraged his neighbors to rebel against the Tatars. Batu ordered that Mikhail be allowed into his headquarters in no other way than in compliance with the rituals of Mongolian belief or superstition. And so, the prince is brought face to face, not before the simple rites of presentation to the king, but directly before paganism. He answered: “Christians cannot walk through the fire and worship what is worshiped here; such is the Christian faith! She forbids bowing to creatures and idols.” The Magi reported to Batu that Mikhail did not listen to his will, and conveyed his answer. Batu began to boil with anger and ordered to tell the prince through the minister: “Choose either - life or death; if you do not walk through the fire, and do not worship the bush and the sun, or the idols, you will die an evil death; fulfill your will, and you will receive a principality.” The prince said: “I am ready to bow to the king: God has entrusted him with glorious power over earthly kingdoms; but to what they bow here, I cannot bow.” In vain did Minister Eldega persuade the prince, presenting death as disobedience. The prince answered: “I am ready to shed my blood for my Christ.” In vain did Prince Boris and the boyars accept penance for the prince. St. Michael said: “I don’t want to be a Christian in name, but to act like a pagan.” His friend Theodore also supported him against the temptations of love for his wife and children. The minister and others continued. “I don’t listen to you,” the prince answered last; I will not destroy my soul.” He took off his princely cap and, throwing it away, said: “Away with the glory of the corruptible world; I don’t need her!” Eldega went to Batu; and the confessors began to sing songs of praise to the martyrs and took communion with the spare Gifts. The killers appeared and rushed like animals at the prince, stretched him out and beat him with their fists against his heart; thrown to the ground and trampled underfoot, beaten and tortured; some apostate Doman cut off the prince's head. Theodore was promised the principality of Michael, but he refused, and also accepted the crown of martyrdom. This was in 1246, September 20th. In 1270, Khan Mengu-Temir was informed that Roman, Prince of Ryazan, was blaspheming the great king and his faith. Mengu-Temir gave the order to do with him as they wanted. The Tatars forced him to their faith. The prince spoke freely about his beliefs. The Tatars covered his mouth with a handkerchief and began to torture him with horrific brutality. They cut his body in pieces and threw it to the sides; when only the body remained, they tore off the skin and stuck the head on a spear. So the faithful Roman, pious and raised his children in piety, “who through suffering became like Jacob of Persia, acquired an incorruptible crown through suffering.” § 3. Relations of the Mohammedan Tatars to Christianity; St. Mikhail Prince of Tver More dangers opened up for the Russian Church when the Mongols became Mohammedans. Fortunately, the latter did not happen suddenly and not without the abolition of Chinggis’s yasa as a state law. Uzbek (khan from 1313) was the first to not only accept Mohammedanism himself, but also declare Islamism the dominant faith among the Tatars: “he converted, says Abulgazi, his people to Islamism.” Berge (from 1257), Batu's successor, was also a Mohammedan: but, as the affairs of Uzbek show, Islamism was not established then either among Berga's relatives or among his subjects. Islamism was everywhere distinguished by fanaticism, especially when it first appeared among the people; He used cruel measures and strong temptations in his favor, while in himself he is a bait for sensuality. The ancient narrative directly says that when Uzbek “accepted infertility, he especially did not spare the beginning of the Christian family.” Mikhail Yaroslavich, Prince of Tver, witnessed the first experience of the savage, albeit undiscovered, Mohammedan cruelty of Uzbek. Michael, raised in piety by a virtuous mother, took care of his subjects, did not want the things of others and was ready to sacrifice his own. Unfortunately, George, the Prince of Moscow, his nephew, was not like that; For three years he groveled in the horde, gave gifts to nobles, and finally managed so much that Uzbek gave him his sister and with her the title of Grand Duke. With a crowd of Tatars and their governor Kavgady, he returned to Russia and demanded for himself not only the honors of the Grand Duke, but also the lands that Mikhail owned. “Be a Grand Duke, if it pleases the Tsar,” Michael said to George: “Just leave me as my inheritor.” George began to burn villages and cities, but was completely defeated. Having received Kavgady and released him with honor, Mikhail did not want to shed blood and said to George: “let the will of the king decide our matter.” Unfortunately, Georgiev's wife died in Mikhail's captivity, and Georgie hurried to the horde with money and slander. Mikhail, with a clear conscience, was in no hurry: but they demanded him there; which meant that he was already accused; the sons asked to go to the horde instead of their father. Michael said: “This will cause troubles for my people, and I must take care of them,” and went to certain death. There, when it became too clear that he would be tortured, when his neck was already burdened with a heavy block, when they betrayed him to shameful shame, the boyars offered him: “Prince! Now the guides and horses are ready, hurry to the mountains to save lives.” The prince answered: “God forbid even to think about it: I will save myself, but I will subject the people to trouble: what will be waiting for me there?” Kavgady, the judge and prosecutor, did not write down what he used to refute the slander of St. the prince on trial; For this reason, the prince prepared for his fate as a martyr, and the sufferer was given up to a shameful, painful death. This was in 1318. § 4. Special protection of God for Christianity from the Tatars In addition to the protection that Providence showed to the Russian Church on the ordinary path of controlling the fate of kingdoms, the Russian Church saw from extraordinary events that God, whom she revered, was with her. Never more often, never more palpably, has Russia felt the covering of the Mother of God overshadowing it, as it felt in the difficult times of the Tatars. In 1380, for the first time after Batu, the Russians had to fight not with horde units, but with the entire Kipchak horde. The hordes of the Mongol and his hundred-year power over Russia were both terrible. Everyone prayed in churches. Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich sought help from the Lord; Sergius, the God-bearing One, in the name of God, told him about the fate of the battle, and animated the Grand Duke; he predicted for him both mortal bloodshed and victory over Mamai, the death of many, but not the Grand Duke; sprinkled the military leaders with holy water; appointed two monks as Demetrius’s associates and, protecting them with the sign of the cross on the schemas, said: “Here is an indestructible weapon! it will be for you instead of helmets.” When he led the prince stood with his troops already on the banks of the Don: the thought of many enemies frightened many; those were decisive moments when it was necessary either to enter into mortal combat or to refuse combat; and in these moments, grace-filled faith sent the right decision: “go prince, boldly,” wrote St. Sergius: “God of the Trinity is your help.” Many fell in the bloody battle, but God is faithful, Mamai was defeated. In 1395, an even more menacing cloud gathered over Russia. Tamerlane, the winner of the east, the winner of Tokhtamysh, was marching on Russia. All Moscow churches were open from morning until late at night: the people fasted and prayed with tears to avert the wrath of God. Grand Duke Vasily asked the Metropolitan to bring from Vladimir the icon of the Mother of God, with which the God-loving Prince Andrei defeated the Bulgarians. Immense crowds of people met the Mother of God with tears and on their knees; One voice was heard from everyone: Mother of God! save the Russian land! And the Mother of Christians saved Russia. On the very day and hour when the residents of Moscow met the miraculous icon on Kuchkovo Field, Tamerlane, frightened by the vision of the Light-Bearing Woman, hastily left Russia. So Tamerlane, without causing harm to Russia, succeeded only in the fact that, fortunately for Russia, he crushed the Kipchak horde. “We have a prince,” wrote a contemporary, the professor. Cyril, we, who have seen the glorious and great miracles of the most pure Lady Theotokos, remain with our souls and hearts to rejoice, with fear, to think about how in the last generation of this generation God vouchsafed us with His Most Pure Matter to so miraculously deliver the Christian race from the invasion of foreign enemies.” § 5. Conversion of some Tatars to Christianity From the Mongol's indifference to faith, from his proud confidence in the power over the world granted to the sword, one could not expect great victories for the Christian faith: holy faith does not condone passions; Islamism was adopted by the Mongol instead of paganism because it was food for sensuality and passion for war. Nevertheless, the Christian faith, a faith revered by Russia, won private victories over the Tatars. In 1265, Metropolitan Kirill opened the diocese of Sarai, consecrating Mitrofan as the bishop of this Tatar diocese. Some monuments clearly show that the shepherd of this diocese lived in the very camp of the horde. The Sarai archpastor, in addition to protecting the weakened Christians living in the horde, and consoled the princes who came to the khan, and thereby served as a lamp for the Tatars. Bishop Feognost of Sarai in 1301 already proposed to the patriarch a question regarding the baptism of the Tatars, and directly said that some of them expressed a desire to be baptized. Several wild branches grafted into the vine of Christ are known to history. This is, first of all, St. Peter Tsarevich is a clear example of the fact that the presence of Christian shepherds in the horde did not remain without influence on the Tatars. Rostov Bishop Kirill arrived in the horde according to the needs of his church, and was kindly received by Bergai, at his request, and spoke about the enlightenment of Russia by St. faith, about how St. labored. Leonty in the conversion of the Rostov pagans, how miracles were performed at his tomb for the glory of the name of Christ and the power of Christ. The eloquent story so touched Bergaev’s nephew, later Peter, that he began to reflect on the emptiness of the Mongolian religion. When Kirill again arrived in the horde the next year, the prince, secretly from his mother and uncle, went with him to Rostov, was baptized, and built a monastery at St. Ignatius of Rostov, entered into marriage and, having become a widow, died as a monk. At the same time, the Baskak received God from St. baptism out of fear: the embittered people of Ustyug wanted (1262) to kill him: but God-John also died a righteous man. Prince Theodore of Yaroslavl married in the horde the daughter of Khan Mengu-Temir, who accepted St. baptism with the name Anna and subsequently distinguished by high piety. After that we see several princes who married in the horde. The son of Prince Bakhmet, who arrived from the horde in Meshchera in 1298, was baptized with the name Mikhail and baptized many Tatars with him. With led. Prince John Kalita, out of anxiety in the horde, went to Russia with several Murzas, Murza Chet, and was baptized with the name of Zacharias; this is the ancestor of the Godunovs and other boyars. § 6. Orthodox faith in Lithuania In the half of the 13th century, the Orthodox faith defeated one of the strong princes of Lithuania. Voishelg, Prince of Novogrodok of Lithuania, son of the Grand Duke Mindovg, in paganism enjoyed only murder and bloodthirsty cruelty; every day he killed three or four people; he was bored if he didn’t happen to kill someone on some day. Finally, the fear of God touched him and he decided to be baptized: having been sanctified by the blessed water of baptism in Novgrodk, he hated the glory of the world and in 1252 he came to Daniel, the prince of Galich, to transfer Novgrodok, Volkovisk, Slonim to his son Roman, and he himself took monastic vows from the Poloninsky abbot Gregory, known for his piety; spent three years in exploits; then he went to the holy Mount Athos; but could not get there due to the dangers of time, he returned from Bulgaria to his fatherland; here on the banks of the Neman, not far from Novgrodk, he founded his monastery and began to asceticize in it. It was in vain that his pagan father, with caresses and threats, forced him to return to paganism: he did not want to hear about it. The sons of Prince Gediminas, some during the life of their father, others after him were already Christians. Koriyat-Mikhail built the Church of St. back in 1329. Nicholas in the Lavrashevsky Monastery near Novgrodk. Narimund was called Gleb from 1333. Lubart - Dimitri, Prince of Volyn since 1337, was always a zealous son of the Orthodox Church. Yavnut-John was baptized in Moscow in 1345. Olgerd, from 1341 to 1377 the Grand Duke of Lithuania, was first married to Maria, Princess of Vitebsk, then to Juliana, Princess of Tver: but the power-hungry warrior remained a pagan for a long time and stubbornly. Under him, paganism entered into an open struggle with Christianity, but the more glorious was the victory won by St. faith. Presbyter Nestor, the confessor of Olgerd's first wife, converted several Lithuanians to Christianity, including two of Olgerd's courtiers and favorites. The blood of these confessors and their relative Eustathius was the fruitful seed of Christianity in Lithuania. Kumets and Nezhilo, - that was the name of the brothers, Olgerd's favorites - having received St. faith, did not appear with others to offer sacrifices to the fire of Znich in the church of Perkun, and strictly observed fasts. This revealed their faith to the priests. Olgerd, at the insistence of the priests, ordered the brothers to be thrown into prison. They spent a whole year here, tormented by hunger and the dampness of the prison, but remained firm in their faith. The next year, John, the elder brother, weakened and announced that he was renouncing Christianity. Olgerd freed both brothers. But Anthony, neither from torment nor from affection, ceased to be a sincere Christian, and he was again thrown into prison. This time his situation was extremely painful. Everything that the malice of the priests could come up with was used to defeat Antony’s firmness. The angelic calm with which he endured suffering, the power of the truth of Christ speaking through his lips, aroused such surprise among the people that crowds rushed to the prison to see and listen to the confessor of Christ. John soon felt that there was no joy for him without the name of Christ; his brother's reproofs lay like a stone on his heart. Finally he announced to Olgerd: “Sovereign! I openly confess that I am a Christian again, do with me what you want, but I will no longer change St. faith." Olgerd lost his temper, beat John from his hands, and ordered him to be thrown to Anthony. The prison of confessors became a Christian school; People hurried there, amazed at the patience of the sufferers, and many secretly received St. baptism. The priests, frightened by the effect of the sermon of St. brothers, asked Olgerd for a decisive judgment against them, and, having received the sufferers at their complete disposal, tormented them with various tortures. On January 14, Anthony was hanged; They hoped to see weakness in John again and tormented him longer, but on April 24 he was hanged. The martyrdom of Anthony and John not only did not stop the work of St. faith, but contributed to its success. A relative of the martyrs, Kruglets, also a courtier of Olgerd, turned to Christ, amazed by the patience and words of St. relatives. Olgerd, noticing that he was no longer a pagan, ordered to beat him with iron rods. Eustathius did not even show that he was suffering. Olgerd was furious and ordered cold water to be poured on Eustathius in the cold. The sufferer calmly endured this cruel torture. The torturers broke his legs, cut off his nose and ears, tore the skin off his head, and finally hanged him on December 13th. This was in 1347. Following this, St. faith quickly moved from victory to victory. At the end of his life, Olgerd himself and his 11 sons were baptized into Orthodoxy. When Jagiello, in 1387, allowed himself to be sprinkled by the papists for Jadwiga and the Polish crown, began to baptize the Lithuanians according to the Latin rite; It turned out that in Vilna half of the inhabitants already professed the Orthodox faith. § 7. Enlightenment of Perm by Saint Stephen In the middle of the 14th century, the young cleric of the Ustyug Cathedral, by the grace of God, was kindled with the desire to devote his life to the education of the Zyryans - the wild sons of the northern forests. It was St. Stephen. In the Rostov Epiphany Monastery, under the leadership of Arseny, the Rostov bishop, and the former prince, he studied the dogmas of faith from Slavic books: “desiring greater intelligence,” says his biography writer Epiphanius, he was amazed at Greek literacy.” The Zyryan language was familiar to him back in his homeland in Ustyug; and now he was studying it in order to be able to translate church books into it; Stefan translated what needed to be translated for the first acquaintance of the Zyryans with the faith from Slavic using Greek. Having thus prepared himself for the title of preacher of the faith, he asked for a blessing for his work from the then ruler of the Moscow Metropolis, Gerasim, Bishop of Kolomna; and the Grand Duke secured him with his letter. With these benefits he arrived at the mouth of the Vychegda to rude but simple-minded people, and began to preach the true God. The simple in heart listened in amazement and then were baptized; stubborn and especially priest-magicians outraged the people against him. “How can we listen, they said, to someone who comes from Moscow, which oppresses us with taxes? And who to listen to? a young, inexperienced, unknown preacher, while our elders and mentors say something different.” Stefan, with hope in the Lord, continued to preach the true faith along the right bank of the Vychegda. Having reached the mouth of the Vym River, where the main settlement of the Zyryans was then, he increased the number of Christians to a thousand and built a church in the name of the Annunciation of the Mother of God. To show in reality the emptiness of idols, he turned one of the most famous idols to ashes. The people were horrified. Stefan showed the truth in experience. The main sorcerer Pama, Zyryan's father and mentor, volunteered to go through fire and water, demanding the same from Stefan. “I do not command the elements,” answered the humble Stephen, but the Christian God is great, I am going with you.” Pama trembled and completed the triumph of faith over superstition and deception. The people were baptized in crowds and threw the idols of Voipel and others into the fire. Having created two more churches, St. Stefan founded schools near them. “Teach the Perm people to read and write, commanding them to learn the Book of Hours and the Book of Hours and the Song of David”; At the same time, he sorted the students according to their abilities in order to “put some as priests, some as deacons, and teach them to write Perm books.” In 1383, he asked to install a bishop for the Zyryans in Moscow, and he himself was ordained. Then he ordained the natural Zyryans as clerics, deacons and priests. “And his priest,” says a contemporary, celebrated mass in the Perm language, matins and vespers, and his canonarchs according to the Perm books of the canonarch, and the singers shouted all the songs in Perm.” Wonderful picture! 60 versts from Ust-Sysolsk, on the Sysol River, the saint founded the Stefan monastery, and 165 versts away another, Ulyanovsk. In the first three centuries after Stephen, church services were sung in the Zyryan language. The saint also cared with all his love for the external peace of the new children of the faith of Christ. During the famine, he got them bread from Vologda; traveled to Novgorod and Moscow to petition for their protection from injustice and robbery; the people called him their father. In 1396 St. Stefan died in Moscow, having spent 18 years in apostolic labors. § 8. State of enlightenment The flame of Batu destroyed monuments of education in all parts of Russia, with the exception of Novgorod; and the Mongol yoke gave scope only to sorrow and groans about common disasters; The temporary invasions of the Tatars with fire and sword, the unfortunate civil strife of the princes stopped what they began for enlightenment, destroyed what the workers of faith and piety managed to do. One Galich principality with Volyn in the first half of the Mongol period enjoyed some peace and freedom for the development of people's life: but even that fell. The wild Mongol was equally wild for enlightenment in both paganism and Mohammedanism, mercilessly burning piles of books that were collected and protected from his barbarity. Thus, among the princes of the south there were learned and enlightened; but in northern Russia the book. Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver went to Novgorod to study literacy with the archbishop. Accordingly, it remains to judge the comparative education of the clergy of the southern and northern. In the north, only in Novgorod, rich in trade, did they have enough freedom and means to engage in education. Saint Moses zealously spread spiritual education there; the boyars willingly came to listen to his sweet conversations; He supported scribes at his own expense and ordered books to be copied. In the rest of the north, only from the middle of the 14th century, a movement towards the better - towards the light of knowledge - became noticeable. Saints Alexy and Cyprian took great care to disperse the Mongol darkness. § 9. Studying the Holy Scriptures Blessed Serapion of Vladimir wrote to his flock: “if you hear human fables, you will approach the divine scripture.” To the fulfillment of this holy rule must be attributed that gratifying phenomenon in the Russian Church of this time, that its shepherds rose in knowledge of the faith not only before the Russian people, but also before the modern shepherds of the West; in the west, during this dark time, according to the definition of the bishops, imaginary wizards and sorceresses were burned at the stake, drowned in rivers; and Serapion from the pulpit strictly denounced such ignorance of some of his flock. A precious monument worthy of attention to the word of God is the Gospel of St. Alexis, written by his own hand in 1355, when he was in Constantinople and, therefore, when he could have had the best copies of the original in his hands. When comparing this gospel with the Slavic copies that preceded it and the Greek original, the following turns out: 1) the text of the saint is in many ways dissimilar from the Slavic copies that preceded it in time; 2) its text contains not only corrections of errors made by Slavic scribes, but a new translation from the original; 3) the difference between its translation is its literal proximity to the Greek text. “This feat of the saint, in the words of the modern Archpastor of the Church, is important, among other things, because through him the saint, enlightened by God, previously denounced the wrong opinion of people who, even to this day, claim that in sacred and church books it is impermissible to correct a copyist’s slip and replace an incomprehensible word of translation with an understandable one and is contrary to Orthodoxy... He believed and corrected; and therefore, obviously, he did not reason like that. St. Cyprian also worked for St. Scriptures. He compiled a translation of the Psalter, hitherto known in its original. The translation was limited to the fact that the words and expressions of the translation that seemed unclear were replaced by others, but at the same time quite a few Serbian words and expressions were included. Saint Stephen, as they saw, translated the Psalter, selected readings from the Gospel and the Apostle and proverbs into the Permian language. The mere determination to do such a thing meant a lot for the cause of faith. There was a need to translate the word of God into the Perm language; and it is translated. Stefan's best contemporaries, especially in Moscow, looked at Stefan's work with delight and compared Stefan with the enlighteners of the Slavs. Only “there is nothing in mind,” Epiphanius notes, “deciding: why was the essence of the book of the Perm charter created? And before this, for a long time, there was no literacy in Perm... If only there would be a need, more worthy than the Russian one, the essence is ready, a letter.” But only those with poor meaning spoke this way. § 10. Blessed Preacher Serapion: the appearance of forged writings Time has deprived us of much with which our shepherds consoled and instructed their flock, who suffered under the yoke of foreigners. Only fragments and traces of their labors remain. The words of Blessed Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir, formerly the archimandrite of the Pechersk Lavra, are so beautiful that one cannot help but regret that there are only four of them; and from the very words of Serapion it is clear that he spoke many teachings. The now well-known words are a sincere conversation between a pastoral heart and his flock, a heart lamenting over the misfortunes of the time, and even more so about the vices of the time; in them the eloquence of the heart speaks, the gift of speech is visible, and the knowledge of the word of God is visible. Bulgaria, where the Bogomils were formed from the Paulicians, and where from 1195 they acquired civil independence, but did not acquire significant spiritual education, - Bulgaria with neighboring Serbia transferred to Russia everything that people like the Bogomils could console themselves with - apocryphal works, stories invented by the imagination of a child, or even completely unclean. In one list of the church charter, after the list of useful and harmful books, it is said that the article on forbidden (renounced) books was included in this charter from the prayer book of Metropolitan Cyprian. From this remark it is clear that the ancient Greek article on useful and harmful books in the Slavic translation and with additions was made public through the care of Metropolitan Cyprian the Serb; Perhaps he compiled the translation and additions. The educated pastor knew from the experience of his fatherland the extent to which false writings were used by people unfamiliar with true Christian enlightenment, and how harmful they were to faith and piety. That is why he warned the Russian Church. § 11. Strigolniki and their denunciation In 1371, a schism appeared in Pskov, which later spread to Novgorod. A certain Karp, an artistic strigolnik (who cut hair), and Deacon Nikita began the schism by pointing out the unrest of the clergy, and rejected the hierarchy for the lives of some. The subject of a special temptation was mainly the fact that clergy, as they said, were appointed to the priesthood for a bribe. But one step towards error entails another and a third. Having become judges of the hierarchs, Karp and Nikita went so far as to separate themselves from the saint in everything. Churches; they no longer wanted to participate in the general prayers of the Church, forbade receiving baptism, remission of sins, and the Eucharist from priests, and rejected the commemoration of the dead through church services and alms. The talk of Karp and Nikita found listeners in Pskov, and then in Novgorod. In 1375, the Novgorod archbishop declared Nikita defrocked, and together with Karp excommunicated him from the Church. The careless jealousy of simple hearts spread further - they grabbed Karp and his two comrades and threw them into the Volkhov; “It is written in the Gospel,” said simple-minded zeal, “if anyone causes one to stumble from these little ones, it is better for him to eat, so that a millstone may fall on his neck and be drowned in the sea.” But what they do only according to the movement of feelings is sometimes quickly condemned; Karp soon began to be pitied, and then his secret followers found passionate participation in their cause; Most of all, this participation was born because Novgorod and Pskov, distinguished by the spirit of rebellious freedom, were then burdened by their subordination to the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke. Hence it became necessary to call upon the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople for assistance. Dionysius, Archbishop of Suzdal, in 1381 brought a message from Patriarch Nile from Constantinople to Pskov, where the schism was especially strong. Novgorod rebelled and brought the Grand Duke's court against itself. In 1394, Bishop Michael of Bethlehem brought an extensive message from Patriarch Anthony. The excitement subsided. But there were still secret followers in Pskov, who were later revealed under Metropolitan Photius. The exhortations of Patriarch Anthony are strong, the denunciations are thorough, the answers reflect every question of the Strigolniks; the pious Russian soul is visible in them, and, in all likelihood, the Monk Athanasius, a disciple of the Monk Sergius, who lived in Constantinople from 1392, took a great part in their compilation. They are very necessary for the schismatics of the present time. “Know,” the Patriarch taught, that he who separates himself from the Church is separated from Christ himself... Listen to you, He listens to Me, reject Me, the One who sent Me is rejected. Correct yourself, Strigolniks; the apostle says: submit to your mentors, for they will watch over your souls, for they have a word to pay for you on the day of judgment... Dathan and Abiron, the rebellious ones, took upon themselves the priesthood. And God was angry with them, and the earth devoured them. So now the Strigolniks, having neither priesthood nor sanctification, set themselves up as teachers out of vanity and arrogance... Christ chose the apostles, the apostles appointed bishops, the gift of priesthood and sanctification was transferred through the ordination of bishops.” “When a priest celebrates the Liturgy, one must look at him as at Christ supping with the Apostles, and receive the Eucharist from him as from Christ himself... All that remains is to judge only yourself by the Apostle, and so proceed to the mystery... Tell me, heretics: where do you want to get the priest from? If you say: the patriarch is unworthy, the metropolitans are unworthy: then, in your opinion, there is not a single priest on earth... Where will you get a priest, according to your accursed faith? Will Christ really come down to earth for you a second time?... And how dare you reproach the saints for church expenses (protors), when the apostle said: the clergyman feeds on the church, and the altar girls share with the altar? Strigolniki put themselves as teachers. But they do not remember the words of Christ: Do not enter by the door into the sheepfold, but trespass elsewhere, for there is a thief and a robber. Thieves and robbers kill people with weapons; and you, Strigolniki, kill people with spiritual death, removing them from the most pure Mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. For Christ said: unless anyone eats My flesh, neither drinks My blood, he has neither light nor life. Do you really not understand what is written in the Gospel: I broke the bread and gave it to my disciples... I received the cup of wine and gave praise, saying to my disciples: drink of it, all of you, behold, this is my blood of the new testament: behold, do this in remembrance of me? So now the priests perform services in remembrance of the saving suffering of Christ. He who moves away from these most pure mysteries is not a Christian.” Condemning with the word of God the insolence of the Strigolniks, who reproach the behavior of clergy, the Patriarch says: “You, Strigolniks, say that Paul ordered the teaching of the common man. But this was said then, as it was paganism, and not to you, heretics... You say: they are collecting a lot of property. But it’s not for you, Strigolniks, to judge that; God, or the first saint, judges. Why are you making yourself a head when you are a foot? Or why, being a sheep, do you dress yourself up as a shepherd?... The Strigolniki order the earth to repent? But the earth is a soulless creature, it does not hear and does not know how to answer or rebuke the sinner.” By denouncing those who rejected the remembrance of the dead, he exposes the general custom of the ancient Church. “John Chrysostom wrote: if you have not given alms in your life, still give after death... if you leave your property to your children, write a portion to Christ and your children, so that they may give according to your soul.” Presents a case from the Prologue and another from the Pechersk Patericon. Those who were keen on strigolniks said about these teachers: they do not rob estates and do not collect. The Patriarch answers: “the Pharisees were the same, they fasted twice a week, did not eat for whole days: however, publicans and sinners came to Christ with confession and were saved, and the Pharisees were told: woe to you, scribes and Pharisees!” § 12. Disorders during divine services from the Tatars More than enlightenment, external worship suffered disorder from the Tatars. Over a vast area, from White Lake to southern Galich, Batu left behind him ashes and desert: the churches of God were destroyed by fire, or remained a pile of stones; utensils, icons, books became the prey of a blasphemous predator; the anointed priests and deacons with gray hair were killed, and the young were taken into captivity. True, the Mongol later allowed Christian worship, and the Russians remained with their former warm love for prayer and the churches of God. But a lot of time had to pass before external worship could acquire the appearance of order and decency. It was not easy to erect churches, acquire utensils, books, icons, especially since the tax-paying classes were burdened with Tatar taxes; It was even more difficult to find capable servants of the altar of God, amid devastation and poverty. Meanwhile, the brazen arbitrariness of the wild, proud Mongol razed to the ground what he himself allowed to be built, and plundered what he allowed to be considered sacred. Hence, in the chronicles you often come across the remark: the Tatars came and burned churches and monasteries, burned or robbed in Rostov, burned in Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, etc. § 13. The concern of pastors for the rite of worship Given this state of external circumstances, the pastors of the Church tried, as much as they could, from time to time to restore the order of external worship by various measures. At a council in 1274, Metropolitan Kirill decreed several rules on worship. Bishop Theognostus of Saran asked the Council of Patriarchs in Constantinople many questions about divine services, and received answers. Particularly remarkable are the instructions of Metropolitan Cyprian on the order of worship, which have come down to us in his two letters to Pskov and in his replies to Abbot Athanasius. Regarding the prosphora, we read the following instruction from St. Athanasius: “There is no difference in whether the prosphora (actually intended for the lamb) is with a cross or brought as a gift; if there is a cross on the gift brought, even if it is a gift, it can be used for the lamb.” Here one can see concern for the most important prosphora necessary for the liturgy. But at the same time, it is clear that more than one prosphora was brought to the church. How many did they bring? In the Russian Missals of the 13th, 14th and even 15th centuries, no more than five prosphoras are clearly shown: a lamb, in honor of the Mother of God, in honor of the saints, for bishops and all the living, a fifth for the dead (2). The Metropolitan gave instructions to the Pskovites on what days to celebrate the Liturgy of Basil the Great, and that without grape wine the liturgy should not be celebrated. To them he wrote, if one of the spiritual children is worthy of communion, and you decide, at the discretion of dignity, to teach on a great day (Easter) or on the Nativity of Christ, or on some other holy day: then teach at mass. When the deacon says: approach with the fear of God and faith, then he would come to the royal doors, with his hands laid crosswise on his chest.” These words show that at that time there was still enough reverent zeal for St. Secrets; they were communed several times a year. We see this idea in the Metropolitan’s letter to Athanasius; here he says: “whether young or old, nothing prevents him from receiving communion often, as long as he leads a pure life and opens his thoughts with sincerity.” Cyprian wrote to the Pskovites: “And until now you have baptized children, holding them in your hands and pouring water on them: then this baptism is wrong; Behold, I send you a right, accurate baptism; act according to it yourself and order everyone else to do the same.” Consequently, in the Novgorod diocese and under Metropolitan Cyprian, pouring baptism was performed. This depended, no doubt, on the frequent trade relations of Novgorod and Pskov with the Latins. About marriage, Cyprian writes to Athanasius: “It is not worthy for an abbot or a monk priest to perform a wedding: this is the work of worldly priests, not a monk priest; only in case of extreme need can a monk baptize a child.” It is known that, following the custom of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who performed the marriages of kings, Russian metropolitans and bishops performed the marriages of princes in the 13th and partly in the 14th century. Probably our hieromonks wanted to follow the example of the bishops. § 14. Multiplication of liturgical books and rites Of the songs of the Greek Church, compiled during this period of time, few were translated for the Russian Church; The exception to this was some prayers and songs of Patriarch Philotheus, who often communicated with the Russian Church. But the songs and prayers of previous times were already all known in the Russian Church at that time, but were not used everywhere. The Volyn chronicler, counting the offerings of the Galician Prince Vladimir to various churches, shows the following liturgical books between the donations: Gospel, Apostle, Paremeynik, Prologue for 12 months, Life of the Great Martyr. Demetrius, 12 books of Menaion with songs, Triodion, Octoechos, Irmolog, Service Book, Prayer Book with only morning and evening prayers. So, between 1272 and 1284, in the Russian Church there were translations of the service Menaions with the canons of Theophanes and Joseph the hymn writer, which was not visible before the Mongol invasion. But the rich, pious prince of Galicia could only endow the Lyuboml St. George Church with 12 Menaions, in addition to the Triodi and Octoechos; to various other churches he donated, as the same chronicle says, only the Gospel and the Apostle, with the addition of a Prayer Book. The reason for this is clear - the high cost of handwritten books; the pious prince paid “8 hryvnia kun” for one prayer book, i.e. more than 11 rubles. ser. Therefore, one can think that a) during the 13th and 14th centuries, given the situation in Russia at that time, full service Menaions were a rarity for urban Russian churches; b) instead of them, they were content with meeting services on great holidays and on the days of famous saints. Both ideas are confirmed by the ancient lists of liturgical books that have come down to us; from the manuscripts of the 14th century we see almost only Trefologies, that is, collections of services for the Lord’s and Mother of God holidays, and for the days of famous saints. Around 1295, Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite Dosifei received from Athos with a message “the order of how to sing 12 psalms individually.” Metropolitan Theognostus, at the request of the Grand Duke, ordered the translation of the Trebnik from a copy brought from Greece, probably because it contained something that was not in the previous Russians. Abbot of Visota Athanasius, a friend of Cyprian, retired to Constantinople, there he was engaged in the translation of liturgical books, and he was perhaps the first to deliver to Russia the church charter with various applications to particular cases, however, without the chapters of Mark; whereas previously they were content with the Studite Charter of the time of Theodore the Studite. In accordance with the statute of Theodore, which did not lose its meaning in Russia, the time of Feodorov; and the additions of Joseph the hymnographer in Triodion were probably left to the arbitrariness of the translator and scribe. Thus, the increase in liturgical books and rites during the Mongolian period of the Russian Church was not yet very significant. § 15. Differences in the order of worship and the efforts of Metropolitan Cyprian to ensure its uniformity Whatever the multiplication of Greek ranks in the Russian Church, over the course of 400 years several differences and corruptions could not help but enter into the liturgical books of the Russian Church. We do not understand the differences in the sign of the cross and other similar ones, which, with close connections with Greece, were revealed much later than Metropolitan Cyprian. There were other differences, but they, to the credit of Orthodoxy, were not the subject of persistent dispute. The differences primarily depended: a) on the scribes, for whom mistakes are common and can even be hereditary; b) then - the different times in the compilation and translation of songs and services introduced differences in the books and in the administration of worship, and the fragmentation of Russia into destinies added its share of differences. In the rule of Communion of his time, St. Prince Mikhail read more psalms than they began to read later. In the Stichirarion of the Studite Charter, written in 1309, we see a lot that is not in the Menaions of subsequent times, and a lot that is not included in the latter. Hegumen Afanasy even asked about how many prayers to read to the priest at Vespers and Matins; c) human infirmities, especially the ignorance of the times, introduced prayers and songs of dubious origin. For these reasons, the effect of which was weakened by the vigilance of the metropolitans, by the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, the differences and damage to the liturgical books were already so significant that they forced Metropolitan Cyprian to use special efforts on this subject. He tried to introduce uniformity in the order of worship and bring the liturgical books into the correct form. Complementing the ancient Greek list of useful and harmful books, he wrote as a warning to simplicity that “in the thick rural collections” there is a lot of falsehood, “sown by heretics to spoil the ignorant, priests and deacons, in the prayer books there are living prayers for the quacks and the ignorant.” “We heard,” he wrote in Pskov, that you do not have the correct church rule. Therefore, having copied, we sent you the charter of the divine service of Chrysostom and Basil, as well as the very service of Chrysostom, the consecration (rite of blessing of water) on the 1st day of August, the Synodik correct and accurate (the rite of Orthodoxy for the first week of Lent), which is read in Constantinople, in the Patriarchate of St. Sofia; we have added how to commemorate the Orthodox kings and great princes, dead and alive, and how we commemorate them here. We also send the rite of baptism of children and every other Christian; then the ceremony of betrothal and wedding. And what we did not have time to write off, and what, however, you need, we will force you to write off gradually, and you will have it. What was written off and sent to you with your brethren is all true and correct.” At the end of his Service Book that has come down to us, we read a confirmation for the scribe, when copying, to adhere to all the accuracy of what is contained in this Service Book, not to add or omit anything, not to bring in what he was “first accustomed to.” Thus, Cyprian changed and corrected in the liturgical books, which, according to his reasoning, required correction, and introduced the correct ones in all churches. But it is clear that the efforts of the active shepherd could not fully achieve their goal, even because he could copy one list for Pskov, for example, the liturgy, while there were not enough hundreds. It was even natural that his manuscripts subsequently introduced some new differences or features, not Greek or Russian, but Serbian, since Cyprian was a Serb. The Church also introduced new festivals during this period; and new holidays demanded new songs. a) The Gustine Chronicle speaks of Saint Alexis: “This, with the blessing of the patriarch, set to sanctify the day of the Lithuanian martyr saints (John, Anthony and Eustathius) on April 14.” According to other monuments, this was in 1364, with the blessing of Patriarch Philotheus. The institution is sacred also because it expressed the triumph of St. faith over the then Lithuanian paganism. b) The holiness of Saint Peter was known during his lifetime, and his gift of providence was also known at that time; At his burial itself, several miracles followed from his relics. Therefore, the successor of St. Peter, Metropolitan Theognostus, with the permission of the Council of Constantinople, established the celebration of the memory of Saint Peter on the day of his death, December 21. “On the 15th day of August 1372,” the chronicle says, a seven-year-old boy was forgiven at the tomb of St. Peter the Metropolitan; he did not control his hand, which was brought to his chest, and was mute; When did Metropolitan Alexy graduate from St. Liturgy, then the youth spoke, and his hand extended. Seeing this, the Metropolitan ordered the bell to be rung, and the entire cathedral sang the prayer canon.” This was a solemn confirmation for Russia of the glorification of the saint of God in heaven and on earth. c) There is no doubt that the memory of the blessed prince martyr Mikhail of Chernigov with his boyar Theodore, glorified soon after their death, was locally distinguished by spiritual celebration, even in this period. d) The blessed Prince Alexander, from the day of his death, was called a saint and was considered one of the guardian angels of Russia. This reverent respect is especially justified under the Grand Duke Dimitri Donskoy. When the battle with Mamai began, which was supposed to resolve the issue of Russian independence, at night in the church where Alexander’s body lay, candles lit up, and two elders, coming out of the altar, approached his tomb and said: Alexandra! Arise and save your great-grandson Demetrius, who is being overcome by foreigners. Alexander stood up and left. The pious monk-clerk, who saw and heard all this, told the leaders of the monastery about the miracle: they found the incorruptible relics of Nevsky and placed them in a shrine. This was followed by healings of the sick. e) The Pskovites in 1341 and 1343 fought and won with hope in the prayer of Prince Vsevolod and Dovmont; and in 1374 they had already built a stone church in the name of St. Dovmont. f) In 1380, Dimitri Ioannovich Donskoy, returning from the Battle of Kulikovo, went into the desert to visit St. Sergius. Having commemorated the soldiers who fell in battle here, he proposed to the council of shepherds to establish the commemoration of those who fell in battle for the faith and fatherland annually on Demetrius Saturday, the one that occurs before October 26 - the day of the Great Martyr. Dimitri. The pious thought was approved; and thus, in addition to the Meat and Trinity Saturdays, which have been parental since ancient times, the Dimitriev Saturday was established. g) In 1395, the unexpected salvation of Moscow and Russia from Tamerlane, on the day of the meeting of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, led. the prince marked the founding of a monastery at the site of the meeting; and the Council of Shepherds is supposed to celebrate this day, August 26, throughout Russia, in Moscow and with a procession of the cross from the Assumption Cathedral to the Sretensky Monastery. New days of celebration required new spiritual songs; it is known, at least, that a complete service was written in honor of Saint Peter by Prokhor, Bishop of Rostov. For each of the other new holidays, in all likelihood, troparia with kontakia were written. § 17. Transfer of the metropolitan see to Vladimir and Moscow Since Kyiv and neighboring cities were devastated, and the Tatars, who stood guard near Kyiv, forced the rest of the inhabitants to flee wherever they could; Meanwhile, in the north, near the Grand Duke, there were crowded churches, where they could often need the advice of the Metropolitan; Then Metropolitan Kirill often chose Vladimir for his stay. In 1299, when Kyiv was completely deserted, the inhabitants fled from the violence and cruelty of the Mongols, Metropolitan Maxim retired to Bryansk, then he recognized the need to completely transfer his see from Kyiv to Vladimir; he appointed Simeon, Bishop of Vladimir, to live in Rostov, while he and his clergy remained in Vladimir. Vladimir was not the seat of the metropolitan see for long. His princes cooled the people's love for themselves with bloodshed and discord. Saint Peter fell in love with the good Moscow prince John and saw in spirit the future of Moscow; in the spring of 1325 he moved to Moscow, and the next year, convincing the prince to erect a new church of the Mother of God, he said prophetically: “if you listen to me, my son, then you yourself will become glorified with your family, more than other princes, and your city will be glorious before all Russian cities, and the saints will live in it, his hands will rise on the shoulders of our enemies, and our God will be glorified.” The miracle worker's prediction began to be fulfilled under John Kalita, whom the khan recognized as the Grand Duke. This removal of the Metropolitan to the north could not but sadden the inhabitants of the south. Having become accustomed to seeing the metropolitan near them, the strong Volyn princes began to desire a special metropolitan for themselves - a southern one; Polish kings and Lithuanian princes, who gained power in the southwest, began to desire the same in their political views. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan of Kiev-Moscow argued in favor of the unity of the metropolis that this unity was long ago, and at the same time the hope of maintaining the unity of confession by the unity of the metropolis. The Patriarch of Constantinople and his council were thus placed in difficulty. Henceforth, fluctuations in thoughts and decisions about the unity of the metropolis continued for almost a century. § 18. The power of the metropolitan in the dioceses and the indignation of the Novgorodians against it The power of the metropolitan over the dioceses remained in the same form under the Mongols; To help himself, he elected governors of his power, which were St. Theognostus. Alexy Bishop of Vladimir, under Alexy - Athanasius Bishop of Volyn, under Pimen Gerasim of Kolomna. The Metropolitan, as before, erected worthy bishops and tried the accused. As before, the Metropolitan resolved the affairs of those dissatisfied with the diocesan authorities and reviewed the state of all affairs during the review of the dioceses. One must imagine the situation in Russia at that time in order to understand what the diocesan surveys cost the metropolitan at that time: roads through swamps and dense forests, dangerous in themselves, were also terrible from Tatar riders and Russian freemen. One must be amazed at the works of Metropolitan Kirill, who during his long reign barely spent one year in one place. Therefore, it is not surprising that the monthly court of the metropolitan in the diocese was combined with duties for him and his retinue. Nowhere do we see any dissatisfaction with the metropolitan’s authority. On the contrary, in the south they were also offended by the fact that the Moscow Metropolitan rarely visited the local dioceses. One Novgorod freeman was at times worried, seeking independence from the metropolitan court. For the first time, the displeasure of the Novgorodians was revealed under Metropolitan Theognostus. After the saint visited Novgorod, people in Novgorod said: it was difficult for the archbishop and the monasteries to visit the metropolitan in terms of maintenance and gifts. In 1353, after the death of Metropolitan Theognost and Grand Duke Simeon, the Novgorodians and the archbishop sent ambassadors to Constantinople with a complaint “about obscene things brought in by the metropolitan’s violence.” The ambassadors returned “with a grant from the Tsar and the Patriarch.” But the patriarchal charter confirmed matters in their previous form. In 1384, after the Novgorodians were forced, along with the Moscow region, to pay the Grand Duke black forest (half a ruble per village), they gathered a veche and solemnly pledged by oath not to relate to the metropolitan in any church litigation, but to sort it out from their archbishop with the secular officials of Novgorod; At the same time, the Novgorodians limited the rights and income of the Grand Duke. In 1391, Metropolitan Cyprian himself arrived in Novgorod. He was received with honor, caressed with gifts; but when the metropolitan began to say that, in accordance with the ancient custom, they should present controversial cases to his court, everyone answered: “we swore that we would not depend on the court of the metropolitans, and we wrote a letter to that effect.” The Metropolitan said that he would remove the oath from them; Novgorodians did not want to hear. After much persuasion, the Metropolitan left Novgorod without giving a blessing to the rebellious, and informing the Patriarch about this. The Novgorodians sent a complaint to the patriarch. Patriarch Anthony wrote to them that he confirms the excommunication pronounced by the Metropolitan on the disobedient, and let them threaten that they will become Latinists - the Metropolitan correctly admonished them, and has full power over them. At the same time, the Patriarch sent his authorized Metropolitan of Bethlehem to consider the case on the spot. The Grand Duke intervened in the matter, since it was connected with his own. Novgorod refused to pay him black forest. It came to a brutal war. In 1393, the Novgorodians were forced to reconcile, promised the prince to regularly pay the black tribute, sent their letter to the Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan sent them a blessing. One chronicler adds to this: “don’t be surprised at this: this is the custom of the Novgorodians... They are people who are harsh, rebellious, stubborn, unfounded. Which prince did they not insult? Which of the princes fell for them? § 19. Promotion of spiritual power to the benefits of the state During the period of Tatar enslavement, the spirit of the Orthodox Church was especially revealed, never separating its fate from the fate of the state, always a faithful supporter of its benefits. The property owned by the Church was used to meet the needs of the suffering people; The church peasants did not enrich the Church with themselves, but enjoying security, protected from poverty under the roof of church mercy, they helped the state. For the war, the army, for the needs of the Grand Duke, taxes were also delivered from the church peasants. During the bitter time of the wild autocracy of the Mongolian people, the shepherds of the Church mourned along with the people over their difficult fate and hastened to heal their wounds with the benefits of faith. A monument to this is, among other things, the sermons of St. Serapion. When Providence revealed that the time of trial was approaching its end, the spiritual ones, first and most of all, animated the princes and people with the determination to stand firmly against the enemies of faith and the fatherland. This is how St. Sergius acted, and this is how others acted. Bishops and metropolitans spoke the truth to the princes, without fear for their position. “Where should our tiuns (judges) be in the next world?” the Prince of Polotsk asked the Tver Bishop Simeon.” “In the same place,” answered the shepherd, “where the princes are.” The prince did not like this answer, and he said: “Tiun judges wrongly, takes bribes, does evil; what am I doing? The Lord answered: “If the prince is kind and has mercy on the people, and for this purpose he chooses a ruler who is good, God-fearing, intelligent and truth-loving: the prince will be in paradise, and tiun will be with him. If a prince, without the fear of God, does not have mercy on Christians, appoints an evil, unreasonable ruler, as long as he gets kuns for him, lets him, like a hungry dog ​​on carrion, destroy people: then the prince will be in hell, and his tyun there.” The metropolitans, traveling around the dioceses, tried as hard as they could to establish church order, and cared so much about the welfare of the state, acting in the spirit of the Gospel on the conscience of the people and princes. Russia owes a lot to the Christian exploits of its shepherds for the weakening of the destructive multi-government and the gradual establishment of a saving autocracy. We do not see in the chronicles almost a single discord among the princes, not a single impulse of lust for power, which the Metropolitan did not try to pacify either himself or through the bishop. “My son,” said Saint Peter to the Bryansk prince, share the principality with Vasily; or leave the city and do not engage in battle.” Prince Dimitri Mikhailovich of Tver (in 1311) wanted to take possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, “and the Metropolitan (St. Peter) would not bless him with the table in Vladimir.” The service was especially difficult for the pious and enlightened Tver shepherd Theodore. The princes of the Tver principality, relatives among themselves, constantly quarreled among themselves; Lithuania, not so much by kinship as by political views, entered into these quarrels and only intensified them. Theodore, aggravated by these quarrels, asked (in 1358) Saint Alexis for rest from the affairs of government: but the saint convinced him to continue serving the Church and the Fatherland. How much work Saint Alexy put in for the fatherland and the Grand Duke! At his request, Russia offered salvation from Berdibek’s cruelty. Through his labors the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow was especially strengthened. By his will, the Monk Sergius went to Nizhny Novgorod to convince Prince Boris to cede to his elder brother what belonged to him, and not to start a war; The prince did not want to listen to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, and Sergius, in accordance with the will of the saint, closed all the churches in Nizhny: a strong measure, but necessary due to the circumstances of the time. Olgerd felt the influence that Saint Alexy had on the strengthening of the Moscow principality; he was annoyed that the word of the saint destroyed the plans of the Lithuanian prince, who outraged the appanage princes against the Moscow prince, and he complained to the patriarch: “until now, even under our fathers, there has not been such a metropolitan as this metropolitan: he blesses the Muscovites for the shedding of blood! And whoever kissed the cross towards me and runs away to him, the Metropolitan will remove the kiss of the cross from him.” The incessant quarrels of the princes forced the Grand Duke to introduce a court of arbitration, in which the Metropolitan acted as a mediator between two quarreling individuals and, with his pastoral voice, encouraged the cessation of displeasure. The power of the metropolitan seemed heavy to Novgorod not in itself, not due to duties, but because on the one hand it was the power of Moscow, alien to Novgorod, on the other it introduced with it the power of the Grand Duke, otherwise, the power of the metropolitan protected the unity of the people here too, saving them from strife and enslavement to a foreign and heterodox yoke; She also tamed the passions of the evening, ready to act to the detriment of not only the common good, but also their own private good. § 20. Christian life under the Tatar yoke The Lord loves him and punishes him. In His wise plan, the yoke of the Mongols was a measure of love that healed the moral illnesses of the Russian people. What were the people under this yoke? First of all, the general disaster awakened a feeling of repentance among the people. This is what monuments show. Willingly or unwillingly, the Russians brought to mind the example of the Ninevites and repented, remembered Israel, the slave of Egypt, and turned from the earth to God. At the same time, the constant thought of the people was that they were a Christian people, and their cruel rulers were infidels, hated by God; Thus, the basis of life was a high thought - faith in the superiority of the Christian faith. This thought encouraged the people when sorrows reached the depths of their souls, and it also made them value what Christianity instilled in them; she inspired not to love what those who did not honor the name of Christ loved. That is why, in two centuries of slavery, the Russians remained with the same love for their homeland, and did not accept their predatory savagery from the Tatars. In the midst of grave troubles, this thought formed firmness in the character of the people, steadfastness in its rules; where the Christian spirit graciously penetrated the soul and gave the highest direction to the forces of the soul, love for God was not afraid of the most severe deeds, the most difficult labors. Reverence for faith and the name of Christ was common to all states. The spirit of power-hungry hostility in the first years of the yoke continued to excite the hearts of the princes; but then little by little he became quieter, more and more giving way to meekness. Willingly or unwillingly, the princes began to expect glory not from their sword, but from the will of God, and from the one to whom the will of heaven subjugated them; willy-nilly they began to be called brothers. Strange, but true: the Novgorodians, who did not see Batu among themselves, who, due to their distance from the Kipchak horde, rarely tolerated the robberies and violence of the Tatars, the Novgorodians in the Mongol period stained themselves with brutal unbridledness and atrocities, which were not seen in other parts of Russia; This most clearly shows how beneficial was the yoke that God’s Providence imposed on Russia. How many posadniks the Novgorodians threw into the Volkhov! How many times have innocents been robbed and killed! How many times have they started a rebellion of civil strife, a rebellion against the Grand Duke! More than once the Novgorod freemen came out in droves to burn cities, rob people, and kill brothers in faith and blood. The most amusements of the Novgorodians were distinguished by frantic violence: for example, in 1358 they pledged an oath not to break barrels in demonic amusements. It is not surprising that under the yoke of heavy slavery, under the rule of wild self-will, for which joy is sword and devastation, the poor Christians of eastern and central Russia did not have softness in morals. Hence, need forced the kind-hearted Prince Demetrius to introduce the death penalty, while Monomakh said: “do not kill the guilty, the life of a Christian is sacred.” Previously, a monetary penalty deterred theft, but in the 14th century thieves were hanged and whipped for other crimes. It was also natural that during the period of Mongol violence, the Russians lost part of their trusting innocence; bitter need forced them to protect themselves with cunning, when they were unable to counteract violence with courage. It was a tribute to the difficult times on the part of the weak. § 21. Excellent virtues of many shepherds and princes Suffering under the weight of so many troubles, the Russian Church also had the consolation of seeing children succeeding in faith and piety. Its high priests Cyril (1240–1280), Maxim (1283–1304), Peter (1308–1326), Theognostus (1328–1353), Alexius (1354–1378), Cyprian (1380–1405) were models of Christian life for the flock. Ignatius, Jacob and Theodore of Rostov, Vasily of Ryazan, Theoktist, Moses, Vasily of Novgorod, Stefan of Perm, Dionysius of Suzdal, Arseny of Tver are also glorified by God for their Christian lives. Among the princes, in addition to those who laid down their souls for their faith and fatherland, the blessed Alexander Nevsky appears in the wonderful light of greatness. This is an example of royal courage and royal wisdom, imbued with the Christian spirit. Until 1246, in five years, he won three victories over the Livonians and Swedes, seven over Lithuania; He began each one with prayer and ended with praise to God; with two victories he liberated the Church and the fatherland from the power of the Germans, who had already brought their leaders into Pskov. Since 1246 he has been the Grand Duke of all Russia, and his affairs have taken on a different character. Until now, the bravest of the brave warriors, against the Tatars he not only does not draw his sword, but punishes those who drew their swords; he protects Russia, powerless before the Mongols, with his submission and the submission of Russia; more than once he goes to Batu and across the sandy deserts to the Great Khan, for the peace of Russia; the feat was doubly difficult because it was not brilliant in the eyes of the world. In addition to Alexander, examples of deep piety were the princes: Roman of Uglich, Theodore of Yaroslavl with two sons, Dovmont of Pskov and Daniil of Moscow, who belonged to the 13th century. Of the southern princes, Vladimir and, in his last years, his father Vasilko, were famous for their special piety; the latter spent the end of his life in a wild cave, under the mountain of the St. George Lvov Monastery, mourning the sins of worldly lust for power and bloody activities. Vladimir was a true sufferer of God; meek, merciful, strict with himself, this prince suffered for four years like Job; his lower lip was rotting; the disease spread and became stronger: but he patiently endured the pain and went about his business; the disease intensified: the entire fleshy part of the beard fell off, the lower part and teeth rotted; he prayed and did charity; none of the southern princes built so many monasteries and cities, no one more than him endowed churches with books and utensils; Before his death, he distributed all movable property, gold, silver, clothes to the poor. In the 14th century, God's chosen one, St. Sergius of Radonezh, was destined to be the same for monasticism in the north as Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk were in the south. The son of the Rostov boyar Kirill, who moved to Radonezh during the time of troubles, Bartholomew (the name Sergius from the font), after the death of his parents, provided an inheritance to their brother Peter, and he and his other brother Stefan settled in a dense forest, 10 miles from Radonezh, built with their own hands a cell and a church in the name of the Life-Giving Trinity. In deep solitude, with meager food, he performed feats of prayer unknown to anyone: the wild beast received from him part of his meager meal; Stefan soon left his brother, retiring to Moscow; Bartholomew received tonsure and the name Sergius from Abbot Mitrofan. The rumor about the hermit's holiness began to attract disciples to him: but at first, for a long time, their number did not extend beyond 12. The disciples forced him to go to Pereyaslavl-Zalessky - to accept the rank of priesthood and abbess from the Volyn bishop Athanasius who lived there. The poverty of the hermits was so great that at times there were not enough candles for worship and a torch burned; this poverty more than once aroused in the disciples, who were not yet strong in spirit, a murmur against Sergius: but he endured and exhorted them to trust in God, and according to their hope they received from God. The number of students grew, and the seeds of virtues sown in the students also grew; Sergius's fame also increased. Saint Alexy wanted to bless Sergius as his successor: but the desert dweller rejected the cross offered by the saint: “From my youth,” he said, “I have not worn gold; in old age, I especially want to remain in poverty,” and remained with the title of father of monks. Through the prayers of Sergius, who died in 1391, the Lavra of Sergius flourished. Under the leadership of Sergius, high ascetics of piety were formed in his monastery. Simon, Archimandrite of Smolensk, having left everything, spent the rest of his years in humble obedience to the God-bearing elder, and was honored to be a witness to Sergiev’s glorious vision of Sergius’s disciples. Isaac, Sergius’s favorite disciple, doomed himself to silence and observed it until the end of his life; he was the first to be invited by Sergius to share the spiritual joy of Sergius’s visit to the Heavenly Queen and the apostles. Micah lived in the saint’s cell and saw this visit. Macarius, together with Isaac, saw an angel serving St. Sergius during the celebration of the Eucharist. Simeon the ecclesiarch saw with his spiritual eyes the heavenly fire on St. throne when Sergius celebrated the liturgy. The disciples of St. Sergius founded many monasteries, for example, in Moscow Andronik - Andronieva, Theodore - Simonovskaya, in Serpukhov Afanasy - Vysotskaya, in Kolomna Grigory - Golutvina, near Dmitrov Methodius - Pesnoshskaya, in Zvenigorod Savva - Storozhevskaya and so on. § 23. Reverends Demetrius and Kirill Friends of God have great friends. Demetrius, the Prilutsk wonderworker, friend of Sergius, was from Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, and here, on the shore of Lake Pereyaslavl, he founded the St. Nicholas Monastery; from here he came for spiritual conversations with the Monk Sergius. Here, with a handsome face, but a strict guardian of chastity, he walked with his face covered and avoided meeting women; once the unchaste woman dared to tempt him and fell into relaxation; having sincerely revealed her sin, she is healed by Demetrius. Grand Duke Demetrius invited the Monk Demetrius to be the successor of his son. In 1371, the Monk Demetrius, withdrawing from human glory, withdrew into the deep forests of Vologda and chose the swampy bank of the river for his stay. Lie down. Later he moved closer to Vologda and founded the Prilutsky monastery. His clothes in winter and summer were the same - a hard sheepskin sheepskin coat; in the cold he endured the cold under it, in the summer he was wet from the heat and heaviness. The monk reposed in 1392. Sergius (Obnorsky), who left Athos for the Monk Sergius, was his disciple for some time; then, wanting desert solitude, he settled on the rocky bank of the Nurma River; Several years passed, and Sergius built a monastery and church for the 40 brothers who had gathered to him in the name of the Transfiguration of the Lord (†1412). Even further to the north, the Belozersk monastery was founded by the Monk Kirill, tonsured by Theodore Simonovsky. In the Simonov bakery, Kirill humbly worked, like an unresponsive novice; a glance at the fire of the bakery transported his thoughts to the eternal fire of sinners and drew from him streams of tears. Every time Saint Sergius came to the monastery, he went first of all to Kirill’s bakery and talked with him. Cyril was also an archimandrite after Theodore, who was taken to the Rostov see. But his soul longed for the deep desert. Praying before the icon of the Mother of God, Kirill heard a voice commanding him to go to the Belozersk country; secretly leaving the monastery, he arrived on the remote shore of White Lake and, having dug a dugout, labored in solitude. The fragrance of prayer attracted zealots of prayer to Cyril, one after another; the monastery he founded in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God flourished and became a city of monks; when there were needs in the monastery, and the brothers asked Cyril to send to one or another lover of Christ for mercy: Cyril did not agree and said: “if God and the Most Pure One have forgotten this place, why do we live here?” – Cyril labored in a wild country for 30 years; The gift of insight and miracles was revealed in St. during his lifetime. an old man who died at the age of 90 in 1427. At the same time as Cyril, Ferapont, a student of Sergius, left the Simon monastery and settled in the Belozersk desert in a cave, not far from Cyril; then he moved closer to White Lake and built a cell; Several brothers gathered to him, and he, having cleared the forest, erected cells and a church in honor of the Nativity of the Mother of God. This is how the Ferapontov Belozersky monastery was founded. Prince Andrei of Mozhaisk, who donated land to the Ferapontov monastery, summoned the venerable hermit to Mozhaisk to found a monastery; The Monk Ferapont built the Luzhetsk monastery a mile from Mozhaisk and rested there as archimandrite in 1426. § 24. Euphrosyne - Princess of Suzdal, and Euphrosyne - Grand Duchess Two Euphrosyne, both from the princely family, adorned the Church in this period, one at the beginning, the other at the end. Euphrosyne, in the world Theodulia, princess of Suzdal, daughter of the prayers of St. Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov, by the will of her parents, was already engaged to one of the princes of Suzdal: but the groom died before he saw the bride; Euphrosyne no longer remained in the world; and in 1227 she dedicated herself to the Lord in the Suzdal monastery of the Robe. Strict exploits and spiritual wisdom soon gained her the respect of her sisters. In 1238 the wild Mongols devastated Suzdal; Blessed Euphrosyne prayed with her sisters, and her monastery was saved miraculously: “the churches and monasteries were burned, but the Lord preserve the maiden monastery of the Placement of the Robe of the Mother of God, in which the monastic struggle passed by the sufferingly blessed Theodulia with her companions, daughter of the Grand Duke Mikhail of Chernigov and martyr, named in monasticism Euphrosyne." The other Euphrosyne, the wife of Grand Duke Dimitri Donskoy, is even more amazing. Even during her husband’s life, Evdokia was pious and merciful. In 1380, when the prince was getting ready to go to war with Mamai, she “did many kindnesses, while she herself constantly went to church day and night.” In 1389 she remained a widow, not yet old. Secretly from everyone, she exhausted her body with fasting and heavy chains; and in the eyes of the world she wore light clothes, decorated herself with beads, and appeared everywhere with a cheerful face. At the same time, her deeds of piety were in the minds of everyone: and in 1393, she erected the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in memory of the Battle of Kulikovo, enriching it with gold and silver vessels. This, however, did not prevent the slander of the world from denigrating the princess; slander pointed to her magnificent clothes and cast doubt on her chastity; The rumor of slander reached the sons of the princess. The children were deeply offended, and Yuri could not hide his feelings from his mother. Evdokia called the children and took off part of her clothes in front of them; The children were horrified when they saw the thinness of her body, her withered skin, and her heavy chains. Not wanting to free herself from the burden of slander, for the sake of the name of God, she forbade them to disclose it until her death. This was in 1396. The princess, however, decided to leave the grand ducal mansion; She began to prepare what was necessary for the construction of a church in honor and memory of the Ascension of the Lord, and moved into a quiet cell of the maiden monastery she was building. At this time, the Lord revealed to the light the inner greatness of her soul, which she hid. On the way from the Assumption Church, the blind man shouted to her; “God-loving princess, nourisher of us poor! You promised me in a dream: in the morning I will give you insight; fulfill your word.” The princess, not paying attention to the blind man, as if accidentally lowered the sleeve of her shirt, and the blind man, feeling it, regained his sight. In 1407, the construction of the Ascension Church began, and in the same year Evdokia, in monasticism Euphrosyne, died peacefully. § 25. Strengthening proper community life in monasteries In the last half of the 14th century, strict social life began to be strengthened in Russian monasteries, since until then in many, each monk had earned food for himself alone through labor, or they lived as hermits. The monastery of St. Sergius initially also did not have a full dormitory. It so happened that Sergius ran out of bread, and he was without food for three days; on the fourth he goes to one brother and says: I will build you a vestibule for your cell, which you don’t have; and when I finish my work, give me some of the rotten bread that you have. And, as he said, he did so. Patriarch Philotheus sent Sergius advice - to start a hostel, and Sergius, with the blessing of St. Alexis, set up a hostel. In Moscow, Peter's Archimandrite John was the first to establish, a little before 1280, a strict hostel. For Russian women's monasteries, the Alekseevskaya women's monastery, built by St. Alexy, served as a model of the new rank. This was the first women's monastery in the north, which had a strict and separate dormitory for virgins. The Ascension Monastery of St. Euphrosyne and the Nativity of Princess Mary, mother of Vladimir the Brave, followed the same rite. In the Russian Church in this period we see examples of a special kind of life, high and difficult, examples of foolishness about Christ, taken from examples in the East. The first example of this life in Russia, as far as is known, was Saint Procopius of Ustyug. He was a foreign merchant in Novgorod. Feeling the superiority of Orthodoxy, he left trade and came to the Monk Varlaam. Joined by Orthodoxy, Procopius began to live as an ascetic, and his example attracted other foreign traders to the monastery. Not content with an ordinary feat, Procopius chose foolishness for Christ. He retired to Ustyug. Here he walked around the city during the day like a holy fool, and collected pushes and beatings, ridicule and abuse, and spent the night in prayer at the church doors; He accepted food from the poor, but not from the rich, rich in untruth. Neither in summer nor in winter did he have shelter anywhere, but he often sat on the banks of the river. Sukhona, praying for those floating. His prayer saved Ustyug from a stone cloud that cleared not far from Ustyug. He died in 1303. Another example of the same life was Saint Nicholas Kachanov, who completed his feats of foolishness in 1392 in Novgorod. Period three. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate § 1. Division of the metropolis The division of the Russian metropolitanate into two halves, Moscow and Lithuania, in itself worried the Russian Church for several decades; it also had influence on all parts of the structure of the Russian Church. Thus, the divided metropolis formed a new period in the existence of the Russian Church. The division of the metropolis began before Photius, was accomplished with effort under Photius, and was established without effort after Photius. This shows that the reasons for it were hidden not in faces, but in the state of affairs. Southwestern Russia was ruled by the Lithuanian princes; The southwestern dioceses were very distant from Moscow - the seat of the Russian Metropolitan: these are the two main circumstances that separated the southwest from the power of the Moscow Metropolitan! Vytautas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, looked with concern at the dependence of the regions subordinate to him for matters of faith on the metropolitan, who lived in a foreign land. The collection of revenues from the southwestern dioceses in favor of the Metropolitan of Moscow and, therefore, not in favor of the land of Lithuania, seemed especially difficult for Vytautas. The southwestern clergy, together with Vytautas, also felt that the Moscow Metropolitan, due to his remoteness, rarely surveyed the southern dioceses. Nevertheless, the division of the Russian metropolitanate could have taken place not without difficulties, not without controversy. The Russian Church was under the rule of one metropolitan for so many centuries; For so long they have been accustomed to receiving only one high priest from the patriarch. Moreover, it was impossible not to fear that the Lithuanian papist prince would dispose of the metropolitan in his power not in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter could not but concern the patriarch. Moscow also could not easily give up the long-standing honor of being the spiritual capital of all Russia. Vitovt loved power so much that he decided to fight against obstacles. When Metropolitan Cyprian died (1406), he sent Bishop Theodosius of Polotsk to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan, so that his see would be in Kyiv. In Constantinople, Patriarch Anthony back in 1393 (during the life of Cyprian) installed the learned and strict Greek Photius as Metropolitan of “all Russia.” Patriarch Matthew did not agree to consecrate Theodosius and sent Photius to Russia, who arrived in Kyiv in 1409, and in Moscow in 1410. Vitovt was offended by the patriarch’s refusal and demanded that Photius himself remain forever in Kyiv. Photius in 1411 and 1412 surveyed the southern dioceses, consecrated a bishop to Smolensk in Kyiv, and to Turov in Lutsk, and was also in Galich: but returned to Moscow. In 1414, Vytautas gathered the bishops of his possessions to a council in Novgrodek, presented to them that Photius not only cared little about the south, but was ruining the south by collecting duties, and as a result demanded that the bishops abandon Photius, elect a new metropolitan and send him to Constantinople for consecration. The bishops, respecting the order of the patriarch, did not agree for a long time, but then they yielded to the will of Vytautas, electing the learned and kind Gregory Semivlakh. Photius wanted to avert trouble by personal communication with Vytautas: but, not accepted by Vytautas, he returned to Moscow. Patriarch Euthymius (1410–1416) decisively refused to grant Gregory the rank of metropolitan. Due to his relationship with the house of the Moscow prince, the emperor especially acted for Photius. Vytautas, irritated by the new refusal, sent (in March) ambassadors to the emperor and patriarch with the announcement that, if they did not agree to give a special metropolitan of southern Russia, the bishops themselves would install him. The same was announced to the ambassadors of the emperor and patriarch returning from Moscow. At their request, Vytautas postponed the election of the metropolitan until November 14, whereas previously it was supposed to wait for the patriarch's decision only until August 15. The deadline was approaching, but there was no answer. The cathedral in Nowgrodek was reassembled. Some of the bishops even then did not want to consecrate Gregory without the patriarchal will. But Vitovt insisted on his own, and Gregory was dedicated on November 15. To justify itself, the council reasoned: in Bulgaria and Serbia, local bishops have long appointed the first bishop; in Russia under Izyaslav it was the same; the patriarch himself sent two and three metropolitans to Russia for the same time; what is more important is that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not limited to persons, and the ancient rule allows bishops to appoint the first bishop. “We keep the rules of our fathers, we curse heresies, we honor the Patriarch of Constantinople and others, we have the same faith with them; but we reject the lawless power in church affairs, appropriated by the Greek kings.” The diploma was approved by a special determination of Vytautas. Photius wrote an extensive district letter to the bishops, in which he argued that Gregory was installed illegally, without being installed as patriarch or by the will of the patriarch; he demanded not to communicate with Gregory, as with an illegal shepherd. But Gregory remained metropolitan until his death (1419). Photius, after the death of Gregory, made peace with Vytautas and ruled the southern churches until his death (July 8, 1481). After Photius in 1433, Gerasim, Bishop of Smolensk, was consecrated by the Patriarch as Metropolitan of Lithuania, while in Moscow he was the “designated” Metropolitan of St. Jonah; Gerasim, with views on both sides of the Russian Church, chose Smolensk as the place of his see, where he lived under the patronage of Prince Svidrigail: but in 1435 he was burned by Svidrigail. The affairs of Isidore and the pope forced the southern bishops to be in close alliance with the Moscow high priest Jonah, and he had his own governors in the west; The southern bishops at first did not accept Gregory, who was of the same mind as Isidore (§ 11). But this connection between the south and the northern metropolitan was only a consequence of a special need, and was temporary; The Polish king, submissive to the pope, forced the southern bishops to recognize the power of Gregory. Successors of St. Jonah († 1461) ceased to be called metropolitans of Kyiv; The southern metropolis decisively separated from the northern. After Gregory, the shepherds of the south voluntarily, without worrying about doubts, elected themselves a special metropolitan, which was the first Misail. The chair of the Lithuanian metropolitan was more often in Vilna, at times in Novgrodk, rarely in Kiev. § 2. The attitude of the northern and southern metropolitans to the patriarch Despite the fact that, during the initial division of the Russian metropolitanate, the southern bishops, apparently, did not want to be submissive to the patriarch, in subsequent times the Kyiv metropolitans were appointed only with the blessing of the patriarch. Although neither the king nor the bishops accepted Spyridon, whom the patriarch (in 1476) consecrated as the Lithuanian metropolitan only by the will of the sultan, but without the knowledge and will of the king and the bishops: but the metropolitans Misail (1474–1477), Simeon (1477–1488), Jonah Glezna, elected in Lithuania, were installed as patriarch. In 1495, a council of Russian bishops elected and installed Metropolitan Macarius; and then sent ambassadors to the patriarch for a blessing for the metropolitan. The Patriarch, having approved the election, made it known through his ambassadors that no metropolitans would be appointed ahead without his knowledge. From that time on, ambassadors were sent each time for a blessing for the elected metropolitan, but the installation took place in Russia. All administration of the southern Church was carried out under the close supervision of the patriarch. The southern bishops were forced to do this by their very position: oppression by papists, kings and any other civil authority, involuntarily forced them to seek help from the patriarch. The patriarchs, for their part, were in close communion with the southern Church. The position of the northern Church was completely different: it was protected by the firm power of the Orthodox princes. Hence, the attitude of the church authorities towards the patriarch in the north was different. In the northern Church, Isidore was the last metropolitan sent by the patriarch. The pope's servant, sent from Constantinople, deeply offended the Russian Church. She valued the union with the Greek Church. But what was dearest to her was pure faith. Henceforth, after the expulsion of Isidore from Moscow, when the affairs of Moscow itself made it possible to begin relations with Constantinople, Grand Duke Vasily (in 1441) prepared a message to the patriarch about the metropolitan; then (in 1443) they sent an ambassador with a letter to the emperor. But on both occasions, a rumor about the emperor’s deviation into Latinism stopped the matter. The messages of the northern Church remained only monuments of her thoughts about a union with Greece. On both occasions, the Grand Duke insisted that it be allowed to elect and install a metropolitan in Moscow. He expressed indignation that Isidore “had us enslaved by the excommunicated Roman Church for heresies.” He pointed, like the Lithuanian Council under Photius, to the rules allowing the installation of a metropolitan without a patriarch. He especially exposed the difficulty of relations with Constantinople, explained the inconvenience of being a Russian metropolitan to a Greek: “every Orthodox Christian may have the need to communicate with the supreme shepherd about spiritual - secret matters, and the sovereign - not only about spiritual, but also about state matters, meanwhile, it is impossible to talk with him except through translators. However, the prince continued, the Russian Church does not want to interrupt its union with the Greek Church; she will still ask for the patriarch’s blessing and permission to resolve her doubts.” Shemyaka's anxiety for quite a long time prevented the resolution of the case regarding the metropolitan. But at the end of 1448 St. Jonah was ordained metropolitan by a council of Russian shepherds. Since for more than four centuries the Russian Church received a metropolitan from Constantinople, and to interrupt such a connection without hearing a response from the Greek Church about the matter would mean to offend love, humility and prudence: then it was necessary to again enter into communication with the Greek Church about the election of a metropolitan independent of it. In 1452, the Grand Duke wrote to the emperor, informing him of the installation of a Russian metropolitan by Russian bishops. But again, the unrest of the union in Constantinople did not allow the charter to reach Constantinople. In 1453 (May 29) Constantinople was taken by the Turks; The Church fell under the yoke of Mohammedan rule. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, Gennady, according to the general desire of the Orthodox, was confirmed as Sultan in the rank of Patriarch. The pious Gennady asked Jonah in a letter for help with the crying needs of the Greek Church. St. Jonah hastened to fulfill the desire of the great saint; at the same time, he asked the patriarch not to leave the Russian Church in his care. It is most likely that at this time the Greek Church granted the Russian Church the right to elect and appoint a metropolitan independently of Constantinople, and the All-Russian metropolitanate was placed above all others, right after the Jerusalem patriarchal see. Around 1480, a sworn promise was introduced into the bishop's oath - not to accept anyone either to the metropolis or to the episcopal sees from the Patriarch of Constantinople, precisely because Constantinople was in the hands of Islamism. But this point, at the insistence of the wise Maxim, was excluded from the oath: Constantinople, said the monk, is in the hands of the Hagaryans, but Orthodoxy remains unshakable among the Greeks, and the Church is still governed by the Holy Spirit. – However, the summoning of Maximus from Greece, as a teacher of the Church, shows that the northern Church was wary of actually subordinating power to the Sultan, but did not interrupt its connection with the Greek Church. The rich alms of the Russian Church show the same to the Eastern Churches. Tsar John Vasilyevich asked and received from the Patriarch of Constantinople the rite of crowning and the patriarchal blessing for the rank of king. The Church of Constantinople informed the Russian Church about changes in the patriarchate, and Metropolitan Theodosius ordained Joseph as Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. § 3. Promotion of the Church to the benefits of the state; Saints Jonah, Joasaph and Philip Both in the south and in the north, the Orthodox Church was true to its character - it mourned the sorrows of the state, and rejoiced at its joys. The monasteries of the north, owning very significant estates, served the state with temporary donations, constant taxes from their peasants, and service during the war. Russian monasticism, not like Western monasticism, was afraid to deviate from internal self-examination to concerns about worldly life: nevertheless, the state lent Russian monasteries the construction of fortresses, which were so useful especially at that time; We don’t talk about the situation of the monastic peasants, about draining swamps and building roads; we don’t talk about the most important thing - about the moral state of the people. Councils of bishops took the most sincere part in the benefits of the state. In the struggle between Vasily Vasilyevich and Shemyaka, the council of shepherds made every effort to help the unfortunate Vasily. The cathedral encouraged, by a message, Grand Duke John to enter into battle with the Tatars on the river. Eel. The Council considered the Code of Law of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich; The council discussed the war with Poland under him (1558). The Moscow metropolitans were called nothing less than “sorrowful people about the entire Russian land.” The princes themselves called them their fathers. Tsar John Vasilyevich, feeling the need for correction, in the face of the whole state, asked the Metropolitan to assist him in better managing the Christian state. The name and seal of the metropolitan were most often found in contracts between princes; Metropolitans gave guarantees for the disgraced, while for them this was often accompanied by only sorrows. Almost all the supreme pastors of the northern Church of the 15th century. there were men of high spirit, with holy zeal for the Church and the state, and after St. Joasapha Philip II was a martyr of faith and fatherland. “Strict with himself from his youth, like one of the ancient holy fathers,” Saint Jonah was a living example of life in Christ. Despite the fact that Shemyaka was his benefactor, the saint, after Shemyaka’s vain admonitions to abandon the plans of lust for power, sent out letter after letter with an exhortation to remain faithful to Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, and even imposed a spiritual ban on those who disobeyed the sovereign. – With the same zeal he encouraged us to stand against the Tatars. When Vasily left besieged Moscow during their invasion, St. the elder remained there to pray and inspire others with firmness. In delight of spirit, he foreshadowed the imminent independence of Russia from Tatar violence. The gift of healing illnesses, the constant distribution of alms, and the miraculous power in his instructions endowed the saint with the title of God's messenger, indisputable in advice. Metropolitan Joasaph (1539–1542), during the early childhood of John IV, when the Shuiskys were committing crimes, saw the only way for the better in bringing the smart and kind boyar Belsky into the council. It was impossible not to see that the Shuiskys would cruelly take revenge on the shepherd: but the shepherd managed with good intentions; hopes for Belsky were justified; robberies and violence stopped. Prince Ivan Shuisky managed to overthrow Belsky. And then a violent crowd almost killed the saint; they threw stones at his cell, he found no protection in the chambers of the king himself; Trinity Abbot Alexy begged in the name of St. Sergius to spare the life of the saint; however, the saint was sent to the Belozersky monastery. The meek Metropolitan Afanasy (1564–1566) could not bear what Tsar John IV began to do with his depraved oprichnina, and left the see. John wanted to seem caring about the Church and chose the holy shepherd of Kazan Herman as metropolitan. Everything was ready for the solemn installation of the new metropolitan. But Herman came from the metropolitan’s chambers to the king, and in the name of God, through the fear of God’s judgment, convinced him to repent and stop bloodshed and debauchery. John kicked him out of the palace, and summoned St. to the metropolitan's throne. abbot of the Solovetsky monastery Philip, from the Kolychev boyars. “I obey your will,” St. told him. Philip, before he accepted the staff of the high shepherd; but calm my conscience: let there be no oprichnina! every kingdom divided will be desolate, according to the word of the Lord; I cannot bless you, seeing the sorrow of the fatherland.” John barely suppressed his anger and referred to the fact that they were plotting against him. Philip was persuaded to accept the rank of metropolitan, at the request of the tsar, without the condition of oprichnina. Several months passed in peace: the depraved oprichnina quieted down, fearing the desert saint. But then the disgusting spectacles of murder and debauchery began again. Entire families of princes and loyal boyars were destroyed. John and the guardsmen laughed at the groans of the innocent. The saint secretly admonished the king: John began to withdraw from the saint. The unfortunate ones went to the metropolitan, and he shared their grief with them, consoling them with the rewards of eternity. In 1568, on one Sunday, John, accompanied by many guardsmen, entered the cathedral church; the king and his squad were in black clothes and high shlykas. John approached the metropolitan, who was standing in his place, and waited for the blessing. The saint silently looked at the image of the Savior. The guardsmen said: Vladyka, sovereign before you, bless him. Looking at John, the saint said: “In this form, in this strange robe, I do not recognize the Orthodox Tsar; Who were you jealous of, taking this image and causing division between your subjects? Sir, fear the judgment of God: here we offer a bloodless sacrifice to God, and Christian blood is shed behind the altar. How many innocent sufferers! You are high on the throne: but you are also a man.” John seethed with anger; confused, he said: “Philip! Do you really think to change our will? wouldn’t it be better for you to be of the same thoughts as us?” - “Where is my faith if I remain silent?” - answered the saint. The king could not speak, but only forced them to remain silent with terrible threats. But the threats were not scary for the saint. “I am a stranger and a sojourner on earth, like all fathers, he answered quietly; I am ready to suffer for the truth." Beside himself with rage, the tsar left the church. The next day they tormented the innocent, asking for consciousness about the metropolitan's plans; then followed orgies of debauchery. On July 28 (1568), the metropolitan performed a religious procession in the Novodevichy Convent; the tsar also arrived there with The guardsmen were wearing a tafya. The saint told the king about the outrage: but the guardsman managed to hide the tafya; After a conference with the Assumption archpriest Eustathius, it was ordered to carry out an investigation in Solovki; There was one person there who did not refuse to be an instrument of evil, Abbot Paisius. The saint did not answer Paisius’s slander before the king, and only asked the king to take from him the staff, which he was not looking for. But the king wanted solemn revenge. On November 8, boyar Basmanov with a crowd of armed guardsmen entered the Assumption Cathedral, read the tsar’s decision, and the guardsmen rushed to the altar, tore off the saint’s robe, dressed him in rags and pushed him out of the church. Shackled in chains, Philip was starved for 8 days in prison, and then imprisoned in the Otroch Monastery. A year later, Ioann’s favorite Malyuta Skuratov strangled the saint in his cell. II. Spread of Christianity § 4. In Perm and in the Vyatka country The north and east still provided a vast field for the zeal of the preachers of the name of Christ. And they labored here as before. Herberstein wrote: “and now they (the monks) go to various countries lying to the north and east, enduring the greatest difficulties along the way, enduring hunger and endangering their very lives, without expecting or seeking any benefits for it; they have only one thing in mind - to please God, to convert lost souls to the path of truth and to devote them to Christ, sometimes sealing the truth of His teaching with their blood.” Through the works of St. Stefan converted little Perm with its Zyryans. But the great Perm with its various inhabitants remained still in paganism. The Vogulichs revealed their hatred of the faith even under St. Stefan; and after his death they repeatedly attacked Ust-Vym, where the bishop's see was located. Successor to St. Stephen after Isaac, Gerasim suffered martyrdom (in 1442) from a Vogulich servant, strangled with an omophorion. This was the revenge of the impotent malice of superstition for the successes of St. faith. - The monks of the Trinity Monastery, founded in 1397, 600 versts from Ust-Sysolsk to the northeast, then spread St. faith on the river Pechora to Pustozersk. In 1455, Prince Asyka with crowds of Vogulichs attacked the baptized Permians, devastated the banks of the Vychegda and, capturing the blessed shepherd Pitirim along with other prisoners, villainously tortured and killed him. Under Pitirim's successor, St. faith triumphed over deep-rooted superstitions near Cherdyn: the blessed Archpastor Jonah converted the prince of the great Perm to Christ, baptized the Permians and, in order to more firmly establish St. faith, built not only churches, but also monasteries. Since 1472, Perm came under the direct authority of the Grand Duke, and the metropolitans, with the assistance of the Grand Dukes, worked forcefully to weaken superstition in Perm. Metropolitan Simon in 1501 wrote to the Perm clergy with strict confirmation that the Permians should be instructed in life and teaching in St. faith, and he exhorted Prince Matthew of Perm and other leaders to try to eradicate the service to the fool [idol] Voipel and pagan demands. Herberstein at the same time wrote: “they (the Permians) still have many idolaters in the forests: but the monks and hermits, going to them, do not cease to convert them from delusion and superstitious service.” Famous hermit preachers were: St. Loggin and Simon, who in 1535 founded a monastery on the Koryazhma River; the latter founded another monastery on the river in 1540. Soyge, 75 versts from Solvychegodsk. Around 1575, the Monk Tryphon, a native of Mezen and a monk of the Pyskorsky Perm monastery, settled near the river. Mucha on the Ostyak consecrated place, where the trees idolized by the Ostyaks stood. In a spirit of jealousy, having cut down these trees, he preached to the Ostyaks and Voguls the true God, Whom everyone should worship. The Lord alone was his protection amid the dangers to which he was exposed among the savages: but he also founded a monastery. And on the distant shores of the North Sea, the poor Lapps heard a sermon about Christ from monks. In the middle of the 15th century, wild settlers from the north came to St. Zosima, the founder of the Solovetsky monastery, and were baptized. His monastery had possessions on the shores of the sea, and the churches peacefully subjugated the meek inhabitants to the faith. A pupil of this monastery, who dedicated himself to God from the age of 13, Theodoret settled on the Kola River for serene solitude, spent 20 years here with one elder and, having been awarded the priesthood in Novgorod, returned to Kola for the name of Christ. The elder preached about Christ with youthful fervor of zeal, taught the Lapps writing, and translated several prayers into their language. His conversation was filled with spiritual power, and several signs further strengthened its effect; and – Theodoret baptized up to 2000 Lapps at one time. At the mouth of the river Kola he built a church and monastery in the name of the Holy Trinity. The severity of his rules was the reason that the faint-hearted kicked him out of the monastery. But even in his very old age, he went from Vologda two more times to see his kind children and console them. Excited by the pious Theodoret, the Kola Laplanders themselves went to Moscow and Novgorod to ask for priests. At the same time, another ascetic, the son of a priest, young but ardent in love for the Lord, the Monk Tryphon preached Christ to the Lapps who lived on the river. Pechenga; it was even further beyond Cola, at the North Cape. - For several years, Tryphon fought with the kebunes - the sorcerers of the Lapps, endured insults, and more than once exposed his life to danger; but prepared hearts for faith. It remained to record the conversion of the idolaters of St. baptism: but, not having the priesthood, Tryphon went to Novgorod, asked Archbishop Macarius for a blessing to build a church and asked to send a priest. The church built in the name of St. Trinity remained without consecration for three years. No priest was sent. Tryphon went to Kola and found hieromonk Elijah there, who consecrated the church, baptized the catechumens of the savages, and tonsured Tryphon himself into monasticism. This was in 1533. After that, Lapps from other places came to Tryphon, and - ordained as abbot - he, with the assistance of royal gifts received (in 1558) in Moscow, expanded his monastery, built another church on the river. Paez, and spread the warmth of faith in the cold north († 1583). The Grand Dukes Vasily and John tried to help the disinterested preachers - monks - liberate the Lapps from the oppression of officials. At the request of the Lapps who lived on the river. Once upon a time, the king ordered the construction of a temple and provided it with utensils; This temple was abandoned a few years later; The abbot of the Sergius monastery, Jonah, volunteered to take this church into his care, so that the baptized Lapps, as he said, would not deviate towards paganism. Chud has been distinguished since ancient times for its sorcerers; in the 15th century, when there was not a single sacred tree left among the Russians of the north, in the Baltic Sea region, in Izhoria and Koporye, although she had known about Christ for a long time, she still went to the priests of a long-standing superstition - the Arbuis, honored stones and trees, performed pagan rituals at the birth and death of relatives, and abandoned Christian sacraments. Archbishop Macarius, after communicating with the sovereign, in 1533 sent a capable priest to the superstitions, ordered them to destroy their places of worship, and strictly confirmed his duty to the local clergy. The old people, out of habit of antiquity, watched with fear as the priest crushed trees and stones that were terrible for them. But the children turned out to be smarter than the old people: they helped the priest in his work. With the same zeal, Macarius’s successor, Theodosius, tried to exterminate superstition and admonish superstitions. § 6. Conquest of Kazan to Christianity Private conversions of the Mohammedan Tatars to Christianity continued until the middle of the 16th century. Finally, the time has come for a decisive struggle against Mohammedanism. In 1550, Russia decided to crush the Kazan kingdom; it was a war as much with the age-old enemy of the kingdom as for the freedom and success of the faith, which had suffered for centuries from the Tatars. Everyone thought so then, from the peasant to the tsar and the metropolitan. Before the campaign against Kazan, the Monk Sergius, who appeared on Mohammedan land, appointed with his blessing a place for the Christian city of Sviyazhsk. The Supreme Apostles and Saint Nicholas, in their appearances to “worthy men,” foreshadowed the victory of the cross in the Mohammedan country. The Tsar, setting out on a campaign, asked the saints to pray for him and for the army, fasted and repented, in a solemn prayer he called for help on the defenders of the Russian Church, and ordered the soldiers to be sprinkled with water blessed by their relics. Arriving at Kazan, after useless proposals for the surrender of the besieged city, the tsar decided to begin the assault on the day of the Intercession of the Mother of God; The army was given the order to clear their consciences by confession. At night, barrels of gunpowder were placed in the mines, and the troops launched an attack. The king remained to pray, listened to Matins, confessed and prepared for the communion of St. secrets When the deacon, during the liturgy, reading the Gospel, said the words: and there will be one flock and one shepherd, the thunder of the first explosion struck; when pronouncing the words of the litany: subdue every enemy and adversary under his nose, the second explosion threw the wall into the air; the battle began to boil; the king did not abandon the liturgy and received Holy Communion. secrets But as soon as he mounted his horse, news was brought to him. "Kazan is taken." The king glorified the Lord in the camp church of Sergius; he erected a cross where the royal banner with the image of the image of the Savior not made by hands stood, and ordered the construction of the church of the Savior; On October 3, the location for the Church of the Annunciation of Our Lady was indicated in the city. Then, all the streets and walls of the city are consecrated with a religious procession, and the city is dedicated to St. Trinity. The joy of the capture of the city was completed by the joy of the deliverance of 60 thousand Christians who suffered in captivity under the Mohammedans. When John was still in Kazan, says a contemporary, even then “many people came from the infidels with their wives and children, and were baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and with joyful souls went to their homes.” Among these was one Tatar from the Arsk region; Having been ill with his legs for 30 years, and through faith in Christ having received healing, he accepted Christianity with such sincerity that he courageously endured various tortures for Christ and died a martyr, as a victim of the fanaticism of his fellow tribesmen. The following year (1553) two kings Utemish-Girey and Ediger were baptized in Moscow. Ediger, already advanced in years, in response to the Metropolitan’s question: is it not fear, is it not need, is it not worldly benefit that inspires him with the idea of ​​a new faith? - answered decisively: “No! I love Jesus and I hate Mohammed." His baptism took place solemnly on the river. Moscow. A five-year-old boy, Utemish-Girey, was baptized in the Chudov Monastery and taken to the royal court to learn to read and write and the law of God. Many imitated the example of the kings. In 1555 at the council of shepherds it was decided - for the success of the faith, to open the chair of the archbishop in Kazan, with the subordination of Sviyazhsk, the mountain side, Vasil and the entire Vyatka land to him. For the establishment of churches in the newly baptized country and for the maintenance of clergy, the king made significant donations from the treasury; the same thing was made obligatory on monasteries and saints, and it was fulfilled. St. was chosen as shepherd by lot. Gury, and Archimandrites Herman and Barsanuphius were given to him as assistants. The Tsar, sending Gury to Kazan, charged him with the duty of bringing to faith with love and not against his will, the best of those baptized in the faith at his home, sending others to monasteries, not rejecting those who would resort to the cross with the consciousness of civil guilt, and interceding for the defendants. In this spirit, the memory of the High Hierarch of Kazan was written, to whom the Holy Spirit indicated even more clearly the responsibilities of the new title. In 1556, the Mohammedans of Kazan rebelled. New converts to St. took part in pacifying them. faith. Then unbaptized Tatars were forbidden to stay in Kazan, as a Christian city. Saint Gury performed his ministry in an apostolic manner. With pastoral teaching he enlightened the minds of the unfaithful, and with his holiness of life and love for the poor and the accused he softened hearts that did not know Christian love. He soon saw the need to open schools, and opened them in Kazan and Sviyazhsk, both for Christian children and for children of pagans and Mohammedans. The conversion of many thousands of Mohammedans and pagans was the fruit of the eight-year labors of St. Guria († December 4, 1563). His assistants in St. In fact, there were men with special abilities and deep piety. In his youth, Barsanuphius was a captive of the Crimean Tatars, and there he studied the Tatar language thoroughly, and there he also learned well the foundations of the Koran. Therefore, he spoke to the Tatars about Christ in the language of the Tatars, and from the Mohammedan faith itself he extracted refutations of Mohammedanism, in this way he successfully influenced even the learned defenders of Mohammedanism. St. Herman, from the noble family of the Polevs, “a man of much intelligence,” as Kurbsky says, and “pure holy life,” first labored like Gury in the Joseph Monastery, where they lovingly studied the dogmas of faith and the rules of piety, and where Herman, not following the example of others, listened to the wise Maxim. Having been the successor to the department after St. Guria, he continued the apostolic work with the same zeal (1564 - 1567). Under such workers, Christianity penetrated so deeply into the hearts of believers that martyrs also appeared among the new Christians. Stephen and Peter were tormented for a long time for St. faith by Mohammedan relatives: but they sealed the fidelity of St. faith by death. Christianity was greatly enhanced in the eyes of the proud followers of the Koran by the appearance of the miraculous Kazan Icon of the Mother of God. Her miracles, which followed one after another since 1571, involuntarily forced us to recognize the power of God in Russian Christianity, and emptiness in Islam. § 7. Conquest of Astrakhan; restoration of Christianity in the Caucasus; successes of the gospel in the Ryazan diocese In 1557, the kingdom of Astrakhan was conquered by Moscow. At the same time, one of the queens of Astrakhan and her son were baptized in Moscow. The following year, Abbot Kirill was sent to Astrakhan to build a monastery and churches. “And, says a contemporary, men and women, old men and young men, were baptized from the Crimean and Astrakhan hordes.” Hegumen Kirill taught children to read and write and the law of God. In 1573, a monastery with a church in the name of the Holy Trinity was built in the Astrakhan Kremlin, the church is holy. Nicholas and the warm Church of the Presentation of the Mother of God. For the first time, the Astrakhan and Terek regions were left under the jurisdiction of the Kazan archbishop, but not for long. The victories of the Christian kingdom over the Koran revived the love for Christianity in the Caucasus, where it was crowded by the darkness of Islamism. At the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, the Circassians, who had not yet been deprived of their freedom by either the Persians or the Turks, professed the Greek faith. In 1557, the mountain princes arrived in Moscow - almost all Mohammedans; some of them were baptized and baptized their children in Moscow, leaving the latter here to receive a Christian education. In 1559, the ambassador of the Circassian princes arrived in Moscow and asked on their behalf to send priests to them, and to protect them from the Mohammedan Khan of Taurida - a governor with an army. The tsar sent two governors - one to Circassia, the other to Kabarda, and with each - several priests. Servants of the faith partly founded new churches, partly restored ancient ones that had fallen; Many of the mountaineers were baptized, others were confirmed in the faith. Prince Dmitry Vishnevetsky, the leader of the main detachment, subsequently suffered as a martyr from the Mohammedans, and now acted as an ardent preacher of St. faith. Due to the unity of the Greek faith and their neighbors, says a contemporary foreigner, the Circassians after that considered the Tsar of Moscow their patron. In the vast Ryazan diocese, paganism was still very strong between the Meshcheryaks and the Mordovians. Under Metropolitan Photius, the residents of Mtsensk and its environs accepted the gospel. Saint Jonah, during the administration of his Ryazan diocese, worked hard to spread St. faith, and the Lord rewarded his labors with the conversion of many non-believers, which Saint Photius predicted about the young novice Jonah. § 8. a) In the south: zeal for enlightenment; schools and printing houses In the West, in the 15th and 16th centuries, a living and general desire for science was awakened; People from Greece, then suffering under the yoke of the Koran, went to universities in the West to listen to lessons. – Given the proximity of the Southwestern Orthodox Church to the West, sympathy for the movements of the West could not help but occur. Thus, some of the Orthodox nobles back in the 15th century. listened to lessons at the Krakow Academy, others in Prague and other places. In the 16th century, when papism began to take away from the Orthodox of the south the most precious treasure - the pure faith of their ancestors, the Orthodox of the south saw the need to multiply their own schools. And by the end of the 16th century, in addition to the primary schools that had existed for a long time, higher schools of science were opened in Ostrog and Slutsk. “Some princes, such as Prince Ostrog and Slutsk, have their own schools in which their schism is nourished” (Orthodoxy), wrote the Jesuit Possevin to the pope (in 1581). Moreover, the study of the Greek language was so common that in some places even the clergymen learned it and sang in Greek. In order to reproduce the folk sources of Orthodoxy - liturgical books, in order to preserve their integrity from unintentional and malicious damage, printing houses were needed. And they appeared among the Slavic tribes very soon after the invention of printing. In 1491 in Krakow, where there were then Orthodox churches, the following were published: Psalter, Book of Hours, Six Days, Triodion. In Vilna, where the see of the Russian Orthodox metropolitan was often located, in 1525 the following were published: Apostle, Psalter, Akathist, Book of Hours, Shestodnev and Saints. At the same time and soon after, church books for Orthodoxy were printed in Zabludov, Lvov, and Ostrog. The most important work was the publication of the Bible in 1581 in Ostrog by Prince Ostrog. § 9. The integrity of Orthodoxy in the fight against papism Gregory, having accepted the rank of Western metropolitan, was subjected to severe criticism for the division of the metropolis; but Photius himself never reproached him for any concession to papism. On the contrary, Gregory directly denounced the arbitrariness of the Latins in St. Eucharist. The same zeal for Orthodoxy was shown by him at the Kostnitsa Cathedral, where he went (1417), at the behest of Vytautas; at this formidable meeting of Western celebrities, John Hus, a Slav, an accuser of the pope, was burned; Gregory announced that he was ready to talk about faith; but does not intend to submit to the pope. Vytautas, according to the types of power, having accepted the Roman faith instead of the Greek, according to the same types of power, professed the Russian faith. Jagiello himself in 1432, with the help of the Russian princes, was forced to promulgate freedom of religion. His son Vladislav I in 1435 declared: “let the good will remain inviolable regarding the fatherly, hereditary faith.” The Union of Isidore (§11) served only to ensure that Vladislav (in 1441) confirmed the civil freedom of the Russians along with freedom of conscience; otherwise it would have faded away without a trace. It is clear that the Lithuanian prince, even less than the Polish king, could touch the conscience of the Russians. Within the southern metropolis, the pope owned the inhabitants of only two current provinces (Vilna and Kovno), and not all of them; and 10 other provinces belonged to Orthodoxy. Such a huge number of Russians in itself forced us not to touch the conscience of Russians. This is what Vytautas’ successors did, until the weak Alexander. Grand Duke Casimir could not leave Vilna to be crowned the Piasts in Krakow before he took an oath to preserve inviolable all civil and ecclesiastical rights of Lithuania. The spirit of evangelical love founded brotherhoods between Orthodox Christians in 1439 in Lvov, and in 1458 in Vilna. These brotherhoods, like the trustees of churches and monasteries, after pastors, vigorously maintained the integrity and well-being of Orthodoxy. At the end of the 15th and early 16th centuries, Orthodoxy was persecuted in Lithuania. The weak Grand Duke Alexander allowed fanatics to forcefully convert Orthodox Christians to the Latin rite, forbade Orthodoxy to build churches, and multiplied churches in Russian cities; the conscience of his wife, Orthodox Elena, was oppressed and insulted. The Vilna bishop Adalbert asked the pope for the right to the sword against heretics, including “against the Rusyns.” The weapons of the Moscow prince forced the pope and Alexander to take a step back from their demands. Metropolitan Joseph began to be pestered about the union. He turned to the patriarch. He sent him a smart answer: “There is an easy excuse for your love; you will say that without the will of the Patriarch of Constantinople you cannot do anything.” Joseph did just that. Princes Rurikovich and Gediminovich, oppressed for Orthodoxy, left Lithuania and went over to the Moscow prince. Alexander paid Moscow with eastern possessions along the Dnieper for relaxing fanaticism. King Sigismund more than once (1509, 1511 and 1522) confirmed the freedom of Orthodoxy. The metropolitans who succeeded Joseph, and especially Jonah II (1519–1525), jealously guarded Orthodoxy. Campenzee wrote in 1525: “Russia, which is under the rule of the Polish king, as well as Lvov, and the entire part of Poland, extending to the north and northeast of the Sarmatian mountains (Dnieper and Podolia), unshakably adheres to Greek law and recognizes the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over itself.” Irritated by the failures in Lithuania, the prelates succeeded in the fact that in Galicia Sigismund gave the Latin Archbishop of Lvov the right to determine the metropolitan governor, in order, as the Orthodox wrote, “in order to quickly force us to accept the Latin faith.” But this attempt also failed. With great labor and donations, the Orthodox freed themselves from the Latin yoke, and even asked for a special bishop. Thus, in the half of the 16th century, in Vilna itself, the capital of Lithuania, there were many more Orthodox Churches than Roman churches. We are not talking about Russian surnames; the Lithuanian surnames of Sangushek, Korivutovich, 3Barazhsky, Oginsky, Sapega, Kyrdeev, Tyshkevich, etc. belonged to Orthodoxy, not to the pope. The Poles themselves, who settled in Russian cities, accepted the Greek confession. The power of the pope began to extend to the Russians in the Lithuanian metropolis not before 1569, when Lithuania united with Poland. At the beginning of the 16th century, the Latin clergy barely managed to seat one bishop in the Grand Ducal Rada; in the middle of the 16th century it already had four biscups there. After the union of Lithuania with Poland, the preponderance of power in Lithuania, along with the Polish magnates, passed to the side of the pope, although Sigismund Augustus gave the Orthodox privileges that equalized their rights with the papists. Batory did not like to share power with anyone, and even less with the priests; but he had the imprudence to allow the Jesuits, who had been based in Poland since 1566, into Lithuania, and his policy towards the Russians was not very truthful. The Jesuits, with his favor towards them, spread their nets with amazing dexterity. Having opened colleges in Volhynia, Vilna and Polotsk, they penetrated the houses of noble people, seduced the short-sighted with the brilliance of their education, which, however, was always lifeless and fruitless, and captured the minds of the weak. Thus Possevin (in 1581) wrote that “some of the Russian princes of the kingdom were converted to the Catholic faith.” Then the hot struggle between Orthodoxy and papism began. The work of the Ostrog presbyter Vasily, about the one true faith and the Church, published by the pious prince of Ostrog, served as an excellent response to papism: here, with a deep knowledge of the faith and history of the Church, the arbitrariness of Rome was exposed. Prince Kurbsky sent out letters in which he exposed the machinations of the Jesuits and supported zeal for the ancient faith of the Orthodox. He tried to disseminate Greek writings against papism. He was delighted when he received from Athos in translation the works of Gregory and Nil, Metropolitans of Thessalonica, and hurried to share them with others. The works of blessed Nile were truly worth admiring; this is work worthy of the times of Chrysostom. § 10. Attitudes to the Reformation The despotism of the pope and the gross self-will of the Roman Church provoked an uprising of the West, which, unfortunately, was no more just in its demands than the pope himself. The Slavs, once all the sons of Orthodoxy, but subjugated by sword and fire to the pope, were more likely than anyone else to rebel against the pope. Hus was burned in Bohemia a hundred years before Luther appeared for his courageous struggle with the pope. But not everyone could be burned by dad. The strict measures of Sigismund I (1511–1548) in favor of the pope did not help the pope in Poland; the reform appeared here in such force that Sigismund was forced to fear for himself. From Poland, Poznan and Livonia, the reform spread to the Lithuanian Church. Sigismund Augustus, both when he was a Lithuanian prince and when he ascended the Polish throne, patronized the novelties of the West, and was even ready to enter into an alliance with the new faith, just to marry with a living wife. Most of all, the reform in Lithuania was spread by the Lithuanian chancellor, Prince Nikolai Radzivil the Black, who owned many estates in Lithuania. Thus, Hussites, Lutherans and Calvinists under Sigismund Augustus opened churches in Volhynia, Belarus and Lithuania. At the same time, anti-Trinitarians appeared in the Polish kingdom, and were accosted by Theodosius Kosoy and Ignatius, who had fled from Moscow. Having established themselves in Krakow, the Socinians found followers among the most Calvinist and Lutheran pastors. Simon Budny preached their blasphemous thoughts, verbally and in writing. Among the same was Motovilo, who, like Socinus, spewed blasphemies against Arius against the Son of God, but together taught that with the second coming of Christ the thousand-year kingdom of sensual pleasures would open. All these sectarians found followers almost exclusively in Poles, Lithuanians and Germans wandering around the kingdom. Among the Russians, only a few nobles accepted Calvinism, and especially those who, out of worldly appearances, accepted papism; others were amused by the sectarians’ harsh comments about papism and put up with dissidents, actually out of displeasure against papism, which offended everyone. And the people firmly held to St. faith of their ancestors: Tsikhovsky writes that while “hardly a thousandth of the Roman Catholics remained from the former, the Rusyns vigilantly guard their shrine.” Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich, according to the opinion of Polish historians, did not allow the Orthodox to be deceived by the suggestions of the followers of the reform. Prince Kurbsky actively pursued all of Luther's offspring. His clever letters, breathing with jealousy, passed from hand to hand, and he managed to warn the unwary against temptation. Just as truth, he wrote, is true to itself in everything, so falsehood introduces differences of opinion, discord, and schisms—and such is Luther’s Reformation. One of the strong measures to protect Orthodoxy against the audacity of freethinking was then recognized as the dissemination of paternal works in translation. Kurbsky took great care to form a society of translators. Gray-haired, he spent several years studying Latin; bought the works of the fathers, translated from the Latin works of Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John of Damascus. This is how it was with the Russians in the southern metropolis. § 11. b) In the north; triumph over papism under Isidore and St. Jonah In the northern metropolis, the Russian Church, protected by the power of the great princes, and the even more ancient simplicity of faith, calmly repelled the attacks of the pope. The most dangerous attempt on her freedom was under the false shepherd Isidore. The Greek Empire was then in extreme danger. It was already contained almost within the walls of the capital. But the Ottomans were ready to crush it within the walls of the capital. Emperor John Palaiologos decided to buy Western help at the cost of uniting Orthodoxy with papism. The extremity of the situation and his relationship with Grand Duke Vasily inspired him with the idea of ​​annexing Russia to this union. It was in these thoughts that Isidore was elected and ordained to the see of the All-Russian Metropolis. The emperor knew Isidore, knew that he was exactly what Palaeologus needed at that time. Isidore, at the Council of Basel, in an act that was to be delivered to Constantinople, allowed the Greek faith to be called the “old heresy.” The new metropolitan hastily set off for Russia with the emperor’s ambassador to incite the Russian princes to the cause of unification. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich was not inclined to interfere in an enterprise that was offensive to conscience and useless for politics. He firmly knew the lessons of the fathers about the willful arrogance of the pope, long condemned by the Councils, and understood that good could not be expected from this pride. Therefore, he convinced Isidore to abandon his intention to go to Florence. Isidore remained with his own, but the Grand Duke did not let the ambassador go with him to the Council - he even took an oath from him to return with ancient Orthodoxy. Having convinced the Tver prince to release the ambassador to the west, Isidore had barely left Russia with the Greek and Russian retinue and the Suzdal bishop Avramius, when in Dorpat he openly preferred Latin over the Greek confession. At the Council, Isidore was chosen to answer on the part of the Greeks, along with five other persons. Throughout the continuation of the debate in Ferrara, they were engaged in resolving one question: “Did the Latins have the right to add to the creed an addition about the origin of the Holy Spirit and from the Son?” During all this time, Isidore said almost nothing. They reasoned: Vissarion, and most of all Mark of Ephesus, an ardent defender of Orthodoxy. In Florence, where the pope moved the Council according to his views, they began to talk about the very origin of the Holy Spirit. Over the course of 7 meetings, no more than three passages from the father’s works were considered. Then the emperor demanded that public disputes be stopped, and Blessed Mark was forbidden to attend meetings. After this, the cause of Orthodoxy remained only in the will of the emperor, Vissarion and Isidore. Vissarion acted with eloquence, Isidore with cunning. Now Isidore proposed that the Orthodox Church admits the idea of ​​the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, and that this is the same as the Romans “and from the Son.” To add momentum to his thoughts, he either proposed to the patriarch to excommunicate the defenders of Orthodoxy from the Church, or won over to his side with feasts, while the pope was starving the Greeks; the bishops were driven to extremes. The Pope, against the agreement, refused to support them. Such measures brought matters to the point that they announced the consent of the Greeks to the confession of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Patriarch Joseph died (June 8). After that, other controversial points were soon resolved: about the addition of the Symbol, about unleavened bread, about purgatory, about the power of the pope. Others even then did not want to sign the definition of union, including Avramius of Suzdal: but they were forced to do so by force. Others had already left Florence. The Pope, signing the definition, asked: did Ephesus sign? They told him: no. So we didn't do anything! – said Evgeniy. Nevertheless, in July the union of the Churches was celebrated magnificently. The Pope proposed Isidore as Joseph's successor; but the Greeks rejected it, and Isidore was called “legate from the side of the apostle in the lands of Livonian, Lithuanian and Russian.” Returning to the flock, Isidore sent (from Budin, March 5, 1441) an appeal to the old and new flock. Announcing the union of the Churches, he called on Christians of both confessions to go to Greek and Latin churches without any difference, to partake of the Eucharist from Greek and Latin priests. In Moscow they were already grumbling about Isidore when he was not yet in Moscow. When (1441) during his first service they heard: “First remember, Lord, the Pope of Rome,” the Grand Duke, despite the fact that Eugene sent him a respectful letter, in the church itself convicted Isidore of violating his oath and betraying Orthodoxy. Following this, Isidore, pending the decision of the council, was taken into custody. The assembled bishops rejected the definition of an imaginary ecumenical council; they urged Isidore to abandon the union; but he (1442) secretly fled to Tver, where Prince Boris also locked him in prison, and then gave him freedom to go wherever he wanted. Isidore retired to Lithuania to the Grand Duke Casimir; but feeling that he was disgraced for all Russians, he retired to Rome. Meanwhile, Saint Jonah was elected (1443) to the metropolitan position in the north, and then (in 1451) recognized in the south, where, due to the voice of Moscow, they also did not want to hear about union. In Rome, according to the wishes of Isidore, Gregory the Bulgar in 1452 was named successor to Isidore; Patriarch Gregory Mamma, expelled from Constantinople for the union, ordained him as a metropolitan, and Pope Pius II (in 1458) sent with him a letter to Prince Casimir, in which he gave a threatening order to catch and shackle the wicked apostate Jonah. How the Lord puts to shame human vanity! The Pope calls Jonah wicked, and the Lord had already glorified him with the gift of miracles; the pope calls the defender of Orthodoxy an apostate, but the Lord listened to him as a dear shepherd - a messenger. The Polish king, wanting to please the pope, asked the Grand Duke to accept Gregory instead of Jonah; but Vasily Vasilyevich even before that wrote to the king: “We will not have a metropolitan from Rome.” The Lithuanian bishops themselves informed the saint about the bitter appointment of the false shepherd for them, and the Council of Northern Bishops, having sworn an oath not to accept Gregory, sent a circular message to the Orthodox of Lithuania - not to listen to the Roman Metropolitan. Saint Jonah sent two abbots from himself to Lithuania with similar admonitions, and warned the flock in Novgorod, Smolensk and Chernigov with letters. The saint's labors for Orthodoxy were crowned with success; the integrity of Orthodoxy has been preserved. § 12. The fight against Judaizers until 1491 All attempts by the pope on the freedom of Northern Orthodoxy remained without harm to St. Orthodoxy: in Russia they looked at them calmly, as the plans of long-known passions. But this was not the heresy of the Judaizers for the Russian Church! The new heresy, which began and continued its work secretly, had quite a success over the hearts of the Russians, although not for long. The beginning of this heresy was laid in Novgorod by the Jew Skhariya, who came here with the Kyiv prince Michael (in 1470). Well acquainted with the natural sciences, then known under the guise of seductive alchemy, familiar with cabalistics, Skhariya seduced several wonders of magic and managed to seduce them into evil. Two priests - Dionysius and Alexei, deceived by Skaria, and four Jews who had newly arrived from the south, spread the infection of false teaching; Sofia Archpriest Gabriel joined the ranks of many infected. Grand Duke John, not knowing their thoughts, transferred the two leaders of the society - Dionysius and Alexei - to Moscow (1480) - Alexei to the Assumption Cathedral, Dionysius to the court church of the Archangel Michael. Here, as in Novgorod, acting secretly, they soon found listeners even at court; This was the clerk of the Grand Duke Feodor Kuritsyn. Metropolitan Gerontius, on the occasion of a dispute about the rite of consecration of the church (§ 23), was then subjected to the wrath of the Grand Duke for quite a long time; this contributed to the new teachers enjoying attention at court, to the detriment of the truth. The members of the secret society were revealed for the first time by the Novgorod archpastor, the active, strict, fiery Gennady, soon after arriving at the flock. The four, drunkenly reproaching each other for secret affairs, discovered the existence of a suspicious society. Gennady, upon inquiry, immediately reported this to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. The prince ordered measures to be taken to prevent evil from spreading. Gennady began the search. But four, taken on bail, fled to Moscow. Gennady sent a report there. The Metropolitan and the Grand Duke (in February 1488) recognized three fugitives as worthy of excommunication and civil execution, and the fourth was declared free from trial, since there was only one witness against him; yet returned to their shepherd for admonition and further investigation; Moreover, it was ordered to send the unrepentant to a civil court. It was difficult for Gennady to bring the matter to an accurate knowledge: the heretics with an oath renounced their own words. But with the help of civil authorities, evidence was selected that was confirmed by the signatures of the perpetrators and witnesses themselves. Liturgical notebooks of heretics and Paschalia compiled according to the Jewish calendar have been found. Especially much was revealed by the priest Naum, who previously himself belonged to a secret society. Gennady accepted the heretics, who sincerely confessed their error, to church repentance; handed over the rest to the civilian authorities. Gennady forwarded a detailed report, with testimony attached, to the Metropolitan and awaited orders, especially since some Moscow members were also targeted. But this performance of Gennady no longer had the same effect as the previous one. Metropolitan Gerontius died soon (May 28, 1489); clerk Kuritsyn returned from Hungary, where he was ambassador, and took the society under protection. Gennady was not invited to the general affairs of the Church. The Novgorod heretics, hearing that their case in Moscow remained motionless and that their accomplices were living peacefully, fled to Moscow. Here, under the protection of Kuritsyn, even banned priests performed services; and Dionysius went so far as to blaspheme St. cross in the church. The unrest grew all the more freely because, after the death of Gerontius, his department remained idle for a year and a half (until September (1490)). Gennady did not remain inactive. He sent a list of previous reports to the Sarsk Bishop Prokhor, who ruled the metropolis; asked by a message from two other bishops: Niphon of Suzdal and Philotheus of Perm, to turn pastoral care to the matter of heretics; He also described to them the new audacity of the heretics. When a new metropolitan was elected, Gennady, although dissatisfied with some of Zosima's demands, urgently asked Zosima to bring the heretics to conciliar condemnation. Gennady did not know then that Zosima himself was a secret member of the society and that he was elected through the machinations of its members. But Zosima, even if he wanted to, could not then postpone the matter of heretics. The bishops who were at his installation had Gennady’s report in their hands; and the new metropolitan was challenged by the news of his rank to show zeal worthy of the rank. Moreover, the judgment of God in the eyes of everyone punished the members of the wicked society. The cathedral opened (October 17, 1490). Based on the investigations presented by Gennady, up to 9 people of clergy were cursed, the Grand Duke sent some to Novgorod to Gennady, others were sent to prison. Gennady betrayed heresy to public shame: heretics were led through the streets in birch bark helmets, with bast tassels, with crowns of straw and with the inscription: Behold, Satan’s army. The cathedral court of 1490 did not fall on all members of the secret society. And the opinions of the century provided food for his insolence. Then, at the end of seven thousand years (according to the Greek account), Russia was waiting for the second coming of Christ. The fateful year of 1492 passed, and heretics began to mock not only the simple-minded, but also the holy faith. “If Christ is the Messiah,” they said, “why does He not appear in glory, as you expected?” They also laughed at the resurrection of the dead. Heresy began to grow among the people; simple hearts were embarrassed by her blasphemies. Metropolitan Zosima gave free rein to evil and even punished bold denouncers of wickedness. In defense of the humiliated faith, St. Gennady invited St. Joseph, abbot of Volokolamsk, then famous for his exploits. Gennady and Joseph, despite the strength of the heretics at court, rebelled against heresy with firmness. Familiar with St. Using the Scriptures and the writings of the fathers, Joseph began by writing the initial history of the heretics before 1492, and then from time to time he communicated strict reproofs of their error. He begged the friend of his youth, the respected shepherd of Suzdal, Nifont, to expose the unworthy metropolitan without fear, to cut off all communication with him, to instill in others not to accept blessings from him, to disgrace the faith he humiliated. And Zosima (May 17, 1494) laid aside his omophorion. The strong clerk Kuritsyn remained. Under his protection, the heretics found refuge with Archimandrite Cassian of Yuryev, for whom the clerk asked for rank from the Grand Duke. The blasphemy against the shrine here reached the point of disgusting shamelessness. The Novgorod shepherd sent out translations of works against Judaism - the works of the translator Demetrius. Joseph appeared personally to the sovereign and asked to make a new study of the heretics. The Grand Duke gave his word to fulfill the request, and repented that he had acted weakly with the heretics. “Isn’t it a sin to execute heretics?” added the Grand Duke. Joseph cited the words of the Apostle about the wrath of the ancient law on criminals and the wrath of God on those who reject the law of grace. The prince said: enough! “However, the matter remained the same for another year. Joseph asked the sovereign's confessor to remind the sovereign of this word in a letter. In June 1504, Gennady was forced to resign from the department. Finally, in December of the same year, a council on heretics was opened, in the presence of the heir to the throne, Vasily Ioannovich. Evidence against those accused of heresy was examined. The decision of the Grand Duke was to burn some, deprive others of their tongues and send them to prison, and send most of them to monasteries. The heretics, stubborn before the trial and during the council trial, having learned about the decision of the Grand Duke, hastened to repent: but the decision, based “on the city law” of the Greek empire, was carried out. And the Church decided to pronounce a curse on the Judaizers on the week of Orthodoxy. Some, freed from execution by hypocritical repentance, remained with false thoughts, and the death sentence for heretics aroused complaints against them for a long time. However, they no longer dared to openly spread heresy. § 14. The teaching of the Judaizers and the denunciation of the teaching by the Monk Joseph The very history of the heresy of the Judaizers shows that the name: Judaizers, far from expresses the content of the very teaching of the Judaizers. That so many years and so many people, clergy and secular people, could be blinded by Jewish superstitions alone, is beyond the bounds of probability. It is also incredible that the Grand Duke, who fought with the Prince of Lithuania for the oppression of Orthodoxy by papism, allowed Judaism to grow for so long in the state, in the capital, in his family. Gennady and Joseph, although they called the heretics Judaizers, directly said that in their teaching “there is more than one Judaism, that they hold Christian heresies, similar to ancient, long-known heresies.” Thus, the most correct presentation of the teachings of the Judaizers must be recognized as that which was compiled, most likely, at the council itself in 1490. According to the conciliar inquiry, the Judaizers 1) rejected the incarnation of the Son of God: “How can, they said, God come to earth and be born of a Virgin like a man?” Christ Jesus was nothing more than a prophet like Moses, and not equal to God and the Father. 2) They did not believe in the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead. 3) They did not honor St. icons, nor St. saints of God. 4) They did not recognize St. Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus and looked at it as the simplest rite. 5) They adhered to the Old Testament more than the new, celebrating Passover in the Jewish way (according to the Jewish calendar). 6) They did not observe fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, “and other inappropriate heretical deeds.” We see exactly the same teaching of the Judaizers in the Illuminator Joseph, in the epistles of Gennady, with the addition that in the Illuminator we find an explanation of the last point - it is shown here that the heretics rejected monasticism. It is clear in itself that not all Judaizers could understand and express in the same way what their teachers instilled in them; others could deviate from some rituals of Judaism, abandoning Christian ones; between their leaders themselves, as in any heresy, there could not be complete agreement. Thus, the Grand Duke, in a sincere conversation with the Monk Joseph, says that he knew “which heresy was held by Archpriest Alexei and which was held by Theodore Kuritsyn.” The appearance of such an anti-Christian heresy in its depths was painful for the Russian Church. But it is very gratifying, extremely comforting, that at the same time there was such a teacher of pure faith in the Lord Jesus as St. Joseph of Volokolamsk. Without spiritual joy it is impossible to read the intelligent, thorough, in places profound, always breathing living piety, the Illuminator Joseph. This work is the beauty of the Russian Church, especially when we remember that it belongs to the 15th century. The content of the Illuminator is as follows: 1) The Word about St. Trinity; 2) about the coming of the Messiah in the person of Jesus Christ; 3) about the meaning of the Law of Moses; 4) about the reasons for the incarnation of the Son of God; 5), 6), 7) about the veneration of icons, 8), 9) and 10) about the second coming of the Son of God; 11) about monasticism; 12 – 16) about how to deal with heretics. With 1 word - the same content of Joseph's letter to Archimandrite Vassian. § 15. The sad state of enlightenment The victories that Orthodoxy won over its enemies in this period constitute the strangest aspect of this period in relation to the knowledge of the faith. But having an aversion to everything non-Orthodox may not mean deep knowledge of the inner life of Orthodoxy in everyone. Concern directed towards heresies diverted attention from the internal situation of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox; and political happiness, unfortunately, filled most people with a strange arrogance, which considered everything they had to be exemplary, and considered the disorders of their ignorance as small things. At the beginning of this period we still see schools for primary education, which were under the direction of a priest or deacon. The orphan Ivanets, later Jonah (since 1459), the saint of Novgorod, studied in one of these. “There were many children studying in that school,” says the biography; here blessed Mikhail Klopsky said to the future Jonah: “Ivanets, learn to read and write; May you be an archbishop in Great Novgorod.” And the council of 1551 said that “in former times in Moscow, in Novgorod; and in other cities there were many schools where they learned to read, read, write and sing.” This was not the case with St. Gennady, Novgorod archpastor (1485–1504). A sad picture of his modern enlightenment! “Here,” he writes, they bring a man to me; I order him to read the Apostle, but he doesn’t know how to step; I order to give him the Psalter, but he can barely walk through it. I refuse him, and there are complaints against me: the land, sir, is like this; We can’t find anyone who can read and write. So he cursed the whole earth, as if there was no person on earth who could be appointed to the priesthood. They hit me with their forehead: perhaps, sir, tell me to teach. I order him to teach ectenia, but he can’t even stick to a word; you tell him this, and he says something else. I order them to learn the alphabet, and after learning the alphabet a little, they ask to leave, they don’t want to learn it. But I don’t have the spirit to appoint ignoramuses as priests. Ignorant men teach children to read and write; and only spoil; Meanwhile, for the teaching of Vespers, bring the master porridge and a hryvnia of money, for Matins the same, or more; especially for hours... But he leaves the master and doesn’t know how to do anything - he can barely wander through the book; but he doesn’t know the church order at all.” This is how Church teachers were prepared for the priesthood! This was the knowledge of the future mentors of the people! Now understand the mental anguish of the saints of that time; understand the deep sorrow that Saint Theodosius could not bear, and refused the dignity, and Gennady added with sorrow for the ignorant proteges; Will they be Orthodox? that is, from his experience with the Judaizers (§ 12) he saw that ignorance is food for heresy, since the self-will of dark thoughts from the darkness itself becomes stubborn and unbridled. St. Gennady first begged the Grand Duke, then he begged the Metropolitan, that schools be established under the supervision of the authorities. And what kind of schools Gennady wanted! His desires were too moderate, since there was nothing small. “My advice,” he wrote, about what to teach is this: first let the alphabet with edges be interpreted, then the subtitle; then memorize firmly the Psalter with instructions; when he learns this, (the student) can canonarch and read any book.” That's the whole course of teaching the best! It is not evident that even after the bitter complaints of St. Gennady did a lot to educate the white clergy! It is not at all a pity that, by the special providence of God, the Russian Church did not even at that time see soulless dialectic disputes between its pupils, abstracted by metaphysical dreams. Russians valued the simplicity of faith. But what conscience did not demand under the yoke of the wild Tatars, that is, a distinct belief, it could not help but demand, even from the majority, during civil freedom; especially for shepherds, a clear belief became all the more necessary because, due to changed circumstances, many were already beginning to be dissatisfied with the simplicity of faith and morals. Many of the Russian princes and boyars even at that time did not know how to write: but there were already some of them who received their education abroad. And spiritual education did not have the previous means. In the half of the 16th century, the situation of spiritual enlightenment was especially pitiful. The Council of 1551 said with sorrow: “the fathers and masters (of the proteges) themselves know little, and they do not know the power in the Divine Scripture, and they have nowhere to learn.” And therefore he convincingly asked the sovereign to start schools. And then “there were young people with a thirst for science, with desires to know St. Scripture." But at the same time, there were “those who dreamed of being teachers” who looked at enlightenment as a heresy - at reading books as a path to mental insanity. “What a misfortune,” Prince Kurbsky exclaims to the honor of the Russian Church; “They take away weapons that could be used to expose heretics and correct others, and they call medicine a deadly poison!” Around 1555, initial schools were established at some churches, and even a Latin language school was opened; but the latter was soon closed. Meanwhile, the Tsar had previously summoned foreign theologians to Russia along with various educated people: but the success did not correspond to the intention, on the part of the people - according to human passions, on the part of Providence - to protect the Church from the Western excitement of thoughts. Thus, as before, only humble monasteries shed spiritual light throughout Russia; in them, as before, living experience explained to the soul the secrets of faith and piety, and it also made one feel the superiority of pure faith; the example of holy life shed light and life from them into modern times. Christian experience made us feel the need for light for ourselves and others. St. Gury, the one who later founded schools for the advancement of faith among the Mohammedans (§ 6), even in his youth loved education; a poor nobleman who served a rich prince, he was thrown by the prince into a deep hole, where three days later they threw him a sheaf of oats; someone volunteered to bring him bread, but he asked for paper and ink to be delivered to him; wrote books for children, and gave them to sell, and distributed the price to the poor. Almost all the works of the fathers in Slavic translation were already stored in the monastery libraries. Moreover, in some monasteries primary education was taught to children. § 16. Lack of living preaching: superstition and seeds of schism During this period, after the teachings of Metropolitan Photius, we do not see a single experience of living church preaching in the north. “They never preach sermons,” said a contemporary eyewitness. Little by little, even the certainty arose that living preaching was the preaching of heresy. “They have no preachers; they think that by doing so they avoid differences of opinion and heresies,” said another foreigner. Instead, it was considered sufficient to read the statutory readings from the ancient teachers. Statutory readings, without a doubt, are useful, both in content and in the fact that they established firmness in the thoughts and lives of the people. But without a living sermon, those who could not read, of which there were too many at that time, could not free themselves from ignorance or superstition; teachings written for ancient times and for another country could not resolve all the doubts of modern times and the Russian land. The best felt the lack of living instructions at that time and tried to make up for it with forms of teachings for private cases of life. But you cannot write as many forms as there may be spiritual needs. Given the lack of living instruction, what prayers they knew were known literally, and not in meaning; listened to or read songs, prayers, words just to fulfill the charter; they valued the letters, losing sight of their spirit. Instead of studying the instructions of the holy faith, assimilating them through reflection and feeling, during the Stoglavnik they learned to tell fortunes by the stars, by palms, to look through the “Aristotelian Gates” and “Ravens,” and to distinguish between dark days. – Also – science! The superstitions of paganism and ignorance, blasphemous sacrilege reached extremes among the people, and were so common that they also infected the rural clergy. Thus, the seeds of a split were already being sown. With a lack of enlightenment and living instruction in the faith, the further they went, the more they got used to the collections of the old - they sanctified them as a ritual, did not distinguish good from better, true from doubtful, truth from error or from the mistakes of the scribe; they were already beginning to say: everything old is sacred. All that remained was for some mistakes to grow old, for others to multiply, for false beliefs to grow stronger, so that a schism would open. In such a sad state of times, Maxim the Greek arrived in Russia. A native Albanian, he, after home education, studied in Paris, Florence and Venice; I attended courses in literature, history, philosophy and theology there; knew many languages ​​and partly Church Slavonic, which he learned well in Russia; On Athos he spent several years in the exploits of monasticism. With such knowledge, Maxim passionately loved the truth and did not tolerate superstition. From here everyone will understand that his life in Russia could then be nothing other than a struggle against ignorance. The Grand Duke summoned him to sort through the princely library of Greek books, which was then inaccessible to anyone in our country, so that the best could be translated into the Slavic language. Maxim decided for the first time to translate the Commentary into the Psalter. Then he found in the library a Commentary on the Book of Acts, and also translated it. His best work was for St. The Scriptures were a translation of Chrysostom's interpretations of the Gospels of Matthew and John. This choice of translation subjects itself showed how correctly Maxim understood faith and what a believer needs most. A sincere shepherd in the faith, such as Metropolitan Varlaam (1511–1521), enthusiastically approved at the council Maxim’s first work - an interpretation of the Psalter. Metropolitan Daniel (1522–1539), although he wanted to see the exemplary work of Chrysostom in the translation, but when the translation was completed, he received it coldly; he was already dissatisfied with Maxim. He strongly desired to see the story of Theodoret translated; the enlightened Maxim in vain told him that such work was untimely and would harm simplicity: Daniel remained in strong indignation at Maxim. There was another subject of dispute, more important. Daniel was one of Joseph's monks. And Maxim’s student, Prince Kurbsky, wrote that some of the Kirilov and Joseph monks “speaked blasphemously about the conciliar epistles of the apostles,” as if “they were written by elders or church elders, and not by the apostles,” and that it was as if the title “apostolic” was given to them only for honor. Such a subject was so important that Maxim could not remain silent about it in front of Daniel. He said: “The commandment of God imposed on us the need to preach loudly to those who ask about the gospel and apostolic truth.” And therefore he wrote interpretations of several sayings of St. Scriptures with a refutation of false opinions about their meaning. § 18. His struggle with respect for forged and corrupted works Prince Kurbsky wrote with sorrow: “the imaginary teachers of the present century, sin for our sakes, are more often engaged in Bulgarian fables, or more precisely, women’s nonsense, than enjoying the understanding of great teachers.” And in the previous period there was enough among the Russians of what Kurbsky calls Bulgarian fables! By the time of Maximus, the number of fabulous tales was increasing. They were written off, both knowing and not knowing the holy prohibition. Cyprian. During the period of the primitive Russian Church, Izborniki were written, that is, selected, the best passages from the ancient teachers; in the century of Stoglav, they had already forgotten the word “izbornik”, and they wrote only collections, that is, a collection of everything that came to hand, true and false, useful and empty, saving and harmful. Maxim rebelled against the monstrous collections of the old - not by prohibiting, but by showing the absurdities and errors in the collections. 1. His Tale of Judas the Traitor concludes a strict and thorough analysis of Papi's narrative about Judas, who allegedly lived for a long time after committing the betrayal. 2. An accusatory word to the false writings of Aphroditian the Persian, which the simplicity of that time read and rewrote, consoled with childish good nature by the inventions of Aphroditian. Maxim showed that this work is an absurd mixture of pagan beliefs with Christianity, Greek gods with sacred objects, a lie from beginning to end. 3. The legend against those who say that Christ was placed in the priesthood briefly and intelligently refutes the story of Epiphanius' legend about the Mother of God, and this legend was found in almost every Slavic collection. 2. The legend about those who say that the sun will not set during the whole bright week is written against the work found in Slavic manuscripts even of the 14th century. Having exposed the superstitious absurdity of the story, Maxim says: “Didn’t I rightly say at the beginning that it is a great evil not to know the divine scriptures (the Bible); not test them carefully and judiciously? If only the strange sages of our last times knew this; If they had tested the apostolic and evangelical writings with soundness and prudence, they would not have agreed so quickly with every ignorant and untestified scripture.” There is no doubt that Maxim spoke even more verbally about Slavic collections, although they shouted about him that he was spoiling books. There was a lot to talk about. The ignorance of Stoglav's time, having lost the ability to talk about the needs of the soul, and even ceasing to believe in this ability, believed that others were incapable of this, and hence the instructions, the words of Russian teachers, every Russian or Bulgarian thought was given out only with the name of Chrysostom, then Basil the Great, then Theodoret and Meletius. An example of this is the words of Cyril, Saint of Turov and Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir, who in manuscripts of the 16th century are known with the name of either Chrysostom or Basil the Great. If necessary, they could exhibit up to a hundred Russian works, with the names of the great fathers of Greece, or with a vague, but honorable title: the teachings of St. fathers In exactly the same way, with the name of Theodoret and Meletius, the meager legends of some poor icon painter about the folding of fingers for the sign of the cross appeared - legends that Greece had never seen or known, but which simplicity wrote and rewrote reverently, and daring ignorance was ready to defend noisily. Note: That the “Tale of Meletius” and “The Word of Theodoret on the Cross” do not belong to Meletius and Blessed Theodoret, this must be classified as a settled matter: neither one nor the other is found in any Greek manuscript, neither in the east nor in the west; this was determined by reference to all known catalogs of Greek manuscripts. By their very nature, these are Russian or Bulgarian articles; in all likelihood, they came from the icon painter’s workshop. The icon painter needed a rule on how to paint a praying and blessing hand. Where can I get the rule? The story of the lives of Meletius came to his mind; he began to analyze this legend and, as he understood it, he wrote “The Legend of Meletius” in his manual; Fortunately for him, he had to change a little in the legend about Meletius in order to compose the “Tale of Meletius.” Since Theodoret narrates about the denunciation of Meletius to the Arians with the sign of the finger, which we also learned from the Lives: then the book icon painter, in accordance with how he understood the legend about Meletius, wrote the Word of St. Theodorit how to bless and be baptized. This unfortunate word was subsequently subjected to torture. First, to the end of it, according to the thought with which the clerk wrote the rule about the formation of the finger in Stoglav, they added a curse; then they put this curse, for greater importance, at the beginning of the word. Thus, three types of lists of the imaginary word of Theodorit were compiled - different in content. For samples, see the book. The Truth of the Holy Solovetsky Monastery. (St. Petersburg 1844, pp. 87–94) § 19. State of liturgical books If in thick collections of lives and teachings Maxim found Bulgarian fables (§ 18): then not the best could be found in the books of the liturgical books themselves. And during the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, damage to books was already noticed; his successor, Saint Photius, took special measures to preserve the correct order of worship in churches and to limit the damage to books. In 1416, he wrote a letter to Pskov with lengthy instructions on various points of the church charter and denounced deviations from it. In 1419, he again wrote a letter there on the same subject. In 1430, with a new letter, he denounced obvious deviations from the Orthodox order of the sacraments and considered it necessary to send to him a capable priest, to whom he would teach instructions “about church rules, about church singing and about St. services." Saint Photius, no doubt, even more than Cyprian, had to see the defects and differences in the Slavic books, since under Cyprian the Serb, Serbian customs could enter the Russian Church, just as under Cyprian’s predecessors, Russian ones. After Blessed Photius, we no longer had Greek metropolitans, but books multiplied. And this was the new, most powerful reason for the formation of strange opinions among the people and the church ranks. Previously, Greek shepherds with their name stopped trust in one or another difference in rank, and it lost power among the people. But then, since neither the shepherds themselves nor their assistants knew Greek, these differences remained inviolable. At first they remained in manuscripts unnoticed by the church authorities; then here and there they passed into ecclesiastical use. In both situations, at first they did not dare to approve of them, because they saw their inconsistency with the general, ancient order; but, feeling their weakness, their ignorance of the Greek order, they did not dare to reject them - they tolerated them, especially since the ritual is not faith, the meaning of faith can be the same in different rituals. Meanwhile, the self-will of a dark, superstitious sense fed only on these oddities, not paying attention to either pure faith or the best rituals; it compiled collections of songs and prayers, out of a feeling of piety, and more often only out of imitation of piety, but without the consciousness of the pious; in the same way it introduced into ecclesiastical use works that had no ecclesiastical significance and were even unworthy of it. So, by the time of the dark Stoglav and the wise Maxim, quite a lot of strange things had appeared, or, as the sensible ones said at the time, Bulgarian fables had appeared, and the damage to books became a load of books. Even the one who began to denounce the most absurd arbitrariness, the most absurd damage to liturgical books had to fight and suffer. After the Monk Maximus completed the translation of the interpretation of the book of Psalms (§ 17), the Grand Duke and Metropolitan begged Maxim to revise and correct the Triodion. Maxim set to work on a good deed with spiritual zeal; he revised both the Book of Hours, the Feastal Menaion, and the Apostle. And what did he find? The damage to books increased so much, the errors were so important, that one could think that these books were in the hands of heretics. So Maxim wrote: “I teach the right to philosophize about the incarnate Word, that is, not to speak of Him only as a person, as in your books of hours. I also confess with all my soul the same God-man who rose from the dead, and did not die an endless death, as your sensible gospels preach Him everywhere. I teach that He was not created by Divinity, and not that He was created and created, as Arius blasphemed, and how your Triodi preach Him everywhere, but you do not think of correcting them... The Father is without beginning... And your books of hours preach Him co-motherless with the Son. I found in the 9th song of the canon the great quartet: they glorify the Father who does not exist by nature, uncreated - and I could not tolerate such blasphemy and corrected it.” In the 8th song of the same canon they read Christ, one and two, know Me. In the canon for the week of Thomas, the resurrected flesh of Christ was called indescribable. Maxim also explained the reasons for such gross sins. “Some depended, he wrote, on the lack of understanding, or the oversight or forgetfulness of the ancient, worthy of respect, translators, while others depended on the gross ignorance and negligence of the scribes.” Regarding translators, Maxim also noted that they did not always have the best lists at hand, and therefore introduced incorrect readings into the translation. The scribes added one error after another to another, and sometimes introduced infantile wisdom. It's all very simple, very natural. But isn’t the same thing repeated to famous people today? And yet they continue to say: this is how it is in old books! We want to live in the old way, that is, with the old habit of bad things! Among those who looked with joy at the correction of books by the Monk Maxim, the first was the pious Metropolitan Varlaam. § 20. Maxim and Zinovy’s denunciation of arbitrariness in reading the Creed Of the private arbitrarinesses in the order of worship, one, and an important one in the subject matter, drew special attention to Maxim; This is arbitrariness in the reading of the Creed, about which he wrote the Legend, as it is proper to observe the confession of the Orthodox faith. Having said that the Ecumenical Council anathematizes those who change the Creed, Maxim writes: “Do not say that there is no great peculiarity in the wisdom that people now dare to undertake. She also anathematizes you, who say: from Mary, and not from Mary; tea, not tea; the life of the future age, not the age to come." What kind of wisdom is this? From the words of Maxim himself and his disciple Zinovy, it is clear that while the Judaizers pointed to the word of the Symbol: tea, as an expression of unsteady confidence in the resurrection of the dead, the wise times of Stoglav decided to read in the Symbol: tea, thinking to strengthen the firmness of expectation by a multitude of persons, and with the same thought they introduced the grammatically meaningless reading: future lives, centuries. Maxim tells them that the future life is not a small thing - life is the Lord Jesus Himself. “He is our life and resurrection. I wait for this endless life - Jesus Christ, with firm and undoubted faith I hope to receive it, and not the future ages, according to your infantile wisdom.” Another change in the Creed was denounced in writing for Maxim by Maxim’s disciple. Blessed Zinovy ​​writes: “Zechariah (Kryloshan) asked me: in the Creed, some say: and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, and others: and in the true Holy Spirit. Is there any difference in this? “If someone speaks (Zinovy ​​answered) with the right faith and without hypocrisy: I think there is little difference here, although the words are not the same. I saw the rules of the ancient letter, written under Prince Yaroslav, son of Vladimir, and under Bishop Joachim, at the beginning of the baptism of our country. There in the image of St. of the Ecumenical Council it is written: and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord; It is not written: and in the true Holy Spirit; but it is written: Lord.” The Kryloshans objected that Basil the Great did not write in his word about faith: and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, but wrote the true Spirit. - Zinovy ​​answered: “He did not write the Holy Spirit of the Lord for the Macedonians; otherwise they would have thrown away his book, but he wanted them to read it, and in other words learn that the Spirit is God.” Finally, Zinovy ​​says that the fathers of the Councils strictly forbade adding or subtracting anything from the Creed. Stoglav writes: “and in others: and in the Holy Spirit of the true Lord; otherwise it’s not much: there is only one verb – either the Lord or the true one.” Infant wisdom, disturbed by the antics of the secret enemies of the faith, decided to establish Orthodoxy by combining two readings: the general - true, and the rare - arbitrary. They thought: if they read in the Holy Spirit of the true Lord: then how solid is it? And this was no earlier than around 1545! The writer Stoglava saw that this was already too new news. And that’s why he said: “otherwise it’s not much.” And late simplicity still considers this to be the wisdom of ancient times. Note: Monuments of the fact that in the ancient Russian Church the Symbol was read in accordance with the exact text of the original: and in the Spirit of the Holy Lord, besides the Nomocanon of Yaroslav, seen by blessed Zinovy, the Illustration of Svyatoslav, almost a contemporary of the Helmsman of Yaroslav, the Peace-Making Circle of Gennady, the accuser of the Judaizers, are three manuscripts indicated by Patriarch Joachim: the cell Psalter St. Zosima of Solovetsky († 1478), and two Trebniks - one from Athos, the other translated in Russia in 1481, and in addition the Solovetsky Kormchaya (Solovetsky Library No. 476), written in 1419. And Metropolitan Macarius wrote not what is written in Stoglava; in his Solovetsky Breviary (No. 1085) it is written: “and in the Holy Spirit of the life-giving Lord.” Here is the interpretation: “I don’t just say: there is a Spirit; But I believe in He, as He is Holy, as in the Lord, as He is the Life-Giving One, since He gives life to Him, and Life is Himself.” The term about the Holy Spirit is written in the same way in the cell book of Metropolitan Macarius - in the work of Gregory of Thessaloniki, about which Patriarch Joachim wrote. § 21. The suffering of Maximus the book corrector and his defense of the cause of book correction Darkness does not like light: Maxim, the lamp of pure faith, the denouncer of ignorance, enjoyed the favor of the Grand Duke for about seven years. Ignorance soon began to resent Maxim, first secretly, then openly. There was never a chance when it could fall with its wrath on Maxim. In 1524 the case opened. The Monk Maxim did not want to approve of what was illegal, according to the meaning of the Gospel, in the case of the Grand Duke Vasily himself, of divorce from his faithful wife and marriage to another. The Grand Duke could not bear this. And those who had long been waiting for the opportunity to put Maxim on trial rushed to take advantage of this opportunity. He was put on trial precisely for correcting books. “He, they said, cancels words at his own discretion, corrects them according to his own reason, without the consent and will of the Grand Duke,” the latter was said in order to further arm the Grand Duke against Maxim, whom he had hitherto distinguished with respect. By the will of Metropolitan Daniel, who had long been indignant at Maxim (§ 17), in 1525 these accusations were spoken at the Council by the Miracle Archimandrite Jonah and the Kolomna Bishop Vassian Toporkov. Maximus was also accused of translating the interpretation into the Psalter, while they themselves did not know the Greek letter; They were also accused because in his Triodion it was said about the graying of the Son with the Father: You are saddled and gray, and that the resurrected flesh of Christ is called describable. The monk sincerely admitted the correction for the mistake: you are saddled, but it was useless to make an apology for his then ignorance of the Russian language. In vain did he prove that the resurrected flesh is truly describable. They did not understand him and did not want to understand him. He could only ask for mercy, and he asked for forgiveness with tears, and for the sake of the Lord. But this was also in vain. He was condemned as a heretic, inspired by corrupting books, and excommunicated from Holy Communion. Secrets, they were even forbidden to go to church. In the Volokolamsk prison, where they threw him, from smoke and dampness, from hunger and shackles, at times he reached the point of death. But here the Angel who appeared to him said: “Be patient, good old man! With these torments you will be delivered from eternal torment.” 6 years later (in 1531), Protodeacon Ivan Chushka and several others again accused Maxim at the Council of blaspheming and rejecting Russian books. No matter how hard they tried to cover up their lies before Maxim with accusations of both heresy and civil crimes: Maxim was sent to the Tver Otroch Monastery without the previous ban on reading and writing books. Here, the good-natured Tver Bishop Akakiy consoled Maxim with his love, while the prohibition to go to church and partake of the Holy Mysteries still weighed heavily on Maxim. Having received permission to have books and write, the confessor continued to tell the truth about his time and after the overthrow of Daniel (in 1539), he wrote public justifications for the matter of correcting books. Saint Joasaph spiritually respected the innocent prisoner, but he had to fight the passions of ignorance in order to do something for the sufferer: we kiss your bonds, as one of the saints, but we cannot help you, the saint wrote. However, Saint Joasaph managed to console Maxim with permission to partake of the Holy Mysteries. In 1551, Maxim, exhausted by suffering, close to the grave, was moved to the monastery of St. Sergius, where he was received with honor and where, granted the gift of insight, he died in 1556. Thus the monk suffered for 30 years. Blessed Maxim, both in words and on paper, many times justified the correction of books. To the accusation that he rejected all Russian books, he replied that “here in Rus' the books are not straight, and the translators have spoiled some books, otherwise they need to be translated.” A complaint was shouted at him, just as they later shouted at His Holiness Patriarch Nikon: great, O man, the annoyance was caused by that work (correction of books) by the wonderworker who shone at the beginning of the earth: they used the books to please God. And here is the answer of the man of grace to the dark zealots of antiquity: “To one, the monk wrote, the word of wisdom is given by the Spirit, and to another the word of understanding in the same Spirit: to another the gift of healings, to another the generation of tongues, and to another the telling of tongues. From these it has been revealed that not everyone is given all the spiritual gifts together... as the Holy Saints of Russia, miracle workers, according to the gift given to them from above, have risen in the blessed land of Russia, and the God-bearing fathers were and are - and I confess and worship them. But below the birth of tongues, neither their legend was received from above. For this reason, it is not worth marveling if they are hidden, such as they are, the correction of the things that I have now corrected.” Then he shows how the foreigner Jethro admonished Moses himself of the need to elect assistant judges; how Macarius the Great was admonished as a shepherd boy regarding food; how a presbyter, watching the angel serving with him, was admonished not by an angel, but by a simple deacon - not to use the words of the Northern heresy in the service. “And the most holy bishop and martyr who were during the times of persecution, not a single diarrhea or annoyance remained from the former after their various corrections of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament by Symmachus, Theodotion, Aquila and Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, each correcting what was despised before by his former translator.” This is how the great man of the Greek and Russian Church reasoned! § 22. Council of 1551; printing house The Council of 1551, chaired by Metropolitan Macarius, complained bitterly about the malfunction of church books, and made it obligatory for archpriests and deans (priest elders) to correct church books according to good lists, and not to allow books that had not been revised into use. They soon saw that this could do little to help the grief. When in Moscow they began to buy in the squares and revise books for new churches, among them “little was found in need, but other corruption came from those who prescribed, those who were not taught and were not skilled in the mind, and those who wrote haphazardly and without correction,” that is, the damage increased to such an extent that it remained to throw most of the books into the fire. It was then that they decided to use that remedy against the book infection that had been used for so long in Europe and even in our southern metropolis (§ 8) - they decided to print books. The need for this was also felt before the Council of 1551. Tsar Ivan the Terrible in 1550 asked the Danish king to send book printers to Moscow, and in 1552 the king sent the typographer Hans (John Missingheim, Bockbinder, i.e. bookbinder). However, in Moscow there were Russians who knew printing. Deacon John Fedorov and Peter Timofeev took upon themselves (from 1553) to prepare everything needed for the printing house. The letter carver Vasily Nikiforov was found in Novgorod (1556). The first printing experiments, as in everything, were unsuccessful: “with some small and unskillful prints.” Therefore, not before, as already in 1564, under Metropolitan Athanasius, the first book was printed - the Apostle. For the first time, it also meant a lot that the printed Apostle put a limit on the errors and self-will of the scribes in relation to this book. And when publishing the Apostle, they did not mean anything more: this is what his epilogue says. The Greek text was not used to trust the Slavic text: everyone can be convinced of this by the most cursory comparison of the latter with the former. And hardly anyone who participated in the publication knew Greek: the publishers call the text of the New Testament the text of 70 interpreters; This is clear evidence of ignorance! The letters and paper of the Apostle are beautiful; but the spelling is bad. It cannot be said that the Slavic list from which they were printed was the best of the modern ones, although they were all more or less spoiled at that time. Dark people soon rebelled against a well-intentioned cause - the printing of books, and not because they seemed to see its real shortcomings, no, - they rebelled according to their passions; - among the first of these people were those who fed themselves by copying books. Deceived by their passions, and most of all by ignorance, they began to look for heresy in the printers. And it was not difficult to arouse suspicion against them then, since at that very time there was a strict search for Bashkin’s heresy. All they had to do was say that the printers were in a relationship with some suspicious person, and they would be in trouble. Ignorance and malice were not slow to denounce them as heretics. Deacon John and Timofeev, having published the Book of Hours in 1565, were forced to flee Moscow abroad. The people, hearing about heresy, about a heretical deed, became agitated, and the printing house itself was burned. However, the tsar ordered the matter to be resumed: in 1568 the Psalter was printed by the disciple of the exiles Andronik Nevezhey in Moscow, and in 1578 it was printed in the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. The Psalter was published in the same way as the Apostle, that is, without looking at the original. § 28. Particular arbitrariness of ignorance: a) Walking on the sun It is not surprising that by the end of the 16th century many private, arbitrary rituals had formed in Russia. Partly short-sighted piety, partly arbitrariness of ignorance, which was not sanctified in St. Churches – both in Russia and in other places? The items we want to point out are in themselves less important than many other things, so they might as well not be of interest to us. But the sad history of the Russian schism told them of sad importance; why, willy-nilly, it is necessary to talk about unimportant subjects. When in 1479 the cathedral church of the Assumption of the Mother of God was consecrated in Moscow by Metropolitan Gerontius: some “charms” began to blame the metropolitan before the Grand Duke for walking with crosses “not according to the sun” during the consecration of the church. The prince, concerned about the failures of the previous construction of the church, expressed strong anger at the metropolitan, and said, “as if for this reason the wrath of God comes.” The Metropolitan, in his defense, said that the deacon, censing in the altar of St. meal, does not walk in the sun. Almost all the archimandrites and abbots of Moscow were on the side of the metropolitan. And on the side of the Grand Duke were Rostov Archbishop Vassian and Chudov Archimandrite Gennady - people in other respects were so reasonable. The latter exhibited some kind of custom (whose? - not visible), but - no written evidence; they only said that the Easter walk around the church marks the rise of Christ - the true sun. There was a lot of arguing, but there was no unanimous decision. The Grand Duke remained dissatisfied with the metropolitan, so several new churches remained for a whole year without consecration. Gerontius, in order to reassure others, decided to leave the metropolis, and (in 1481) retired to Simon's monastery. The Grand Duke again began to seek a solution, and again the Metropolitan had the majority of votes. The debate was heated, but “the truth was not found,” says the chronicle. “The truth is visible, concludes St. Plato, that there is no importance in this.” The Grand Duke, finally, himself asked Gerontius to return to the see, leaving him to act at his pastoral discretion. Note: It is known that in the first printed Moscow Trebniks, walking “in Solon” ​​was prescribed only for marriage. But in the Solovetsky Trebnik of Metropolitan Macarius (No. 1085) even that is not there. And in the Service Book, written in 7040 (1332) in the Athos Monastery, in the rite of consecration of the church, it is written: “It is also fitting that when they go around the church three times with myrrh, let them not go opako (turning around, on the go-ahead, with a turn to the right, i.e. to the north), like the Latin heretics; but it befits a chick, like St. gifts, go to the right hand.” § 24. b) In singing hallelujah In 1419, Metropolitan Photius wrote a letter to Pskov about various subjects of the Charter, where he wrote about the singing of hallelujah: “and if hallelujah is in glory, say: glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit... hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, glory to Thee, O God,” and then the same thing two more times. The instruction is short, and this shows that at that time in Pskov there was no particular dispute about hallelujah, but was there not doubt aroused by any manuscript? The contents of the rule, together with other manuscripts of the same saint, as well as the general Greek Rule, show what rule the Greek, and after it the Russian Church, followed in singing hallelujah. If in Basil’s well-known story about St. Euphrosynus of Pskov we separate the true from the fiction and the probable from the absurd: then about the singing of hallelujah we will find in Vasily the following: a) Around 1455, Euphrosynus introduced the chanting of the monastery he founded twice: hallelujah, with the addition: glory to Thee, O God. b) Euphrosynus’s news was so little consistent with the general custom of Pskov that it aroused general displeasure against itself. “Be established,” Vasily himself writes, “before this, the custom is the same for all Pskovites, in secular churches and monasteries, hallelujah for all.” Presbyter Job, “a sensible man, capable of understanding the Holy Scriptures, a zealot of piety and Orthodoxy,” Deacon Philip, “very intelligent and with the gift of speech,” especially rebelled against Euphrosynus. “All the churches of God throughout our land,” they said, “trouble in the law of hallelujah, and with them all of Pskov.” c) Archbishop Euthymius, to whom Euphrosynus addressed with a complaint about the insults, did not forbid Euphrosynus from his news, leaving the ritual matter to his conscience; but the Pskovites were left to their custom, and even less the archbishop considered it necessary to introduce the custom of Euphrosynus into Novgorod, since the church custom of the “whole land” of Russia was against him, and “many, writes Vasily, shone in miracles and in great signs, tripling the divine hallelujah.” Thus, during the life of Euphrosynus, who died in 1481, 70 years before the Council of 1551, the habit of double hallelujah belonged only to the monastery of Euphrosynus; but it was not accepted either in Pskov or Novgorod. Vasily does not say why Euphrosynus laid down his rule about hallelujah. But since, according to Vasily’s explanation, the pure hallelujah is a song to the risen God-man, and singing hallelujah to the glory of the risen Christ belonged and belongs only to the Roman Church: this gives the right to conclude that Euphrosynus, if he was not carried away by the suggestion of the Uniate Isidore, was seduced by some manuscript of the Bulgarian-Serbian Church, which was under the influence of the West. After the death of Euphrosynus, the custom of the Euphrosynus monastery in singing hallelujah began to gain some attention; - they began to look for reasons for it. Translator Dimitri Gerasimov, who was in Rome, wrote a message to Archbishop Gennady both about the summer of the seventh century - a subject that occupied so many people at that time, and about the trembling hallelujah. The content of Dimitriev's reasoning is recorded in the “Peacemaking Circle” of Archbishop Gennady. “Others judge the same about the three-pronged hallelujah; Firstly, the triune hallelujah, and in the fourth: glory to Thee, O God, reveals the trihypostatic Divinity and the inseparable one, and the extreme hallelujah reveals one Divinity in two natures. Otherwise, as a person says what he thinks, so is good. Hallelujah is interpreted as praising the Lord, or praising Him that is.” Gennady is correct in saying that the dignity of the ritual depends on the dignity of the thought. But he, of course, noticed that the thought: in two natures there is one Divinity is not interpretable. Macarius, in the rank of Novgorod archbishop (1526 - 1546), in his great Menaion for August, placed a decree on the three-pronged hallelujah. This decree denounces Athanasius, the ktitor of the monastery of St. Nicholas, who wrote a message to the cathedral priests (probably Pskov) about St. The Trinity, that is, hallelujah, with the fact that it seems necessary to double the hallelujah. The decree says that the double hallelujah tears the Holy Trinity apart, that, following the Apocalypse and Psalms, it is necessary not to triple the hallelujah; In confirmation, he cites the letter of Saint Photius that we mentioned and shows that the habit of aggravating hallelujah was introduced by Metropolitan Isidore. Finally, it is written: “Whoever sings many hallelujahs twice, and not three times, sings to their own sin and condemnation. This is how we should sing: hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, glory to you, O God; - the first hallelujah is to the glory of the Father, the second to the glory of the Son, the third to the glory of the Holy Spirit, and glory to You, God, the consubstantial Divinity. This decree testifies that under Archbishop Macarius some defenders of the special hallelujah appeared; but the Pskov cathedrals faithfully followed the letter of Photius, and the Archbishop of Novgorod wrote a decree on the triple hallelujah with intelligent reasons for such singing. Here it is directly evidenced that pure hallelujah is a Latin thing. The biography of Euphrosynus dates back to 1547, where Vasily tries to praise the special hallelujah. Stoglav also could not hide the truth and wrote that in Pskov and the Pskov region for the most part, and in the vast Novgorod region, all churches observed the rule of three-mouthed hallelujah; The basis of his rule was based only on the dream told by Vasily. If we add to this that both the monuments that preceded the Council of 1551 and the Psalters of St. Philip the Martyr (1566–1570), the three-pronged hallelujah is consecrated as an ordinary church rule: then it will be obvious that the special hallelujah, even at the end of this period, remained only a private custom, although among people like the one who wrote Stoglav it has already earned respect. § 25. c) About the sign of the cross Tsar John Vasilyevich, by the way, proposed to the Council of 1551: “The sign of the cross is not based on its essence. But the spiritual fathers do not care about this and do not think about it.” The answer corresponding to this proposal is found in Stoglav as follows: “In the same way, the sacred archpriests and priests and deacons would imagine the sign of the cross on themselves in a cruciform manner and according to the rank, and the archpriests and priests would bless the Orthodox peasants in a cruciform manner, as if they had betrayed St. fathers. Likewise, all Orthodox peasants would teach and punish their children to protect themselves with the sign of the cross according to their rank and sign themselves with a cross.” Then “violent waving of the hand in the face” is strictly prohibited. In addition, right there (between chapters 31 and 32 of the Stoglavnik) we read the rule about the two-fingered folding of the cross with an extract of the imaginary words of Meletius and Theodoret (§ 18). That the Council of 1551 could rely on the decree’s ruling on the sign of the cross, written in Stoglav, there is no reason to doubt it. It is pious in itself, in accordance with the king’s proposal and other monuments of that time. Since we have contemporary evidence that this definition was the subject of heated debate at the Council, which ended with the fact that “nothing was accomplished”; then it remains in doubt: was this definition finally approved by the Council? As for the idea of making the sign of the cross: historical criticism cannot admit either that Stoglavnik meant anything more than the notes of a private person about the Council, nor that the article on two-fingered belonged to the Council, and not Stoglav’s scribe, a) Let the thought of the two-fingered cross be expressed somehow differently than it is depicted in Stoglav’s article: then one could still doubt it, without getting carried away Is Metropolitan Macarius the opinion of the times? But Stoglav’s article on double-fingeredness was written by the darkest ignoramuses. She, in the words of a modern pastor, “firstly, does not agree with the Word of God, because in St. It is not written anywhere in Scripture that Jesus Christ blessed with two fingers; secondly, I do not agree with the ancient ones, accepted by the entire Church, Councils and St. fathers: for curses on those who are baptized are not cursed by two fingers, no Councils, nor St. the fathers do not rekosha, and this is said falsely about them in Stoglav’s book.” b) The article on double-fingeredness has no connection with the king’s question, and is not at all about what the king asked; and this clearly shows that it belongs only to the scribe Stoglav, c) Just as Metropolitan Macarius thought differently about hallelujah, so he approved a completely different opinion about the folding of fingers for the cross than the scribe Stoglav: in his Menaion he placed Panagiota’s condemnation of two fingers. d) It is known that the Annunciation priest Sylvester, during the council, was the first adviser to the tsar and a strong figure at the council of 1551. And in his Domostroy we read the following about the laying of the finger: “every pious Christian must do his cross: first of all, let him join his three fingers for St. The Trinity, the great finger and the other two that are near him. e) It is not at all clear that Stoglav’s article on the creation of the throne was sent to the bishops on behalf of the metropolitan or on behalf of the tsar, as approved by the council; and the reasoning of the council, as soon as it was approved by a common voice, was then sent out in the form of a metropolitan letter, or a royal decree. f) It is clear from the monuments that only in the time of Ivan the Terrible did the two-fingered sign of the cross appear, as a custom of a few; and therefore, with a complete lack of support in antiquity, there was no time for the opinion of some to reach the point where it was approved by a large council in 1551. Note 1. The evidence of the sign of the cross from Greek and Russian antiquity is shown in the history of the first and second periods of the Russian Church. Here we point out two undoubted monuments of this period. In the Trinity Lavra of Sergius: a) a cover embroidered with gold and silk, by the will of Grand Duke Vasily in 1524, represents St. Sergius praying; the fingers of the praying hand are folded exactly as Orthodoxy folds them today; b) the cover, sewn with silks under the Terrible Tsar by order of Queen Mary in the summer of 7089 - 1581, depicts St. Sergius praying with two fingers. This is the antiquity of Russian double-fingered fingers! Note 2. Stoglav is nothing more than a note from a private person about the council of 1551, and not a canonical act, a) The Volokolamsk note about the council of 1553 (RKP. No. 404) says that on the 25th day of October 1553 the tsar spoke with Metropolitan Macarius and the bishops “about the previous cathedral code, about various matters and orders church members, and according to the book of the cathedral members, whose affairs have been corrected, and whose affairs have not yet been corrected.” And the king said: if only God would help, so that “from now on other things will be corrected.” From these words it is clear that aa) in October 1553 there were notes about the council of 1551 “on various matters and orders,” but bb) the affairs described in these notes, after the recall of the council of 1553, were not all corrected. c) Since the current Stoglav on various matters and orders contains answers to all the questions of the tsar: then it remains to conclude that either many chapters of Stoglav were invented by Stoglav’s scribe after the council of 1553, or, although the Stoglav’s reasonings were recorded in the council, but in such a form that many remained in doubt, required revision and did not receive the force of a conciliar definition; in both cases, Stoglav is obviously not a canonical book, but a collection of private opinions. b) Comparing Stoglav’s chapters with those metropolitan and royal letters that are similar in content to the chapters, we find that neither the king nor the metropolitan literally repeated Stoglav’s reasoning. c) In its form, Stoglav aa) is an obvious imitation of the Zemstvo Code of Law, divided into 100 chapters, moreover, the imitation is not clever, since the chapters of Stoglav are divided only by numbers, and not by content. bb) Most of Stoglav’s definitions, neither in exact nor in a similar form, were sent out by either the tsar or the metropolitan to the bishops; Neither was Stoglav sent out to its entire composition. And at this time, the reasoning of the council, if approved by a common voice, was sent by the tsar or metropolitan to the clergy, as mentioned above. d) In terms of content, Stoglav, at the most cursory glance, contains a lot of things that did not belong to the definitions of the council of 1551, which exposes it as the work of a private person. Eg. 1st chapter preface to Stoglav; Chapter 2 introduction to the Code with the beginning of the royal speech; in the 3rd chapter. continuation of the royal speech and surprise of the cathedral; in the 4th chapter. - new speech of the king; in the 5th chapter. royal questions; Chapter 6, with which the answers to the king’s questions begin, begins again and, moreover, in a strange way: “Once upon a time the crowned king entered into the hearing... He soon ordered to write it up... And then at the council.” If Stoglav says about what happened in 1551: “once in the past,” then it is not the actual person who spoke at the cathedral of 1551, especially since the cathedral is presented as a thing of the past. In ch. 98 meeting of Metropolitan Macarius with the tsar, which took place in 1550, therefore, did not belong to the council of 1551. In ch. 101 another similar matter - a meeting between the metropolitan and the tsar about church estates, which took place on May 21, 1551. Finally, there is no mention at all of the subject of other chapters in the tsar’s questions, while the council answers the tsar’s questions. § 26. Ancient way of life in this period; strengthening of Mongolian vices Piety in this period was still a common subject of thought for all states of the Russian people - for the prince and the servant, for the monk and the layman. Or, to be more precise, in this period they tried to imitate the piety of their ancestors, although in the 16th century the weakening of the ancient spirit was already noticeable. In 1525, a Tübingen man, by profession a Roman, described the life of Russians this way: “Everyone, as soon as he enters adulthood... becomes capable of realizing with contrition that he is a sinner, immediately goes and falls at the feet of the priest, with weeping or sighing confesses his sins to him, in order, as long as he can remember... They have a set time for this. The church charter forces them to do this every year on Easter, and the devout do not abandon confession even on great holidays. Anyone who left this on Easter would be anathema to everyone, an object of contempt - everyone would move away from him and would not be allowed into church. To be worthy of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, a confessor must first exhaust his body for several days, enslave his flesh and bear other fruits of repentance... The fasts are observed with such strictness that for each fast day it would be desecration to eat meat or eggs. Meanwhile, among them there are those who, when fasting, do not eat anything, least of all fish; others do not drink wine or anything like that on fasting days. Hearing this, we were so amazed that we seemed to be lost: our life seemed so wicked to us in comparison with these Christians. We could not be more firmly convinced that we, who talk a lot to ourselves about the fruits of faith, are far worse in fruits than they are... They also go through other degrees of repentance to appease God. This is especially the case with prayer. They do it so often that you will not soon find equals to them. With each dawn of day, each of them falls into the dust, pouring out long daily prayers... And this cannot be omitted among their other commendable deeds, that they gather the poor to themselves, whom each feeds according to his means: he gives alms as much as the piety of the Gospel requires, clothes, gives water, protects, calls strangers, does everything else that makes the children of God perfect; they are afraid that they would not be condemned at that terrible judgment of God." The most common refuge for poverty were the sees of bishops and monasteries, so that the civil authorities, for their just reasons, made a restriction in the 16th century. Many parish churches also had almshouses. The wonderful qualities, hereditary and truly Christian qualities, included: a) sincere reverent obedience to the will of the sovereign and his authorities. The ordinary word of the Russian soul was: “It is so pleasing to God and the Sovereign; God and the Sovereign know.” I saw, says Herberstein, one of the noble officials, the former ambassador to Spain, a gray-haired old man who, meeting us at the entrance to Moscow, rode on horseback, bustled, ran like a young man; sweat poured down from his face. When I expressed surprise to him, he said loudly: “Ah! Mister Baron! We serve the sovereign not in your way.” b) The attitude of masters towards serf servants (slaves) and freely hired servants was distinguished by patriarchal simplicity and good nature. The law did not say a word about this, but there was no need for it. “If a master, says Herberstein, began to treat a good and serviceable servant poorly, he would become dishonest in the eyes of others, and after that no one would go into his service.” Message of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk to a nobleman, serves as an excellent example of how the clergy taught nobles to care about the fate of poor peasants. And not in one word, but by their very deeds, the clergy taught Christian treatment of serfs and hired servants, whom they taught crafts, protected from poverty and vices, and led to a happy life, with all love and prudence. There was still so much warmth in the piety of the Russians of the 15th century! This could be seen in the 16th century. But the piety of the 16th century, being an imitation of the ancient, no longer had much that belonged to the model. a) The Mongol yoke taught the Russian people to cunning as a means of self-preservation. In this period, habit increased this Mongolian gift and deprived the people of good-natured sincerity. The bad soon grows in us. Now there was no sincerity in dealing with others; lied and deceived each other rudely. And it was the same in the service of God: for many, ritual piety was not a matter of the heart, but a custom of the time, it was ceremony, without spirit and strength: therefore, disgusting vices freely reigned among many, fortunately, not so much due to the numbness of conscience, but due to the tangible ignorance of the time. b) Customs that were at first preserved so as not to appear to be Mongols, now began to be sanctified as a duty of faith. This is the cutting of the beard and mustache, for which they were not condemned under Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir, but began to be condemned in the 16th century. That which deserved reproach as an expression of evil passions began to be condemned for one passion, for disgust towards the Latins, who, however, cut their beards and mustaches even during their union with the East. § 27. Northern monasticism of the 15th century: St. Savvaty and Zosima In the 15th century, the strong desire for desert life, aroused in the 14th century, continued and was revealed in the unequal way of life of the monks. The monasteries built before that, especially the Lavra of St. Sergius, the Kirillovo hostel, and the Ferapontov Hermitage, bloomed with piety. The first was decorated by the Monk Nikon; the latter was brought to a better state by the Monk Martinian, who left his name on it for a long time. Inspired by the same spirit of desert love, but with the strength of an extraordinary gracious will, the Monks Savvaty and Herman retired in 1429 to the most secluded cold island of Solovetsky on the White Sea; They spent 6 years there in a cave, while the wild nature could not console them even with vegetable greens. After the death of the Monk Savvaty, the Monk Zosima arrived in 1438 on the same barren island. For a long time, two hermits labored in solitude, fighting against an inhospitable, harsh country. Eastern ascetics did not know such harsh labors. Three abbots were sent from Novgorod to the icy island, one after another, but they soon abandoned the wondrous hermits, frightened by the severity of the place. The Monks Zosima and Herman were firm in the fight against nature; They suffered a lot from human passions. They built a church and surrounded the cells with a wooden wall. Wild Lapps, fearing a decrease in their profits in catching fish and animals, strongly pressed the monks. Hegumen Jonah, transferred in 1452 management of the gathered monks to the Monk Zosima, petitioned in Novgorod on behalf of the monastery to grant the monks the entire Solovetsky Island. Saint Jonah and the secular government of Novgorod approved the entire island for them with a charter. From that time on, freedom of labor was opened. The monks themselves began to chop wood and boil salt, partly for sale, and at other times they caught fish, and thus earned food for themselves by the sweat of their brow. The Monk Zosima himself was forced to go to Novgorod for the monastery; The proud mayor Martha at first did not allow the elder to come to her, then, having learned about the glory of his life, she invited him to her table. During the meal, the monk shed bitter tears and did not eat anything. To the question of his surprised disciple Daniel, St. the elder said that the sitting boyars are sitting without heads. The saint's insight was justified when Grand Duke John III was forced to subdue Novgorod with weapons, outraged by the proud Martha, and executed the defenders of the rebellion. The Monk Zosima died in 1478. § 28. Strict hermits: Nil Sorsky The ascetics of the 15th century did not leave a single type of eastern ascetic life untested. Here are three more ascetics, similar in that they were hermits in the proper sense, but different in the type of hermit life - Pavel Obnorsky, Savva Vishersky, Nil Sorsky - wonderful servants of Christ. The Monk Nil, one of the Maykov boyars, a tonsure monk at the Cyril Monastery, together with his disciple Innocent, traveled around the east to see and study the life of ascetics, especially those of Mount Athos. Upon returning from the east, to the river. He built a cross, a chapel and a cell for Sora; and when several brothers gathered, a wooden church was built in the name of the Intercession of the Mother of God; For both himself and his disciples, he made it a rule not to live a communal life, but to live strictly in a monastery. In his will, the Monk Neil wrote that although many ask him, showing a desire to live with him, but since few turn out to be executors of his rules, he does not want to accept many. And from the charter of Grand Duke Vasily, given shortly after the death of the Monk Nile, it is clear that all the brethren of his monastery consisted of a hieromonk, a deacon and 12 elders. In his testament to his disciples, St. Neil depicts the outer side of monastic life as follows: a) To earn food by laboring with one’s hands, but not even engage in farming, since its complexity is not suitable for a hermit. b) Only in case of illness or extreme need, accept alms, but not that which could serve to the chagrin of anyone. c) Do not leave the monastery. d) Do not have any silver jewelry in the church, even for St. vessels, and everything should be simple. e) The healthy and young must tire their bodies with fasting, thirst and labor, while the old and weak are allowed some kind of rest. f) Wives should not enter the monastery at all. – The rule for outdoor life is a little complicated. But the primary work and feat of skete life consists of internal asceticism, vigilance over the states of the soul, and purification of it through prayer and contemplation of God. The Monk Neil depicts this asceticism in some detail in his testament for his disciples. Throughout his life, remaining a zealot for extreme poverty and humility, the Monk Neil, before his death in 1508, wrote about himself: “I pray you, cast my body into the desert, let the animals and birds eat it; It is still a sin to eat and it is unworthy to be buried before God. If you don’t do this, and you, having dug a ditch in the place where we live, will bury me with all dishonor.” – In 1569, Tsar John IV, having visited the monastery of St. Nile, ordered to build a stone church instead of a wooden one. But the Monk Neil, in a dream vision, demanded that the command be canceled. On earth and in heaven, Neil loves the simplicity of the hermit. § 29. Hostel in the 16th century The structure of many monasteries required transformation in the 16th century. While many of the Moscow monasteries, according to the establishment of St. Alexy and St. Sergius, retained the rank of communal life, almost all Novgorod monasteries, including Antoniev, did not have this rank until 1527. “Everyone, the chronicle says, had a meal in his cell, everyone was burdened with everyday sorrows.” With such a structure, in the best of these monasteries there were “6 and 7 brothers, and in others there were two and three.” Some had parishes along with parish churches. In 1528, Archbishop Macarius gathered the abbots of the Novgorod monasteries and invited them to accept the rules of a strict community life. Of the 18 monasteries that existed without this charter in Novgorod and near it, only two refused to accept this charter: “we are accustomed to live in that chaos.” Otherwise, a strict dormitory system was introduced throughout the diocese. The consequences of this were soon noticed. “When the hostels were established, the chronicle continues, then the grace of God began to multiply, the deanery intensified, the number of brothers increased: where there were 2 and 3 brothers, there 12 and 15 appeared; where there were 6 or 7, there were 20 and 30, and in others 40 or more.” At the same time, the archbishop, following the strict instructions of Metropolitan Photius, appointed special monasteries for nuns, placing abbesses over them, and brought the abbots, who had hitherto been in charge of women’s monasteries, to men’s monasteries. To those monasteries that expressed a desire to accept a strict dormitory, the archbishop gave himself a letter of blessing, with an explanation of the order of the dormitory. When Macarius was elevated to the metropolis, he began to take care that throughout the metropolitan monasteries that did not have a dormitory would obey the rules of the dormitory. But this was not so easy to implement. The habit of not only monks, but even people outside the monastery, kept desires in the old days. That is why the monks of some Moscow monasteries turned to Tsar John IV with a request that he approve their desires for community life and assist in the fulfillment of their desires. The metropolitan’s letter of blessing for the hostel is also known. § 30. Ascetics of the 16th century: St. Nikander and Alexander of Svir Among the ascetics of the 16th century who led a hermit life, the Monk Nil of Stolbensky and Nikander of Pskov are especially famous. Nikon, as the Monk Nikandr was called in the world, having learned to read and understand St. Scripture, in his young years, disappeared into a deserted place on the Demyanka River, between Pskov and Porkhov; Having set up a cell, he ate only plants here. When the people, having learned, began to visit him: Nikon came to the Krypetskaya hermitage and took monastic vows; but soon he retired again to his former solitude, where he spent 15 years. The visitors forced him to go again to the Krypetsk monastery, where he was entrusted with positions. Loyalty to his duty brought displeasure upon him, and he settled three miles from the monastery; The same slanderers forced him to leave from here, and he, coming to a secluded place, stayed there until his death in 1582. Of those who found salvation in the hostel, especially famous were the Monk Daniel of Pereyaslavl, Joseph of Volokolamsk and Alexander of Svir. Alexander, the founder of the Svirsky monastery, even in his youth observed strict fasting, eating once a day, and prayed at night. The parents were amazed at this, and the mother said with sorrow: why are you exhausting yourself so much? He answered: Why are you turning me away from holy abstinence? His parents wanted him to get married; but he hid in the Valaam monastery; Here, having taken monastic vows, he stayed for 13 years, and in 1487 he went to the Svirskaya desert, where he spent 7 years alone in a cramped hut. When workers began to come to him, he built a small monastery, accepted the priesthood and management of the desert hostel; in 1506 the church of St. Trinity, and Saint Serapion honored the venerable monk with the rank of abbot. In the rank of abbot, the Monk Alexander shared all the labors with the brethren: in the bakery he kneaded dough and baked bread, carried water, chopped wood, ground rye; was the first to show up for all work; and his clothes were sewn with patches. The monk raised many sincere ascetics of piety. Decorated with the gift of insight, he died at the age of 85 in 1533, leaving his brethren a legacy of poverty; “God has given,” he wrote in his will, that there is nothing to pay off; There is no monastery treasury.” Four ascetics were purified and glorified by foolishness for Christ in the 15th century: Maxim of Moscow, Mikhail of Klop, Isidore of Rostov, John of Ustyug. Blessed Isidore was born somewhere in Germany and was raised in the Roman confession; his parents were famous and rich: but he left them and the Latin confession, accepted foolishness, went to see Greek Orthodoxy in the east, and remained in Rostov. Here he lived in the open air, like a bird; His only cover was a hut made of brushwood, in the middle of a swamp: this is how he lived in both cold and heat; but for this the Lord glorified him with miracles, even before his blessed death that followed in 1474. Mikhail was a relative of the princes of Moscow, but he left everything for God. During Matins, in the cell of one Klopsky Novgorod elder, a man in rags appeared for the book of the Apostolic Acts, which he was copying by candlelight; the elder was frightened, the abbot was amazed: the wonderful stranger then sang at the liturgy, read the Apostle, read the life at the meal; The abbot assigned him a cell: but they could not find out who and where this stranger was from? It was Blessed Michael. In his cell he slept on the ground and did not even have matting; ate once a week. He appeared to people as a fool: but he admonished bad people, either with love or with miraculous punishments. He predicted the fall of Novgorod at the hour of the birth of Ivan the Terrible. The blessed one died in 1452, having spent 44 years in the Klops monastery. John, the place of birth and exploits of Ustyug, having lost his father and excited by the example of his mother, a nun, and later abbess, devoted himself to a godly life of foolishness and died in 1494. In the 16th century, many travelers appeared on the difficult path of foolishness; but careless people also appeared, to their own detriment and to criticism of the saint. path. Nevertheless, there were enough of those who walked this path with a true consciousness of its high demands and with sincere submission of themselves to its heavy yoke; they walked with strong hopes and achieved what they hoped for beyond the grave. Such are Jacob of Borovitsky, Vasily and John of Moscow, Nikolai of Pskov. Blessed Vasily, having left his parents' house in his youth, had no shelter, but lived on the streets in Moscow; During the day he walked from church to church, and at night he lay down on the church porch. He ran around people, but the people loved him and looked for him to listen to his instructions. In 1547, on July 20, Vasily in the Vozdvizhensky Monastery on the island stood in front of the church and shed bitter tears; the people were amazed and could not understand Vasily’s tears. The next day, Moscow was devoured by such a terrible fire that copper flowed like water. Then they understood Vasily. The terrible king with all the princes carried the body of the deceased worker from the house to the church, where it was buried. This was August 2, 1552. Blessed John, who in the world was called the big cap, from an early age exhausted himself with fasting and prayer, wearing chains with crosses on his body; in Moscow I walked almost naked in severe frosts. He spoke accusations to Boris's face and predicted disasters; a native of Vologda, died in 1589. Period four. The period of patriarchy. 1589 – 1720 I. Management: a) in the north § 1. The beginning of the patriarchate in Moscow Under the pious Tsar Theodore, in 1589, a new period of the Russian Church began, new in the outward splendor of church power. This is the period of the patriarchate, which lasted until 1720. Since the middle of the 16th century, Russian piety began to call the first saint of Russia the most holy, distinguishing him with special respect as the primate of a vast and happy church. Therefore, it is natural that the pious Tsar Theodore, who delighted his soul only with deeds of piety and the orderliness of church rites, wanted to honor the Metropolitan of all Russia with the rank of patriarch. In addition, the hope of finding in the Russian patriarch protection for Orthodoxy, oppressed in the east by the yoke of Islam, and oppressed in the west by papism, also prompted the desire for the rank of patriarch for the Russian metropolitan. Meanwhile, the Lord did his own thing. He prepared in the Russian Patriarch the defense of Russia for the coming time of sorrows, which people had not yet seen. And He invisibly arranged the circumstances, so that the Russian patriarchate appeared as if by a sudden coincidence of events. In 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch arrived in Moscow. He arrived for his own needs, for alms in favor of his Church. The pious Tsar Theodore entered into a meeting about his need, which his piety felt. He proposed to the boyar duma an ancient and new way of delivering a metropolitan and showed that the metropolitan of all Russia lacks only the name of the patriarch, and meanwhile this rank would serve as an adornment to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. Boyar Boris Godunov was sent to consult with the Antioch saint about this. Joachim, agreeing with the thoughts of the pious king, said: “This matter is subject to the judgment of the council,” and promised to propose it to the council of patriarchs. As a result of this answer and in accordance with the response of the Russian council, messengers were sent to Constantinople with letters from the tsar and the council. The next year, a response was received from Constantinople that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch agreed with the wishes of the Tsar and that they had sent for the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem for a meeting and a council decision, deciding to send the Patriarch of Jerusalem to Russia. The last decision changed unexpectedly again. The needs of the Tsaregrad church demanded that not the fourth, but the foremost among the patriarchs, the Patriarch of Tsaregrad, go to Russia. In July 1588, His Holiness Jeremiah, a shepherd famous for both enlightenment and suffering for the Church, arrived in Moscow. The arrival of him, and not the other patriarch, extremely amazed the tsar and everyone in Moscow, and then filled as many with tenderness and joy. After a respectful reception, Boris Godunov, by the will of the tsar, asked the patriarch in private about the reason for his extraordinary journey. Blessed Jeremiah answered: “I was in the patriarchate in Constantinople for five years; but because of my sins and for the sins of all Greek Christianity, the Sultan rebelled against the Church of God.” Having told his sad story with bitter tears, His Holiness also said that he had arrived with a conciliar decision on the opening of the patriarchate of Russia. Thus, Providence invisibly led things to console the east and north with a better state of affairs at the same time. Since the east and north had already recognized the need for a Russian patriarchate, it remained to decide who to elect as Patriarch of Moscow. The calamities of the Holy Jeremiah aroused in the pious Tsar a desire to calm the suffering shepherd in Russia, and the fulfillment of the desire, as the Tsar thought, would also enhance the dignity of the Russian Patriarch. Jeremiah sincerely thanked the good king: but having noted that, remaining away from the king, he would be useless for the Russian and Constantinople churches, he said that he wished to better share the sorrows of that Church, which he “took like a mother,” and where the sorrows of bishops and all children called him. On January 23, 1589, a large council of Russian shepherds gathered in Moscow, and the tsar invited them to make advice about the patriarch. In the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, in the chapel of Her Praise, where the general election of shepherds took place, a meeting took place on the appointment of the great High Hierarch of the Russian Church. At the end of the meeting, the patriarch took it upon himself to present to the king the names of the three chosen ones, and the lot was drawn for Metropolitan Job. On January 26, the patriarch was installed. Three chairs, covered with brocade for the king and dark (humble) velvet for the patriarchs, were placed on the pulpit, elevated by 12 steps; but on both sides there were benches for bishops. The named patriarch confessed on the eagle in the presence of the entire cathedral, before God and His chosen Angels, the righteous, immaculate faith. After reading the creed, he ascended to the pulpit, received the patriarchal overshadowing and the kissing of the bishops, and, bowing, retired to the chapel of the Mother of God. When the serving patriarch with the entire council of bishops entered the altar at the small entrance and sang the Trisagion hymn, the cathedral archpriest and archdeacon brought the betrothed Job to the royal doors, and two bishops led him into the altar. The Ecumenical Patriarch, laying his hands on him and spreading the Gospel over his head, called upon divine grace, as if he were in need of special grace for his high rank. This is how the dedication of the All-Russian Patriarch took place. After the liturgy, which was celebrated by both patriarchs, a magnificent celebration in the tsar’s house complemented the general joy about the great saint of the Russian land. The Ecumenical Patriarch was revered for a long time in hospitable Moscow; so that he remained in the north, from the time of his arrival, almost a year. The king ordered the election and installation of the patriarch to be described on parchment; the letter was sealed with the seals of the tsar, both patriarchs and all bishops, Russian and Greek, and many archimandrites and abbots took part in the assault. Two years later, Patriarch Jeremiah sent a conciliar document confirming the patriarchate in Russia, signed by him, the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch, 19 metropolitans, 19 archbishops and 20 bishops. The charter says: “Firstly, we recognize and perform in the reigning city of Moscow the installation and naming of Lord Job as patriarch, so that he may be honored and named forward with us as patriarchs and there will be a rank for him in prayers after the one in Jerusalem; and the main and primary one to maintain the apostolic throne of Constantine, just as other patriarchs do; secondly, the name and honor of the patriarchate now bestowed not only on Mr. Job was given and established unshakably; but we also allow the Moscow Council to appoint the initial authorities to the patriarchs according to the rules.” Thus, the Russian patriarchate was approved by the entire Church. § 2. Elevation of departments and diocesan administration With the introduction of the patriarchate, changes occurred in the degrees of the Russian hierarchy. The same charter of the Moscow Council, which legitimized the patriarchate, is entitled to 4 metropolitans, 6 archbishops and 8 bishops in Russia. This elevation is based on conformity with the rank of patriarch and the splendor of the Church. The resolution of the council on metropolitans was then carried out: the shepherds of Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov and Krutitsy, the permanent assistant of the patriarch, were honored with the rank of metropolitan. Other former bishops, except Kolomna, were elevated to the rank of archbishop. Of the new episcopal sees, only two were replaced: Pskov and Karelian. Subsequently, the number of metropolitans and archbishops increased. In 1667, the Eastern Patriarchs Paisius and Macarius proposed opening 19 new bishoprics and at the same time subordinating the bishops to the jurisdiction of the metropolitans. The same idea about bishops was proposed to the council in 1682 by Tsar Feodor Alekseevich. But both times the proposal to subordinate bishops to metropolitans was not considered useful for the Russian Church. Councils of 1667 and 1682 They recognized the need to open new dioceses, especially because the affairs of the schism required close pastoral supervision of the flocks. But difficulties in maintaining departments were the reason that much fewer new dioceses were opened than were considered necessary. In 1686, there were 12 metropolitans, 7 archbishops and 3 bishops under the authority of the patriarch. In 1702, more bishop's chairs were established in Ladoga and Irkutsk. However, during the period of the patriarchate, although not all assumptions about the dioceses were fulfilled, the number of northern dioceses increased by more than half compared to the previous period. Thus, when the assumption of the patriarchs about the subordination of bishops to metropolitans was not accepted: then by the elevation of bishops to the rank of metropolitan and archbishop, the previous rights of pastors in church administration did not change almost at all, although advantages in the priesthood were added; Metropolitans and archbishops had the advantage that they could have more power at the council, where metropolitans occupied the highest places before archbishops, archbishops before bishops. § 3. Service of Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes to the Fatherland Wonderful are God's destinies! The patriarchate appeared in the Russian Church at precisely the time when the power of the patriarch could most of all be useful for the Church and the fatherland. We understand the terrible time of impostors, when in the waves of anarchy and foreign power Russia was completely ready to perish and when the personality of the patriarch, who enjoyed the highest respect in Russia, almost alone directed the actions of the people towards the salvation of Russia. Boris Godunov, although he cleared his path to the throne by crime, after the death of the childless Theodore, he was elected to the kingdom by all classes of the people; Patriarch Job forced the same estates to confirm election and fidelity to service to the chosen one not only by oath, but also by a special charter, and also by drawing up a council. Henceforth, when the impostor with the name of Tsarevich Dimitri began to demand submission to himself with the weapon of insidious Poland, Patriarch Job stood with all firmness against the impostor and for Boris. He sent out a letter demanding daily prayer for the successes of Tsar Boris against the impostor. The father died, the son Theodore was elected to the kingdom, and everyone swore allegiance to his son. But Basmanov surrendered to False Dmitry; this betrayal was followed by others; the successes of arms and treason terrified the capital; The impostor's letters were read on the forehead. The Patriarch asked the boyars to persuade the people and in the church he himself denounced the maddened oathbreakers. Many swore allegiance to the impostor; but Patriarch Job remained firm. The villains, during the liturgy, which the saint himself performed, burst into the church and into the altar itself and began to tear Job’s holy clothes. Job took off his panagia, placed it near the miraculous Vladimir icon and with tears prayed out loud to everyone: “The Lady Theotokos! here the holy panagia was entrusted to me, with it I corrected the word of your Son and our God and for 12 years I kept the integrity of the faith. Now, because of our sins, as I see, the kingdom is in misery, deception and heresy are triumphant. Save and establish Orthodoxy through prayers to your Son.” The holy prayer only embittered the villains - the servants of False Dmitry. They put the cassock of a simple monk on the saint, shamefully dragged him around the square and finally, putting him in a cart, sent him to the Staritsky Monastery, his former monastery. Godunov's son, Tsar Theodore, was killed. When Ignatius, chosen by the impostor as patriarch, for the sake of decency asked for Job’s blessing, Job freely answered: a chieftain for the gang, a shepherd for the sheep. The first impostor did not spend long (from June 1605 to May 1606) in Moscow with his Poles. Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky was elected to the throne. The new king first of all wanted to elect a legitimate patriarch; Elder Job had already lost his sight and refused; Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes, a man of unshakable firmness and righteousness, was elected. Hermogenes, in the rank of patriarch, was a pillar of the Church and the kingdom. Although the impostor was killed publicly, although his corpse was cursed in the Kremlin square; but the storm raised by the name of Tsarevich Dimitri did not subside; she still had to be calmed down. Tsar Vasily, being a boyar, did not have the strength to open up to Tsar Theodore about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri. Now, elected to the throne, he paid solemn honor to the royal martyr by transferring his relics to Moscow. But, it’s true, Vasily has not yet humbled himself enough to extinguish the wrath of God for impurities of the heart. At first they began to worry only because Vasily seemed to be elected by Moscow alone; Then they began to say that it was impossible to break the oath to Demetrius, and that Demetrius escaped from Moscow during the popular uprising. It was in vain that the council sent Metropolitan Paphnutius with an admonition to the seditious people. The Tsar and the council decided to bring popular repentance. By the letter of Hermogenes the elder Patriarch Job was invited to Moscow. At a large meeting of the people in the Assumption Cathedral, Job depicted how many crimes were committed by the people after the death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, how many oaths and oaths were broken, who Moscow saw in the person of the imaginary Dmitry and what his fate was in the face of all Moscow; in conclusion, the patriarch, at the earnest prayer of the people, gave permission to the blind. This revived the people's spirit. But the Poles found a new Demetrius, in all likelihood a Jew. Again Polish troops came to the aid of the impostor, already known to everyone. The traitorous boyars indifferently passed from the tsar to the Tushino thief. The cities became agitated. The Patriarch was a firm, unchanging defender of the Tsar and the Fatherland. He either used words to convince people to remain faithful to the legitimate king, or sent out letters, where, to enlighten the people, he described the deeds and death of the first impostor. And the shepherds followed the spirit of the first Russian shepherd. During the first uprising in November 1606, Tver Archbishop Feoktist gathered his boyar children and all citizens, inspired them with courage against the rebels, and the enemy was repulsed from Tver. Another time in 1608, Tver could not resist, the saint was taken and killed, Gerasim of Suzdal died in exile; but did not want to pray for the impostor. Gennady of Pskov sent his peasants and monasteries to stop the rebellion and did not survive the betrayal of his city. Isidore of Novgorod was happier: his admonitions managed to have an effect on the people, and Novgorod, despite Pskov’s betrayal, decided not to break his oath to Vasily, and invited the hero of the fatherland Skopin Shuisky. Joseph of Kolomna, who resisted the first impostor, was captured by the soldiers of the second, whom he tried in vain to reason with, and tied to a cannon, he was dragged by vagabonds; His flock under him also remained faithful to duty. The Pereyaslav traitors, under the command of the Polish commander (1608), attacked Rostov. Many residents fled to Yaroslavl, inviting shepherd Filaret with them. The Metropolitan replied that he would not leave his flock in danger. The enemy burst into the city and consigned everything to fire and sword. The citizens fled to the cathedral church, where the metropolitan, in full vestments, convinced them not to indulge in the villains and prepared them with the sacrament of St. secrets to martyrdom. When the enemies approached the cathedral and managed to knock down the doors by force; The Metropolitan came out to them with bread and salt and begged for mercy for their half-blooded brothers. But the frantic killed the defenders of the church, robbed the shrine, and the metropolitan, barefoot, in a tattered Polish dress and a Tatar hat, was sent to the camp of the Tushino thief. Long after that, Filaret was taken from the enemy under the walls of the Volokolamsk monastery by the detachment of Skopin Shuisky. Of all, the monastery of St. Sergius showed both firmness and benefit. Tsar Vasily received 18,000 rubles from her. before its siege, yes 2000 rubles. during the siege. The Lithuanian hetman Sapega and the desperate horseman Lisovsky came to take the monastery of Sergius, which was also important locally. At the beginning of the siege, Sapieha had up to 30,000 troops at his disposal, and within the walls of the Sergievskaya monastery the number of defenders with two governors extended to 2,500 people; The walls of the monastery were then dilapidated in some places. But the monastery of Sergius was firm in its faith and defense of Sergius: the siege continued for 16 months. The attacks of the enemy were courageous, fire was thrown from many guns and the walls were beaten, tunnels were made under the towers; Subsequently, due to lack of food and fresh water, she ended up with scurvy in the monastery. And the monks of Sergius endured everything; they made brave forays against the enemy and destroyed cars. Archimandrite Joasaph armed and armed himself with prayer against the Latins - the Poles. And Sapieha, to his shame, did not drive the gray-haired rooks out of their nest. Despite all the efforts of the guardians of the Church to maintain loyalty to the legitimate king, despite the firmness and smart orders of Vasily himself, the number of those faithful to Shuisky decreased. And Sigismund entered Russia with a regular army to get the throne of Moscow for himself or his son. Shuisky hesitated on the throne. Back in February 1609 they were ready to overthrow Vasily. The firmness of Patriarch Hermogenes then triumphed over the agitation of the boyars - the patriarch sent out an appeal to the people. In July 1610, Moscow was constrained by crowds of the impostor. The boyars again rebelled against Vasily. They forcibly brought the patriarch to their council and demanded that Vasily be overthrown. But the patriarch refused consent and left. Vasily was captured and involuntarily tonsured. Adherents of the impostor demanded the throne for the tramp, and Zolkiewski approached the capital. In these extreme circumstances, Mstislavsky proposed to the Duma that Vladislav be elected king. The Patriarch urged not to sacrifice the Church for temporary benefits and advised to give the crown to young Mikhail Romanov, the grandson of good Anastasia, the wife of the Terrible Tsar. The appearance of Zholkiewski under the walls of Moscow and Saltykov’s intrigues persuaded the majority to side with Vladislav. Vladislav was declared king; but with the condition that Hermogenes demanded: before ascending the throne, he had to accept Orthodoxy, end his connection with the pope, put to death by law anyone who deviates from Orthodoxy, and marry a Russian. Zolkiewski was happy with the proposals of the Duma and concluded an agreement on behalf of the king. The ambassadors Prince Golitsyn and Metropolitan Philaret went to Sigismund for a decisive conclusion to the matter. Saltykov and his friends hastened to arrive in Moscow. Appearing to the patriarch in the cathedral church, they asked, as usual, for blessings. Hermogenes said: “if you came to the cathedral church with truth in your heart, and not with deception; may the blessing of the Church and my sin be upon you; if not so, a curse will fall on your head.” Soon Saltykov, contrary to the agreement, allowed the Poles into Moscow. And the ambassadors in vain prayed to Sigismund to approve the treaty. The Jesuits did not like the conditions proposed by Hermogenes too much, and the petty ambition of their pet sought the Moscow throne for themselves and Smolensk with an indemnity for Poland. Sigismund and the traitors decided to achieve their goal with weapons. Metropolitan Philaret and Prince Golitsyn informed of Sigismund's intentions. In Moscow, the Poles started looting and killing. Hermogenes (around January 4, 1611) blessed to take up arms for the homeland, allowing everyone to swear allegiance to Vladislav; sent letters to cities, calling to save the faith. Lyapunov, the governor of Ryazan, was the first to rebel at the call of the patriarch: the cities sent letters from the Holy One and armed themselves one after another. The Poles threatened Hermogenes with death. The Boyar Duma urged him to calm their minds and forbid Lyapunov to go to Moscow. “I will forbid it,” answered the patriarch, if I see that Vladislav is the son of Orthodoxy, and the Poles are leaving Moscow: I will command that if this does not happen, and I will allow everyone to swear allegiance to the prince.” Saltykov raised the knife at the patriarch. The saint, raising the cross, said loudly: “Here is a weapon against your knife! May an eternal oath descend upon your head!” And turning to Mstislavsky, he quietly said: “You are a beginner; You must be the first to suffer for your faith and truth.” Squads from 25 cities marched towards Moscow. And again in March 1611, the boyars were sent with threats to Hermogenes. “Everything will be okay,” he answered Saltykov, if you leave with the Poles; I bless everyone to die for the Orthodox faith, since I see its desecration and the destruction of God’s holy churches.” Nothing could shake the firm saint; He was imprisoned in the royal courtyard under a strong guard, and orders were given not to let anyone near him. When the Poles and traitors (in January 1612) saw that Russia was firmly fighting for its freedom, they once again demanded that the patriarch stop the war, and the patriarch again repeated his previous answer. Then it was ordered that Hermogenes be starved to death, and the sufferer died on February 17th. The monastery of Sergius remained a guardian for Russia. Archimandrite Dionysius and cellarer Palitsyn sent out letters after letters, calling on everyone to defend the faith and the fatherland. In Vologda, Archpastor Sylvester endured severe torture for four days in the enemy camp. Finally, the patriarch’s thought was resurrected: Mikhail Feodorovich was elected to the kingdom. § 4. The ministry of Patriarch Filaret Young Mikhail felt the need for an experienced and gentle leader, which his father Filaret, who remained a prisoner of the Poles, could have been for him. They did not elect a patriarch either, expecting for this rank a sufferer of faith and the fatherland of the Rostov metropolitan. The Poles did not want to part with the high pledge of their benefits, although Mikhail asked. But Filaret himself, knowing his son’s love and his duty to Russia, let Moscow know not to cede a single piece of land to Poland. After the conclusion of peace with Poland under the walls of the Lavra of Sergius (December 1618), Filaret (in June 1619) returned to Moscow and at the same time was installed as patriarch by Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem. The son's youth and love gave way to much of the father's experience. The patriarch was not only an adviser, but also a co-ruler to the king. His name appeared in documents along with the king’s; he participated in state orders, decided, together with the tsar, matters that fell within the circle of affairs of the saint. “The Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Feodorovich of All Russia and his father, the Great Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret Nikitich of Moscow and All Russia indicated,” so they wrote in the decrees then. At the very beginning of his reign, Filaret presented to the sovereign all the internal disorders and, to eliminate them, proposed a simple measure, but very important in consequences: to carry out a general land census for the state. The Zemsky Council fully approved of the patriarch's proposal. When the census was compiled, the government began to know from whom and what to demand, and state revenues increased. The landowners were given a boundary beyond which no one could extend their rights; everyone's property is secured, whereas previously self-will robbed someone else's property and could hardly be caught in robbery; At the same time, most of the litigation stopped by itself. The peasants stopped wandering from place to place and indulging in drunkenness and robbery in beggarly idleness. Knowing people well from difficult experience, the strict patriarch inexorably persecuted the corrupt boyars with punishments and taught obedience. He strictly forbade the governors and clerks from oppressing the peasants and townspeople, whom they forced to make their own products, grind, pound and bake bread, plow their arable land and mow hay. Matters of war and peace with treacherous neighbors could not be resolved without him; foreign ambassadors, after being presented to the king, came to the patriarch. In general, all fourteen years of his patriarchate were devoted primarily to the affairs of the state, which was upset at times by impostors. § 5. Patriarch Nikon in the service of the fatherland The time of Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod (1649–1652) and actual Patriarch of All Russia (1652–1657), was the most brilliant time of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. At his very first acquaintance with Nikon, the tsar saw in Nikon an extraordinary person, and appointed him archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery. By the will of the tsar, the beloved archimandrite appeared every Friday at the court church to talk with the tsar, and the conversations revealed to the tsar in Nikon a fiery zeal for the Church and the fatherland, a firm, open character, a far-sighted, broad view of spiritual and civil subjects, and the most austere life. With the rank of Archimandrite, Nikon served the Tsar as a faithful messenger of truth and a sincere friend of the poor. On the way to the king, he accepted requests from the people, and the king, without leaving the church, gave decisions on them. When the virtuous Afphonius replaced the staff of the Novgorod Metropolitan with the staff of the elder of the Khutyn monastery, the tsar in 1648 elected Nikon to replace Afphonius as Metropolitan of Novgorod. Extraordinary power was granted by the tsar to the new metropolitan in the diocese. Nikon received the right to enter dungeons and release prisoners at his own discretion. In the remote Lop churchyards, the tsar left it to the Olonets governor to collect the metropolitan's duties; Nikon wrote that the secular authorities of Olonets not only keep most of the income of the Sofia house, but also allow marriages of close relatives for money, and the tsar (in December 1649) allowed the metropolitan to send his proxies there. During the terrible famine of Novgorod, Nikon especially justified the tsar's trust in him. The Metropolitan set up four almshouses at his own expense and fed the poor people in his yard every day. Nikon appeared even more majestic during the riot that broke out during the same famine. In Pskov, the enraged mob killed the governor and could hardly be pacified with weapons, and in Novgorod Nikon hid Prince Khilkov in his chambers and went out to the rebellious people; blows rained down on Nikon: some threw stones at him, others beat him with sticks, and he was left dead in the square. Barely breathing, he was lifted up by his servants; but went to perform the liturgy with a procession in that part of the city where the riot was raging; After the liturgy, Nikon was not afraid to appear to the rebels again and entered the very hut where they had gathered. This time the shepherd’s firmness amazed the most ferocious; they became quiet, stopped killing, but still did not stop acting against the government; Having blocked the path to the capital, they exiled with the Swedes in order to betray the city to them. Nikon managed to notify the king of the danger and indicated what measures should be taken against the attackers; he himself anathematized the rebels. The storm subsided, tamed by Nikon’s firmness; the people turned to him for spiritual permission; the tsar handed over the trial of the guilty to the metropolitan, and the metropolitan judged as a just shepherd. This was in 1650. From that time on, the Tsar’s love for Nikon increased; he often called him to Moscow for advice. After the death of Patriarch Joseph, the Tsar, informing Nikon about the circumstances of his death, expressed deep respect and the most tender love for Nikon, calling him a strong warrior and sufferer of the King of Heaven, his dear favorite and friend. When Nikon arrived from the Solovetsky monastery, where he went to retrieve the relics of St. Philip and from where he reported information useful to the state to the tsar, the tsar announced that he was electing Nikon as patriarch. None of the friends of the faith even thought about another successor. Nikon, although he was firmly convinced of the king’s kindness and his love for himself; but he also knew that the pride of the boyars was already indignant at the tsar’s love for Nikon and at Nikon’s jealousy for his pastoral duty. And therefore it was not easy for him to agree to be ordained. Having accepted the rank, he wanted to be a faithful assistant to the king. The closest friendship united the new patriarch with the tsar. They prayed together, talked about business together, sat down to eat together; it was like this every day. The patriarch was the successor of the royal children. Not a single state matter was decided in which Nikon’s thought would not participate; it was like that for six years. And Nikon’s great mind, enterprising, strong character were imprinted on these happy years of the Russian state (1651–1657). The most brilliant deed of this time, and the most glorious during the reign of Alexy, was the annexation of Little Russia to Russia. The brave Hetman Khmelnitsky, who defended his unfortunate homeland with his blood, several times expressed a desire to be under the protection of the Orthodox Tsar. Under Patriarch Joseph (in February 1648), the king proposed this to a council of clergy and secular persons for consideration. Then they decided to agree to the hetman’s request, they did it timidly and did nothing. Ukraine's suffering has increased. Moscow was afraid of war with Poland; and the Poles began to insult the tsar and his foreign subjects. The Tatars and the Sultan would have moved closer to Moscow if Little Russia had surrendered to the will of the Sultan. When both Crimea and Poland began to threaten the hetman, the hetman sent a letter to Patriarch Nikon, begging for the unification of the same believers with the same believers. The Emperor decided to demand the peace of Little Russia before he raised his arms. In April 1653, an embassy was sent to Poland; but the magnates, “who had long drunk away prudence,” as Khmelnitsky said, did not want to listen to anything. In October 1653 The council of clergy and zemstvo officials decided to accept Little Russia. And on January 8, 1654, the triumph of the union of half-bloods with half-bloods took place. Following the annexation of Little Russia to Russia, a war between Russia and Poland could not help but begin, and it began. But she was happy and brilliant; the king himself set off with the army, which the patriarch sprinkled with St. water, and the king’s family and kingdom were entrusted to the patriarch; The boyars could not do anything without his advice. And ambassador after ambassador hurried from the king to Nikon with the news of the capture of the cities. In six months they captured Smolensk, Minsk, Vitebsk, with many surrounding places. In 1655, all of Lithuania was conquered with the rest of the cities of Belarus; and at the same time they passed through all of Volyn and Galicia, defeating the Poles; here and here the Cossacks were the first to win. Poland was brought to the point of exhaustion. She proposed a truce, leaving all conquests to Russia, and declared Tsar Alexy to be the successor to King John Casimir. Meanwhile, when the tsar was with his army in the field, a pestilence broke out in Moscow and Kazan (in July 1651), which then spread to neighboring provinces. It raged in the capital with such force that by November most of the priests and parishioners died. The Patriarch, with his usual firmness, made orders to alleviate disasters; He was especially concerned about preserving the royal family left in his care. Having sent an order in advance to the Kalyazin monastery about the careful preparation of the cell, services and everything necessary for the arrival of the queen, Nikon went with the family of the tsar-friend to the Lavra of God-bearing Sergius, then wandered with her from monastery to monastery, with which he personally monitored the safety of the places. At the same time, on behalf of the Tsarina and Tsarevich Alexei, he sent letters to the cities about the use of strict precautionary measures: it was ordered to fence off contaminated places with strong outposts, to burn fires to purify the air; residents of Moscow, frightened by death, fled to Kolomna and other places; they were returned to Moscow as dangerous. Reports that passed through contaminated areas were ordered to be copied from words around the fire, and the originals were burned. Finally, at the end of October, the patriarch in Vyazma handed over his dear family to the tsar unharmed, and then went forward to Moscow to cleanse the city. The Tsar declared his gratitude to Nikon with a letter of grant given to the new patriarchal monastery - Iversky. Here Nikon was called the great sovereign, the patriarch of all great and small and white Russia [actually Russia, Ukraine and Belarus]; since the name of the great sovereign was given to the parent of the royal patriarch Philaret, then in relation to Nikon this name expressed only the tsar’s filial respect for the patriarch. Nikon, for his part, did not really want this honor and asked the king to free him from it. In letters to the tsar, he called himself either a sinner, or a sinful and humble Nikon, or a humble Nikon, the patriarch. But in public acts, at the insistence of the tsar, the title remained with Nikon. The epidemic began in 1655 in eastern cities. Nikon cared about the internal welfare of the state. As before, he sent out decrees on precautionary measures on behalf of the prince. Since superstition spread harmful thoughts about the origin and course of the ulcer, the patriarch sent out a lengthy, circular letter on his behalf to admonish the superstitious and ignorant. In the letter, the patriarch, urging to endure misfortune with patience, to strengthen himself by prayer and fasting, advised to beware of communication with the infected... forbade believing the false rumors of superstitions, who proclaimed that no one should avoid this ulcer as sent by the wrath of God. The shepherd taught that everyone is responsible for their sins, that, according to the instructions of the Prophets, the Savior and the Apostles, it is not a sin to be saved from death, but on the contrary, whoever does not avoid visible danger and is exposed to it unnecessarily is a suicide. Others, the patriarch said, did not listen to good advice, they themselves died and destroyed others. They believed the tales of dreamers who said that God had revealed to them when and how the plague would end. So what happened? The infection struck the gullible, and from them spread to others; – Christians died without Christian preparation. “We will be, the shepherd concluded, Ninevites, not Sodomites! let us leave malice, and let us not perish from malice.” In October, the Patriarch, following the wishes of the Tsar, went with Tsarevich Alexei to Vyazma to see the Tsar. And the king again sincerely thanked the patriarch as his friend and true saint. This is how Nikon acted for the benefit of the Orthodox Fatherland, with sincere love for the worthy sovereign. § 6. The sad fate of Nikon: the severance of friendship with the king In 1657, a change began in Nikon's fate. There is no doubt that this change began and was continued by the hatred of the nobles, who rebelled against Nikon for his strength with his friend the Tsar. Then Nikon’s stern and, more recently, irritable character took part. Even more than that, superstitions, for whom Nikon was too bitter, wanted to destroy Nikon. In the sad story of Nikon, we constantly see the same dignitaries of the court - the boyars Streshnevs (Simeon and Rodion) and the Miloslavskys - relatives of the tsar, princes Odoevsky (Nikita), Dolgoruky (Yuri) and Trubetskoy (Alexey), boyar Saltykov and secretary Almazov, i.e. we see an obvious conspiracy against Nikon. An eyewitness to the events, envoy Mayerberg, writes: “Patriarch Nikon, being extremely close to the king, seemed omnipotent; but he was cast down by the fate of court life... The Tsar’s heart was alienated from him by both the Tsarina, who had long hated him, and the Tsar’s father-in-law (Ilya Miloslavsky), who was hostile to him for his own reasons. And the good Tsar Alexy is so besieged by his favorites that no one has access to him.” The boyars could not tolerate Nikon's authority in the royal council. All their lives they argued with each other for places, and in disputes for places they subsequently destroyed almost everything that Nikon’s foresight and the tsar’s courage acquired in the war with Poland and Sweden. This was clearly seen and testified by the modern Ukrainian chronicler. As rude as it was irritable pride, the nobleman took revenge on those who insulted her mercilessly, paying no heed to either truth or compassion. Nikon's power in itself was difficult for the boyars; and Nikon, with a sharp and firm character, made one feel his advantage too much and did not know evasiveness. He loved the Tsar and the Holy Church ardently. And according to the power of the patriarch, according to the power that the royal love entrusted to him, he spoke and fulfilled the truth, without distinguishing faces. When Morozov and some others, following the example of the Poles, acquired Latin icons and organs, Nikon loudly denounced them for this in the church in front of the sovereign. Some boyars had something else in mind against Nikon. While some of the nobles frivolously adopted the bad customs of the West, others stood among the fanatics of antiquity; and these people were ready to do anything to get rid of Nikon. They fanned hatred against Nikon wherever they could. For both, the Monastic Order served as a weapon against Nikon and as a protection for passions. The boyars, through the monastic Order, little by little began to make orders not only past the patriarch, but also with the open intention of insulting Nikon; from ecclesiastical estates passed to clergy. They appointed priests and abbots in the name of the king, without any communication with the shepherd of the Church. Nikon showed the injustice in the new order of affairs; the eastern patriarchs subsequently told the king the same thing, and the Order was closed. But Nikon’s thoughts were shown to be either doubtful or unfair because Nikon proposed them; and the harsh expressions in which Nikon subsequently spoke about the Order only pleased Nikon’s enemies. Little by little they reached the point where they began to openly abuse the patriarch. Streshnev (Semyon) was so impudent that he named his dog after Nikon and carried his hatred of Nikon to the point of open blasphemy over the saint’s blessing. From the middle of 1657, the tsar was no longer as close to Nikon as before. There were no more friendly conversations at meals; There were no frequent meetings about business with the patriarch. The boyars aroused distrust in the tsar towards Nikon and took measures to bring it to complete coldness, if not to enmity. If the good king and the patriarch had sincerely explained themselves to each other, their friendship would have revived. But this is precisely what the tsar was not allowed to do, even in the most important cases for Nikon. In July 1658, an opportunity opened up to bring secret displeasure to an open rupture. In Moscow, a ceremonial reception was given to the Georgian Tsar Teimuraz, who arrived to seal the alliance of Georgia with Russia. The Patriarch left his Resurrection solitude to take part in a matter that was connected with church affairs, and in which his predecessors participated, starting with Patriarch Job. But the patriarch was not invited to the palace. Amazed Nikon sent his boyar-prince to find out the reason. Stolnik Bogdan Khitrov, a lover of antiquities and a relative of the Tsar, hit the prince with a stick; the messenger said that he was sent by the patriarch; Khitrov repeated the blow with rude abuse. It is clear that Khitrov acted with true hopes of protecting the powerful: the consequences showed this. The irritated Nikon demanded satisfaction, and the tsar promised satisfaction in writing, and also wanted to personally explain himself to the patriarch; but Nikon did not receive satisfaction from the machinations of the boyars. The Patriarch hoped to speak with the Tsar on holidays; but one holiday passed (July 8), and the king was kept from going out; another came (July 10), the patriarch waited a long time for the king; but Prince Romodanovsky, who came to announce that the tsar would not come out, began to publicly reproach Nikon for being proud of the title of the great sovereign, that is, for the very one that the tsar gave him. Then Nikon, upset to the core, lost patience. At the end of the liturgy, he announced out loud to everyone that he was no longer a patriarch; He placed the staff of St. Peter at the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God and wrote a letter to the Tsar in the sacristy. It was an act of self-will and because it set a harmful example of self-will to others. The Tsar, embarrassed, wanted to calm Nikon down; but Prince Trubetskoy, who set off on a royal errand, had no disposition at all to calm Nikon down. Nikon responded by telling him about his intrigues before the king. The people simply cried and held the doors, not allowing the shepherd to leave the church. Nikon went on foot from the Kremlin to the Iverskoye Metochion, and from there he went to the Resurrection Monastery. In Resurrection solitude, Nikon lived like a strict worker; everything that the Tsar’s very enemies could say about him would relate only to Nikon’s honor. § 7. Council of 1660; Paisiy and Babarykin; response of the patriarchs; Council decision of 1666 In 1660, the boyars found it necessary to act decisively against Nikon. Pitirim, at the inspiration of the boyars, acted as a sovereign patriarch, without intercourse with the patriarch. Saltykov and Trubetskoy, together with Pitirim, presented to the tsar that the Church was left without a shepherd, and it was necessary to elect a new patriarch. The Tsar ordered the cathedral to be established. Then hatred of Nikon was revealed in its darkest form. What haven't they said about Nikon? It is painful to listen to the cries of passions that have reached the point of savagery. To the credit of Christian conscience, there were two who spoke quite freely in favor of Nikon at the council. The scholar Epiphanius Slavenitsky, who wrote the conciliar acts, announced that he did not find in the church rules that an abdicated bishop should be deprived of the priesthood. And Ignatius Iovlevich, Archimandrite of Polotsk, said that without listening to the voice of the patriarch himself: why he retired from the see and whether he wants to leave it forever, it is impossible to draw up a ruling on his removal from the administration of the Church, moreover, Russian bishops do not have the right to judge their archpastor without the participation of the Eastern patriarchs. This voice penetrated the meek heart of the king. Unfortunately for the Church, then the former Metropolitan of Gaza, Paisius Ligarid, arrived in Russia, condemned by his patriarch and wandering for a long time without a diocese in Greece and Italy. Paisius was quite learned, but did not value his conscience too much, loved to intrigue, was cunning, but also frivolous. Kindly treated by the king, and even more so by the nobles, he did not hesitate to become one of Nikon’s most evil enemies. The first thing Paisius and the nobles did was Streshnev’s questions to Paisius about Nikon and Paisius’ answers, selected from church rules in condemnation of Nikon. Meanwhile, Nikon, in other cases not entirely trusting, not knowing Paisius’s dispositions, in a letter to him poured out a complaint about his situation, and wrote a similar letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The letter was intercepted by the nobles; the letter to Paisius, as is clear, was also in their hands, and both papers deeply upset the good king. Then Paisius, in a letter to the Tsar, presenting himself as a zealot for the Church and royal honor, wrote that for the benefit of the Church and the Tsar it was necessary to communicate with the Patriarch of Constantinople. He had previously prepared questions for the Patriarch of Constantinople about royal and patriarchal power, not naming Nikon by name, but presenting cases from the history of Nikon, as Nikon’s enemies presented them. The king sent questions not to one, but to all the patriarchs; but the ambassador was given instructions by the nobles. At the end of December 1662, the nobles convinced the tsar to demand information about the state of the property of the churches and the patriarch's house, with reports from the abbots, what things and gifts did Nikon demand from them? At the same time, the secret archive of the patriarch was revealed. Nikon complained bitterly about this insult, especially because it violated the secrets entrusted to him as a saint. The monastic order gave Stolnik Babarykin, a royal relative, the land purchased by the patriarch for the Resurrection Monastery. Babarykin did not want to remain in debt. He reported to the tsar that a) the patriarch, at the prayer service, placed a letter of grant to the monastery in front of the image of the Mother of God and, choosing words of curse from the psalms, referred them to the tsar, b) on the same day he reproached the tsar in his cell. The sensitive but trusting king complained with tears about the patriarch. They decided to immediately send Nikon to prison. But the two bishops insisted that the matter must be investigated in advance. The main investigators turned out to be Prince Odoevsky and Streshnev. Paisius Ligarid was so frivolous that he also accepted the position of investigator, he who had no kind of title from his patriarch, nor the right to trial in the affairs of a foreign Church and its patriarch. While the tsar ordered the noble investigators to treat Patriarch Nikon with all respect, they, surrounded by crowds of archers and dozens of officials, dealt with Nikon in their own way - they interrogated him with arrogant insolence, instead of questions they offered him reproaches and abuse, they locked him in a cell and subjected those who lived with him in the monastery to torture. And, however, according to the report of the investigators themselves, who were extremely unconscientious, Nikon’s whole business consisted in the fact that he ordered to read some psalms condemning the wicked, meaning Babarykin, and the witnesses, whose testimony was not presented in the report, unanimously said that the patriarch ordered to read for the king and the litanies were read, to whom the psalms related, his name was not pronounced. According to the very report of the investigators, the tsar could not help but see the hatred pursuing Nikon, and hastened to calm the patriarch with his order, then sent him gifts. In May 1664, a response was received from the Eastern Patriarchs, which, due to the uncertainty of the issues, did not resolve the matter about Nikon. And the Patriarch of Jerusalem Nektarios, although he signed the council’s definition, in a special letter asked the king for Nikon; The shepherd wrote that he found no reason to strictly condemn Nikon either in the royal letter or in the order to the ambassador, and begged the tsar to remember Nikon’s merits by returning his pulpit, not to listen to the disturbers of the world and to calm the Church. Until now, no one's voice had reached the king in favor of Nikon. The letter from the Eastern Patriarch, alien to the turmoil of the Russian court, made a deep impression on the good Tsar. He always understood his friend much better than any of the courtiers. Now the conviction of Nikon's greatness was revived in him. Boyar Nikita Zyuzin, along with a few others, suffering from unrest caused by ignorance, envy and malice, decided to act on those reviews of the tsar about Nikon that reached him through others. He (in November 1664) wrote to the patriarch to come to Moscow for the feast of the wonderworker Peter and send to call the sovereign to service, as if nothing had happened between them. Before that (in October), the tsar not only favorably received the archimandrite sent by Nikon: but wrote a letter full of love and respect “to the great sovereign, Saint Nikon, archbishop of the reigning city of Moscow and all great and small and white Russia, the patriarch.” Zyuzin wrote a second and third time, inviting Nikon to Moscow. Relying on all this, Nikon, in order to restore the union of love, arrived in Moscow - and sent to call the king to prayer. This created great alarm. It was a decisive moment: either the fall of Nikon’s enemies or his final overthrow depended on it. The enemies convinced the tsar not to receive the patriarch and to announce that he was going to the Resurrection Monastery. The grieved patriarch said out loud that he was shaking off the dust from his feet where they did not accept him. Then he declared by letter his consent to the election of a new patriarch, so that the monasteries he had built would remain under his jurisdiction, he forgave all those who had offended him, he allowed both the bishops who were guilty before him and the boyars Streshnev, Babarykin and others like them, as long as they asked for forgiveness; He also wished that he would not be denied access to the king and access to him by those wishing to visit him. But I really didn’t like these conditions. The Tsar sent to the east to call two patriarchs to Moscow for a council. At the end of 1666, Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch arrived in Russia. In December, a large council of Eastern and Russian shepherds gathered in the royal chambers. Nikon, called to the council, prepared for it with the blessing of oil and the sacrament of St. secrets And when, having entered the chambers, as a patriarch, he did not see a patriarchal place for himself, he did not sit down, but listened while standing. The Tsar said with deep sorrow that Patriarch Nikon had arbitrarily left the pulpit and acted arbitrarily, thereby disturbing the peace of the Church for eight years; tears flowed from the eyes of the good king at the exposure of the great man and so beloved by him; the tsar also spoke about Nikon’s letter of complaint to the Patriarch of Constantinople; and finally he testified before everyone that he had no personal enmity against the saint. Nikon offered evidence of his conscience that he avoided the tsar’s wrath, and, settling in the desert from the troubles of the boyars, did not leave his diocese. About the letter to the patriarch he explained that he wrote it as brother to brother, and did not think that they would want to discover it to the temptation of the Church. Then Nikon was not only cruelly accused, but also showered with abuse by the bishops: Hilarion of Ryazan, Pitirim of Krutitsa and Methodius of Mstislav - constant ill-wishers of Nikon, of whom Nikon did not allow the latter even to the rank of bishop. Hilarion even raised his hand against the high priest. Nikon answered freely, but restlessly. At the new meeting, the tsar also addressed the boyars present, demanding evidence against Nikon. Only Prince Dolgoruky said a few words; the others were silent. Then Nikon, looking at them, said: “Sire! They have been preparing to accuse me for nine years, and no one can utter a word. Nikon can be stoned; but even if I spent nine more years inventing slander, they won’t find anything against me.” After several meetings, at which Nikon was no longer present, he was called (December 12) to the last one, when they decided to approve and announce the decision of the council. The good tsar did not want to be present at this sad action: the most worthy shepherds of that time did not take part in it: Lazar of Chernigov, Simon of Vologda and Mikhail of Kolomna. Patriarchs: Paisius and Macarius also tried to avoid condemning Nikon, citing the fact that they did not mean the voices of the two patriarchs; but they are told that the consent of those patriarchs to the trial of Nikon is known. Nikon was accused of the following: 1) he left the patriarchal house without permission and retired to the Resurrection Monastery; 2) due to his removal, various consequences were opened, from which many suffered; 3) he annoyed the sovereign, argued with the council itself and was not subdued; 4) he called the Metropolitan of Gaza a heretic and a rebel; 5) without a conciliar court he banned some bishops and deprived them of dioceses and 6) some of his subordinates, upon removal from the throne, severely punished. After reading the charges, the verdict was read to Nikon: to deprive him of the patriarchal rank and send him in monastic clothes to repentance in a deserted monastery. Nikon was taken under strict supervision to the Ferapontov Beloozersky Monastery, where he stayed until 1675, first in severe cramped conditions: in 1675 he was transferred to the Kirillov Monastery, and again under the most severe yoke of poverty and cramped conditions. Tsar Feodor Alekseevich decided to return his rank and his beloved Resurrection solitude to him, but Nikon died on the way and was buried with the honors of a patriarch; the eastern patriarchs sent their permission, which returned Nikon's rank after his death. Before his death, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich wrote in his will: from my spiritual father, the great master, His Holiness Nikon, hierarch and blessed shepherd, even if he is not now on this throne, I have so deigned to God, I ask for forgiveness and permission. § 8. Conversion of foreigners in Siberia At the same time that Siberia was conquered under Tsar Grozny, Russians began to settle in places; in 1603, some of the leaders of the Chusovsky Vogulichs were already baptized. The Nikon Chronicle says about Patriarch Philaret: “you brought many pagans to the Orthodox faith,” and, comparing him with St. Leonty of Rostov writes: “You brought many filthy faiths, baptized them all.” This applies mainly to the Siberian peoples. At the end of 1620, for the success of the faith, it was necessary to appoint an archpastor to Tobolsk; Cyprian, abbot of Khutyn, already known for his zeal for the fatherly faith, was appointed archbishop. The pious Tsar Michael provided the Siberian archbishop with life benefits. The pious archpastor fulfilled the hopes of the king and patriarch, baptized many infidels in St. faith, and so that the life of Christians would not be a temptation for those weak in the faith, he tried to heal that strong relaxation of morals that was visible in the Russian settlers of that region. This cost him a lot of work and grief. For the success of piety, he built several monasteries in different places of his diocese. Under Patriarch Nikon, the fifth Siberian metropolitan, Simeon sent the king a request from 14 volosts of the Koda Ostyaks to send priests and monks to them, so that they could be enlightened by baptism: “before, they wrote, in the city of Koda (or Konda, the residence of the Ostyak princes) there were churches and many Ostyaks, hearing the sermon, were baptized.” At Nikon’s insistence, the tsar, in a letter of 1653, ordered the archbishop to build a monastery in Konda and determine the order in order to baptize the Koda Siberians. From that time on, the Koda Monastery served as a breeding ground for faith. In the middle of the 17th century, Christianity began to penetrate into southern Siberia and even into that part of it that, stretching from the Apple Ridge to the east, was called Dauria. The exploits of the brave Khabarov (in 1649) opened the way to faith between the Daurs, Duchers, Gulyaks, Achans, and partly the Manjurs. From the towns that were built locally, the light of faith spread among the pagans. In 1671, near Albazin, which stood on the edge of eastern Dauria, the Spassky Monastery was built, and in Albazin itself even before that there was a parish church. In 1681, a mission was sent to spread the faith to western Dauria. The preachers of the faith were Hegumen Theodosius, Hieromonk Macarius and several monks. Siberian Metropolitan Pavel gave them excellent instructions. “Having arrived in Dauria, he wrote, in Selenginsk and other cities and forts to invite all people of other faiths to the true Orthodox Christian faith, teach with all care and zeal from the Divine Scripture and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit; to lead to that divine work without any vanity and pride, with good intentions, without any insult... be careful lest some words alienate the obstinate foreigners from the holy work,” and so on. At the same time, the blessing was given to establish the Holy Trinity Monastery in Selenginsk. At the end of the same year (1681), as a result of the royal proposal, the Council decided: “to send spiritual people, archimandrites, abbots or priests, good and teaching, to distant cities, on the Lena in Daury, to enlighten the unbelievers with the Christian law.” The zealous Selenga abbot founded the ambassadorial Preobrazhensky Monastery for a temporary stay, near the Kartina Bay. The fruits of all these efforts are visible in the Daurian lists of newly baptized people. The name of the enlightener of Siberia belongs primarily to the Tobolsk Metropolitan, Filofei Leshchinsky. At his very initiation (in 1702), he received instructions to try to spread Christianity among the various pagans of Siberia, in the spirit of the Gospel; personal zeal and inner calling demanded the same from Philotheus even more. The assistants to the holy cause were the learned monks and pious young people he took from Kyiv. Philotheus, as is noticeable, deeply regretted the loss of eastern Dauria, which was ceded by imprudence to China in 1689. He sent missionaries to the border Siberian Mongols and tried to convert to St. the faith of the Kalmyk kutukhtu (high priest) himself; but now it was not so easy to operate there with success as before. In 1711, he refused the see and accepted the schema in the Tyumen monastery with the name Theodore; His zeal for the spread of the faith now received even more freedom. The Siberian governor, Prince Gagarin, offered him external aids for preaching. Theodore went with several priests down the Irtysh to the Ostyaks in Samara, where their princes lived. The first year of service to the faith brought little visible fruit; after much persuasion, Theodore managed to persuade the people in Samara to burn their own idol; the same was done in Shorvan yurts; but here the confusion could hardly be calmed by convictions of the powerlessness of a god who could not defend himself. Some fathers of families were baptized in Kond. In 1713, Theodore sailed down the Irtysh for the second time. In the Altym yurts, the word of faith triumphed over the most inveterate idolaters. Theodore baptized 3,500 people, including the wives and children of previously baptized Ostyaks. The following year he went from Tyumen to Pelym and baptized 400 Voguls, and his missionary 300 others. In Berezovo, according to the arrangement of Providence, Ostyaks from distant nomads gathered. Theodore baptized them and left them a priest. In 1715, he sailed down the Conde, and in the local Ostyaks he met stubborn resistance, even an attempt on his life. But hope in the Lord, sincerity of conviction and purity of soul that animated the holy elder won victory over stubborn delusion. In the same year, he was again called to the metropolis and continued his concern for the spread of the faith. In 1716, the missionaries he sent converted the Chulym Tatars and more than half of the Kistims living on the Tom River. In 1718 and 1719, the saint, despite his decrepit years, again traveled himself preaching the holy faith, was in Irkutsk and from there twice beyond Baikal, sailed along the Angara, Tunguska and Keshi rivers. Theodore was the father of those he converted, providing them with benefits of life, freedom from capitation and slavery. Until 1721, when his feat for the Church ended with his second removal to the monastery, he managed to acquire for Christ up to 40,000 Ostyaks, Voguls, Tatars, Tungus and other foreigners and erected 37 churches for them. In the first years of Filofeev’s service to the Holy Church, the diocese of Irkutsk, a suffragan of the Siberian metropolis, was opened for the success of the faith, where previously there were already monasteries of monks - zealots of the faith: Spasskaya in Yakutsk from 1660, Trinity in Kirensk from 1663 and Voznesenskaya in Irkutsk from 1672. § 9. Successes of faith between the Tatars and Mordovians The holy faith, planted by Saint Gury in Kazan, subsequently, when measures to protect it were weakened, began to weaken among the Tatars. In 1593, the zealous Hermogenes, then Metropolitan of Kazan, wrote with deep sorrow to Moscow that some of the Tatars had completely fallen away from the faith, while others loved the sensual life of Islamism more than the rigor and purity of the holy faith. Therefore, he asked that civil measures to protect Christianity be resumed. As a result of this, it was ordered to build a settlement with a church and resettle all the newly baptized from the district there; It was forbidden for the Mohammedans to keep Christians in their service, and Christians were ordered to either release captives of other faiths or join Christ, to have wives only as Christians, and to fulfill everything required by the holy faith. Thus, evil was stopped and the way was opened to holy faith. In order to revive in Kazan residents the memory of the Kazan miracles of Christianity, as well as the exploits of the first preachers of the faith, Hermogenes (in 1594) wrote the story of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God and the lives of Saints Gurias and Barsanuphius. The miraculous cessation of the pestilence under Patriarch Nikon, which followed while citizens walked around Kazan with the miraculous icon of the Sedmiozernaya Hermitage, revived faith in believers and aroused in non-believers from that time on, and the non-believers of the Kazan land began to have reverent respect for this icon, reinforced by new temporary miracles. Since the beginning of this period, we have already seen private appeals to the faith of the Kazan and Temnikov Mordovians. The great Nikon cared to do more. Misail, who was ordained (in 1651) as Ryazan archbishop with the approval of Metropolitan Nikon, was the obedient son of Patriarch Nikon. Misail informed the great patriarch that, having been sent by him to convert the Mordovians and Tatars in the Shatsk and Tambov districts to the holy faith, he managed, with God's help, to baptize 4,200 people and asked for the patriarch's blessing to go to Kasimov, Shatsk and Tambov for preaching: and he wrote that in the Shatsk district there were up to 2,000 unbaptized Mordovians, and in Kadomsky up to 4000 Mordovians and Tatars. The Patriarch blessed the shepherd's holy zeal. Misail, moving from one place to another, in holy clothes, convinced superstitions to abandon superstition; in one village he converted 315 Mordovians with their wives and children. But the stubborn ones resisted, gathered in a crowd in the village of Konobeevo (near Shatsk), and arrows rained down on the saint; the pierced saint died a martyr of the faith. This was in 1655. III. Teaching and Worship § 10. In the South-West: the introduction of a union For several centuries the pope, through both violence and cunning, sought to subjugate the Russian Church to his power; but without success. The deep consciousness of the purity of the Eastern faith, the worldly spirit of the hierarchy and all Roman institutions forced them to reject the pope with indignation. Since in Russia they passionately loved the ancient, the eastern, and hated the self-will of Rome, the pope had to take stronger than before a means that did not destroy either one or the other faith - for union. The preparation for union was the education of young people by the Jesuits, especially in Rome. This preparation perfectly suited the goal of the Jesuits. Prince Kurbsky was already mourning his Jesuit upbringing. Hypatius Potsey, the main culprit of the union, was raised precisely in the Latin Academy and afterward remained under the strong influence of the prelates. Then, all the Uniate archpastors were raised in Rome, where Machiavelli's science was known far before Machiavelli. Circumstances and passions brought the Jesuit plan into action. Sigismund, king of Poland, was a zealous servant of the Jesuits; They couldn't wait for a better assistant. A special patriarch was appointed for the Russian Church; This appointment alarmed the Jesuits as a great danger to their species. Patriarch Jeremiah, while traveling through the south to Moscow, saw a lot of unrest in the false metropolis and at the same time deprived Onesiphorus of the metropolitan see for bigamy. Lutsk Bishop Kirill Terletsky led the life of a riotous Roman prelate, was a bigamist, and was convicted of various crimes, including even criminal ones. The Patriarch ordered his trial. Kirill and others like him were too far from the desire to repent. They were looking for something completely different. And everyone then wanted relief from oppression for Orthodoxy. But it was also difficult for the ambitious that the paths to honors were closed to the Orthodox; Cyril and others like him were too eager to sit in the Senate along with the Latin bishops. The Metropolitan of Kyiv in place of Onesiphorus was Mikhail Rogoza, quite kind, but with a weak character, with the kind that was needed for Cyril and the Jesuits. The latter, together with Kirill, now diligently sowed distrust and enmity towards the patriarch. Patriarch Jeremiah, going to Moscow, appointed that upon his return from Moscow the Metropolitan should convene a council to discuss the deanery. The cathedral was not assembled. Kirill made the weak Rogoza fear for himself. The Patriarch awaited the council in Zamość with a loss of time and heavy costs for his meager throne. Recalled by business in Wallachia, he sent a letter of trust to the Metropolitan in Vilna; but Cyril took her away on the road from Hieromonk Gregory, with whom she was sent. The Patriarch, having learned about this, sent a letter to Meletius, Bishop of Vladimir, instructing him and his exarch to convene a council, and entrusted the weak metropolitan with paying the costs of Zamosc. Cyril visited Meletius in a friendly manner and secretly stole the patriarch’s letter from him. Thus, the council again did not take place; the alliance with the patriarch was greatly weakened. In 1590, the Jesuits opened their case with Skarga publishing a deft panegyric of the union, dedicating it to “his spiritual son,” King Sigismund. For Kirill, a clever assistant was found in Senator Potsey, for whom it meant nothing to change one faith to another, but needed to get rid of debts. The Jesuits begged the king for a promise to deliver the lucrative bishopric of Vladimir to Potsey - and Cyril tonsured Hypatius as a monk. At the same time, at the insistence of the Jesuits, new oppressions opened up against the Orthodox. At the council of 1591, as a result of the definitions of the previous council, charters and privileges given at different times to Orthodoxy were delivered. It was necessary to ask the king to return to them the meaning of the current law. The cunning Terletsky, who “like a demon never ceases to slander the patriarch,” managed to get into his hands white blankets with the seals of bishops attached, issued to petition the king for the protection of the Church. After that, Cyril and Hypatius, already Bishop of Vladimir, traveled around the cities to prepare minds for the union. They tried to win over Mikhail Kopystensky, bishop of Przemysl; but he then protested against the union. It seemed easier to win over Gideon Balaban, the bishop of Lviv, to the union, since he was very dissatisfied with the decisions of his dispute with the Lviv brotherhood about the rights of the bishop; but he was also far from the Jesuit union. Prince Ostrozhsky, in a letter to Potsey dated June 21, 1593 wrote that he was not averse to peace with non-peace-loving Rome, if he wanted to ease the fate of Orthodoxy; but he only wants a peace that the Eastern and Moscow Patriarchs could agree to, which must be addressed first of all in this matter. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople sent admonitions not to be seduced by new teachings, and the latter threatened with excommunication from the Church anyone who wanted to change Orthodoxy. The voice of the east made a strong impression on everyone. But Ipaty and Kirill began to act all the more decisively. At the end of 1594, a meeting about union took place. Those who willingly accepted it later at the Council of 1596 accepted it now. But it was unpleasant that the Polish prelates did not want to share the benefits with the union. It was also unpleasant that there were few people who agreed to the union. The latter was all the more unpleasant because the prelates did not lose sight of this state of affairs of the union. Since among the Jesuits all means are holy in purpose, their thoughts were now accepted by their new friends. In March 1595, it was already known that Cyril traveled to Krakow and brought blankets there, and Hypatius wrote: “I truly do not know about any blankets.” Lies and deceit were nothing. On those forms that were issued in 1591, signed by all the pastors of the Church, both Hypatius and Cyril wrote a petition to the king and a letter to the pope (dated June 12, 1595) outlining the desires of the union, not only on behalf of the metropolitan and all the bishops; but also all the clergy and the sheep entrusted to them. Meanwhile, Potsey himself wrote at the same time that “not everyone and the bishops” agreed to have relations with Rome, and “the lesser brethren, although equal servants of God, do not know about it at all.” Sigismund, with a charter on July 30, 1595, declared the equal rights of the Uniate clergy with the Roman clergy and sent Hypatius and Cyril to Rome at his own expense. At the same time, a book about the union was published in Vilna; and in Galicia they continued to oppress the Orthodox. The traitors were received with delight in Rome. On December 23, 1595, in a solemn meeting of cardinals, Hypatius and Cyril kissed the foot of Pope Clement, presented the petition of the Council, and it was read aloud to everyone. The pope's secretary, on behalf of the pope, declared their favor with a magnificent speech. Both bishops read the confession of faith; they recognized the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, the supreme power of the pope, purgatory, the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist under one form, indulgences, and accepted everything that was “defined by the Council of Trent, in addition to what is contained in the Nicene-Constantinople symbol.” Both took the oath for themselves and the bishops. Thus, Hypatius and Cyril acted not only as apostates from the faith, but also as treacherous traitors; because they accepted a lot of things in the Roman confession that none of their like-minded people thought to accept, and therefore could not afford to vouch for their acceptance. The pope and the cardinals celebrated, sang songs of praise, knocked out a medal worthy of Rome, and entered into the chronicle the story of the dawning of a new light in the lands of midnight. Hypatius and Kirill had not yet returned to Russia, and indignation against the union was already seething and taking on a menacing appearance. Bishop Gideon filed a complaint with the Sejm (July 1, 1595) that the apostate deputies accepted the Roman faith in everything, leaving Greek rites only for show, that they dishonored the name of him and Michael with a shameless forgery, and without the knowledge of the flock, they subjugated the flock to the will of the pope. The people cursed the apostates. Prince Ostrozhsky, the governor of Kiev, announced that he did not want to know the union. Metropolitan Michael, even earlier, had informed in a district letter that he had not even thought about union, and with an oath he assured that he valued his union with the Patriarch of Constantinople. The cause of the union was in a bad position. Sigismund, the zealous servant of the Jesuits, now began to act all the more powerfully. In August 1596, he issued the privilege of the union in the name of the Uniate clergy. Then a Diet was appointed in Brest and at the beginning of October 1596, five bishops committed to the union arrived there, with the king’s attorneys, Latin bishops and senators. The champions of Orthodoxy were the exarchs of the patriarchs - Nikephoros of Constantinople, and Cyril Lukar of Alexandria, Bishops Gideon and Michael, Luke, Metropolitan of Belogorod from Slavonia, many archimandrites and archpriests. Prince Ostrozhsky and all the secular Russian nobility were on the side of Orthodoxy. Theological debate began. But there was a king for the Uniates, who demanded only obedience. Metropolitan Michael arrived after everyone else (before the evening of October 5). The Orthodox sent to ask him: whose side will he take? And he decisively declared that he did not want union; - this is what an eyewitness says. And he writes that at night the opposing side and especially Gregory, who had hitherto acted in his name, managed to change him so much that he became on the side of the union. The Orthodox sent (October 6) a protest to the Metropolitan, where they threatened both him and other traitors with trial; but it was all in vain. On October 9, the Uniate Council met in the Church of St. Nicholas, where the whole matter began and ended with Gregory reading from the pulpit the papal bull and the act of union, signed on October 8 by the metropolitan and 5 bishops, but none of the secular ones. The Orthodox drew up and signed a verdict: a) not to listen to the Metropolitan and other apostate bishops in anything, but to consider them deprived of power; b) do not accept anything in relation to faith without the Patriarch of Constantinople. Thus began the union - not a union of hearts separated by locality, but a struggle between worldly thoughts and a clear conscience. § 11. Bloody suffering of the Orthodox under Sigismund. 1597–1631 The union could bring nothing but the struggle of death with life into society and into the Church, unless they wanted it to die at the very beginning. But they decided to give her a full life. And so Sigismund and the Latin clergy - fanatics of papism, magnates - drunk and greedy for gain - introduced all measures of violence in favor of the union, drenched the earth in blood - to the destruction of Poland. “The burdens and violence,” wrote the Lithuanian Confederation of 1599, are multiplying more and more, especially from the clergy and some secular persons of the Roman confession. It often happens that in no corner of the entire state, not one of us, no matter what rank, is safe. Our churches, monasteries, cathedrals for the most part have already been captured, ruined and devastated, moreover, with robbery and torture, with abuse of the living and the dead. Our clergy suffer various persecutions for their firmness in their confession, they are attacked in their own homes, robbed, dishonored, exiled, deprived of property.” Troops have been sent to Little Russia. Its deputies submitted a petition to the king. Pointing to the rights granted to the Cossacks by the government, to their services to Poland in wars with its enemies, they bitterly complained that the magnates and Latin clergy “plagued their hetman in the most unjust, shameful and barbaric manner, and confused the people with attempts to convert them to union.” In conclusion, they begged the king to approve a new hetman (Nalivaika) and protect them from violence. The king not only did not say that the Cossacks were guilty of anything before the government, but gave his royal word to calm Little Russia. Meanwhile, in fact, the Polish troops opened the war. Nalivaiko, an ardent defender of the ancestral faith, like his holy kinship, defended his homeland, happily defeated the Lyakhov and tried to return the weak among the spiritual to their duty in faith and life. In 1597, military deputies went, as usual, to the main diet. Nalivaiko came with them to testify his loyalty to the king. But on the very first night they were all captured and thrown into an underground dungeon; here, neither day nor night, without giving the hetman rest, the guards woke him up with the butt of an axe, and on the third day he and the deputies were taken to the square, put in a copper bull and burned with slow fire. They were not satisfied with this crime, which violated all the rights of politics and conscience, reason and honor. The magnates at the Sejm declared Ukraine deprived of all rights. As a result of this decision, officials from the Poles were sent to all places. Little Russia is flooded with troops. Open robberies and violence began. Polish soldiers with drawn sabers forced the people in the church to kneel and strike themselves on the chest according to Roman custom, and according to Roman custom to read the creed about the Holy Spirit. Churches were taken away by force and declared Uniate. The Latin clergy moved from church to church in carts, which were harnessed to 20 or more people, instead of cattle. Those churches whose parishioners could not be forced into union by any force were leased to the Jews; the keys of the church and bell tower were transferred to the Jewish tavern. You need to make a demand: go bargain with the Jew, for whom gold is an idol, and the faith of Christ is the subject of evil ridicule and curses. It was necessary to pay from one to 5 thalers for each liturgy, from one to 5 zlotys for baptism and burial. Only Polish magnates and the clergy of Rome could take such measures for the sake of faith. In 1607, the constitution of the Warsaw Sejm prohibited violence against Orthodoxy; the rights of the Cossacks were recognized. But this is only because the brave Sagaidachny was the hetman and the Cossacks were then seen as needed for a war with their neighbors. Under Sagaidachny from 1607 in Little Russia the union subsided somewhat. It was not the same during the life of Sagaidachny in Volhynia, Chervonnaya Rus and Lithuania, when Prince Ostrozhsky († 1608), Bishops of Lvov Gideon († 1607) and Bishop Mikhail of Przemysl († 1612) died one after another. The Orthodox are left as sufferers without consolation and support, as flocks without shepherds. The Polish government allowed people to apply for the ordination of the lower clergy only to the Lvov bishop, Jeremiah Tissarovsky, i.e., others 600 and 700 versts away, and the inhabitants of Galicia were so pressed that they asked the king for permission to move to Moldavia. The government flattered with promises at the diets. But Potsey and others with a convoy of soldiers dispersed those gathered in the darkness of the night for prayer and sealed the churches, either on their own, or at the personal will of the king. The Uniate bishop of Polotsk, Josaphat Kuntsevich, was most distinguished by his inhuman cruelty. He sealed (1618) Orthodox churches throughout Belarus and openly demanded that the Orthodox be expelled from the state; tormented him with investigations and trials, seeking one transition to the union; cursed at conscience and at the dead themselves. “We,” the Latin Lev Sapega wrote to him, “are full of zemstvo courts, full of magistrates, full of tribunals, full of town halls, full of property owners’ offices of calls, lawsuits, denunciations.” One deputy from Volyn in 1620 at the Warsaw Sejm depicted the vivid but exact truth. “For twenty years,” he said, at every Seim and main congress we have been begging with bitter tears and cannot beg for them to leave us with our rights and liberties. Who, oh God, is alive! clearly does not see what oppression, what unbearable sorrows the ancient Russian people endure for their piety. I'll start with Krakow... Already in large cities, churches are sealed, church estates are plundered, in monasteries, instead of people, cattle are locked up... In Mogilev and Orsha, churches are sealed, priests are dispersed; in Pinsk it’s the same... Children die without baptism; aged and old people without confession; people live without marriages in uncleanness... What is happening in Lviv? He who is not inclined to union remains in Greek law, has no place in the city, has no right to trade or sell wine, and is not accepted into any workshop. Did he die? It is impossible to openly perform a funeral service, just as it was impossible to bring the holy mysteries to a sick person. Isn’t there blatant persecution in Vilna?.. They don’t even have the freedom to take water; monks who are adamant to union are caught and beaten, grabbed on the roads and thrown into prisons.” This was the case in Belarus and Chervon-Volyn Russia until 1620. Exactly the same thing, only on an even larger scale, was there before 1632. The request submitted to Vladislav in 1632 tells us about this. We find the following sad additions to the previous one. In Lutsk, churches of God were turned into drinking houses... In Vilna, churches became taverns and hotels. Innocent people were expelled from magistrates and workshops and put in dungeons... In Minsk, church land was given for the construction of a mosque. In Polotsk they were forced to union with shackles and those who disagreed were driven out of the city. In Turov, churches with utensils were taken away by force and the pious bishop was expelled. In Orsha, Mogilev, Mstislavl, even in huts it was forbidden to pray. In Belsk, a definition was drawn up: “if any of the townspeople does not follow the religious procession to the church, he will be executed by death.” In Little Russia, after the death of Sagaidachny († 1622), persecution flared up again. A year before his death, Patriarch Theophan consecrated a metropolitan and 9 bishops for the Orthodox. But as soon as Theophan (1621) left Russia, the Uniate bishops submitted a request to the king, in which they shamelessly slandered that Theophan was nothing more than a spy of the Sultan, and the bishops dedicated to them were enemies of the fatherland. Pope Urban demanded that Sigismund, for the safety of the union, exterminate the Cossacks and punish the bishops most severely. Sigismund, without making an investigation, ordered the bishops to be seized and brought to trial. The Jews and drunken magnates continued to dominate the unfortunate Cossacks. The oppressed governors and elders, having married Polish women, moved to the church, and their subordinates were left to the will of the Jesuits and Jews. A new shameful tribute has been invented. The Uniate freely received Easter bread, where and how he wanted, but the Orthodox could not bake it himself and bought it only from a Jew, at the Jew’s price, otherwise he paid triple the price. As before, the diets did not listen to complaints of oppression, or even if they decided to restrain fanatics from going on rampages, the decisions were not carried out. And the fanatics presented the consecrated sabers to the military leaders: “It’s abomination, Rus', they would be rooted out.” In 1630, only a miracle saved the holy Lavra from the ruin to which the Poles doomed it. So, with all the bloodthirstiness of the Inquisition, until the death of Sigismund, they turned the Orthodox to the pope! And it is not surprising if, even with such measures, over the course of 40 years, out of the 4 million inhabitants of Lithuania and Belarus, half of the Orthodox are converted to union or Latinism. They didn’t manage to do as much for dad in Volyn, and even less in Red Rus'. And in Little Russia they gave their lives to the malice of fanatics, but did not betray their faith; Only some of the nobility turned out to be weak. § 12. Sufferings under Vladislav, Casimir and their successors until 1720 Ladislaus IV, Sigismund's successor (1632–1648), was not what Sigismund was. At the Sejm on November 1, 1632, he issued articles of reconciliation between the pious and the Uniates. It is ordained: 1) to be two metropolitans, Uniate and pious; 2) in the Polotsk diocese there will be two bishops and a pious one to live in Mogilev; 3) in the dioceses of Przemysl and Lvov, the bishops should always be pious: 4) cede the Lutsk bishopric to them; 5) the pious should freely relate to priests and bishops, at least of another diocese. Return to them several monasteries and churches taken away by the Uniates. The Poles and Uniates argued heatedly, not allowing this act to be included in the register books; but they succeeded only in the fact that its execution was postponed until time. At the Coronation Sejm (February 13, 1633), Vladislav renewed the act granting freedom to Orthodoxy and swore an oath to protect the security of Orthodoxy. Here the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth confirmed the diploma given by the king in favor of the Orthodox. Finally, at the Warsaw Sejm in 1635. A constitution was adopted, according to which articles of reconciliation were approved, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth determined to protect the pious and Uniates. Although these decrees took away a lot from Orthodoxy; but the fanatics considered it a misfortune for themselves that the prisons, which until that time had been filled with sufferers for the faith, were opened. They wanted even less to give up anything that had been taken from Orthodoxy by violence and robbery. The magnates, who thought little about the will of the king, and in other cases, according to the instructions of the Latin and Uniate clergy, used violence and intrigues to stop the execution of the decisions of the king and the diets. Thus, first those and other decrees useful to Orthodoxy were abolished; the best monasteries and estates that belonged to Orthodoxy remained with the Uniates. The violence of the Poles forced (in 1637) the Cossacks to take up arms; but soon peace was signed and approved. The Cossacks began to disperse. But they were attacked, many were chopped up and shot, Hetman Pavlyuga and several others were sent to Warsaw, where Pavlyuga was skinned from his head alive, and the heads of others were cut off. Then the Sejm announced: the Cossacks would be deprived of all rights and benefits. The following year, the Polish troops were completely defeated. But the Latin clergy freed the Poles from this oath; and Hetman Ostryanitsa, who went with 37 officials to the monastery on a pilgrimage, was captured and sent with his comrades to Warsaw; The wives of the captives came there with infants. Prisoners are sentenced to death without trial or interrogation. “The path to the place of execution was opened by a Roman procession; The priests persuaded the unfortunate to accept their law to deliver them from purification.” Some of the convicts were wheeled, others had their arms and legs broken, and others, pierced through with knitting needles, were raised onto piles. The wives and children of the sufferers filled the square with screams. But the wives' breasts were cut off and cut to one; and they beat their husbands in the face with their nipples. Children crawling around their bloody mothers were burned on iron grates before the eyes of their fathers. Brutal cruelty! The same brutal cruelty was revealed in the cities and villages of Ukraine, but to this they added an impudent desecration of the shrine. In the eyes of the parents, children were burned on coals and boiled in cauldrons; and then they put the mothers to a most painful death. Having robbed Orthodox churches, the Poles rented them out to the Jews; the chalices, paten, vestments and surplices were sold and drunk away; the Jews repurposed church silver into dishes and decorations, the Jewish women sewed breastplates from vestments and surplices, leaving crosses on them as a sign of triumph over faith. The king was not to blame for these brutal and blasphemous cruelties: the willfulness of the magnates knew no bounds in other cases; and here the fanatics of Rome were especially active. Vladislav tried to protect the peace of Orthodoxy and his subjects, but they did not listen to him. Since 1640, the union began to gain strength in Ukraine, and the Latin service even more so. There were churches throughout the cities, and Orthodox churches here and there were sealed. The magnates and clergy of the pope put Russian Christianity on a par with paganism. The renegades who moved to the church, and there were now a lot of them, insulted Orthodoxy especially cruelly. The brave Bogdan Khmelnitsky rose to the aid of the suffering faith and fatherland. “The reason,” wrote Khmelnitsky, that forced the Cossacks to rebel against the Poles by war, was not that the Poles unjustly took away their villages and houses, not that they were deprived of their earthly fatherland, not that they were burdened with work like an unmerciful pharaoh (the Cossacks would not refuse to endure all this), but that the Poles forced them to leave their pious dogmas and join in error, with evil foolishness they destroyed the mental villages and houses of imperishable souls.” Having defeated the Poles several times, Khmelnitsky, with a glorious victory near Zbarazh (1649), forced Jan Casimir to accept (August 16), among other articles of the treaty, the following: a) to destroy the union between the Russians in Poland and Lithuania, as it had outraged the people and was covered in Christian blood; b) the Orthodox churches remain with their ancient liberties and estates, as it was from time immemorial; c) the Kyiv Metropolitan to have a seat in the Senate; d) Jesuit schools will no longer remain either in Kyiv or in other Cossack estates. The Sejm and the king approved the Treaty of Zboriv on January 12, 1650. But the Polish lords had so little desire to preserve it that they showered the king with libels for the treaty. Metropolitan Sylvester arrived in Warsaw to take his seat in the Senate; The magnates, and most of all the noblemen, made a fuss, and as soon as he appeared in the Senate, the bishops walked out. To avoid blatant insults, the Metropolitan left Warsaw. They also did not think about fulfilling the other articles of the treaty regarding faith. On the contrary, bloodthirsty atrocities began again both in Little Russia and in Lithuania and Volyn. For the first, peace of conscience began only in 1654, when she surrendered to the protection of the Russian Tsar. How little the union was loved by many of those who accepted it is shown by the events of 1654–1667. In these few years of Moscow's power over almost the entire Lithuanian principality, many willingly abandoned the union. In 1668, Vilna announced that it was ready to break off the unhappy connection with Rome, if only the king would protect her from persecution. Under the rule of the Poles, Volyn with Red Rus and Belarus continued to suffer. The Uniate Archbishop of Polotsk, Kiprian Zhokhovsky, presented the king at the Sejm with a book about measures to exterminate Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland. In vain did Tsar Alexei more than once demand an end to the persecution, which offended both faith and humanity. In 1686, one of the articles of the eternal peace between Russia and Poland was decided to leave the dioceses of Lutsk, Lvov, Galicia, Przemysl and Mogilev to Orthodoxy. Russia, which at the same time promised freedom to the Roman profession in its regions, faithfully fulfilled its word. But in Poland no one thought about implementing the state contract. Bishops of Przemysl Innokenty, Joseph of Lvov and Meletius of Lutsk received nothing for their cathedras and were still cruelly oppressed until they finally went over to the union, the first in 1692, the last two in 1700. Everything that was still Orthodox in Poland suffered insolent abuse and insults. In 1711, Bishop Kirill was ordained for Lutsk; but the Uniates kicked him out, and he died in Pereyaslavl. In 1720, only the Mogilev diocese remained for Orthodoxy in Poland; but even before that, for 20 years (1676 - 1693) she remained without a shepherd; the nobility in Volhynia, Lithuania and Belarus transferred to the Roman faith; but the monks and common people still fought against the union and Rome for the fatherly faith. § 13. Teachers and defenders of Orthodoxy “If those who came from us had not rebelled against us,” said one Orthodox deputy in 1620, then such sciences, such schools, such a number of worthy people would not have appeared among the Russian people; the teaching in our churches would still be covered with the dust of negligence.” This is quite fair. The Union forced Orthodoxy to bloody labors, and teachers worthy of Orthodoxy, students of school and life, appeared. One of the most worthy representatives of Orthodoxy was Leonty Karpovich, a graduate of Ostroh schools, builder and first archimandrite of the Vilna Spiritual Monastery, since 1616 bishop of Vladimir and Brest. Even when he was a hierodeacon of the Pechersk Lavra, in 1608 he wrote a denunciation of the union: he describes the union as an eyewitness to the Brest Sejm of 1597 and with a pen worthy of the event. In the rank of Archimandrite of Vilna, Leonty spoke two sermons in 1615, one on the Transfiguration of the Lord, the other on the Dormition of the Mother of God. These sermons are an example of heartfelt eloquence, the fruit of a deep knowledge of the word of God, an art worthy of a church pulpit; It was not in vain that contemporaries called this sufferer for his faith “like Chrysostom in orbit.” Famous students of the Lvov school: Isaiah Kopinsky, Lavrenty Zizaniy, Kirill Tranquillion, Pamva Berynda, Isaiah Trofimovich and Sylvester Kossov, were little involved in polemics and a lot of the needs of moral life. Isaiah, in 1631, the Metropolitan of Kiev, but not for long, and before that, from 1620, the Bishop of Przemysl, who was constantly engaged in the contemplative life and the organization of monasteries, left the ladder of spiritual monastic life according to God, the spiritual alphabet and a strong admonition to Prince Vishnevetsky, who was retreating from Orthodoxy. Lavrenty, a teacher at the Lvov school, and then a preacher and archpriest in Korets in Volyn, after the grammar published in 1596 for the Vilna school, wrote a lengthy catechism. Cyril, teacher and hieromonk of the Lviv brotherhood, since 1591 a preacher of the word of God, with the blessing of the exarchs of the east and his bishop Jeremiah, wrote, after the mirror of theology, the teaching gospel; in the rank of Archimandrite of Chernigov, he composed a valuable pearl, a collection of pious reflections in prose and verse. In the preface to his second work, he writes that some, either out of weakness of sense or out of anger, initiated persecution against him for his teaching gospel: “their blasphemous word, rotten, has swept through the entire Russian land:” but he adds, “the Lord my God will reveal my innocence.” A student of the same Lvov schools was Zakhary Kopystensky, for a short time archimandrite of Pechersk (from 1625 † 1626), but who was a rather heated polemicist. In his extensive palinody, with the power of thought and warmth of heart, he refutes the writings of the Uniate: defense of the union; shows the origin and causes of the union, exposes the self-will of the papists in dogmas and rituals, and says a lot about the state of the Russian Church. In the same spirit he wrote: about the true unity of true Christians; He also owns an essay with the name of Azariah: about the faith of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, also written against the union. Particularly famous for his war with the Jesuits and Uniates was Ioanniky Golyatovsky, who studied and taught for a long time at the Kyiv college, the abbot of the Kupyatitsky Volyn monastery, who died (1688) as Archimandrite of Seversk. When, in the middle of the 17th century, the Jesuits and Uniates began to publish various abusive works against the Eastern Church, calling it new and schismatic; Then, to fight them, with the general consent of the Little Russian churches, Lazar Baranovich, known for his sermons, and Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, then rector of the Kyiv college, were elected. As soon as Ioannikios entered the struggle to which he was called, his works appeared one after another, written with an ardent and truthful soul, works that were eagerly read not only by the Orthodox, but also by the Uniates. The Jesuits have never seen anyone among the Orthodox who would so deftly repel their attacks, so strongly expose their lies and finish the matter with them with such glory, as Golyatovsky did. Belotserkovskaya Conversation, ed. 1663, the same one for which he was summoned from Kyiv, discusses with the Jesuit Pekarsky about the church hierarchy. The teaching of the ancient Church on the origin of the Holy Spirit was written in refutation of the writings of the Jesuit Boima on the power of the pope and the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Russian Church's response to the Romans was written in refutation of the book: The Foundation of Faith, written by the Jesuit Skarga. Ioannikios also wrote against the Jews (the truthful Messiah), whom the lazy magnates loved so much and who raised their horns at the rumor about some “Messiah” of Smyrna. He also wrote against the Mohammedans (destroyed alkoran, swan), who lived in Lithuania and Volyn. Moreover, he is also known as a preacher: the key of understanding of the rector Ioannikis (1659) contains teachings for all the great holidays. Far poorer than these gifted scientists are the students of the same Kyiv school: Tarasy Zemka, Innocent Gisel, Anthony of Radzivilovsky and John Maksimovich, Archbishop of Chernigov, a passionate hunter of verses. Finally, no one was so worthy of general respect both in terms of his fate, and in his learning, and in terms of his merits to Orthodoxy, as Adam Zernikov, unfortunately, barely noticed in his time. Born and raised in Lutheranism, having studied various sciences at the best universities in the West, Adam himself felt dissatisfaction with Lutheranism, divided into sects and obedient to the arbitrariness of each teacher. Reading the book “Confession of the Eastern Church” by Mitrofan Kritopoulos turned his heart to the Greek Church; he began to read the Greek fathers and teachers in order to believe that she was right in the dispute with Rome about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Adam visited Oxford and Cambridge and devoted his days and nights to reading Greek manuscripts; for the same purpose he was in Paris and Rome. Having firmly intended to convert to Orthodoxy, he wanted to go to Moscow with someone; but through Vilna he came to Lazar, the archbishop of Chernigov, who received him with joy and placed him in his house. Having declared his desire to the shepherd, Adam, instead of simply renouncing Lutheranism, wrote a refutation of the Lutheran faith. Then the hetman received him in Baturin with honor, as a good engineer; but Adam renounced secular honor and, having accepted monasticism, devoted time to collecting his research in the libraries of the West. Around 1682, he completed a treatise on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the one Father. It was a work the likes of which had never been done in the east itself, exemplary work both in the strength of its evidence and in the spirit of its presentation, calm and clear. However, it is not known exactly when the wonderful Zernikov died. It is only known that he blissfully ended his life in the Baturinsky monastery, while he ruled the brethren of St. Dimitri. § 14. In the north: education, schools At the very beginning of the patriarchate in Russia, the Council of Eastern Patriarchs made it the duty of every bishop to instill a love for the study of the sacred sciences and to provide all possible assistance to both mentors and those wishing to study. Unfortunately, in the north, the habit of the old darkness became entrenched among the masses of the people, and they covered up their reluctance to enlightenment with fears against multilingual heteroglossia. “Not knowing either Orthodoxy, or crooked language, and the divine scriptures, like passing through ink,” as Arseny, a colleague of the Monk Dionysius, said, they insisted that Russians are Orthodox even without science. It was not easy, nor could it be quickly possible to weaken, much less overcome, such a bad direction of thoughts and feelings. It took time. Returning from Polish captivity, Patriarch Filaret brought with him from the southwest the consciousness of the services of enlightenment for the faith, although this consciousness was still dominated by a feeling of indignation at papism. In the Chudov Monastery, a patriarchal Greek-Latin school was established under him; its teacher was Arseny, the same grammarian who had previously suffered for his zeal for enlightenment; in 1633 she already gave the foreigner Olearius hope for a better future. And the next year they printed several grammatical rules for her in the primer. In 1649, no doubt, at the suggestion of the tsar’s friend, Metropolitan Nikon, the learned elders Arseny Satanovsky and Epiphany Slavenitsky were summoned from the Kyiv Brotherhood Monastery by royal charter, and the next year another hieromonk Damaskin Ptitsky arrived. They were sent from Kyiv and received in Moscow “for rhetorical teaching and for translating Greek books.” For the first time, they were placed in the St. Andrew's Monastery, at the request and for the maintenance of the boyar Rtishchev, a friend of Nikonov. In the precise sense, a scientific fraternity with the school was formed. When Nikon ascended to the patriarchal see, he, calling Arseny the Greek from Solovetsky imprisonment, placed him, Epiphanius and Damascene in the Miracle Monastery, and Satanovsky in the Epiphany. Epiphany was invested with the title of head of the Patriarchal Miracle School and chief book collector. The activities of the scientific fraternity became lively. Under Nikon, precious treasures of the East, ancient Greek books, were acquired for Moscow; and besides, the royal library was enriched with the treasures of the West. Nikon's troubles were also troubles for the scientific fraternity; zealots of enlightenment were called traitors to Orthodoxy. The East again supported the friends of enlightenment in their fight against ignorance. Paisius Ligarid's admonition to increase schools in Russia meant little. But the sermon of Patriarchs Paisius and Macarius meant a lot for the Holy Church. In it, the patriarchs convinced the people to love wisdom, convinced the tsar to establish Greek and Slavic schools, and convinced the shepherds to assist the tsar both with their desires and with income from their estates in establishing schools. The thoughts of the patriarchs did not remain fruitless. Selected, God-loving citizens of Moscow submitted a request to the Tsar for permission to open a school at the Church of St. John the Theologian. The patriarchs wrote a letter in which, teaching the blessing to study in Greek, Slavic and Latin, they anathematized the enemies of enlightenment. Hieromonk Timothy, who brought bitter news to Moscow about the oppression of Orthodoxy in the east from the Turks and from the Latins, aroused in Tsar Theodore a desire to help the east with enlightenment. The Tsar invited Patriarch Joachim to open a Greek school in Moscow. Joachim was glad at the offer. Up to 30 students were gathered and (in 1679) the school was opened in a printing house. The Tsar and the Patriarch were so busy and valued their spiritual garden so much that they visited it almost every week. Two years later, the tsar, by granting a charter, assigned the new school the broad significance of the Academy; here the seeds of the verbal, philosophical and theological sciences were to be sown and grown; for the success of education, the royal library was provided to the Academy. Unfortunately, circumstances did not allow capable people to come to Moscow from the southwest of Russia and offer their services to the Academy; Tsar Theodore soon died; and then followed the excitement of the brassy archers; all this did not allow the Academy’s plan to be fully realized. At the invitation of Patriarch Joachim, two learned Greeks, people capable of talent and enlightenment, arrived in Moscow; but two could not do everything for the Academy. Hieromonks Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud completed their studies at the University of Padua with doctoral diplomas; they were allowed to teach all liberal sciences in Moscow. After grammar and literature, rhetoric, logic with dialectics and physics were taught in Greek and Latin. Since 1701, when Hieromonk Palladius Rogovsky returned from Rome, theology began to be taught. The Likhuds did a lot; Their students accomplished so much that they spoke fluently in Latin and Greek and learned the rules of literature and logic well. In 1694, the Likhuds were forced out of the Academy; Their disciples took their place. The Academy already had its own educational books, which were written either by the Likhuds or by their students. At the end of the period, schools began to open in other places except Moscow. The beginning was laid by Saint Demetrius of Rostov; in 1703, with his own funds, he established a nursery of worthy teachers of the people in Rostov, and from time to time he himself taught lessons and interpreted the Holy Scriptures. Job, Metropolitan of Novgorod, summoned the Likhudovs from Kostroma imprisonment, opened (in 1706) two schools at his house, one Greek-Slavic, the other Slavic, and then opened small schools in several cities of his diocese. § 15. The fight against papism, which was introduced with impostors The Jesuits, having raised a bloody war in the south against Orthodoxy, at the same time poured blood on the north, seeking power over the north. Only here neither their dexterity nor Sigismund’s weapons managed to do what they managed to do in the south. Now there is no longer any doubt that the first impostor, who opened the way for others, was a tool of the papists. The Jesuits positioned the papal nuncio Rangoni in favor of the impostor. The Nuncio demanded, and the impostor gave a written undertaking to accept the Roman faith and be an obedient son of the pope. When the Jesuits and the nuncio subsequently persuaded King Sigismund to solemnly recognize the impostor as heir to the Russian throne and act in his favor, the grateful impostor in the house of the Krakow Jesuits renounced the Eastern Church, confessed to the Jesuit and accepted the sacrament from the nuncio, who confirmed him. In May 1604, the impostor gave a written undertaking to the Sandomierz voivode that he would give Novgorod and Pskov with their districts as property to his future wife and daughter Mniszek, and leave her full right to build monasteries and schools according to the Roman rite. “And we ourselves,” he added, have accepted this union and will begin to work hard to bring the entire Moscow state into the same Roman faith.” In July, the impostor wrote to Pope Clement VIII, promising to turn Russia to the pope, and he was not slow to confirm his readiness to help him with apostolic power. Clement's successor, Paul, set in motion all measures so that the hopes raised by Demetrius would be realized in their full form. False Demetrius chose the Greek Ignatius as patriarch, who was raised in Rome and was ready to humiliate himself before the impostor. Several Jesuits arrived from Poland with the impostor to Moscow; the impostor gave them a church; spoke freely and trustingly to them. But in Moscow it was not as easy to introduce the Roman confession as it seemed in the dreams of the lust for power: in Moscow they were burdened by the fact that the Poles were in Moscow, and they beat the Poles in the streets. False Demetrius did not see himself in such a position as to receive Roman bishops. He wrote to the papal nuncio in Krakow to allow Marina to eat meat on Saturday and receive communion from the patriarch. The Nuncio was greatly agitated by this demand. He wrote that the tsar must not only protect his wife and all her people by the force of autocratic power from concessions in her faith; but he, without a doubt, remembers his promise to unite the Russian Church with the Roman Church. False Demetrius, in order to appease the nuncio, verbally renounced his demand and assured that he remembered the promise. He did not abandon his intentions in relation to the pope, at least he lived as if he had never been a Russian of that time. Music and dancing did not stop in the palace: he openly laughed at everything Russian and praised everything foreign; robbed the monasteries; I did not visit Orthodox churches even on holidays. This frivolity, these dissipations aroused indignation among the people. Even among the archers, whom he especially caressed, some began to say out loud that the king was an enemy of faith. The brave ones lost their heads. Tsar Simeon freely told those who visited him not to indulge in Roman novelties, but to stand for Orthodoxy. The impostor exiled him to the Cyril Monastery. Dyak Osipov calmly sacrificed his life to tell the truth to the face of the impostor. During Lent, in the sixth week, the impostor treated the boyars to “veal meat.” Prince Shuisky said that eating meat during Lent is contrary to church rule; and Russians abhor veal meat at other times. Tatishchev, considered loyal to False Dmitry, supported Shuisky’s voice and spoke so boldly that the impostor ordered his exile. No matter how frivolous the impostor was, these incidents let him know that his and the Jesuits’ plan to change the faith in Russia was absurd, that turning Moscow to the pope was as difficult as making the Volga flow from east to west. That is why they decided not to fully comply with the nuncio’s demands, even in relation to Marina; For the sake of appearance, she is supposed to sometimes go to a Greek church, take the communion of the patriarch, and fast on Wednesday, and not on Saturday. And, however, they decided that there should be a church in her inner chambers, where she would perform Latin rites. The corrupt Greek Ignatius agreed to these conditions. But Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes and Kolomna Bishop Joasaph urgently demanded that the bride, like the Russian queen, solemnly accept Orthodoxy; otherwise she is not a queen and marriage cannot even be concluded with her. The impostor began to seethe with anger, ordered Hermogenes to be immediately expelled from the capital to the Kazan monastery and threatened to deprive him of his rank. The same fate awaited Joasaph. But the Lord protected the Church! The furies of the Poles during the wedding of False Dimitrieva turned everyone against the impostor, and he died a shameful death. The Jesuits did not abandon their hopes even after that. The fate of Marinin's husband was too well known to the Poles. And yet, Poland, both politically and Jesuitically, helped the second impostor. The purpose of the 1617 campaign in Russia was publicly defined in a speech by Archbishop Vladislav of Gniezno. Poland sought to ensure that a) Vladislav took possession of the Russian throne, which Sigismund had previously sought for himself; b) it was decided to introduce a union into Russia and c) to annex the western Russian regions to Poland. Thus, the Jesuits shed Russian blood for 25 years, seeking open power over the Russian Church, and gained nothing for the pope. § 16. Correction of external worship; differences in worship with the introduction of the patriarchal rank; correction of books and rituals: a) under the patriarchs Job and Hermogenes The most important task of spiritual enlightenment during the period of the patriarchate was the correction of church books and rituals. This feat, no matter how sad its circumstances, was a most brilliant feat in its inner meaning. He tells everyone about the great truth that the Orthodox Church, not like the Western Church, loves the truth in the spirit of the Gospel, is ready to fight superstition, but is far from surrendering faith to the power of reason. Who in the West stubbornly stood for the false antiquity of the West? Dads. Who in Russia tried to clear away the human tares from the ancient church? Pastors of the Russian Church. The Reformation seemed just in its desire to restore true antiquity; but, unfortunately, it turned out to be unfair in that it extended demands for change to the very dogmas of faith and sacraments. This is not what the Russian Church did. Both in the south and in the north she corrected only rituals, corrected by the hand of shepherds. It is regrettable to see that so many members separated from the Orthodox Church during the cleansing of antiquity; but people everywhere pay tribute to sin and darkness. Some differences in the worship of the northern Russian Church belonged to the patriarchal rank itself. The patriarchal rank, without adding rights to govern the Moscow metropolitan, was especially introduced so that with greater splendor and decorum in worship, the faithful would be more strongly aroused to reverence and piety. These are the main accessories of the patriarchal rank! During the cathedral service, the patriarch vested himself in the middle of the church on the pulpit, the bishop in the altar. He stood in the middle, they were on the sides. He sat in the altar on a high place, they stood below. During communion, he gave communion to the bishops from his own hands; bishops of archimandrites. His clothes in worship: a sakkos with a sewn-on epitrachelion studded with pearls, in the likeness of Aaron's breastplate, an omophorion, a miter with a cross at the top, sometimes with a crown along the edge; a surplice, a belt, an epitrachelion and encircles it with gammata, as a symbol of the currents of the blood of Jesus, two encolpias or panagias and a cross. His robe is green velvet with streams of gold and silver, on which are tablets at the top with an image of the Annunciation or with crosses and cherubs, and below with bells. A pastoral staff with serpents, a symbol of rational government, a white hood with a sewn-on cross and sometimes with seraphim. In the church procession a candle was carried before the patriarch, and during the journey he was preceded by a cross and followed by a staff. With the introduction of the patriarchate, although not at the same time, changes were introduced in the service of other hierarchs. In 1675, the following vestments were assigned to the Metropolitan: a sakkos without a sewn-on epitrachelion, a purple-like mantle, but not of light colors; tablets of scarlet satin without crosses; miter and white hood, but without a cross; with panagia a cross; the cross preceded him on the journey, but only in his diocese. Archbishops and bishops wore a phelonion, but the former had it with multiple crosses. The Patriarch of Alexandria Paisios (in 1669) proposed that Patriarch Joasaph allow, according to a report to the king, all archbishops to wear sakkos in their diocese. But this advantage was granted at times only to certain archbishops, in the form of distinction for pastoral virtues. Other clothes: a loincloth, an omophorion, a panagia, a miter and a black hood. At the same time, some differences in the episcopal service, which were adopted by quite a few archimandrites in Russia, were assigned by the council of 1675 to only three archimandrites. After 10 years before the patriarchate they began to limit the destruction of books to printing, and now with the introduction of the patriarchate they introduced such important changes in worship and did not cease to establish new festivals; at the very beginning of the patriarchate they were already firmly convinced that it was necessary to correct errors in books, which had increased to such a number over time, and that for this it was necessary not only to print books, but before printing, to compare the later ones with the ancient, better copies. Under Patriarch Job, quite a few books were published that had not previously been published in Moscow, and several new services and holidays were introduced. Under Hermogenes they cared about the same thing. But the disasters of the Church were so great at that time that there was little time and freedom left for simple embossing of manuscripts. Meanwhile, those who under Job and Hermogenes were engaged in revising manuscripts for printing did not know Greek. Henceforth, the verification of books was limited only to the comparison of some Slavic manuscripts with others. If in the south, where the correction of books was carried out by educated people who knew the Greek language well, the disagreement between Slavic manuscripts made one lose hope of ever seeing the face of holy truth in Slavic books: what could come out of the Moscow printing house? Thus, it is very natural that both under Patriarch Job and under Hermogenes they felt the weight of the errors that burdened the written books, and recognized that many shortcomings remained in the new printed books. § 17. b) After Hermogenes and under Patriarch Filaret Upon the accession of Mikhail Feodorovich to the royal throne, the printing of books zealously continued. In 1617, the Trinity elder, Arseny Glukhoy and the Klementyevsky priest, Ivan Nasedka, complained to Tsar Mikhail that with many errors included in the book of the missal, they alone were not able to correct the errors; The tsar (November 8) instructed Trinity Archimandrite Dionysius to take part in correcting the missal. Dionysius and his employees set about the work entrusted to them with lively zeal and not without sufficient means; in addition to ancient Slavic manuscripts, they paid attention to four Greek missals. Arseny knew Slavic grammar and Greek well. Using these methods, they saw that the later books of the missal were disfigured by errors, and the later lists of other books were filled with them; It was especially strange to see that the recently published missal was published with gross errors. The correctors did what they could, to the best of their ability and conviction. But in Moscow they were denounced as heretics. In July 1618, at the council it was stated: “Archimandrite Dionysius wrote according to his own will. And for this reason we excommunicate Archimandrite Dionysius and priest Ivan from serving the Church of God and serving the liturgy, so that they may not serve as priests.” Dionysius was accused of “ordering to defile the name of the Holy Trinity in books and not confessing the Holy Spirit, as if there is fire.” This meant, a) that the correctors intended to make changes in the praises of the Holy Trinity, which ended various prayers, b) in the rite of blessing of water, they excluded the word and fire, as introduced by the arbitrariness of ignorance. In vain did Dionysius write a defense of his amendments. While the council meetings were taking place, Dionysius was kept in custody, and on holidays he was led in shackles through the streets of Moscow. The people shouted: what a heretic! wants to take fire out of the world; - and threw anything at him. The monk, covered in rags, was as cheerful as a baby: he amused himself with those who pushed and beat him. Then in the Novospasskaya monastery they languished him in the smoke on the floors and starved him to death. Arseny was also put in cruel imprisonment. And the torture of Dionysius continued for a whole year. Who were they who rebelled against well-meaning reformers? The chairman of the council was Metropolitan Jonah of Krutitsa, who ruled the patriarchate. In other cases he was reasonable, and in this case, no doubt, he did not share everything that was said against the reformers. The main accusers at the cathedral were the monastery registrant Filaret of the Sergius Monastery, the sacristan Deacon Markell, and the headman [regent] Elder Loggin. Markell is little known, but Loggin and Filaret are too famous. Headman Loggin had previously been a book collector at the printing house and, therefore, now he stood for his own business. His whole dignity consisted in the fact that he was “a loud singer, and he called grammatical cunning and bookish philosophy heresy.” “You are a master of everything,” the Monk Dionysius once remarked to him, but what you sing and say, you don’t reason about; You cry with a great voice: To Abraham and to his seed forever.” The archimandrite introduced the conversations of Chrysostom, translated by Maxim the Greek, to be read in the church; and for Loggin it is “a sea of ​​sweetness, like a worthless puddle that has become sane.” His impudence knew no bounds, as did his ignorance. The charterer Filaret was a friend of Loggin. This one was even more wonderful. He lived as a monk in the monastery for more than 50 years; but “from the simplicity of lack of learning, two thoughts of unkind wisdom came to his mind; The first thought is sitseva: the verb, our Lord Jesus Christ was not born before the age of the Father, but then, when the Archangel Gabriel was sent to bring good news to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Another thought to him is without wisdom, the creator of the incomprehensible and indescribable God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the description of the verb and the humanoid being.” So, here in one and the same person is both the darkest ignoramus and the daring heretic! It is not difficult to see how close these two persons are in character to some Habakkuk or Lazarus! Arseny writes that out of 12 Slavic lists, 10 lists did not contain the word and fire: in one of the other two it is written in the field, and in the other under the line; but in the printed missal this word is already included in the line. It would seem that this is already too much to see the late forgery. No, the strange novelty was passed off as antiquity and the forgery was defended with bitterness! The Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan, having arrived in Moscow, immediately drew the attention of love to the sufferers: he invited Patriarch Philaret to alleviate their situation; Dionysius and Arseny were released from prison; The hen knew how to get out of trouble even before. Filaret did not pronounce his perfect justification for Dionysius before he received written feedback about the word and fire from other patriarchs. Then (in 1626) with a special letter he commanded that no more words should be read by fire in the prayer of the blessing of water and that this word should be blackened out in the missal. Thus, the agitation of ignorance, which breathed schism, was tamed. Meanwhile, even before receiving the response from the patriarchs, and also after that, Patriarch Filaret continued the begun correction of the books; Dionysius's collaborators and the Monk Dionysius himself, in their justification, showed many errors in various church books. In accordance with the will of the patriarch, the Trebnik and the Service Book were especially revised. Since the worries of ignorance, agitated because of one word, showed that caution in this matter was very necessary, and Patriarch Filaret himself sought most of all to protect Russian from foreign, from Latinism: then in correcting books under Patriarch Filaret, they mainly followed the Slavic lists, although they introduced quite a lot of news. However, in 1633, he, too, by a district letter, demanded that the Charter, printed by the inspector Loggin, be taken from all places and sent to Moscow to be burned. A monument to the same zeal of his against superstition was that he severely punished the sexton for using raffles [fortune-telling books]. He acted with the same knowledge of the spirit of faith when, in 1626, The robe of the Lord was delivered to Moscow and a celebration was established for it. § 18. c) Under Patriarch Joasaph I: damage to books and a return to better things under Patriarch Joseph Philaret's successor, Joasaph, at first allowed Philaret's missal, charter and service book to be published without change: then he considered it necessary to correct a lot of things in them. The main correction consisted in replenishing the ranks with prayers and actions, and partly in the abolition of some actions. In other books, for example, in Oktoechos, they wanted to correct the mistakes of the scribes by checking them against lists, but according to Slavic lists, or only by their own reasoning. The services that had not yet been printed continued to be printed especially diligently. To help improve books, Slavic copies were collected from monasteries in Moscow, but just as under Patriarch Philaret, and under Patriarch Joasaph I they deeply felt and recognized that many different sins remained in the corrected books. Joasaph's successor, Joseph, had no more liturgical books left to publish for the first time in Moscow. But there were many instructive books that had not yet been published (in Moscow); There were many errors left in the printed service books that needed to be corrected. Joseph had enough zeal to publish instructive books, and enough sense of justice to admit, as he learned, that printed and written books were defective. In 1644 the Apostle was published with several judicious amendments. Unfortunately, Joseph allowed books to be printed by people who were not only ignorant, but also stubborn in their opinions of ignorance. These people, despite the fact that they were very poor in both sense and knowledge, set about transporting books with such courage that they did not leave alone almost a single line in the previous books. And they all did this, not only without coping with the Greek text, which they did not know, but without even respecting the ancient Slavic copies. They wanted most of all to elevate the errors of time, the favorite opinions of simplicity, to the level of thoughts of the holy faith; and they introduced these errors and opinions either into the southern instructive books, such as: the book of Kirillov, the book on the one faith, the small catechism, or they sowed the same thoughts of ignorance in the liturgical books, in the educational psalter of 1645 and 1647, in the service book of 1647, and the subsequent psalter of 1647. Thus, what was not in the books published under Patriarch Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, and Joasaph, has now appeared in church books; We mean opinions about the two-fingered sign of the cross, about the special hallelujah, the addition of the word “true” in the member of faith about the Holy Spirit. A contemporary of Patriarch Joseph, Metropolitan Ignatius, also shows us those who so unscrupulously spoiled the works of others. These were archpriests Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, priests Lazar and Nikita, and deacon Theodore Ivanov. They were in great confidence with the patriarch, in the respect of the court; why they managed the proofreading and printing of books as they wanted, especially since Prince Lvov, who was then in charge of the printing house, had the same thoughts and the same education. In 1648 Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod and a limit was put on the sowing of tares. Nikon started with his flock. According to a creeping habit, in churches the canons and kathismas were read, for speed, in two and three voices at the same time; even during the liturgy, the liturgies and exclamations completely merged with the singing of the clergy. Nikon strictly prohibited this disorder. Instead of spoiled singing, he introduced singing that was more correct and pleasant, applying it to the ancient melodies of Kyiv and Greece. The sovereign liked both very much, as he soon learned about it; The king introduced the corrected singing in his court church, from where it began to spread to other churches. The Lord soon sent a strong teacher to help the caring and wise shepherd. In 1649, Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem arrived in Moscow. His stay in Moscow even without words exposed the strangeness and novelty that dark people began to sanctify. But Paisius directly spoke to Nikon about the Moscow deviations from the rules of the Eastern Church; and Nikon proposed the review of Paisius to the Tsar and Patriarch Joseph. A contemporary, Metropolitan Ignatius, writes that Nikon was not the only one who saw the new strangeness of the new books; Old people then said that in the old days it was not as it was printed in the books of Habakkuk. When the patriarch raised his voice against the new oddities, they became convinced that those trusted by Patriarch Joseph were ill-intentioned people. Patriarch Joseph was embarrassed: it was painful for the elder to admit his weakness; but, loving the truth, he agreed to send Trinity cellarer Arseny Sukhanov to the east to inspect the eastern ranks. “By the decree of the Tsar,” who at that time was already acting according to Nikon’s thoughts, “and with the blessing of Patriarch Joseph,” Arseny set out from Moscow in May 1649. And in Moscow, the patriarch, on Nikon’s advice, became more careful. In place of incapable people, scientists and conscientious monks summoned from Kyiv were assigned to the printing house. Henceforth, in 1650, when the six-day period, a collection of the daily services of the week, had already been printed, this book was checked against the Greek text, and it was found necessary to add at the end a remark about errors against the Greek charter. In 1651, the tsar invited the patriarch and other shepherds to his palace and invited them to discuss the disorders of church reading and singing. The council decided to introduce the same order that Nikon introduced in Novgorod. At the same time, the service book was reviewed at the council and several amendments were made to it. At the same time, it was necessary to stop the printing house and subject it to a new revision of the helmsman's book printed in 1650. Following this, a comment from the Holy Mount Athos was heard in Moscow about one new thing in Moscow. A certain hieromonk Damascus appeared on Athos with a Slavic book containing the doctrine of the two-fingered sign of the cross. The fathers of Athonite, as soon as they learned about such a stranger, communicated with the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius and, with his blessing, convening a council in 1650, called Damascus, burned his book, forbade him to teach how to sign with two fingers, and everyone who persistently taught the same was anathematized. The Athonite fathers sent this decision to Moscow to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1652. All this worried Patriarch Joseph so much that he, deeply aware of his imprudence in the election of book censors, feared that he would be forced to abandon the throne, and with these bitter feelings he died suddenly in April 1652. § 19. Correction of books and rituals under Patriarch Nikon; communication with the eastern cathedral The prudent Novgorod Metropolitan saw that Joseph’s successor would face too much work and danger in the field of correcting liturgical books. On the one hand, under Joseph many shortcomings were revealed that the church court had not previously touched upon, and yet some of these shortcomings were already sanctified by the importance of printed church books. On the other hand, previous attempts at correction by the very difference of their amendments exposed their imperfections and called for exorbitant labor; Nikon was especially burdened by a considerable number of people who were not at all ready, or little ready, to accept the improvement of liturgical rites, people who had already begun to sow displeasure against Nikon for his zeal for the purity of church rules. That is why Nikon for a long time did not agree to assume the patriarchal rank after Joseph. That is why, when they continued to ask him to accept this rank, he announced that he would agree to no other way than on the condition that they would not interfere with him in correcting the disorder that had entered the Church. The Tsar and the entire Church swore an oath to obey him, whatever he said from the divine commandments and laws: and Nikon decided to take on a heavy burden. Having accepted with high rank the duty of care for the best order of the church, Nikon did not hastily set about correcting errors, and, having begun, did not hastily complete it. For the first year and a half, he allowed books to be reprinted almost exclusively with one plea for forgiveness of mistakes. Meanwhile, he prepared and prepared what was necessary for the great undertaking. In July 1652, Arseny returned from the east and presented his proscinitary as a report on the execution of the assignment. Although this report showed that Arseny did not quite properly fulfill the order; but he also showed that Arseny did not hide the truth, useful for his time; for example, Arseny wrote: they make hallelujahs in churches, and in Constantinople the Greeks are marked with three fingers. When the acts of the Moscow and Constantinople councils on the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia were translated, Nikon saw here, among other things, the following: “justice requires us to correct any novelty in church statutes, since we see that novelties are the cause of confusion and divisions in the Church; one must follow the statutes of the holy fathers.” This amazed Nikon; He felt more deeply than before that he had a duty to correct mistakes, and that he could not avoid work, no matter how difficult it was. Meanwhile, in the same act of the council, the creed was not written in the form in which it was read in the new books; The new reading of the symbol also disagreed with the Greek symbol embroidered on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius: Nikon saw much of the same in the rite of the liturgy. After a meeting about the sad state of books and rituals, the Tsar and the Patriarch decided to hold a council in the royal court in 1654. In the presence of the tsar, 5 metropolitans then united, among them one Serbian, 4 archbishops and one bishop, Pavel of Kolomna, 11 archimandrites and abbots and 13 archpriests. The Patriarch proposed to the council: “Is it necessary to follow the new printed Moscow books, in which we have found many things that are dissimilar and inconsistent, or more precisely, erroneous against the ancient Greek and Slavic books? Or should one prefer the ancient Greek and Slavic books, of which both contain the same charter, and from which, by studying, Eastern theologians and teachers, and Moscow saints, pleased God? The question proposed is exactly the same one that should have been proposed in the first place, especially since then they began to say that the books published under the new Russian patriarchs were immutable books. The Council unanimously answered: “It is worthwhile and righteous to correct the new ones according to the ancient Russian and Greek books. We affirm, the council added, the very thing that the Greek and our statutes command.” As a result of this, it was necessary to collect ancient Russian books from Russian monasteries; and an order was made about this by the king and the patriarch. Superstitions tried to stop Nikon: during the plague, they spread a rumor that in a heavenly vision it was ordered to stop printing the corrected books. But Nikon was difficult to deceive. The imaginary spirit seers became confused before him in their testimony, and Nikon wrote to the boyar Pronsky: “it is significant that they lied, and they would not believe in such fabulous visions in the future.” The correction of the liturgical books of the Orthodox Church according to the very things that concerned the decrees of the entire Church required a consultation with the Eastern Church; and for the Russian Church this meeting was completely inevitable, since it accepted books from the east. This is what the great shepherd reasoned. The Tsar and the Patriarch sent letters to the Patriarch in Constantinople about the intended correction of the books. Patriarch Paisios gathered the Greek shepherds and, by a conciliar act, approved the decision of the Moscow Council: to follow the Orthodox writings of the Eastern teachers in the ancient Greek and Slavic books. At the same time, conciliar answers to 25 questions proposed by Nikon were written. Patriarch Paisiy, in a letter to Nikon, expressed the liveliest joy and the same respect for the enterprises of the Russian high priest: “Rejoice, the Lord God lives, and the imam is written in my soul, for dignity and reason, which God has given you,” wrote the ecumenical saint to Nikon. Paisius forwarded the interpretation to the rite of worship, or the tablet, which was examined and approved, as he wrote, at the council. The Ecumenical Patriarch asked Nikon not to differ in anything from the statutes of the Eastern Church: “let us, he said, be children of one and the same mother - the Eastern Church, and let unclean heretical lips have no reason to reproach us for any difference.” Although Nikon, covering his Church as a loving shepherd, did not write to Paisius about the most important disagreement of our Church with the Greek one, about the disagreement of the creed; but Paisius, having learned about this difference, forwarded the correct Greek copy of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and asked to destroy the difference, so important. In conclusion, Paisius asked Nikon to be lenient towards those who were mistaken in unimportant dogmas of faith, but only in things of little importance. § 20. Sukhanov’s departure for books; cathedral, three patriarchs, subsequent orders until 1658 The decision of the council and the message of the patriarch filled the Tsar and Nikon with lively joy and disposed them to new exploits. What was missing from previous book correction experiments? There were no people quite capable of this work; now this disadvantage is sufficiently rewarded. There was no help that was most inevitable and true; sometimes Greek books were not at all in mind, sometimes there were, but for other cases they were unsatisfactory, for others they did not solve anything, due to their small number and dignity. Previously, it was thought that Arsenie’s review of modern Eastern customs would compensate for the lack of information about genuine Eastern worship; but now they saw that this is not enough, that it is necessary to have information about the rules and institutions of the Church, and not about what is happening among people who are always and everywhere unfaithful to the rule. With these thoughts, the same Arseny Sukhanov who was there before was sent to the east; he was instructed to spare no expense in acquiring ancient Greek manuscripts. Arseny acquired on Mount Athos alone up to 505 liturgical and teaching books, between which one gospel was then considered 1050 years old, another 650, one service book 600 and another 450 years, etc. About 200 manuscripts were acquired from various other places. By the time of Arseny's return, the patriarchs arrived in Moscow with such treasures: Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia, metropolitans: Gregory of Nicea and Gideon of Moldova - Nikon took advantage of this rare opportunity for his main business. He convened (1655) a council of Russian shepherds and invited distant guests to it. The patriarchs and metropolitans recognized the need to correct the books, since the ancient Greek books, which were then revised, turned out to be different from the later Slavic ones. After reading the acts of the councils of Moscow and Constantinople in 1654, everyone unanimously decided to follow their decisions. Nikon spoke before the council that the Eastern shepherds had already reproached the Russian Church many times for the defectiveness of its books and rituals and, as an example, pointed to the making of the sign of the cross... “To Zazira, said the Patriarch, to our humility, to me, to Patriarch Nikon, who comes to us in the reigning city of Moscow, for the sake of his needs for the sake of the holy Eastern Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantine, Athanasius (i.e. the same one who was later glorified by incorruption in Lubny) and the Paisius of the holy city of Jerusalem and the holy city of Nazareth, Metropolitan Gabriel and others, and there is a lot of reproach against us in the non-correction of divine scripture and other church faults, from them is this one, like three fingers, the last two small ones connected with the great finger, and the other two great middle ones, We depict on our face the sign of the cross, which from Theodorite’s writings was introduced through ignorance into printed books, into the great psalters with instructions and small and other handwritten ones, and not by the command of the king and the patriarch, below the council when the bishops met. Before that, I first depicted all three fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity, as even now many are still seen and do not know the Theodorite scripture, as in simple husbands and in all wives they hold from the ancient custom.” Patriarch Macarius declared that the two-fingered sign belongs to the Armenians and that “from ancient times the sign of the honorable cross has been performed with the three fingers of the right hand.” He pronounced the excommunication on two fingers and signed his review with his own hand. The same voice was expressed by the Serbian patriarch and both foreign metropolitans. Nikon then proposed for consideration of the Council the corrected service book and tablet sent by Patriarch Paisius. Both were reviewed and approved. Nikon's case was accepted by everyone with humility. Only three or four people were found who showed resistance to the awakened general consciousness of the need to correct books. These were those who damaged books under the Monk Joseph, and who now, as a result of the determination of the councils, had to be responsible for the damage of books. Such was Habakkuk, the first to show displeasure in correcting the books he had damaged. He was approached by Pavel, the Bishop of Kolomna and the Kostroma Archpriest Daniel, who shared friendship with Avvakum. These three began to indignate others against the cause approved by the councils. Both prudence and truth demanded special measures against these people. According to the council's definition, Avvakum was sent to the shore of Lake Baikal; his assistant in damaging books, Prince Lvov, went to the Solovetsky Monastery, Daniil to Astrakhan, and Pavel hid from the patriarch’s denunciations. The court was lenient towards the guilty, but meanwhile calm was restored. Nikon's smart orders had a beneficial effect. When the opinions of the East were heard, those who had previously hesitated, not because of stubbornness against the truth, but because of a lack of education, abandoned their prejudices against Nikonov’s cause. Neronov, in monasticism Gregory, in the world John, who uselessly rebelled the tsar himself against Nikon, appearing to Nikon declared: “if the patriarchs wrote with their own hands that one must be baptized with three fingers and those who disobey are condemned: I do not want to be under the condemnation of the ecumenical patriarchs.” Nikon has now forgotten the insults that Nero caused him with slander before the king; the rude Nero, and when he appeared with repentance, made cruel reproaches to the patriarch for his severity. Nikon humbly asked for forgiveness: “I am impatient for my sins, forgive, for the Lord’s sake,” Nikon responded to the rudeness. Returning Nero to the Church, Nikon cried. Even one of the friends of the stupid old man writes this way. And he says: “Elder Gregory once asked the Patriarch: foreign authorities do not blaspheme our service books. And the patriarch said: according to what you want, according to what you want, you serve.” So Nikon remained a condescending father towards the weak, although he was zealous for the purity of the Church! Before 1658, under the supervision of Nikon, the Lenten triodion (1655), a collection of prayers and books of hours (1656), an irmologist, translated again (1657), a missal and the following psalter (1658) were corrected and published. After that, until 1667, when Nikon was deprived of patriarchal power, several more liturgical books were corrected and published: but they were no longer considered by Nikon, who then lived far from the affairs of government, but by a council of bishops. § 21. The falling away of self-will from the church; schismatic opinions Nothing could be simpler and more consistent with the voice of faith than the return to the clear and precise meaning of church books, which was accomplished through the works of Nikon. But the error went its own way. It is known that in the middle of the 16th century several erroneous opinions and false beliefs arose. After that, before Nikon’s corrections, a lot of time passed for the growth of false opinions to increase, mature, and finally fall away by itself from the healthy body of the Church. That is why, no matter who made the correction of mistakes, whether Nikon or Joachim, the schism would appear like an ugly, rotten scab or like tares when winnowing wheat. Superstition itself felt that no matter how far Nikon had previously been from thoroughly correcting the books, the ugliness of false beliefs was soon to be revealed; That is why it tried with such effort to sanctify its opinions under Joseph. Nikon's intelligence and character still curbed the willfulness of the ignorant. While the great shepherd was allowed to act freely, anger only hissed in secret at the intelligent reformer, prepared measures to strike Nikon, but, being powerless, had to remain silent. Nikon's unfortunate fate opened up free rein for evil. On the one hand, Nikon was deprived of the means to reconcile the simple-minded with his holy cause. On the other hand, by humiliating Nikon, they humiliated the cause of holy truth in his person and strengthened superstition. We repeat, the ripened evil would have revealed itself even without the revolution in Nikon’s fate, but in a different form. Now superstitions took the strongest part in the humiliation of Nikon. They hoped that, having overthrown Nikon, they would triumph over the Church itself. They managed so much that they returned Avvakum from Siberia, and Avvakum was received with honor in the capital, while the patriarch was tried and condemned. They openly asked the tsar to overthrow Nikon, complaining that Nikon's correction of books threatened the faith with a fall. When Nikon lost his power, superstitions told everyone out loud that Nikon was in disgrace, Nikon was on trial for correcting books. But the Lord of the Church put to shame the evil of superstition in a miraculous way. A measure that was considered necessary to complete the fall of Nikon, this measure only completed the fall of an old superstition. We understand the calling of the Eastern patriarchs to Moscow for the trial of Nikon. As soon as they learned in Russia that two patriarchs, Alexandria and Antioch, with authority from the other two, were going to Moscow to try Nikon, a terrible change was revealed in the actions of superstition. Superstition, strengthened by Nikon's misfortune, wildly rebelled not against Nikon, but against the whole Church, openly separated from the Church, appropriating only its society the name of the Church - a schism appeared. People who recently before, and precisely under Patriarch Joseph, said in printed books that it was necessary to have communion with the Eastern Church, that the Eastern patriarchs are the guardians of Orthodoxy, now suddenly began to shout that the Eastern ones had lost their faith among the Turks. “Some orally, others in writing” divulged that “the newly corrected books are heretical, that the church is no longer the church, the bishops are no longer bishops. Excitement grew among the people. “The priests gave up thinking about church deanery... They began to disdain books printed under Nikon.” Not only those who suffered trouble for damaging books under Joseph, but people whom Nikon personally did not touch, raised disturbances here and there. Deacon Theodore sent out a message about the right faith and the Antichrist; the monk Theoktist composed a word about the Antichrist; a certain Semyon Zhulev (in 1665) painted a flower garden for superstition; The book about the right faith of the Moscow Archimandrite Spiridon († 1665) became very famous among the people with frantic anger against the correction of books. Abraham, a student of Avvakum and Saltykov’s favorite, submitted a request to the king in defense of superstition; Nikita and Lazar sent, one from Suzdal, the other from Romanov, one in 30, the other in 70 points, petitions of the same content. The reason for such an explosion of heart impurity is understandable. The superstitions already knew that the east was not on their side, but against them. They understood that strong people, even those who were not nearly as zealous for the purity of the Church as Nikon, could no longer cover them, because they were forced to seek help from the east. There was no time for silence now. If Nikon’s opponents began to remain silent, even if the east became silent; then Nikon would not have shut up. That is why the year 1666 was so difficult, so unbearably bitter for the schism! More precisely, it was the end of 1665, noisy with the event that it was then that a wild outgrowth of false beliefs fell away from the healthy body of the Church; superstition, left without hope of anyone's help, separated on its own from the Church before it was struck by the decisive judgment of the patriarchs of the East and Russia. What thoughts separated superstitious people from the Church of Christ? If you look at everything that was restlessly said at the beginning of the schism, it is not easy to make out what the simpletons were shouting about and why? They screamed noisily and anxiously, but did not know how to say why they were screaming? In the excitement of thoughts and feelings, they could barely hold back one thought: “there is no Church there, there is no faith, where we are not.” Why? The abuse rained down unaccountably, the words flowed without thought. One scolded one thing, another another, and more often something that was not worth wasting words on. Innocent letters, innocent words, what didn’t you encounter? Not understanding either the old or the new, they themselves did not understand what they were talking about and what they wanted. Passion, taken to its extreme, made it impossible to see objects in a clear light. Meanwhile, ignorance, unfortunately, was the most prominent advantage of the leaders of the schism. Only from the outside can a calm observer be able to figure out why the poor blind people are worried? Leaving aside the petty objects of reverence or disgust of superstitions, forgiving in silence the slander of passions, extracting from the noise of anger thoughts that are often unclear to itself, we find the following thoughts of schism more general and somewhat valuable: 1) Divine services should be performed according to old books, printed or written before Patriarch Nikon: “God will not allow (God) to sin in the slightest, not just in faith, but not in the slightest particle of canons and songs.” 2) A member of the faith about the Holy Spirit should read like this: “and in the Holy Spirit of the true and life-giving Lord.” 3) During worship, Hallelujah should be pronounced not three times, but twice, adding: glory to Thee, God. 4) In church passages you should walk with the sun, and not against the sun. 5) You should cross yourself and bless with two fingers, the index and middle. 6) Only the eight-pointed cross should be venerated. 7) The name of the Savior should be written and pronounced Jesus. 8) One should only venerate icons that are old and copied from old ones. If we compare these opinions of superstitions with what is known about the worship of the previous period; then we will see that some of the opinions of the schism were known before 1555, but were still weak and limited to a small circle of people. Others just appeared in the half of the 16th century; others were formed already in the 17th century. Thus, the very history of these opinions spoke against them. § 22. In the Solovetsky monastery, disobedience to the council and rebellion against the sovereign The definitions of the councils of 1666 and 1667 were sent to the Solovetsky monastery, as well as to other places, with an exhortation to follow the definitions of the Church. Simple monks dreamed of being judges of the Council of Patriarchs, rejected its definitions and did not accept the new Archimandrite Joseph. People, such as Prince Lvov or the former Savvinsky archimandrite and royal confessor Nikanor, could not show others the truth that humiliated them in the eyes of people; and even less good could be expected from the frenzied followers of Habakkuk. Meanwhile, after these people, people who breathed the thoughts of the ataman of the robbers Stepan Razin came to the holy monastery, and soon began to control the will of the seduced simpletons. Those who participated in the sad Solovetsky story themselves said that the culprits of the disturbances and rebellion in the monastery were Thaddeus Borodin, Ivan Sarafanov with several others, Archimandrite Nikanor and the monks Azarius and Gerontius. Azarius was nothing more than a monastery alarm clock, and Gerontius was the son of a Cheboksary clerk; but they, having expelled the archimandrite sent by the council and the tsar, sent a petition to the tsar condemning everything that was approved by the councils of the Russian and Greek Churches. Azarius and Gerontius wrote that “priests and deacons and cathedral monks and all the ordinary and hospital brethren and servants all” shared the thoughts and desires expressed in the petition. But this is a complete lie. Many did not at all think of sharing the thoughts of superstitions, and even persuaded others to be submissive to the Council; there were even more of those who wanted not to interfere in anything, but wanted to cry only about their sins. But both of them were forced by force to at least be at the gatherings of restless heads. The Emperor expressed hopes that the best monks would have time to convince others to submit to the council. But power was seized by the rebels. After the tsar, having reprimanded the petition, took the monastic villages and lands into his own possession, Borodin, centurions Isaiah Voronin and Samuil Kemlyanin announced (at the beginning of 1669) that their connection with the tsar was over, and anyone who would pray for him was their open enemy. The rebels hoped that within the strong walls of the monastery, with 90 cannons, with a lot of gunpowder and food supplies, with five or six hundred armed people, they would force the king to fulfill their will. Having torn up and thrown new books into the sea, they opened fire on the royal army. Now not only those submissive to the council, but also many of those simpletons who had hitherto been carried away by a passion for antiquity, declared that they did not want to participate in the rebellion against the sovereign. But they were cruelly punished, thrown into prison, starved, and beaten with whips. The one who managed to escape from a crowd of villains considered himself lucky. For a long time the king did not want to take strict measures against the rebels. Many times exhortations and exhortations were sent to the monastery. Finally, they saw the need to act decisively. The steward and governor Meshcherinov, having 1,300 archers at his disposal, managed the siege quickly, built batteries, led mines, sent cannonballs and bullets to exhort. Finally, on the instructions of one of the monks (January 22, 1676), the army was introduced into the monastery by secret means. The rioters rushed to defend themselves; The monks remaining in the monastery met the governor with holy icons. The rebels were adequately punished. § 23 The revolt of Nikita Pustosvyat At the beginning of the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, and partly during its continuation, a considerable number of rebellious superstitions scattered along the Olonets-Arkhangelsk side preaching about anarchy. In the depths of the forests they established monasteries of the so-called Pomeranians. Cases of superstitions worthy of Solovetsky's people opened up in the capital itself. After the death of Tsar Theodore, royal power was in the hands of the young Peter. A vast field opened up for wild passions. The depraved, ignorant archers strangled the boyars and robbed them for a whole week (May 15–21, 1682). Young Peter and the sick John are named kings, and Sophia co-ruler. “3 days later” after the bloody scenes, when everything was still trembling, a “thought” about restoring the “old faith” took place in the Titov Streltsy Regiment. Never, apparently, has there been a better time for the schism to carry out the most reckless plans. The head of the archers was Prince Khovansky, a secret supporter of the schism. Khovansky, wanting not so much to give weight to the split as to become the first on the throne, became the head of the conspirators. They wanted to gain themselves more than complete freedom, they wanted to get all power into their own hands and take revenge both for the Solovetsky siege and for the fate of Habakkuk and Lazarus, who had been burned before that in court. Khovansky gave them Nikita Pustosvyat, who was sentenced so many times for the schism, as their leader. The Solovetsky fugitive Savvaty, like Nikita, and others were deliberately summoned to Moscow. They insisted that changes begin immediately. Khovansky barely persuaded them not to rush, flattering them with the promise that the upcoming wedding of the kings (June 23) would take place according to the old books. Nikita and other tramps walked among the people, calling for the defense of the old piety, “Wait, wait, Orthodox, for the true faith, do not accept the new Nikonova,” the Pustosvyat made a noise. The elected representatives of Titov's regiment went with the same to the Streltsy regiments. The excitement became general. Well-meaning priests admonished the simple-minded. The schismatics grabbed them and beat them. However, most of the archers (excluding Titov’s regiment) managed to suggest that the matter of faith is not the business of the archers; they refused to sign the petition compiled by the vagabond monk Sergius in the Titus Regiment. On July 3, Prince Khovansky appeared with the elected representatives of Titov’s regiment to the patriarch; assured that the archers of all regiments demanded a dispute about faith at the execution site, and announced that the kings agreed to this. The archers who came with him brazenly scolded the church government. The Patriarch replied that he was ready to talk about faith - this was his duty, not the archers; but declared that there could be no debate at the place of execution. A day was appointed for listening to the petition. On the third day, July 5, crowds of schismatics, many of them drunk, noisily burst into the Kremlin. Carrying in front of them lecterns, images, lighted candles, and stones in their bosoms, they approached the Archangel Cathedral and settled down in the square. Sergius climbed onto the bench and read aloud the Solovetsky petition. Others simply cursed Orthodoxy. The High Hierarch and the council of saints prayed for the pacification of the rebellion. He sent the archpriest from the church with a printed exhortation to the people and denunciations of the perjured Nikita. The schismatics almost killed the messenger. After the prayer service, the patriarch returned to the chamber of the cross. Prince Khovansky more than once sent to demand that the patriarch come out to the square; With the same demand, he came to the palace, where the patriarch was invited by Sophia. Sophia and the patriarch saw the intentions of the conspirators; Yes, and a similar experience happened so recently. Khovansky himself let it slip. If, he told the kings, the patriarch does not fulfill the demands of the archers and the people, they will break into the palace, kill the patriarch and all the clergy, and the boyars will get it too. Sophia, Queen Natalia, and two princesses announced that they would not leave the Church and its shepherds without protection. Khovansky was told that the meeting would be in the faceted chamber in the presence of royalty: there the petition would be heard. For a long time the conspirators did not want to part with the square. The cathedral opened in the chamber. Near the ruler, queen and princesses, 7 metropolitans, 5 archbishops, 2 bishops sat with the patriarch, and among them was St. Mitrofan of Voronezh. Several archimandrites and presbyters, boyars and elected troops stood. The schismatics, at a sign from Khovansky, entered the chamber with noise, with images, lecterns, and candles. They filed a petition. Sofia ordered to read it. “They beat with their foreheads, this is how the petition began, the priestly and monastic ranks and all Orthodox Christians, oprichnina those who follow Nikon’s books, and blaspheme the old ones.” The Patriarch noted: we do not blaspheme old books; on the contrary, later corrupted ones are corrected using them and the Greek ones; You, judges of the old and new faith, have not yet touched upon grammar, but take upon yourself to judge the faith that belongs to the shepherds. The impudent Nikita, despite the fact that he was forbidden to speak, said rudely: “We didn’t come to talk to you about grammar, but about church dogmas,” and continued to make noise in the same tone. Archbishop Afanasy of Kholmogory, who himself had formerly been in schism, noticed Nikita’s insolence and rudeness. The drunken defrocked man, in a fit of rage, rushed at the archpastor, began to beat him and was barely restrained by one of the electors. Sofia said to the electors: what does this mean? In the petition they read: “The kings are exhausted, the bishops are fallen, so that the great sovereigns will seek the old piety of their great-grandfather and grandfather.” Sophia said angrily: “Where are our father and brother? Are they heretics? Are today's kings not kings, and bishops not bishops? We are forced to leave the kingdom." And she stepped down from the throne. The boyars and elected representatives said: we are ready to lay down our heads for our sovereigns. And some of the conspirators said: “It’s time, empress, you should go to the monastery long ago: just stir up the kingdom.” It was left to another time to punish the impudent ones. They continued to read the petition. Sophia made a few comments; The Kholmogory archbishop provided solid evidence. But even at the very beginning of the matter, it was supposed to have as little to do with the excited crowd as possible. It was left to quiet time and aloud to calm people to sort out the petition piece by piece. The Patriarch took the Gospel of St. Alexis in one hand, and the conciliar establishment of the patriarchate in the other. The first was shown as evidence of stubbornness, which does not want to change a single letter in the old. In the latter I read the creed, where it was written without adding the words about the Holy Spirit “and the true one,” while something contrary to this was printed under Patriarchs Philaret and Joseph. In relation to the image of the holy cross, he pointed to the vessels of St. Anthony the Roman. Several other indications were made in ancient books on the main points of the dispute. The ignorant raised a frantic cry: like this, like this - they shouted, raising the two-fingered sign. The rebels are told that the decision will be announced to them. The royalty left; The patriarch and others followed them. The ignoramuses returned from the Kremlin shouting: “we won.” At the place of execution they once again set up a lectern and shouted: believe like us, we have outdisputed all the bishops. The bells rang behind the Yauza. The next morning the massacre began. Undressed, the electors brought him to the place of execution and executed him. Pustosvyat’s comrades were put into custody. During the investigation of the case, a book was taken from them, which showed with what base tricks they lured ordinary people into deception. In this ancient book, all the words that were spoken against the schism were scraped up and replaced by others, according to the thoughts of the schism. Pustosvyat’s comrades were sent to monasteries, others fled. Prince Khovansky soon began a new rebellion; but he was warned in advance and executed. § 24. Fragmentation of the schism into debates Not a single sect has proven as clearly as the sect of Russian schismatics has proven the holy truth that lies only introduce discord and division. Less than 25 years after 1665, the Russian schism fragmented into rumors. This is natural. Having omitted the lofty thoughts of faith from reverent attention, self-will turned to appearance alone, and here, with a lack of ability to delve into its meaning, the thoughts of the viewer are agitated only by random impressions and the influence of feeling, and hence one chooses this, the other another, one praises what the other scolds; the variety of objects represented by ritual further increases the dissimilarity in the choice of objects of respect. Add to this that the common and main source of all schisms and heresies is pride, incapable of making concessions in its decisions. Add also the ignorance of the dissenters, who understood little of the other and gave a poor account of their own thoughts. The main division of the schismatics into priestly and non-priestly was established at the very beginning of the schism. Capito, carried away by the proud thought of his lofty asceticism, no longer considered the need for either the priesthood or the secrets. But Kapiton’s thoughts, given the general hostility against Orthodoxy, did not have time to attract special attention. The division between priestly and non-priestly appeared by chance, due to circumstances. When, over time, the priests died one after another, retreating from the holy Church along with the laity; The schismatics' general attention turned to the question: what should they do without priests? Who should be baptized and confirmed? and so on. Some began to interpret: “the last time has already come; the Orthodox priesthood perished on earth and the grace of ordination moved with the fathers to heaven; the time has come for the Antichrist.” From now on, worship and some sacraments (baptism and repentance) are left to the elders selected from the laity. This is how lack of priesthood appeared. Others interpreted that it was impossible to remain without priests; and therefore they decided to accept priests ordained in the Orthodox Church if they renounce the so-called errors of the Nikonians, that is, the Orthodox Church. Henceforth a sense of clericalism was formed. Special rumors soon arose in the priesthood: 1) Avvakum’s message appeared even while the separation of clericalism from non-clericalism was taking place. Habakkuk, the most important dissenter, not content with separating the simple-minded from the Holy Church, wanted to become famous for his peculiarity among his own. This pathetic blind man thought so much about himself that he called one of his books the eternal gospel, since, he said, it was written not by me, but by the finger of God. Although this gospel is unknown to us; but the letters of Habakkuk are known, which very well show what the new teacher was like. a) He wrote about the Holy Trinity that it is “cracked”, dissected into three equal natures, and the source of the Divinity flows in three streams. b) About Christ Jesus he taught: “Christ sits on the throne, co-reigning with the Holy Trinity.” c) About the incarnation of the Son of God he said: “I confess in the womb of the Virgin the power of deity; not the most divine being came from the highest, but providence unspeakable,” otherwise “perfect grace.” d) After the Dormition of Christ on the cross, said Habakkuk, the soul of Christ went to heaven to the Father; and Christ, after his resurrection, descended into hell in his body. e) He considered the human soul, like an angel, to be something corporeal, flesh-like. f) I did not believe that the Antichrist should appear visibly. g) He taught that it is permissible to commit oneself to self-immolation. No matter how grossly false, no matter how offensive to the gospel teaching these thoughts of Habakkuk are; but he excommunicated those who disagreed with him from his society, which he called the society of true Christians. Among the superstitious people there were also those who said and wrote: “Abvakum’s letters are brighter than the sun and they are all kind.” The famous Lazarus, so well known for his behavior worthy of a teacher, was one of those who shared the thoughts of Habakkuk. Habakkuk earned the honor by the wickedness of his thoughts that the heretical interpretation of Habakkukism was established among superstitions, later (from 1690) according to Onuphry called Onufrievism, and Habakkuk was honored as a saint. 2) Other schismatics had enough sense to understand the wickedness of Avvakum’s thoughts. The teaching of Avvakum was condemned by his disciple Deacon Theodore, and Nikita Pustosvyat also condemned it. But then a new variety of thoughts opened up, new rumors appeared. Theodore, confusing the concept of face with the concept of being, said in defiance of Habakkuk: “each person is inseparable and inseparable from each other.” Following this, a certain Dosifei taught that there is one person in God, and added that it is enough to confess once in a lifetime; From here the sense of the Dositheevites appeared. 3) The Vetkovites received Orthodox Christians who came to them, either by rebaptism, or by walking around the font and by anointing them. 4) Deacon Alexander in 1706 separated from the Vetkovites on Kerzhenets by rejecting the need for chrismation over those who were going into schism and saying: “just as we protect ourselves with our hands in a cross shape, so we should burn incense in a cross shape.” This is how the meaning of deaconism, otherwise known as censers, came into being. 5) The fugitive priest Stefan, together with the same priest, Kozma, the first settler of Vetka, interpreted that Easter bread and Epiphany water are the same as the Eucharist, and therefore there is no need to seek the Eucharist. His followers called themselves Stefanovschina. The lack of priesthood soon had its own meanings: 1) The fugitive sexton Danila Vikulin, since 1694 the founder of the Vygoretsky Pomeranian monastery, in addition to the thought of the Antichrist, common to the non-popovites, preached: a) not to enter into communication with the Orthodox, either in food or drink; otherwise it will be pacification - desecration; however, you can freely buy food at the auction; b) on the cross of Christ there is no need to make the inscription: I. N. Ts. I., but should write: King of Glory Is. Chr. Thus, the understanding of the Pomeranians and Danilovites appeared. 2) Another fugitive sexton Theodosius in 1706 separated from the Vygoretsky monastery and compiled a commentary on the Theodosians in the Novgorod region, who, distinguished by the most frantic hatred of Orthodoxy, interpreted: a) the title written by Pilate I. N. Ts. I, as the title of the Gospel, should not be rejected; b) food purchased at auction must be cleansed with prayers and bows; c) worship of icons not of one’s own kind is desecration; d) prayer for sovereigns is unclean; e) marital cohabitation - too. 3) Kozma, an illiterate man, was prudent in that he forbade rebaptism, but rejected marriage and the Eucharist and said that there is no shrine on earth, all that remains is to resort to the Savior; let him save as best he knows. Henceforth, Kozminshchina, Netovshchina, or Spasovo consent were formed. 4) Stefanites, following Deacon Stefan, taught to abhor marriage and be in outward virginity; if children are born, throw them in the forest to be eaten by beasts, as a propitiatory sacrifice. 5) The most pathetic insolence was distinguished by Christism, in which a simple peasant represented the face of Christ and accepted worship, and 12 other ignoramuses presented themselves as 12 apostles. § 25. The new dogma of the schismatics is not to shave the beard and mustache; denunciation of the schism by Saint Demetrius Upon his return from abroad (in 1696), Peter the Great, having decided to defeat the people's prejudice towards civic education, recognized the measure of this by bringing him closer to the West in appearance, in clothing and face. He then announced to the boyars that he could only see him if he came to him without a beard. To please the tsar, who was firm in his intentions, those in military and civilian service took off their caftans and beards; only the clergy and the lower class of the people were left with their former customs. Superstition stubbornly rebelled against the transformation of purely everyday things and made up a new dogma for itself: do not shave your beard and mustache, otherwise, they said, the image of God would be distorted, as if the image of God was in the beard and mustache. The rising tide of schism in some places reached the point of civil revolt. Tsar Peter was forced to use measures of civil severity to pacify the schism. In 1702, the Tsar imposed a tax on beards and ordered schismatics to wear a yellow piece of cloth on their backs. The pastors of the church with tireless zeal continued to admonish those who were in error. These were especially the metropolitans: Ignatius, Stephen and Demetrius. The most excellent mentor of this time for superstitions was Saint Demetrius of Rostov. The dissenters, hiding in the Bryn forests, sent their secret preachers from there, among other things, to Rostov, where there were already enough blind people. To enlighten the pitiful ignoramuses, the saint often traveled around his diocese, lived for quite some time in Yaroslavl, and spoke teachings in churches. In one teaching, talking about reverent prayer and the cross, he said: “and in this city of Rostov there is found the cross that John the Theologian gave to the Monk Abramius, but it is not octagonal.” A meeting and conversation in Yaroslavl with schismatics prompted him to write an essay: about the image of God and likeness in man. As he was leaving the church, the beard worshipers, unfamiliar to him, accidentally asked him: “They tell us to shave our beards, but we are ready to lay our heads behind our beards. What do you command us, sir?” The saint, not at all expecting such a question, was, however, able to give an answer that was both correct and witty. “What do you think,” said the saint, “will your head grow back if they take it off?” No, they answered. “What about the brada?” Brad will grow back. “Let them cut off your beard, wait for another one.” After this, the saint learned that in his flock there were quite a few people who doubted the salvation of their souls because, by order of the king, they shaved their beards, thinking that at the same time they had lost the image of God. In 1705, the saint sent out an essay throughout the diocese: On the Image of God. And Tsar Peter ordered that this work be printed as often as possible. Meanwhile, the saint was preparing an extensive work: about the Bryn faith. It was completed shortly before the death of the saint, but it was distributed by him throughout the diocese. The search for the Bryn faith is an excellent work in the sense that it reveals the very spirit of the schism, showing in it the lack of evangelical meaning and love. In the first part, he ends the study with the thought that the faith of the schismatics is not right; in the second, because their teaching is harmful to the soul, in the third, because their deeds are not pleasing to God. Speaking about faith, the saint shows that schismatics a) have no faith, because their faith is limited to books, icons, prosphora, which does not constitute faith; b) their faith is wrong, because it is mixed with heresies; c) not old, because in the old days they believed what they do not believe. Their teaching is harmful to the soul because aa) their teachers are not able to teach salvation and teach falsely about many things; bb) in the teaching of their heresy; cv) they teach to blaspheme the sacred. Deeds are not pleasing to God: 1) some are apparently good, but are spoiled by vanity and pride; still take place outside the church; 2) others are directly and completely lawless, such as: suicide, fornication, etc. § 26. The nature of the time: the fight against violent self-will; devotees of truth The fight against self-will appeared in its most terrible form during the time of the impostors and then continued to reverberate for a long time during various unrest. The first victim of the agitated lust for power was the innocent royal youth, the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri. The executors of the desires of the ruler Boris Godunov slaughtered him as a lamb in Uglich, where he was sent along with his mother at the behest of Godunov. No matter how hard they tried to hide the truth, they knew it, and the example of a happy power-hungry only encouraged the passions of self-will and called upon Russia the wrath of God - the impostors. The peasants, accustomed to vagrancy, but during the time of Tsars Theodore and Boris, assigned to the landowners, in the false hope of freedom, went over to each impostor. Under the first impostor, a holy attachment to the family of ancient kings was still active among the people, although they were mistaken about the royal person. When the first impostor died in sight of all of Moscow: then no one in their hearts believed that Demetrius was alive, but the elected Tsar Vasily did not know peace in the name of Demetrius. The passions of the boyars worried Russia terribly. The Poles found the Jew, calling him Demetrius; The nobles also took him for the king. The oath and oath became nothing. Some people passed from the impostor to Tsar Vasily and from Vasily to the impostor five or ten times, swearing an oath of allegiance here and there. From behind one of the royal tables, one went to serve Vasily, the other hurried to the Tushino thief. Much firmness was needed to resist such a stormy spirit of the times, to remain faithful to the legal order, which was ready to perish from passions, to remain faithful to a pure faith, which was endangered by other faiths. And the times of impostors, along with representing so much darkness in the life of Russians, were a time of Christian, glorious exploits for citizen Minin, for Prince Pozharsky, for Patriarch Hermogenes, and the peasant Susanin. Thousands endured everything terrible for their faith and fatherland or fell victims to the cruelty of the Poles. For others, the exploits of a lifetime ended in a crown of martyrdom. The Monk Galaktion, the son of the unfortunate Prince Belsky, hid his nobility under the clothes of a hermit. In 1613, the Poles, ravaging Vologda, desecrated the shrine of the churches, carried babies on pikes around the city, did not spare anything, did not spare the decrepit old hermit, they beat and tortured him to the point that he died a sufferer three days later. The Monk Euphrosynus, who served the Lord from his youth, in 1600, out of love for a silent life, settled near Lake Ladoga; By the holiness of his hermit life he attracted many to himself to listen to his instructions. In 1612, the Poles attacked the desert monastery of Euphrosyne, cut the head of the monk, and he died a martyr. The excitement that the schism aroused is also understandable: it was primarily the fruit of the unfortunate spirit of the time, who did not want to know obedience to order, and not the fruit of piety, even blind. Ataman Stepan Razin, the 12th of the impostors, trembled Russia with murders under Tsar Alexei. The willfulness of the people acted at the same time with him. The Astrakhan governor's greed irritated Razin, who was already ready to bring guilt and wealth to the king. Metropolitan Joseph of Astrakhan died as a martyr of loyalty to the legal order. The boyars' disputes for places, this remnant of the appanage grandeur of the prince, are imprinted with the same character of vain self-will. No matter how severely the supreme power punished the boyars for these disputes, the boyars did not stop being ridiculous in the palace with their stubbornness and destroying the fatherland during the war, until, according to the decision of the council of clergy and secular persons, the rank books were burned. To this sad picture of the times were finally added the gloomy scenes in the young years of Peter the Great: these are the deeds of the brazen archers. Accustomed to the riotous revelry of family life, valuing the benefits of trade rather than service to faith and the fatherland, not wanting to know any other will than their depraved and drunken one, the archers, with a thirst for money, wine and blood, rebelled seven times to the destruction of the kingdom and the Church. § 27. Monasticism in the north and south Despite the changes in the spirit of the people, unfavorable to monasticism, the love for monastic life during the period of the patriarchate was still very strong, especially in the first half of the period. The patriarchs tried hard to maintain the love of monastic life; The disasters of the time also helped them. During the period of the patriarchate, up to 175 monasteries were erected in the patriarchal dioceses (excluding the Kyiv metropolis), and the patriarchs themselves were the diligent builders of many. The magnificent monasteries of Patriarch Nikon are known: New Jerusalem, Iversky and Krestny. The largest number of new monasteries were founded in those areas that had recently begun to be settled: in Siberia, in the provinces of Voronezh and Tambov. The new fertile soil bore abundant fruits of love for the Lord. Of the new monasteries, up to 100 belonged to the first half of the period, and in the second half, several of the previous ones were closed, which was recognized as necessary and as a measure against schism. The furies of the Poles and Swedes left in most of the monasteries only empty walls, and in others they did not leave even that. In addition, in some deserts there were already only two or three monks living, with some means. The Western sword awakened zeal for the monasteries; but the Polish war under Tsars Alexei and Theodore also depleted the rich monasteries. Under such circumstances, it was considered best to give the meager, small monasteries to the care of departments and famous monasteries. Meanwhile, a schism arose and began to seek shelter first of all in dark corners, such as poor monasteries. Then pastoral prudence demanded that some of the meager monasteries be closed, while others be assigned to departments for immediate supervision; They especially saw the need to be careful in allowing the opening of new monasteries. For the same reasons, it was forbidden to tonsure husbands in front of their wives and wives in front of their living husbands. Tsar Peter in 1701 ordered the removal from the monasteries of Beltsi and Belitsa, who lived without tonsure, for which mature age is determined; and by decree of 1703 he prohibited the construction of new monasteries. In the south, persecution of Orthodoxy aroused intense jealousy for monasticism. Orthodox nobles built monasteries one after another as reliable strongholds for Orthodoxy, as places of spiritual silence for the sufferers of the time. Until the middle of the 17th century, up to 45 monasteries were founded in Lithuania and Belarus. Up to 55 monasteries were founded in Volyn, Red Rus' and Little Russia. The subordination of small monasteries to famous ones in the south was considered even more necessary than in the north: they wanted to protect at least a few Orthodox monasteries from violence and robbery. The cross placed on Orthodoxy by the fanaticism of Rome taught Orthodox monasteries strict asceticism. Oppressed by hatred and poverty, they sought consolation in heaven and blossomed in piety; This was all the more gratifying for Orthodoxy because the monasteries captured by the Uniates weakened and fell. “Look impartially,” Metropolitan Peter Mogila says to the Uniate, look at our Orthodox monasteries, poor, lacking rich content, oppressed by various disasters... Look in the land of Kyiv (I don’t mention monasteries endowed with estates) at the Mezhigorsky monastery, in which more than one and a half hundred monks live in community, feeding on the labors of their hands, following the example of the great Anthony the hermit. Look at the Dnieper: there, in the Mgar and Gustyn monasteries, the brethren live in community and monastic deeds. I'm not talking about smaller monasteries. Look at the Trigorsk monastery, also a cenobitic one, and there you will see at least eighty monks living a pure life in great humility. Go to Pokuttya (in Burkovina) to a monastery: there you will find at least two hundred angels living in the flesh and imitating the life of the ancient hermits. Look at the Krekhovsky monastery near Lvov: there, just like in the monastery, several dozen monks, without any property, live piously. Look also at White Rus': there, near Orsha, in the Kutein monastery, you will find at least 200 brothers, in the same way imitating the life of the angels in the body. You will find the same thing in the Bojnitsky monastery. I don’t mention many others.... Willingly or unwillingly, you must agree that just as it was in the time of the apostles, amidst troubles, needs and oppressions of all kinds, so among us Orthodox Russians, according to the word of God, the power of God is made perfect in weaknesses.” Job, nicknamed Iron Job, served as a high example of ascetic life. Having become famous for the severity of his life even in his young years, he was summoned by Prince Ostrozhsky from the Ugric Chervon-Russian monastery to the godfather of Dubno and ruled the latter’s brethren for 20 years. The nobles and people paid him respect and came to listen to his instructions. Fleeing from honors, he secretly retired to Pochaev Mountain; here they also elected him abbot, and he, honored with visions of the Mother of God, moved into blessed eternity in 1651. Some laid down their lives for Orthodoxy and are glorified by the incorruption of their relics. “To the number of incorruptible saints, wrote George Konissky as a consolation to Orthodoxy, we must include the venerable martyr of our Church Athanasius Filippovich (about 1648), killed by Roman Catholics for his faith in our Brest Orthodox suburban monastery, who has been resting safe and sound by the power of God for more than one hundred and fifty years.” Until 1700, most of the monasteries in the southwest still professed Orthodoxy, having endured both flattering offers and cruel persecution from Roman fanaticism. The cross, built by Euphrosyne Ave., princess of Polotsk, in 1161, six-pointed (Description and image with the prince. Historical information about Euphrosyne Ave., St. Petersburg, 1841). For silver. medals of St. Vladimir in the right hand of St. Prince's four-pointed cross (Kalaidovich in Let. General. Ancient Russia, book 2 p. 163). The cross, built in 1224 in Yuryev-polsky, is four-pointed, and is still intact. On the frescoes and mosaics of the St. Sophia Cathedral, the crosses in the hands of martyrs and martyrs are some four-pointed, and others five-pointed, six-pointed and eight-pointed (see descriptions and photographs of images in the Journal of Min. Nar. Prosv. 1844 No. 1. Fundukleya Obozr. Kyiv 30 - 41). Crosses on the marble tomb led. book Yaroslav son of St. Vladimir - four-pointed (See the image of the tomb in the description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv 1825). On the golden panagia, the martyr holds a four-pointed cross in his right hand; both were found in Kyiv and belong to the pre-Mongol time (See about the antiquities found in Kyiv in 1 book. 3 parts. Proceedings of the General Antiquity of Russia.) On the vessels of St. Anthony the Roman - four-pointed crosses (Snegireva Memory. Antiquities tetr. 3 p. 36). Metropolitan Philaret's conversation about the five-prosphora (Christ. Reading 1836, part 4. p. 97. 94): “In the charatean service book of the patriarchal library (No. 598) of the 14th century, after the instruction about the lamb, all other actions on the prosphora are described in the following words: “And behold, taking the prosphora in honor of the saint, his will be a feast: accept, Lord God Jesus Christ made this sacrifice in honor and glory to the holy One. And for the peasants: accept, Lord God Jesus Christ, this sacrifice for the servant of God, giving you health and salvation. And behold for your peace." Charitable missal sof. Novgorod. bib. (No. 59) of the 14th century and another service book of the same library of the 13th century. (No. 55) show five prosphoria: here and there are shown: 1) the lamb, 2) the Mother of God, 3) the saints, 4) for health, 5) for the repose. You might be interested in: