History of the Russian Church. Period IV

1. Management: a) in the north § 1. The beginning of the patriarchate in Moscow Under the pious Tsar Theodore, in 1588, 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 1. Since the middle of the 16th century, Russian piety began to call the first Saint of Russia His Holiness, and was distinguished by special respect as the primate of a vast and happy Church. For some reason, it is natural that the Pious Tsar Theodore, who delighted his soul only with deeds of piety and the decorum 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 led to desire 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 2 . In 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch arrived in Moscow. He arrived for his own needs, for alms in favor of his Church. The pious King Theodore entered into a meeting about his need, which his piety felt. He proposed to the Boyar Duma an ancient and a new way of installing 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 Tsar, said: “This matter is subject to the judgment of the council,” and promised to propose it to the council of the 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 3. 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 Church of Constantinople demanded that not the fourth, but the foremost among the Patriarchs, the Patriarch of Constantinople, 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 sake of the sins of all Greek Christianity, the Sultan rebelled against the Church of God.” Having told his sad story with bitter tears, 4 His Holiness also said that he 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 disasters of His Holiness Jeremiah aroused in the pious Tsar a desire to calm the sufferer - a shepherd in Russia; and the fulfillment of the desire, as the Tsar thought, would enhance the dignity of the Russian Patriarch. But difficulties also presented themselves. If the Patriarch of Moscow is someone who does not know the Russian language, it will be difficult to have relations with him, especially on secret matters; The good Tsar also did not want to upset Job by depriving him of the Moscow see, especially when the ruler Boris asked for Job. And so the Tsar ordered to propose to Saint Jeremiah: “You informed that, due to Christian sins, the Sultan has initiated persecution against the Church and against you; therefore, the pious Autocrat begs your Shrine to remain in the Russian Kingdom and patriarchate on the throne of Vladimir and all of Russia with the name of the ecumenical; He promises to calm you and yours in everything.” Jeremiah sincerely thanked the good King; but having noted that, remaining away from the Tsar, he would be useless for the Russian and Constantinople Churches, he said that he wished to better share the sorrows of that Church, which “like a mother he accepted,” and where the sorrows of the Bishops and all children call him. He also announced that he was ready to fulfill the decision of the Council of Patriarchs on the opening of the patriarchate in Russia. A council of Russian shepherds proposed the same thing a second time to the saint, but he again refused and blessed the Emperor to elect the Russian Patriarch as a council of bishops, so that in the future Patriarchs would be installed in Russia as their Metropolitans, according to the ecclesiastical rank. On January 19, 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 5 . At the end of the meeting, the Patriarch took it upon himself to present to the Tsar the names of the three chosen ones and the lot of Metropolitan Job was drawn. On January 23, the installation of the Patriarch took place. Three chairs, covered with brocade for the Tsar and dark (humble) velvet for the Patriarchs, were placed on the pulpit, elevated by 12 steps; on the sides there were benches for the Bishops. – The named Patriarch confessed on the eagle before the face of the entire cathedral, before God and his chosen angels, the righteous, immaculate faith. After reading the Creed, ascending to the pulpit, he received the patriarchal overshadowing and the kiss of the Bishops and, worshiping, retired to the chapel of the Mother of God. When the serving Patriarch with the entire council of Bishops entered the small entrance to the altar and sang the Trisagion hymn, the Archpriest and Archdeacon of the cathedral brought the named Job to the royal doors, and two Bishops led him into the altar. The Ecumenical Patriarch, laying his hands on him and unfolding the Gospel over his head, invoked 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 he stayed in the North, from the time of his arrival, almost a year. The Tsar ordered to describe the election and decree of the Patriarch 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 letter confirming the patriarchate in Russia, signed by him, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch, 19 Metropolitans, 19 Archbishops and 20 Bishops. The charter says: “First, we recognize and honor 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 Jerusalem; and the main and primary one to maintain the Apostolic See of Constantine, just as other Patriarchs do; secondly, the name and honor of the patriarchate now bestowed is not only given to Master Job alone and unshakably established, 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. Rights and administration of the Patriarch The rights of the Patriarch to govern are exactly the same as the rights of the Metropolitan. Only the advantages of priestly service, consistent with his rank, elevated him above other Bishops (§ 25). But both his rank and these advantages gave him high importance in the eyes of the clergy and the people, and the piety of the children of the Church surrounded him with deep respect. 1) The Patriarch, like the Metropolitan of All Russia, finally owned the church court, but with the same restrictions; matters important for the entire Church were decided at the council. And councils under the Patriarch were frequent. The Patriarch retained the special importance of his voice at the council. 2) The Patriarchal region, as a diocesan hierarch, was very extensive 6, but again it was the same as the region of the Moscow Metropolitan. Over time, on the one hand, it increased partly by several monasteries with rural churches belonging to them, taken under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch, partly by villages donated or purchased in favor of new or former patriarchal monasteries 7. On the other hand, over time it was greatly reduced by the separation of the Churches for the Nizhny Novgorod, Belgorod and Vyatka archpastors 8. 3) The court and administration of the Patriarch remained essentially the same as they were under the Metropolitan 9 . But they received more greatness. The Patriarch's staff was numerous: “there were a great many officials at his disposal,” said an eyewitness 10. The staff was formed following the example of the tsar's: there were stewards to serve at the table, boyars for court, boyar children for duty, etc. The patriarchal administration, where the Patriarch decided matters reported to him with one word of his own, without appeal, 11 in subordinate places was subject to changes both in composition and in persons. Under Patriarch Job and Hermogenes a) “the boyar of the Patriarch and with him the butler with two clerks judged the justice of the clergy, reporting cases to the decision of the Patriarch.” b) The treasurer, also from the boyars, was in charge of the Patriarch's economy and estates 12. c) By order of the first Patriarch, to supervise the deanery of church service and the unplaced clergy, the secular tiun sat in the Tiuna hut together with the deans who were under the supervision of the Archpriests; supervising the deanery, he actually gave permission to homeless clergy to serve in Moscow for hire and collected certain fees 13. d) The printing house was under the direct supervision of the Patriarch; after his death, and subsequently permanently, under the jurisdiction of the Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan of Sarah 14. About the time of Patriarch Nikon, an eyewitness wrote: “in the row of patriarchal rooms there are seven chambers, in which seven judges sit with many clerks; each chamber is assigned for a certain type of business: one for the black clergy, another for the white, the third for the treasury, etc. Those who want to be priests come to the second chamber, with certificates from the inhabitants of the district, the Patriarch gives them books to read, each in turn,” etc. 15 Such a detailed delimitation of public places began from the time of Patriarch Filaret. In 1625, Patriarch Filaret, having received an unconvicted letter, opened, following the example of the Tsar, orders 16. a) Judicial order, otherwise the patriarchal rank began to manage the entire judicial part in the meaning of the average diocesan administration. The subjects of management were: 1) cases of building churches, 2) determination to clergy positions or, more precisely, the issuance of desktop certificates, 3) consideration of complaints against the clergy and clergy among themselves, 4) consideration of crimes against faith, 5) consideration of wills and court in marriage cases 17. Under Patr. Joseph, having lost sight of the ancient significance of the management of some monasteries Vel. The princes, as a protection that protected the monastery from the arbitrariness of patrimonial and appanage princes, introduced (1649) a monastic order with the right to consider complaints against clergy. According to the certificates of non-conviction given by Patr. Job, Hermogenes and Philaret, this order should not have affected, at least the clergy of the patriarchal region. But the monastic order soon affected them too. In vain Patr. Nikon more than once asked for certificates of non-conviction; in vain he exposed the inconsistency of the new order with the very essence of the matter 19. The monastic order, in the dispute with Nikon, went so far as to assign clergy to the monastic Churches. As a result of the proposal of the Eastern Patriarchs, first (1667) the willfulness and power of the monastic order were limited, and then (1677) they completely closed it 20. Under Peter the Great, a monastic order was again established; even all claims against persons of clergy were transferred to the jurisdiction of secular courts; but the latter was soon returned to the church order. Cases of inheritance and sacrilege are left to the secular court 21 . In 1677, in the patriarchal rank, the Archimandrite 22 was appointed to be present when considering spiritual affairs, whereas before Patriarch Nikon (1652–1677) it was not seen that there was anyone in it except the patriarchal boyar with clerks and clerks 23 . The Council of 1675 confirmed “to have judges of ecclesiastical rank in the order; but the worldly judges of the spiritual rank shall not judge in anything and shall not use in anything” 24 . Since that time, it has been recognized as a rule to be “in the spiritual order of the Archimandrite, Cellarer or Archpriest and the Patriarchal Boyar; all church orders and monks should be judged only by sanctified persons, and secular people and people of all ranks should be judged by the patriarchal boyar and clerks; in the event of a review of the case or in the event of a complaint from both sides, judge collectively” 25 . b) Instead of the Tiunsky hut, an order of church affairs was formed, where in 1667 only clergy were supposed to be present 26 and they were still in charge of ensuring that no one served without assigned letters and letters of leave, and that decorum was observed during divine services 27 . c) The state patriarchal order, from 1620, collected income from estates, sent village and granary elders as clerks, and collected fees for letters and the seal of the Patriarch 28. The abuses of the monastic order introduced confusion into the affairs of this order. Patriarch Nikon gave the state order a more decent form of spiritual management: before him, the state order was managed by a boyar and clerks 29 . In 1667 it was determined and in 1675 it was confirmed that clergy should be present in this order; at the same time, local power in the estates is entrusted to only clergy. The reason for this change was that secular officials, when collecting taxes and duties, were impudent, insulted and robbed the clergy, and took extra taxes 30 . From now on, aa) it is necessary to send secular officials after those who are disobedient to spiritual authority; bb) send to inspect monasteries and farmsteads to take measures against fire and theft. Consequently, the police unit 31 was left behind them. d) The palace order, under the control of the butler and clerks, made preparations and expenses for food and buildings of the patriarch's house and courtyard, and supervised the employees at the court of the Patriarch 32. However, it depended on the discretion and will of the Patriarch to assign this or that task to the persons present in the orders. § 3. Elevation of departments and diocesan administration of other pastors, maintenance of the clergy 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 supposed to be in Russia 4 Metropolitans, 6 Archbishops and 8 Bishops. 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 Krutitsa, the permanent assistant of the Patriarch, were honored with the rank of Metropolitan. Other former Bishops, except Kolomna, were elevated to the degree of Archbishop. Of the new episcopal sees, only two were replaced: Pskov and Korel 33. Subsequently, the number of Metropolitans and Archbishops increased. In 1667, the Eastern Patriarchs Paisios 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 the Bishops to the 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 was considered necessary. In 1686, there were 12 Metropolitans, 7 Archbishops and 3 Bishops under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch. In 1702 more bishop's chairs were erected 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 34. 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 35. In the lower administration, deanery management was more than once confirmed by orders of the Church authorities. Under Patr. Joseph (1649), the monastic order acquired the right to judge clergy based on complaints from secular persons in all dioceses, with the exception of patriarchal dioceses 36. This is the extension of secular power, which was more than once limited in former times, and against which Patrus rebelled, but to no avail. Nikon, was limited by the definitions of the Eastern Patriarchs and Patras. Joachim. Then it was strictly confirmed: “in all bishops’ houses there should be the most skilled men to judge spiritual people and spiritual matters, just as in the patriarchal house... Worldly people should not judge anyone from the church clergy in anything” 37 . Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, birth registration lists were required for those born, married and dying 38 . The content of the clergy remained on the same basis 39 . A new benefit was given to the rural clergy, whose maintenance was not always sufficient and faithful: in 1684 it was decided to separate out land from rural dachas for all churches 40 . § 4. Services of Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes with modern clergy to the distressed 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; Patr. Job forced the same classes to confirm election and fidelity to service to the chosen one not only by oath, but also by a special charter and also by a resolution of the council 41 . Henceforth, when the impostor with the name of Tsarevich Dmitry 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 Boris’s successes 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 Patr. Job remained firm. During the liturgy, which the Saint himself performed, the villains 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 in the hearing of 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 March 1606) in Moscow with his Poles. Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky was elected to the throne. The New Tsar 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 Dmitry 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 Dmitry. Now, elected to the throne, he paid solemn honor to the royal martyr by transferring his relics to Moscow. But it is true that Vasily has not yet humbled himself so much as to extinguish the wrath of God for impurities of the heart 42 . 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 Dmitry and that Dmitry 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 message 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 Demetrius and what his fate was in the face of all Moscow; in conclusion, the Patriarch, at the earnest prayer of the people, granted permission to the blind. This revived the people's spirit. But the Poles found a new Dmitry, in all likelihood a Jew 43. 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 Tsar, or sent out letters in which, to enlighten the people, he described the deeds and death of the first impostor 44 . And the shepherds followed the spirit of the first Russian shepherd. Tver Archbishop Theoktist, during the first uprising in November 1606, gathered his boyar children and all citizens, inspired them with courage against the rebels, and the enemy was repulsed from Tver 45 . Another time, in 1608, Tver could not resist, the saint was taken and killed 46. 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 along 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 Philaret 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 atrocities 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 47. Of all, the monastery of St. Sergius. 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 in its local position. 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 Latin Lyakhs. And Sapieha, to his shame, did not drive the gray-haired rooks out of their nest 48. Despite all the efforts of the guardians of the Church to maintain loyalty to the legitimate Tsar, 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. Hardness Pat. Hermogene then triumphed over the agitation of the boyars; the Patriarch sent out an appeal to the people 49 . In July 1610, Moscow was constrained by crowds of impostors. 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. The impostor's followers demanded the throne for the vagabond; and Zholkiewski approached the capital. In these extreme circumstances, Mstislavsky proposed to the Duma that Vladislav be elected Tsar. 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 formidable Tsar. The appearance of Zholkiewski under the walls of Moscow and Saltykov’s intrigues persuaded the majority to side with Vladislav. Vladislav was declared Tsar, but with the condition that Hermogenes demanded: before ascending the throne, he had to convert to Orthodoxy, end his connection with the pope, and put to death by law anyone who deviates from Orthodoxy and marries 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 conciliar 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, let Lyakhov into Moscow. And the ambassadors in vain prayed to Sigismund to approve the treaty 50. The conditions proposed by Hermogenes did not like the Jesuits too much; and the petty ambition of their pet sought the Moscow throne for itself 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 robbing 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 51. 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 command, if this does not happen, and I authorize everyone from swearing allegiance to the prince.” Saltykov raised a 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 faith and truth” 52. 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 the traitors (in January 1612) saw that Russia was firmly fighting for its freedom; then 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 January 17th 53. The monastery of Sergius remained a guardian for Russia. Archimandrite Dionysius and Kelar Palitsyn sent out letter after letter, calling on everyone to defend the faith and the fatherland. In Vologda, Archbishop 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 54. § 5. Ministry of Patriarch Philaret The young Tsar Michael felt the need for an experienced and gentle leader, such as 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 the Rostov Metropolitan, a sufferer of faith and fatherland. 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 by 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 the father's much experience. The Patriarch was not only an adviser, but also a co-ruler to the Tsar. His name appeared in documents along with the king’s; he participated in state orders, decided, together with the Tsar, matters that were outside the circle of affairs of the saint. “The Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Feodorovich of All Russia and his great father, the 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 Emperor 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 was the census 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 55. Knowing the 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 planted people whom they forced to make their own products, grind, pound and bake bread, plow their arable land and mow hay 56 . Matters of war and peace with treacherous neighbors could not be resolved without him; foreign ambassadors, after being presented to the Tsar, came to the Patriarch. In general, the entire ten years of his patriarchate were devoted primarily to the affairs of the State, which was upset at times by impostors 57 . § 6. 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 58. At his very first acquaintance with Nikon, the Tsar saw in Nikon an extraordinary person and left him as 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 Tsar, he accepted requests from the people and the Tsar, without leaving the Church, gave decisions on them. When the virtuous Athos replaced the staff of the Novgorod Metropolitan with the staff of the elder of the Khutyn monastery; In 1648, the Tsar elected Nikon to the place of Athos 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 59. 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 and once again appeared to the rebels, entering the very hut where they were gathering. 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 to hand over the city to them. Nikon managed to notify the Tsar about 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 presented 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 both 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 60. When Nikon arrived from the Solovetsky monastery, where he had gone to retrieve the relics of St. Philip and from where he reported to the Tsar information useful to the state, 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 Tsar’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 61 . And therefore it was not easy for him to agree to be ordained. Having accepted the rank, he wanted to be the first assistant to the Tsar. The closest friendship united the new Patriarch with the Tsar. They prayed together, talked about business together, sat down to meals 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 (from 1651 to 1657). The most brilliant thing of this time, and the most glorious during the reign of Alexei, was the union of Little Russia with Russia. The brave Hetman Khmelnytsky, who defended his unfortunate homeland with blood, several times expressed a desire to be under the protection of the Orthodox Tsar. Under Patriarch Joseph (in February 1648), the Tsar proposed this to a council of clergy and secular persons for consideration. Then they considered agreeing to the hetman’s request, but they were timid 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 the hetman began to be threatened by both Crimea and Poland; 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. With what love the hearts of the South then turned to Nikon is shown by the example of Abbot Joel Turtsevich. Invited in 1654 to the Iveron monastery, he fell ill on the road and asked to move his bones to where his love was striving, to the Iveron monastery: I, he said, will preserve my obedience to the shepherd even after death 62 . Following the annexation of Little Russia to Russia, a war with Poland could not help but begin, and it did. But she was happy and brilliant; The king himself set off with the army, which the Patriarch sprinkled with St. water, and the Tsar’s family and the kingdom were entrusted to the Patriarch; the boyars could not do anything without his advice 63 . And ambassador after ambassador hurried from the Tsar to Nikon with the news of the capture of the cities. In six months they captured Smolensk, Minsk, Vitebsk, and 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 Alexei the successor to King John Casimir 64. 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 Kolyazin monastery about the careful preparation of the cell, services and everything necessary for the arrival of the Queen 65, Nikon went with the family of the Tsar - a 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 66. At the same time, on behalf of the Tsarina and Tsarevich Alexei, he sent letters to the cities about the use of strict precautions: 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 67. Reports that passed through contaminated areas were ordered to be copied from words around the fire, and the originals were to be burned 68 . 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 69. Then 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, Patriarch of all great and small Russia; since the name of the great Sovereign was given to the parent of the Tsar’s 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 Tsar 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 the title, at the insistence of the Tsar, remained with Nikon 70. The epidemic began in 1655 in eastern cities. Nikon cared about the internal welfare of the state. As before, on behalf of the Tsarevich, he sent out decrees on precautionary measures 71. 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 people to endure misfortune with patience, to strengthen themselves with prayer and fasting, advised to beware of communication with the infected... forbade them to believe 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 anger, so that we do not perish from anger 72. In October, the Patriarch, following the wishes of the Tsar, went with Tsarevich Alexei to Vyazma to see the Tsar. And the Tsar again sincerely thanked the Patriarch as his friend and true saint 73 . Given the brilliant hopes that were aroused by the victories over Poland and the annexation of Little Russia, it was natural that Nikon (1656) approved the Tsar’s war with Sweden for the possessions of Orthodox Russia in Livonia. True, Khmelnitsky rightly noted that it would be better to first resolve matters with one enemy - Poland, and then, having collected the funds, start with another. But business with Sweden, as well as with Poland, went successfully while Nikon enjoyed the Tsar’s power of attorney; By the way, in Kokenhusen a Church was consecrated in the name of Tsarevich Dimitri and the city was named Dimitriev. The smart Ordyn-Nashchokin, with his abilities, would vouch for much of Russia, if they had not rejected his advice, like Nikon 74 . The fruit of the Patriarch’s labors was that at the beginning of 1656 the Moldavian governor Stefan, through his ambassadors, asked the Tsar to accept him under the protection of the Hetman of Little Russia. And Moldavia was included in the Tsar’s possessions, although it was not retained 75. This is how Nikon acted for the benefit of the Orthodox Fatherland, with sincere love for the worthy Sovereign. §7. The sad fate of Nikon a) The reasons for the change and its easy detection, the first open break in the alliance with the Tsar; persecution of Nikon by the boyars in solitude. 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 because of his strength with the Tsar, his friend. Then Nikon’s stern and, more recently, irritable character took part. Even more than that, the superstitious people, 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 a clear conspiracy against Nikon 76. An eyewitness to the events, Envoy Mayerberg writes: “Patriarch Nikon, being extremely close to the Tsar, 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 Alexei is so besieged by his favorites that no one has access to him 77 . The boyars could not tolerate Nikon's power 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. A modern Ukrainian chronicler 78 clearly saw and testified to this. 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 strong and sharp character, made his advantage too felt 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 carried out 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 Emperor. 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 79. The monastic order for both 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 Tsar, 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 Tsar 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 80 . 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 brought his hatred of Nikon to open blasphemy under the blessing of the saint. 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 81. If only the good Tsar and the Patriarch would sincerely explain themselves to each other; their friendship would come to life. But the Tsar was not allowed to do this, even in cases that were most important for Nikon. In July 1658, an opportunity opened up to bring secret displeasure to an open rupture. In Moscow they gave a ceremonial reception to the Georgian Tsar Teimuraz, who arrived to seal the alliance of Georgia with Russia. The Patriarch left his Resurrection solitude in order to take part in a matter that was in connection with church affairs, and in which his predecessors participated, starting with Patriarch Job (§ 13). But the Patriarch was not invited to the palace. Amazed Nikon sent his boyar, the 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 came (July 8) and the Tsar was kept from going out; another came (July 10), the Patriarch waited a long time for the Tsar, 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 82. Then Nikon, upset to the core, lost patience. At the end of the liturgy, he announced in the hearing of everyone that he was no longer the 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. This was an act of self-will, worthy of reproach also because it set a harmful example of self-will to others. The Tsar, embarrassed, wanted to reassure Nikon: but Prince Trubetskoy, who went with the Tsar’s commission, did not at all have the disposition to reassure Nikon. Nikon responded by telling him about his intrigues before the Tsar. 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 Iveron courtyard, and from there he went to the Resurrection monastery 83. In Resurrection solitude, Nikon lived like a strict worker: everything that his enemies could say about him to the Tsar related only to Nikon’s honor. Almost a year later, the rumor about the invasion of the Crimean Khan turned the friendly solicitude of the Tsar to the Patriarch, who was worried about his danger in defenseless Voskresensk. The Patriarch most of all wanted a personal conversation with the Tsar; he arrived in Moscow, three days later he was allowed to see the Tsar, but in the presence of the boyars; The Patriarch then saluted the Queen. The Emperor released Nikon to his monastery with gifts and respect; but there was no sincere conversation with the Tsar, and the matter of friends remained unresolved. Nikon took over the monasteries. From the Resurrection Monastery, the Iveron and godfather monk Theodosius went with him to the monasteries, who knew how to present himself as the most devoted to Nikon. But in the monastery of the cross, Theodosius’s behavior showed Feodosius to be a suspicious person, and during interrogation, Theodosius admitted that he had been sent to seek Nikon’s death. The Patriarch sent him to the Tsar; Theodosius locked himself away at first, but then repeated his previous confession before the Tsar. The Good Tsar left his trial to the Patriarch. But Nikon thanked the Tsar and wrote that he did not wish harm to his enemies, and in his own case he could not be a judge. Whose weapon was this? No evidence shown 84 . b) Council of 1660 Paisiy and Babarykin; response from the Patriarchs and Zyuzin; decision of the council of 1669. 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 communication 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 department 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 85. Unfortunately for the Church, after that the former Metropolitan of Gaz, Paisius Ligarid, arrived in Russia, condemned by his Patriarch and wandering for a long time without a diocese in Greece and Italy 86. Paisius was quite learned, but did not value his conscience too much, he loved to intrigue 87, he was cunning like a Greek, but a frivolous Greek 88. Kindly treated by the Tsar, 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, collected from church rules in condemnation of Nikon 89 . 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 Tsar. Then, Paisius, in a letter to the Tsar, presenting himself as a zealot for the Church and the Royal honor, wrote that for the benefit of the Church and the Tsar it is necessary to communicate with the Patriarch of Constantinople. He had prepared questions from const. To the Patriarch about royal and patriarchal power, without naming them by name Nikon, but presenting cases from the history of Nikon, as Nikon’s enemies presented them. The Tsar sent questions not to one, but to all the Patriarchs; but the ambassador was given instructions by the nobles 90. At the end of Dec. In 1662, the nobles convinced the Tsar to demand information about the state of the property of the Churches and the Patriarchal 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 91. 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) at the prayer service the Patriarch 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 Tsar 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 judge the affairs of a foreign Church and its Patriarch. Then, as the Tsar ordered the noble investigators to deal with Patras. Nikon with all respect, they, surrounded by crowds of archers and dozens of officials, disposed of Nikon in their own way - they interrogated him with arrogant insolence, instead of questions they offered him reproaches and abuse, 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, extremely unscrupulous, 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 included in the report, unanimously said that the Patriarch ordered the litanies to be read and read for the Tsar, but 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 92. 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 Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem, although he signed the council’s definition, in a special letter asked the Tsar for Nikon; the pastor 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 troublemakers and to pacify the Church 93. Until now, no one’s voice had reached the Tsar in favor of Nikon. The letter of 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 the 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 Emperor 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. Nikon, Archbishop. of the reigning city of Moscow and all great, small and white Russia to the Patriarch 94. 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 Tsar 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 distressed Patriarch said out loud that he was shaking off the dust from his feet where they did not accept him 95 . 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 soon as they asked for forgiveness; He also wished that he would not be denied access to the Tsar and access to him by those who wished 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 96. 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 communion of St. secrets And when, having entered the chambers, as the Patriarch, he did not see the 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 denunciation of a 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 Bishops Hilarion of Ryazan, Pitirim of Krutitsa and Methodius of Mstislav - Nikon’s constant ill-wishers, of whom Nikon did not allow the latter even to the rank of bishop 97. Hilarion even raised his hand against the high priest. Nikon answered freely, but not calmly. 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 they started inventing slander for another nine years, 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 had already decided to approve and announce the decision of the council. The good King did not want to be present at this sad action; The most worthy shepherds of that time, Lazar of Chernigov, Simon of Vologda and Mikhail of Kolomna, did not take part in it. Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius also tried to avoid condemning Nikon, citing the fact that they did not mean the voices of the two Patriarchs: but they were told that the consent of those Patriarchs to the trial of Nikon was 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) annoyed the Emperor, argued with the council itself and was not subdued; 4) He called the Metropolitan of Gaza a heretic and a rebel; 5) without a council court he banned some Bishops and deprived them of dioceses; 6) some of his subordinates, upon removal from the throne, severely punished 98. 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 Ferapontov, the Beloozersky monastery, where he stayed until 1675, first in severe cramped conditions; In 1675 he was transferred to the Kirill monastery and again under the most difficult yoke of poverty and overcrowding. 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 the Patriarch; The eastern Patriarchs sent their permission, returning Nikon's rank after his death. Before his death, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich wrote in his will: On behalf of my spiritual, great master, His Holiness Nikon, Hierarch and Blessed Shepherd, even if he is not now on this throne, I so deigned it to God, I ask for forgiveness and permission 99 . § 9. Administration of the Southern Metropolis Church administration in the South, like everything in the southern Church, was subject to disorder from the union in this period: a) When the union appeared, up to 11,000 persons were counted under the authority of the Kyiv Metropolitan who were consecrated to serve the Church. When the bloody affairs of the union were revealed, the flocks were at times left without shepherds, or the shepherds were forced to hide here and there, as during the times of pagan persecution. b) In view of the extreme dangers for Orthodoxy from the West, Southern Orthodoxy united more closely than ever with the Patriarch of Constantinople and with the East in general. This connection was salutary: it protected from the novelties of the West just by the mere thought of the antiquity of the East, and the firmness of the East, unyielding in the midst of troubles, even more inspired respect for the East and distrust of the West. Hence, so often at this time we meet the Exarch of Constantinople and other Patriarchs in the South. The Constantinople Patriarch either sent special plenipotentiaries (exarchs), or invested this importance in the Russian pastors, mainly the Metropolitan. c) One of the goals of establishing the Moscow Patriarchate was to support Orthodoxy with active help. This goal was well understood in the West and they hastened to bring southwestern Russia (union) closer to the West, and not to the East. A series of cruel troubles raised by the same West to the East and West of the Russians temporarily hid this goal from the sight of the Russians. Finally, in 1654, the tormented Little Russia surrendered to the protection of the Moscow Tsar. Naturally, at the same time, the Little Russian Church was made dependent on the Moscow Patriarch. Meanwhile, the West brought such fear into the Russian South that Metropolitan Sylvester was still afraid to submit to the Moscow Patriarch. He kept in his soul grateful for the constant, albeit weak, protection of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the South; and the Polish sword trembled even more, which, not like the Western Bishops, could not repel with a sword. There is no doubt that Nikon would have had enough will and intelligence to, in spite of all the intrigues of the Polish prelates, then forever cement the church union of consanguines; he has already begun to hold it together. The shepherds of Mogilev (1654–1662), Smolensk (from 1656) and Chernigov (from 1657) recognized the authority of the Moscow Patriarch over themselves. Metropolitan Sylvester was subordinate to Patras. Nikon 100. But Nikon fell; Without his influence, Dionysius, recognized (in 1667) by the Tsar as Sylvester's successor, hesitated to accept initiation from the Moscow Patriarch. Poland, by type of union and policy, not only tried to prevent the subordination of the Kyiv Metropolitan to the Moscow Patriarch, but for a long time and bloodily challenged the civil authority of Moscow over Little Russia. From here on, a series of disturbances followed for the Kyiv metropolis. In 1661, the Tsar, due to the unrest, appointed Bishop Methodius of Mstislav as guardian of the metropolis; but Methodius was not respected in the South for his character. After the death of Dionysius, in 1663, the clergy and Cossacks elected Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky as Metropolitan, and Teterya, the hetman of the right side of the Dnieper, wanted to see Anthony, Bishop of Przemysl, as Metropolitan. The Poles, supporting Teterya, captured (in 1664) Joseph and imprisoned him in Marienburg, where he languished for two years; Anthony remained ruler, but only with the name of his betrothed. In 1665, Hetman Bryukhovetsky asked the Tsar to send a Metropolitan from Moscow; The king promised to talk to Constant about this. Patriarch. Meanwhile, Joseph, released from prison by Doroshenka, the Chigirin hetman, in 1667, received confirmation in the rank of Metropolitan from the Patriarch in 1668 and removed the episcopal rank from Methodius. The clergy began to relate to Joseph in everything. A sufferer of faith and homeland, an intelligent and sincere shepherd, Joseph, although he acted in favor of the brave Doroshenko, who abandoned Moscow, but most of all out of disgust for Poland, with which Moscow then put up with, as it seemed, to the disadvantage of Ukraine. He begged the Tsar not to give Kyiv to the Poles, the enemies of Orthodoxy. When Doroshenko, through the Sultan, asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to anathema Hetman Demyan, Joseph freely wrote to Patriarch Methodius that his anathema was unjust and only outraged the Church and the people. Following the example of Joseph, the majority then turned to the Moscow Patriarch with their hopes. It was then that Joseph, in a letter to boyar Ordyn-Nashchokin, revealed his beautiful soul. “Because of my iniquities,” Joseph wrote, which are countless, I do not recognize myself as a suffering soul for piety... My soul is in sorrow. How can I call myself a shepherd when the flock is confused! ABOUT! May He who created it and redeemed it with his blood gather it together!” In vain, in 1673, the Polish king appointed Joseph Shumlyansky as administrator of the metropolis, who secretly promised to be a Uniate. Nielubovich died as his beloved shepherd (1676) 101. Upon his death, the king recognized Anthony as Metropolitan; but he lived in Lithuania until 1679, and Lazar Baranovich was in charge of the united Ukraine. 102. This strange state of affairs finally completely convinced the Orthodox South of the need to completely subordinate the southern metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarch. Gideon, one of the princes of Chetvertinsky, from 1657 Bishop of Lutsk 103, was unanimously elected Metropolitan in 1685, and in accordance with the general decision, he wanted to accept power only from the Moscow Patriarch. The clever Patriarch Joachim completed what the great Nikon did not have time to do. Gideon was consecrated in Moscow, with the rights to the ancient benefits of the Metropolitan of Kyiv. “The Patriarch of Moscow, it was said in the letter, not to intervene in the court of the Metropolitan, not to appeal to Moscow with complaints against the Metropolitan, and to consider this original metropolitanate in the same position, with the same rights and advantages, as it was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.” In 1687, the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs was obtained for the dependence of the southern metropolis on the Patriarch of Moscow. The harmful plurality of commands ceased, and the Bishops of the Polish possessions were left in their former dependence on the Kiev Metropolitan 104. § 10. Conversion of Siberian foreigners to the holy faith At the same time that Siberia was conquered under the Terrible Tsar, Russians began to settle in places; in 1603, some of the leaders of the Chusovsky Vogulichs were already baptized 105. The Nikon Chronicle speaks of Patras. Philarete: “bring 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 aids 106. The pious archpastor fulfilled the hopes of the Tsar 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 the strong relaxation of morals that was visible in the Russian settlers of that region. This cost him a lot of work and grief 107. For the success of faith and piety, he built several monasteries in different places of his diocese 108. Under Patriarch Nikon, the fifth Siberian Metropolitan Simeon sent to the Tsar a request from the 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 Koda town (or Konda, the residence of the Ostyak princes) there were churches and many Ostyaks, hearing the sermon, were baptized.” At the insistence of Nikon, the Tsar, in a letter of 1653, ordered the Archbishop to establish a monastery and clergy in Kond in order to baptize the Koda Siberians. From that time on, the Koda Monastery served as a breeding ground for faith 109 . Table at half past 17. Christianity began to penetrate into southern Siberia and even into that part of it that, stretching from the Yablonovy 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 part of the Manchus. 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 Albazan itself, even before that, there was a parish Church 110. 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 scriptures and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; to lead to that God’s work without any vanity and pride, with good intentions, without any insult, ... to be afraid that with some words you do not alienate the obstinate foreigners from the holy work,” etc. At the same time, the blessing was given to establish a monastery of the Holy Trinity in Selenginsk. At the end of the same year (1681), as a result of the Tsar’s proposal, the Council decided: “to send spiritual people, archimandrites, abbots or priests, kind and teaching, to distant cities, on the Lena in Daury, to educate those who do not believe in Christian laws.” The zealous Seleginsky Abbot founded the embassy Preobrazhensky Monastery for a temporary stay, near Kartina Bay 111. The fruits of all these efforts are visible in the Daurian lists of newly baptized people 112. The name of the enlightener of Siberia belongs primarily to the Tobolsk Metropolitan, Philotheus 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 jealousy 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 the Kalmyk kutukhtu (high priest) himself to the holy faith; 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 of 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 God, who was unable to defend himself. Some fathers of families were baptized in Kondi. 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 Berezovka, 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 Konda, and in the local Ostyaki 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 who lived 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 secondary removal to the monastery, he managed to acquire for Christ up to 40,000 Ostyaks, Voguls, Tatars, Tungus and other foreigners, and established 37 Churches for them 113. 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 advancement 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. § 11. Russian Church and mission in Beijing In 1684, by the will of the Chinese emperor, Russian settlements on the Amur River were destroyed; Several captives, residents of Albazin and their priest were taken to China and settled in the north-eastern corner of Beijing in a special settlement under the name of the Russian company 114. The emperor ordered to give them a ready-made Buddhist temple for the establishment of the Church, which was built in the name of Sophia, the Wisdom of God. In 1695, Metropolitan Ignatius of Tobolsk sent to them with the Verkhoturye priest Gregory and the Tobolsk deacon Lavrentiy an antimension, chrism, liturgical books and utensils. Ignatius then wrote to the captive priest Maximus, “the preacher of the holy gospel in the Chinese kingdom: do not be embarrassed, let not your soul and all those captives with you be offended about your such case; Because of the will of God, who can resist? And your captivity is not without benefit to the Chinese inhabitants, for the light of Christ’s Orthodox faith is revealed to them by you.” Soon after that we see Christians in the Russian company of Chinese; some of the baptized went to Russia 115. Saint Philotheus extended his zeal to Beijing: having learned that some of the Beijing settlers, under the weight of pagan darkness, were beginning to weaken in the holy faith, he wrote an accusatory letter to Beijing (in 1711) and managed to support the weak in their love for Christ. Inspired by his instructions, the merchant Oskolkov in 1713 asked the Manzhurian Chamber of Foreign Relations for permission to send Russian priests to Beijing. Although the same request from the Russian government was previously rejected; but Oskolkov was happy. The Emperor allowed the Russian mission to arrive. And in 1714, Archimandrite Illarion Lezhaisky, Hieromonk Lavrenty, Hierodeacon Philemon and the clergy were sent from Tobolsk. In 1715 they were received in Beijing with excellent attention; The emperor ordered apartments to be allocated to them and maintenance to be provided; They served in the same stone Church, which was built for the Russian company, and their labors did not remain without benefit not only for the Russians, but also for the Chinese 116. § 12. Benefits of faith and its successes among the Kazan Tatars; baptism of 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 Islam 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 the Church and resettle all the newly baptized from the district there; It was forbidden for Muslims to keep Christians in their service, and Christians were ordered to either release captives of other faiths or join them to Christ, to have wives only as Christians, and to fulfill everything required by the holy faith 117. Thus, evil was stopped and the way was opened to holy faith. To revive in Kazantsy 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 Guria and Barsanuphius. The miraculous cessation of the pestilence under Patriarch Nikon, which followed while citizens walked around Kazan with the miraculous icon of the seven-lake desert, revived faith in believers and aroused faith in non-believers; from that time on, the Gentiles of the Kazan land began to have reverent respect for this icon, supported by new verified miracles 118. 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, with the approval of Metropolitan Nikon ordained (in 1651) to the Ryazan Archbishop, 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 again to Kasimov, Shatsk and Tambov to preach. The Patriarch blessed the holy zeal of the shepherd. 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 119. § 13. Benefits of faith in Georgia The Holy Faith in Georgia from the half of the 16th century and throughout the 17th century was under the yoke of the most serious troubles and dangers. On the one hand, Türkiye worried Georgia with attacks. On the other hand, Persia not only imposed heavy slavery on her, but through all kinds of torture forced her to convert to Islam. Henceforth, many were adorned with the crown of martyrdom; many apostates of the faith also appeared 120. From now on, it happened that Georgia more than once sought and asked fellow believer Russia for protection and patronage - and Russia gave all the help it could given its position. In 1586, the Georgian Tsar Alexander tearfully begged Tsar Theodore to accept Iberia, the same faith, under his protection. “Terrible times have come for Christianity,” he wrote; We, fellow Russian brothers, groan at the wicked; You alone, the crown bearer of Orthodoxy, can save our lives and our souls.” The following year, Tsar Alexander took an oath of Russian citizenship, and Russia pledged to defend Georgia as property. Since the Georgian Church was in disorder in all parts, Tsar Alexander asked Tsar Theodore and Archpastor Job to help her with capable people. In April 1589, priests were sent to correct the order in worship, and icon painters were sent to decorate dilapidated and deserted churches with paintings. Patriarch Job then answered Alexander for himself and for Tsar Theodore with an intelligent message, in which he sacredly taught the Tsar and the people Christian humility before the destinies of God. The king enthusiastically accepted the message and the spiritual people sent and replied that our priests are angels for the Iberian clergy, darkened by ignorance 121. Tsar Boris wanted to cement the union of Georgia with Russia through ties of blood relationship. But in 1617, Shah Abbast, taking advantage of the disasters of Russia, terribly devastated Georgia. The Kakheti Tsar Teimuraz I wrote to Tsar Michael in 1619: “It would be better if my mother’s womb had dried up and I would not have been born, than to see that the Orthodox Christian faith and the Iberian land were ruined before my eyes; in the Churches the name of God is not glorified and they are all empty,” Teimuraz begged for help to Georgia. At the council of clergy and zemstvo officials, Kakheti, Kartaliniya and Imereti were accepted into citizenship; the Dagestan prince, who raided Georgia, was punished by war, and Persia was temporarily kept from cruelty by peace negotiations 122. In 1634, Abbast placed Tsarevich Rostom, who converted to Mohammedanism at the court of the Shah, on the Kartal throne. And in Kartaliniya the holy faith was openly persecuted, Mohammedanism spread 123. The Shah renewed his demands on all of Georgia and with that disasters resumed. And again Russia hastened to provide possible assistance to the distressed Church and state of Georgia. In 1637 During the embassy, ​​the Archimandrite of Ipata, two priests with a deacon, two icon painters and a carpenter with materials, iron, paint 124 went to Teimuraz “to examine and correct the peasant faith.” – In 1650, the Imeretian Tsar Alexander renewed the oath for himself and for the people of citizenship to the Russian Tsar 125. In 1653, an embassy was sent to Persia. The Shah expressed strong indignation to the ambassadors at the acceptance of Georgia into Russian citizenship, and when the ambassadors firmly explained the rights of Russia, the Shah expelled them from himself. However, they were invited again, Kakheti and Imereti remained with Russia 126. The expelled Teimuraz, as is already known (§ 7), was himself in Moscow in 1658; but neither for him nor for the Church did they do anything without Nikon. At the council of 1665, the Georgian Metropolitan Epiphanius was also in Moscow with the eastern Patriarchs. This was useful, at least for the organization of liturgical order in Georgia 127. The only true protection for those oppressed by Islamism was a refuge in Russia itself, and the sufferers found it 128. For several centuries the pope, through 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 Polish Jesuits, especially in Rome. This preparation, in the best possible way, led to the goal of the Jesuits. Prince Kurbsky was already mourning his Jesuit upbringing 129. 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 brought up in Rome, where Machiavellian science was known far before Machivel 130. Circumstances and passions brought the Jesuit plan into action. Sigismund, king of Poland, was a zealous servant of the Jesuits; They could not wait for a better assistant for themselves. 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 southern 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 131. 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 unbearably difficult for the ambitious that the paths to honors were closed to Orthodoxy; Cyril and others like him were too keen to sit in the Senate along with the Latin Bishops 132. 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 council was not assembled: Cyril made the weak Rogoza fear for himself. The Patriarch awaited the council in Zamość with a loss of time and costs that were heavy on his meager throne. Recalled by business in Wallachia, he sent a letter of trust to the Metropolitan in Vilna; but Cyril on the road took her away 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. A clever assistant was found for Kirill 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 133. 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 attached seals of the Bishops, issued to petition the king for the protection of the Church. After that, Cyril and Hypatius, already the bishop of Vladimir, traveled around the cities to prepare minds for the union. They tried to win over Mikhail Kopystensky, Bishop of Przemysl, to their side: but he then protested against the union. It seemed easier to win over the Bishop of Lviv, Gideon Balaban, 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 union 134. Book Ostrogsky 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 Patriarchs of the East and Moscow 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 Hypatius and Kirill 135 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 1590, signed by all the Pastors of the Church, Hypatius and Cyril wrote a petition to the King and a message 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 136. At the same time, a book about the union was published in Vilna; and in Galicia they continued to press out the Orthodox 137. The traitors were received with delight in Rome. Dec. 23, 1595, in a solemn meeting of the 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, announced his favor to them 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, they accepted everything that was “defined by the Council of Triden, beyond what is contained in the Nicene-Constantinople symbol.” Both took an 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 accomplices thought of accepting, and therefore could not afford to vouch for their acceptance. The pope and 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 138 . 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 by a district letter that he had not thought and was not thinking about union and assured with an oath that he valued his union with the Patriarch of Constantinople 139 . The cause of the union was in a bad position 140. 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 the 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 - Nicephorus of Constantinople and Cyril Lukar of Alexandria, Bishops Gideon and Michael, Luke Metropolitan of Belgorod 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. Arrived after everyone else (before the evening of October 5) and Met. Mikhail. 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 (Oct. 6) a protest to the Metropolitan, where they threatened both him and other traitors with justice: 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 Pope's bull and the act of union, signed on October 8 by the Metropolitan and 5 Bishops, but by 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 141. Thus began the union - not a union of hearts separated by locality, but a struggle between worldly thoughts and a clear conscience 142. § 15. Bloody suffering of the Orthodox under Sigismund Neither the Church nor the union could bring anything but the struggle between death and life into society, unless they wanted it to die at its 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 have for the most part already been captured, ruined and devastated, moreover, with robbery and torture, with murders and bloodshed, with unheard-of curses against 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” 143. Troops have been sent to Little Russia. Its deputies submitted a petition to the king. Pointing to the rights approved for 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 reality, the Polish troops opened the war. Nalivaiko, an ardent defender of the ancestral faith, like his holy kinship, 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 144. 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 their chests 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 to 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, in the faith of Christ the subject of evil ridicule and curses. It was necessary to pay from one to 5 thalers for each liturgy, from one to 5 gold coins for each 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 needed for the war with their neighbors. Under Sagaidachny from 1607 in Little Russia the union subsided somewhat 145. It was not the same during the life of Sagaidachny in Volyn, in Chervonnaya Rus and Lithuania, when Prince Ostrozhsky († 1608), Bishops, Lviv Gideon († 1607) and 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 initiation of the lower clergy only to the Bishop of Lvov, 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 them with promises at the diets. But Potsey and others with a convoy of soldiers dispersed those gathering in the darkness of the night for prayer and sealed the churches, sometimes on their own, sometimes at the personal will of the king 146. The Polotsk Uniate Bishop, Joasaph 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. “You,” 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” 147 . One Volyn deputy depicted the vivid but accurate truth in 1620 at the Warsaw Sejm. “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 the Churches are sealed, church estates are plundered, in monasteries, instead of people, cattle are locked up... In Mogilev and Orsha, the Churches are sealed, the 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 Lvov? Whoever is not inclined to union remains in Greek law; there is no place for him in the city, he has no right to trade or sell wine, he 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” 148. 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 have been turned into drinking houses... In Vilna, churches have become 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 decree was drawn up: if any of the townspeople do not follow the religious procession to the church, they will be executed by death” 149. 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 him were enemies of the fatherland. Pope Urban demanded that Sigismund, for the safety of the union, exterminate the Cossacks and severely punish the Bishops. 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 150. As before, the Sejms either 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 consecrated sabers to the military leaders: “It’s abomination, Rus', if only they would be rooted out” 151. In 1630, only a miracle saved the holy monastery from the ruin to which the Lyakhs condemned it 152. So, with all the bloodthirstiness of the Spanish Inquisition, until the death of Sigismund, they turned the Orthodox to the pope! And it is not surprising if, 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 153. They didn’t have enough time for dad in Volyn, even less in Chervona Rus. And in Little Russia they gave their lives to the malice of fanatics; but they did not betray their faith; Only some of the nobility turned out to be weak 154. § 16. Sufferings under Vladislav, Casimir and their successors until 1720 Ladislaus IV, Sigismund's successor (1632–1618), 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 the pious one will have a residence in Mogilev; 3) in the dioceses of Przemysl and Lviv, the Bishops must always be pious; 4) cede the Lutsk bishopric to them; 5) the pious 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 155. Although these decrees took away a lot from Orthodoxy 156; 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. In this way, first those or other decrees useful to Orthodoxy were repealed; the best monasteries, estates that belonged to Orthodoxy, remained with the Uniates 157. The violence of the Lyakhs 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 for deliverance from purgatory.” Some of the convicts were wheeled, others had their arms and legs broken, and others, pierced through with knitting needles, were raised onto piles. Kamchadal ferocity! 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 their parents, their 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 Lyakhs rented them out to the Jews; the chalices, paten, vestments and surplices were sold and drunk away; the Jews converted church silver into dishes and decorations; Jewish women sewed bibs from vestments and surplices, leaving crosses on them as a sign of triumph over faith 158. 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 159. 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 went to the church insulted Orthodoxy especially cruelly; and there were now a lot of them 160. The brave Bogdan Khmelnitsky rose to the aid of the suffering faith and fatherland. “The reason,” wrote Khmelnitsky, that prompted the Cossacks to rebel against the Lyakhs in war was not that the Lyakhs unjustly took away their villages and houses, not that they deprived them of their earthly fatherland, not that they burdened them with work like the unmerciful Pharaoh (the Cossacks would not have refused to endure all this), but that the Lyakhs, forcing them to leave their pious dogmas and joined with error, with evil foolishness they destroyed the mental villages and houses of imperishable souls” 161. 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 to remain with their ancient liberties and estates, as they were 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 162. Diet and King January 12, 1650 approved the Treaty of Zboriv 163. But the Polish popes were so unwilling 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 popes - the biscuits, made a fuss and as soon as he appeared in the Senate, the biscuits 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 cruelties began again both in Little Russia, Lithuania and Volsk 164. For the first, peace of conscience began only in 1654, when she surrendered under 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 its unhappy connection with Rome, if only the Tsar would protect it from persecution 165 . Under the rule of the Lyakhs, Volyn with Red Rus and Belarus continued to suffer. Polotsk Archbishop. Uniate Cyprian 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 insulted both faith and humanity 166 . 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. The bishops, Innokenty of Przemysl, Joseph of Lvov and Meletius of Lutsk, received nothing for their cathedras and were still severely pressed until they finally went into 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 167. § 17. Spiritual measures in defense of Orthodoxy; fraternities with schools and printing houses The Orthodox, oppressed by Latin and the Union in the southwest, were strengthened in faith and patience by special signs of God's grace, miracles performed in churches and monasteries of Orthodoxy 168. But for their part, they used means to defend Orthodoxy. It is impossible to say anything better than what the council of 1621 prescribed on measures to protect Orthodoxy. These rules instilled as much zeal for holy Orthodoxy as severity against the instillation of sin, as much firmness in the paternal faith, as much holiness and intelligence in dealing with the enemies of the faith. Among the measures to protect Orthodoxy, the council considered the evangelical vigilance of pastors, general purity of life, and martyrdom. “Let them remember,” says the council, that our faith was confirmed with blood and defended against all heresies with blood.” The bloody policy of Poland forced the Cossacks to political defense of faith and freedom, to defense with weapons. The Council spoke about spiritual measures and ordered the “establishment of brotherhoods.” The brotherhoods that had appeared in the previous period were now animated by new jealousy. Due to general troubles, their number and the number of members increased. Previously, they were predominantly humane societies. Now the persecution of Orthodoxy turned their zeal to defend the faith, to help the shepherds of the Church 169. Those of them who had the means took over printing houses and schools 170. The oldest school in this period (after Ostrog, which was known even earlier) was Lviv. Antiochus. Patr. Joachim, having arrived in Russia with the instructions of Constant. Patriarch Jeremiah, January 1, 1586, gave the Lvov Brotherhood a charter and inspired it with zeal to open a school and a printing house. Lvov Bishop Gideon, with proclamations on May 1 and 20, invited the clergy of his diocese to help the Brotherhood in its laudable and useful enterprise. Patriarch Jeremiah, having received a report from Joachim, sent Metropolitan Arseny of Elasson to Lvov, who took upon himself the responsibility of teaching lessons at the new school and taught for two years. In 1589, Blessed Jeremiah confirmed at the Ternopil Council his previous will on the institutions of brotherhood. Another school was established by Blessed Gideon in Stryatin. The subjects of study were: Greek, Slavic, Russian languages, dialectics and rhetoric 171. The Lvov brotherhood was not slow in delivering the most necessary aid to their charges: they published (1591) the first Eliposlovenian grammar 172 . In 1588, the Vilna brotherhood at the Trinity Monastery received a blessing from the same Patriarch Jeremiah, among other things, that its school would be a school for the languages ​​of Greek, Latin and Russian and publish books in its printing house. The king approved this institution the following year 173. Despite the fact that the Uniate Potsey in 1609 took away the Trinity monastery from the Orthodox, and the king ordered that all donations from the Orthodox brotherhood remain with the Uniate monastery. The oppressed brotherhood moved its institutions to the Monastery of the Holy Spirit. Since 1609, Sigismund sent letter after letter demanding that the income of the brotherhood be transferred to the Trinity Uniate monastery 174. It was necessary to have a lot of firmness and zeal so that, in the midst of robbery and violence, the holy determination would not be changed, and the brotherhood, strong only by its union 175, printed books either in Evy, the estate of the Oginsky princes 176, or in Vilna itself 177. Vladislav in 1633 approved the existence of both the brotherhood and the school with a printing house 178. In 1617, a school was established by the Lutsk Brotherhood of the Holy Cross. The subjects of the teaching were a living knowledge of the Greek and Slavic languages, grammar with church regulations, rhetoric and dialectics. In 1634, this school experienced a brutal attack by fanatics: after a festive procession, several principals and scholastics of the Jesuit college, gathering a gang of up to 100 people, armed attacked the brotherhood, devastated the Church, school, and hospital; they mercilessly beat the abbot, monks, disciples, elders, “if only there were Rusin.” Despite this, the brotherhood and school existed even after that for about a hundred years in the spirit of Orthodoxy 179. In 1597, a brotherhood was first formed in Mogilev; firmly rejected the advances of the Uniate Bishop in 1601 and opened a school at the very beginning. In 1602, another brotherhood founded another school there 180. In 1594, the brotherhood of the Kyiv Epiphany Church opened a school in Kyiv; Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem expressed his approval and blessing to the humane educational institution with three letters. This school was especially elevated under the care of the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, the elder brother of the caretaker and protector of the fraternal school. He added philosophical and theological classes to the previous ones, calling the school a collegium, donating estates for maintenance, and providing some teaching aids. After the death of Mogila, the board for military unrest was in a pitiful position until 1673. The zeal of Metropolitan Joseph of Tukalsky supported and revived its existence. The Kiev Collegium also published several educational books 181. The Pinsk Epiphany and Minsk Peter and Paul brotherhoods from 1633, the Nikolaev brotherhood from 1641 received permission to open a school and a hospital 182. All these schools, and especially the Kiev one, provided many services to the holy Orthodox Church; they prepared worthy priests, enlightened archpastors, zealous defenders of Orthodoxy. True, during its century, the college did not bear as many mature fruits as might have been expected over time. But we must not forget both the disasters of the time and the fact that scholasticism, and especially Roman scholasticism, whose spirit and rules guided the schools of the South, was nowhere fruitful. It is enough for their glory that they were breeding grounds for Orthodoxy and, therefore, fulfilled their purpose. § 18. Correction of books when printing The main purpose of the printing houses established by the brotherhoods was to increase the number of liturgical books as aids to Orthodoxy. But enlightened pastors also saw that the liturgical books of their time were largely faulty, and in this form, instead of being useful, they could harm Orthodoxy. And therefore, from the very beginning of the 17th century, liturgical books began to be corrected in the South. The one who most generally acted for Orthodoxy, Blessed Gideon, Bishop of Lvov, was distinguished by such zeal. In 1604, he published a service book in Stryatin, having previously compared the Slavic text with ancient Slavic copies and the Greek text; The enlightened shepherd himself appreciated the merit of this correction, saying that mistakes are inseparable from the first experiments 183 . In the preface to the breviary, published in 1606. in Stryatin, the same enlightened pastor wrote: “10 years before this, when under the Kiev Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoz there was a council in Brest-Litovsk and other Bishops were gathered there, then all of one holy catholic Eastern Apostolic Church, there was a search and examination of differences in church actions... At this council, after deliberation, they entrusted me, the humble Bishop of Lvov, make every effort to correct the book “breviary.” He further says that, having collected the lists of the missal, he “found great disagreement between them” and this greatly saddened him. In this position, he wrote to Meletius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who then ruled the throne of Constantinople; informing him “about the differences and malfunctions of the Slavic books,” he asked and begged to send the Greek Euchologium. The Patriarch sent a service book and a missal, the latter, verified with the ancient missals of the Holy Mountain, and blessed it to be printed in translation. To avoid doubts even after that, Gideon gathered experienced priests and together with them discussed the publication of a missal. At this meeting, it was decided to transfer the necessary rites from the Slavic breviaries to the new breviary, although those rites were not on the patriarchal list: these are “the rite of how to receive converts from heresies”, “the rite of the sanctification of the world”, etc. 184. This is what happened in Lviv at the beginning of the 17th century! This intelligent prudence remained for Lvov, as it were, an inheritance after blessed Gideon. And after him, the Lvov brotherhood published books in no other way than by subjecting the text to verification against the original and according to Slavic copies 185. The Kiev brotherhood also tried to correct errors in Slavic liturgical books. Metropolitan Peter (Grave) (1641–1647) was especially concerned about this. He strictly forbade free printers from printing books without his consideration; and he instructed the learned members of the brotherhood to verify Slavic books using the Greek text and ancient Slavic copies 186. More remarkable than others in this regard are the service book of 1639 and the Euchologion of 1616. They were revised with special attention; the publishers say they chose ancient Greek; however, in their breviary there are many prayers and songs of Patriarchs Philotheus and Callistus, that is, later works 187. The brotherhood of Ostroh schools did not lag behind others in zeal and purity of liturgical books. The book of hours he published in 1612 was verified with all care with the Greek text and with the ancient Slavic lists, and the differences between both are marked with 188 signs. § 19. 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 learned people would not have appeared among the Russian people; the teaching in our churches would still be covered with the dust of negligence 189 . This is quite fair. The Union forced Orthodoxy to bloody labors and teachers worthy of Orthodoxy appeared, students of school and life. One of the most worthy representatives of Orthodoxy was Leonty Karpovich, a student of Ostrog schools, builder and first Archimandrite of the Vilna monastery, from 1616 Bishop of Vladimir and Brest 190. 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 1595 and with a pen worthy of the event 191. With the rank of Archimandrite of the Vilna brotherhood, 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” 192. Meletius Smotrytsky, Leonty's successor in the leadership of the Vilna brethren and a graduate of the same Ostrog school, was at first the most zealous defender of Orthodoxy; aggravated by the evil persecution of the Latins and Uniates, he had the weakness (1627) to go over to the side of the union, then repented of his weakness († 1633 193. In the same Ostroh school, very effective essays on the union were written: Apocrysm or a response to Hypatia's description of the Fraternal Council and an Otpis on Potsey's sheet 194. Famous students of the Lvov school Isaiah Kopistesky, Lavrentiy Zizaniy, Kirill Trankvillionov, Pamva Berynda 195, Isaiah Trofimovich and Sylvester Kossov 196, 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 in 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 and the spiritual alphabet and a strong admonition to Prince Vishnevetsky, who was retreating from Orthodoxy. – Lavrentiy, 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 197. Cyril, a 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 essay, he writes that some, either through weakness of meaning or out of anger, initiated persecution against him for his teaching gospel: “their word of blasphemy is rotten, sweeping across the entire Russian land”; but, he adds, “the Lord my God will reveal my innocence” 198. Probably, a student of the same Lvov schools was Zakhary Kopystensky, for a short time Archimandrite of Pechersk (from 1624 † 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 199; 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 200. 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 Volshian Kupyatitsky 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 201, and Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, then rector of the Kyiv college 202, 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 response of the Greek-Russian Church to the Romans is written in refutation of the book: the foundation of faith, composed by the Jesuit Skarga, confessor of King Sigismund, fanatic and clever dialectician. 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 203. Far poorer than these gifted scientists are the students of the same Kyiv school: Tarasy Zemka, Innocent Gisel, Anthony of Radzivilovsky 204 and John Maksimovich, Archbishop of Chernigov, a passionate hunter of verses 205. Finally, no one was so worthy of general respect both in terms of his fate and in his scholarship and in his merits to Orthodoxy as Adam Zernikov, who, unfortunately, was barely noticed in his time. Born and raised in Lutheranism, having studied various sciences at the best universities of the West, Adam himself felt dissatisfaction with Lutheranism, divided into sects and obedient to the arbitrariness of each teacher. Reading Mitrofan Kritopoulos’s book “Confession of the Eastern Church” 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, 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 work that had not been done in the East itself, exemplary work, both in the strength of evidence and in the spirit of presentation, calm and distinct. “Nevertheless, 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 206. § 20. The position of Orthodoxy between two extremes: papism and reformation Given the hatred with which the Roman court persecuted the Orthodox since the time of the union, it was natural for the Orthodox to seek help for themselves in an alliance with the followers of the Reformation. This is exactly what happened. In 1599, the Orthodox nobility united with the nobles of the kingdom who professed the Reformation and, together with them, filed a protest in Vilna against the violence of Rome. But the followers of Orthodoxy then announced to the reform that their union with it was nothing more than a civil one, which in no way required them to agree to any deviation from the rules of Orthodoxy 207 . This union continued after that. Followers of Orthodoxy and the Reformation united their forces to rebel at the diets against Roman fanaticism and sometimes extorted from the civil authorities leniency towards their human rights. The Jesuits were angry. They were even more angry at such an alliance of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Loukaris. Kirill, even in the rank of Patriarchal Exarch in Russia, aroused such hatred against himself among the Jesuits that he barely saved his life by fleeing from Russia. In the rank of Patriarch, he took all measures to oppose the Jesuits, who, together with the French ambassador to the Divan, were disturbing the Greek Church. With the help of the English, Dutch and Swedish ambassadors, Cyril achieved that the Jesuits (in 1628) were expelled from Constantinople. For this reason, Cyril, according to their machinations, was deposed from the pulpit four times and, finally (June 1638) was thrown into the sea 208. In 1629 in Latin, and in 1633 in Greek, the Eastern Orthodox confession of Cyril Lucaris appeared in Geneva, with Calvinist thoughts on faith. Both Protestants and Jesuits proclaimed this work as the work of the Eastern Patriarch, for their species. The Jesuits and their pupils, the Uniates, pierced the eyes of Russians with this book and brought them into service 209. In 1630, the shepherds of the southern Church, in order to put boundaries on the opinions, asked the priest. Patriarch Theophan: is it really not the Orthodox confession of faith that belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Theophanes from Iasi answered that Patr. Cyril, like the Eastern Church, is not involved in this confession 210. Nevertheless, the apostate Cassian Sakovich wrote: “The Russian people are in alliance with heretics, Lutherans and Calvinists, others fraternize with them and pester their sects more readily than the Roman Church” 211. In 1640 Metr. Peter (Mogila) invited bishops, archimandrites and abbots to the Council. From 8 Sep. The meetings began and the Catechism, composed in Kyiv, was read. Preliminary discussions on controversial subjects took place between the learned archimandrites and abbots, between whom Samuil Shiletsk, the learned archimandrite of Slutsk, presided, and the conciliar definitions were written down by the reasonable and very learned fathers Joseph Kononovich, the rector of Kiev, who was later the bishop of Mstislav, and Innocent Gisel, the rector of Goy. The Council recognized and determined that the souls of the saints are in heaven" 212. At the same time, they discussed and drew up a definition not only “about the state of the saints, but also about the general state of the souls of the dead, about private judgment, about purgatory, about the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist” 213. In these definitions we see that the Council, on the one hand, refuted the Roman opinion about purgatory, on the other hand, it also condemned the extremes of the Reformation, which, out of hostility to Rome, introduced the teaching that saints do not enjoy bliss until the future judgment, and all the souls of the dead remain until judgment in some kind of sleep, in an unconscious state. Thus, the Council tried to ward off the Orthodox both from the mistakes of papism and from the self-will of the Reformation. In this spirit, the “confession of faith” has been revised. Calling it “an exposition of the faith of the Russians” (εκθεςις τρς τας Ρεσσιν πιςεις), the Council sent it to Greek. language for the consideration of the Eastern Shepherds. The Iasi Council of 1642, under the Deputies of the Russian Church, again revised it and sent it to the Patriarch 214. “At the insistence of our Russian Church,” wrote Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, the Church of Constantinople has issued a curse on all Calvin's heretical articles of faith, published falsely under the name of St. in memory of Father Kirill, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the temptation of God’s faithful children of the Eastern Church.” This ruling of May 1642, which defended the honor of Patriarch Kirill, was forwarded to the Kyiv Metropolitan with the signature of Patriarch Parthenius and was signed by both the Metropolitan and all the bishops of southern Russia. “Let this be a shame for you and everyone else who unfairly accuses us of pandering to Calvinism and Lutheranism,” said Met. Grave of the apostate Cassian Sakovich 215. On May 11, 1643, the presentation of the faith of the Russians was approved by all the Eastern Patriarchs and was called the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Eastern Church. But the book remained in the east. The Metropolitan waited for her for two years. And in 1645 published an abbreviation of the Orthodox Confession of Faith: on the articles of faith, first in Polish, then in Russian: in Polish in order, as stated in the preface to the Russian edition, to “stop the mouths of shameless slanderers who, in the same language, dare to accuse the Orthodox Catholic Church before the world of various heresies” 216. Although the lengthy confession of faith remained unpublished for another 29 years, contrary to the hopes of Mogila 217: but the definition of the boundaries separating Orthodoxy from papism and the Reformation had already been done and became known to everyone 218. § 21. Enlightenment in Moscow; fraternal school in the Chudov Monastery; printing school, transformed into an academy; seminary 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 sacred sciences and to provide all possible assistance to both mentors and those wishing to study 219. Unfortunately, in the North, the habit of the old darkness has become inveterate among the masses of the people, and they also covered up their reluctance to enlightenment with fears against multilingual heteroglossia 220 . “Not knowing either Orthodoxy or crooked Orthodoxy, and the divine scriptures just came according to the black ones,” 221 as St. Dionysius’s collaborator Arseny said, they insisted that Russians are Orthodox even without sciences. It was not easy, nor was it soon possible to weaken, much less defeat, such a bad direction of thoughts and feelings. It took time. Returning from Polish captivity, Patriarch Filaret brought with him from the South-West the consciousness of educational services 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 222; in 1633 she already gave the foreigner Olearius hopes for a better future. And the next year they printed several grammatical rules for her in the primer 223. 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 fraternal monastery by royal letter, and the next year the hieromonk Damaskin Ptitsky arrived. They were sent from Kyiv and received in Moscow “for rhetorical teaching and for translating Greek books” 224. 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. Epiphanius was invested with the title of head of the Patriarchal Miracle School and chief director of books 225. The activities of the scientific fraternity became lively. Under Nikon, precious treasures of the East, ancient Greek books, were acquired for Moscow; and in addition, the royal library was enriched with treasures of the West 226. Nikon's troubles were also troubles for the scientific fraternity; zealots of enlightenment were called traitors to Orthodoxy 227. The East again supported the friends of enlightenment in their fight against ignorance. Paisius Ligarid's admonition to increase schools in Russia 228 did not mean much. 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 pastors to assist the Tsar with their desires and 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 229. The patriarchs wrote a letter in which, teaching the blessing to study science in Greek, Slavic and Latin, they anathematized the enemies of enlightenment 230 . Later, in 1674, when revising the Slavic translation of the Bible, among the members of the learned Moscow brotherhood, in addition to Epiphanius and Abbot Sergius, we see the Miracle monks Euthymius and Moses, the priest Nicephorus, and two more secular typographers; all of them are said to already have a good knowledge of Greek and Latin and Slavic grammar, although some of them belonged to Moscow, and not the South 231. Hieromonk Timothy, who brought bitter news to Moscow about the oppression of Orthodoxy in the East from the Turks and 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 (1679) the school was opened in a printing house. The Tsar and 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 an 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 South-West of Russia and offer their services to the academy 232; Tsar Theodore soon died; and then followed the excitement of the brassy archers; all this did not allow the academy plan to be fully realized. At the invitation of Patriarch Joachim, two Greek scientists, people capable of talent and enlightenment, arrived in Moscow; but two could not do everything for the academy. Hieromonks Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud graduated from the University of Padua with doctoral degrees; 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 233. The Academy already had its own educational books, which were written either by the Likhuds 234 or by their students 235. By 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 or 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 236. § 22. Translations; the beginning of live preaching and catechism; Saint Demetrius of Rostov, preacher and biography With such a late and unfavorable establishment of schools in the North, one could not expect special fruits of spiritual learning in the North; It is enough if movement was given to mental stagnation. The scientific life of the North by Nikon's time is divided into two sections; Since the time of Nikon, it has begun to move quite strongly; under Nikon, the beginning of live preaching was made, and before that time little was done even in translation. As soon as Nikon became powerful at court, a lively zeal for translations from Greek, and partly from Latin, was revealed. Arseny the Greek, Epiphany Slavenitsky and Arseny Satanovsky translated a lot of Greek services and lives, they themselves composed both of them, and they especially did this under Patriarch Joseph 237 . Under Patriarch Nikon, the Greek Arseny translated from Greek the tablet, the work of the monk Pathanail, sent to Nikon in 1653 by the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius; Epiphanius added a preface to the translation 238. Under Nikon, from the Greek works, the best works of Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great and Damascus were chosen for translation, while at other times they translated even those that were almost not worth translating 239 . Epiphanius and the entire brotherhood 240, of which Epiphanius was the head, worked hard to translate the works with which the patriarchal library, and partly the royal one, was so rich under Nikon. It’s a pity that Epiphanius’ translation language is very strange; in composition and arrangement of words it is more Greek than Russian or Slavic; That is why the translations are extremely dark. It seems that they wanted to convince them that when publishing new books, they do not deviate from the old, even in language. Living preaching, which fell silent in the North in the 16th century, began to make its voice heard in the middle of the 17th century. Most of all, the example of the South, where at that time there was a special position of a preacher (§ 19), was conducive to this; Patriarch Nikon punished the Murom archpriest Login for preaching; but he also blessed Epiphanius of Slavenitsky to preach sermons at times, although Epiphanius spoke them little 241 . Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius in 1667 gave a blessing to the parishioners of the Church of John the Theologian to have a priest-preacher at their request; a clear voice in favor of the fact that the East never thought of prohibiting live preaching. However, the Russian Church needed an example of a strong man in order to weaken the people’s prejudice against preaching. And this is how Simeon of Polotsk appeared. A student of southern schools, a gifted student of the enlightened and virtuous Lazar Baranovich, Simeon, after becoming known to Tsar Alexei during the Livonian campaign, came to Moscow in 1661; The Tsar received him kindly, assigned him a salary from the court and entrusted him with the education of Tsarevich Theodore 242. Patriarch Joasaph used his talents and knowledge for the benefit of the holy Church; in less than two months, Simeon wrote the rod of government, which was later considered by the council 243. The teaching of the law gave Simeon the idea to write (in 1670 and 1671) two catechisms, one lengthy, the other short. When his pupil Theodore ascended the throne, respect for Simeon increased, especially since the young Tsar loved Simeon. It was then that Simeon decided to take the step that Epiphanius feared. With an ardent mind, with a lively imagination, with a thirst for activity and with strength at court, Simeon freely took the throne. The preacher's success was brilliant. His spiritual dinner and spiritual supper, after being listened to with lively curiosity from the lips of the preacher, quickly spread throughout Russia; they became known even before they came out of the printing house, which was in 1680 and 1683 244. However, Polotsk’s news was a strange thing for others; and those who did not like his power at court especially wanted to find something bad in the new one. Patriarch Joachim looked at the preacher with displeasure and did not want him to preach; Simeon continued to preach. 10 years after the death of Simeon, when a dispute about Moscow Latinism arose, Joachim pronounced a condemnation at Simeon’s sermon; However, he himself said: “maybe the writer had other thoughts.” With all this, the example of Polotsk did not remain without good fruit. In 1684, Orlovsky, a priest in Perm, wrote a psalter or teachings for Sundays and holidays, imitating, as he himself said, the teachings of the holy fathers, the wise Cyril Tranquillion and the intelligent man, Father Simeon. This unlearned, but common sense, preacher intelligently discussed the need for living preaching 245. But his preaching was not easy for him; the ignorant parishioners shouted: “Good priests have been here with us, but they did not do that, but lived simply; Where does this one introduce strangeness?” He endured and worked, encouraged by the protection of the smart Stroganov Dmitry Mikhailovich. Soon they no longer considered preaching a strange thing. The best preacher and excellent biographer was St. Demetrius of Rostov. By place of birth and initial upbringing, he belonged to Kyiv, but he lent his education not to the college and Kyiv, but to the monuments of ancient Russia and his talents 246. The Polish War, which destroyed the Kyiv College in 1665, was the reason that Dmitry’s education at the school ended in the literature class; then what was acquired at the college was transformed into Demetrius with extraordinary talents in accordance with other methods of education. At the age of 18, he took monastic vows in Kyiv. In 1675, Lazar Baranovich, Archbishop of Chernigov, ordained him a hieromonk, appointed him as a preacher at the Chernigov Cathedral; this was when Demetrius was 24 years old. Two years of preaching service in Chernigov glorified the young preacher so much that when, out of pious zeal, he arrived at the border of Lithuania and Poland to venerate the Novodvorsky miraculous image of the Mother of God; then he was not only received with respectful love, but was asked to be a preacher in Slutsk; even a dispute opened up over Demetrius; on behalf of the hetman they twice demanded Dmitry to Little Russia; from Kyiv, Abbot Demetrius wrote about the same thing; The Slutsk Orthodox begged Demetrius’s superiors to give them a preacher for a while. A year later he was received in Baturin with honor and was invited to various monasteries for the rank of abbot; at the end of 1618, he was initiated into abbot Maksakovsky, and was soon transferred to Baturin. At the end of 1683, Demetrius, who was concerned about his spiritual salvation, resigned from the rank of abbot in order to live alone in prayer and with the sciences. After a little time, the enlightened Pechersk Archimandrite Varlaam Yasinsky invited Demetrius to start compiling four mena. Not without fear, but with hope in God's help, he began (in 1684) complex work. In the rank of abbot of Baturin, in 1589, he was sent to the royal court, and the first part of the menia, sent from the Kyiv printing house, was then presented to the royal persons. Patriarch Joachim, after expressing displeasure that the book was printed without his consideration and that there were several errors in it, approved the pious zeal of the writer 247. Upon returning from Moscow, Dimitri continued his work in a special monastery with even greater care. Patriarch Adrian consoled him with a letter of commendation; and it was even more supported by two visions, and in 1698 the second part of the work was completed, honored by a new charter from Patriarch Adrian. In 1701, summoned by Tsar Peter to Moscow, he was ordained Metropolitan of Tobolsk. But his health could not cope with the harsh climate of Siberia; and the work for which they thought to reward him would have remained unfinished. Therefore, Tsar Peter, having visited his sick man, allowed him to stay in Moscow to preach the Word of God, and the saint preached here for about a year. In 1702 he was assigned to the Rostov department. Here in 1704 he completed the last part of the menya. Here he preached almost every week, and when illness did not allow him to speak, he assigned someone else to read his sermon; especially during his successive ministry in Moscow in 1705–1706, he often preached. Until his death, he devoted himself to scientific works with spiritual love, and his only inheritance was his books. The saint reposed in 1709. The sermons of St. Demetrius are distinguished by their warmth and freedom in imagery; the decorations that school Little Russian eloquence amused themselves with are rarely found in St. Demetrius; his words are often original both in thoughts and in turns of speech. The Chetya Menaion of St. Demetrius is an exemplary work. The sources for this historical work were the four menaions of Macarius, the writings of ancient historians and part of the critical work of the Bollandists. The list of writers appended to the first and second parts shows that the writer tried to find everything that could be found in his time. And the criticism with which he selected information was not only more far-sighted than Makariev’s criticism, which was limited only to words, but came closer to exemplary criticism. Saint Demetrius wanted to provide piety with reading that was both pleasant and useful, and provided the best for all conditions. The eloquence of the biography is lively and fascinating, the language is an example of Slavic purity and grace. In the latter respect, we must thank Providence that he did not allow Demetrius to finish his lessons at the Kyiv college; otherwise, Saint Demetrius would have spoken to us in the menaions in the language of Innocent Gisel or Golyatovsky, that is, a strange mixture of Russian with Polish and Latin. Demetrius's language was formed according to the models of ancient Slavic literature, which were before his eyes in ancient monuments 248. § 23. The fight against papism; the vain attempts of the Jesuits to introduce papism through the first impostor; similar with other impostors The Jesuits, having raised a bloody war in the South against Orthodoxy, at the same time shed 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 249, 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 250. In May 1604, the impostor gave a written undertaking to the Sandomierz governor that he would give ownership of Novgorod and Pskov with their districts to his future wife and daughter Mniszek, and leave her the full right to build monasteries and schools according to the Roman rite. “And we ourselves,” he added, accepted this union and will firmly work to bring the entire Moscow state into the same Roman faith” 251. 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 252. Clement's successor, Paul, set in motion all measures so that the hopes raised by Demetrius would be realized in their full form. He thanked King Sigismund for assisting the imaginary Demetrius and encouraged him to go further. Cardinal Maciejewski was ordered to act on Dmitry through the governor of Sandomierz 253. Sandomirsky was urged to “use all his influence on Demetrius and try to maintain zeal for Catholicism in Demetrius’s heart” 254. The pope first wrote to the impostor that he was very happy with his happiness and was confident that his “Highness, as he had done before, would continue to preserve the Roman Catholic faith intact and intact” 255 . The Pope sent ambassadors from Count Alexander Rangoni to him, providing the ambassador with a letter to Demetrius in addition to the letter of credit. In this latter, among other things, it is written: “we are prompted by our fatherly love to exhort you, to ask and pray with the bounty of Christ, use all your diligence, so that the faith that the Roman Church received from the prince of the Apostles Peter, be accepted by our beloved children, your subjects” 256. False Demetrius chose the Greek Ignatius as Patriarch, who was brought up 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 also burdened by the fact that the Lyakhs were in Moscow and beat the Lyakhs in the streets. The impostor announced to the pope his knightly intention to fight the Turks, but began to avoid direct explanations about faith. In Rome they thought differently. The Pope, in a letter to False Demetrius, said that Demetrius made a promise to Clement and that the Pope had Bishops ready for Russia 257. False Demetrius did not see himself at all 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 258. Dad, for his part, again reminded Demetrius of his word and impatiently awaited an answer 259. The impostor, in a letter to the pope, was forced to say this time that Clement had definitely been given a promise and that, accordingly, his soul was devoted to the pope; however, his trusted Jesuit Lavitsky 260 will inform the pope of his thoughts about the Roman affair. False Demetrius did not abandon his intentions in relation to the pope; at least he lived as if he had never been Russian at 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 Tsar was the 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 261. Dyak Osipov calmly sacrificed his life to tell the truth to the face of the impostor 262. 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 rules, 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 him to be sent into exile 263. No matter how frivolous the impostor was; These incidents let him know that his and the Jesuits’ plans for a change of faith in Russia were 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 demands of the nuncio even in relation to Marina; For the sake of appearance, she is supposed to sometimes go to a Greek church, receive communion from the Patriarch, and fast on Wednesday, and not on Saturday. And yet 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 the marriage cannot even be concluded with her. The impostor began to seethe with anger and 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 Lyakhs, during the wedding of the false Dmitry, turned everyone against the impostor and he died a shameful death 264. The Jesuits did not abandon their hopes even after that. The fate of Marinin's husband was too well known to Lyakh. And yet, Poland, both politically and Jesuitically, helped the second impostor. The purpose of the 1617 campaign to Russia was determined publicly, in a speech by the Archbishop of Gniezno to Wladislav. Poland sought to ensure that: a) Vladislav took possession of the Russian throne, which the zealous servant of the Jesuits, Sigismund, had previously sought for himself; b) it was decided to introduce a union into Russia; and c) annex the western Russian regions to Poland 265. Thus, the Jesuits shed Russian blood for 25 years, seeking open power over the Russian Church and gained nothing for the pope. § 24. Review of Patriarch Philaret about papism; disputes in Moscow between Polish and Greek scholars about certain opinions under Patriarch Joachim and Hadrian; Rogowski's confession of faith; reply to the Sorbonne Then, as papism in the North did so much evil, and in the South, the imaginary rapprochement of Greek Orthodoxy with it tore apart Rus' itself and drowned it in streams of its own blood; At such a time, it is not surprising to hear Orthodoxy’s response to papism is not too soft. Patriarch Filaret at the council of 1620, contrary to the opinion of Metropolitan Jonah, decided to rebaptize those converting from Latin to Orthodoxy; the decree is wrong compared to church teaching, but is excused by the horrors of the time 266. In the same spirit of bitter dissatisfaction with papism and with the same excessive confidence in one’s own thoughts, the writings of Tranquillion were condemned and the catechism of Lawrence Zizanius 267 was examined. Neither under Patriarch Philaret, nor after him until Tsar Peter, neither a church nor a Jesuit was allowed to be in Moscow 268. Papism caused quite a lot of trouble in Moscow under Patriarch Joachim. The Russians of the South, due to their very local proximity to papism, inconspicuously became akin to some of the thoughts of papism. The Jesuits, while educating Russians in the South, managed to convince of some of their opinions even those people who, as it seemed to them, did not want to accept anything Jesuit. And those Russians who, out of a thirst for enlightenment, decided to listen to lessons in Rome, had to publicly approve of Roman outrages and condemn the East 269. Thus, the idea of ​​consecrating the Eucharist with the words of the Savior alone, without invoking the Spirit of grace, raised by Western scholasticism to the level of dogma at the end of the 16th century, but not accepted by the East, was quietly adopted by some in the South. And it caused alarm in Moscow when scientists from Greece and the South met there. Scientists from the South, even before the academy opened in Moscow, often visited hospitable Moscow; Even more of them appeared in Moscow with hopes of places in the new academy. The Greeks Likhuda, summoned to the academy, suffered grief from the Jesuits on their journey to Russia; and according to the experience of the Greek Church, everything Roman or close to Roman was known to them from the side too unfavorable. From now on, as soon as they arrived in Moscow, mistrust arose between them and the Polish scientists, which soon turned into open struggle, especially when other circumstances contributed to this. Patriarch Joachim, as a student of Kyiv, himself knew and felt the bitterness that Rome infused into southern Russia 270. The Belarusian Jan Belobodsky in 1681 asked the Patriarch and the Tsar for the position of teacher and offered his confession of faith, where he tried to combine Greek with Latin; They demanded that he join the Holy Church, and upon joining, he verbally renounced the Western Church, but in his soul he remained the same. He revealed his thoughts in an essay on the indifference of the Churches. On the ninth day after their arrival in Moscow, the Likhuds, in the presence of the court nobility, entered into a conversation with Belobodsky about the Holy Eucharist. It turned out that Belobodsky, who called himself a professor of theology and philosophy, was not involved in theology 271. Soon there was a clash between the Likhuds and Sylvester, the builder of the Zaikonospassky monastery, where the academy was founded (since 1686). Sylvester listened to and deeply respected Simeon of Polotsk. Due to his love of education, his intellectual gifts and several essays, he was famous in Moscow 272 and was close to Princess Sofia Alekseevna 273. Dissatisfied with Patriarch Joachim, as a friend of Polotsk, who did not look at the Likhuds summoned by Joachim in a friendly manner, Sylvester wrote an essay called Mann; proving that bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus when pronouncing the words of the establishment of the Eucharist, he exposed the opponents of the Likhuds as non-Orthodox. An endless argument began. Likhuds wrote against manna akos, where they showed that bread and wine mysteriously become the body and blood of the Lord when the Spirit of grace is called upon by prayer; This work was written in a spirit of meekness and with extensive information 274. Sylvester responded with angry criticism 275. Likhudami wrote “dialogues between a Greek teacher and a certain Jesuit about the unity between the Eastern and Western Churches” 276. There were quite a few people on Sylvester’s side who persistently defended his thoughts; Among them was the famous Theodore Sheklovity 277. This dispute aroused excitement among the people, useless for faith, harmful for piety. A sacred object, an object inaccessible in height and grandeur, became the subject of conversation in idleness and the vanity of everyday life. Every conversation was filled with controversy about him, and in the streets they made noise about something that in the church itself one can only remain silent in reverent awe 278 . They began to review the books and saw that many of those published in the South more or less clearly proposed the same idea about the Eucharist that Medvedev justified; What was especially notable was the work of the Kyiv abbot Feodosius Safonovich: “Report on the Holy Church and the Service” 279. Patriarch Joachim communicated many times on this subject with Metropolitan Gideon of Kyiv and Archbishop Lazar of Chernigov. “They, writes Joachim, also accepted something from the Roman Church, but again, through the writings of the saints, the Fathers turned through us to the Orthodox Greek Church” 280. In 1689 and 1690, conciliar meetings took place in Moscow on the subject of the dispute. Before this (in September 1689), the Patriarch and the council begged the Tsar to expel from Moscow two Jesuits who had made their way here with the Austrian envoy, since they were corrupting the Orthodox with letters and paintings 281 . Medvedev was convicted along with his writings; he was sentenced to heavy imprisonment. Having learned about his fate, even before the decision, he (in 1689) fled from Moscow, but was caught in the Smolensk monastery, deprived of monasticism, excommunicated from the Church and sent to the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergius for repentance. Here he (in December 1689) condemned his previous opinions in writing and expressed repentance for disturbing the peace of the church. The spiritual council (in January 1690) pronounced forgiveness on him, without returning him to the priesthood; but the civil court decided to cut off his head for his participation in the conspiracy of Sofia and the Streltsy, and the sentence was carried out on February 11, 1691 282. Meanwhile, the Likhuds wrote essay after essay. Behind the book of Osten, which was sent out on behalf of Patriarch Joachim 283, were written in the same 1690: the spiritual sword and the shield of faith. There was no lasting peace in Moscow. Under Joachim's successor, Adrian, the Likhuds were exiled from Moscow to Kostroma under monastic supervision. And although at the council of 1692 Deacon Peter, an open defender of the pope, was defrocked and exiled to Kholmogory; but Adrian was forced to write about the Eucharist to the Eastern Patriarchs. Callinicus of Constantinople and Dositheus of Jerusalem sent their justification for the thoughts of the Likhuds. Nevertheless, Adrian did not return Likhudov to Moscow and the books prepared for publication, Shield of Faith 284 and Metzets 285, remained unpublished. The dispute was not renewed. More than all these disputes of dialectics, the work of Palladius Rogowski, who listened to Likhudov for a short time and then listened to rhetoric and piptics in Moravia, was useful for Russian Orthodoxy, and in Rome he completed a course in philosophy and theology with the title of master; his confession of faith contains a summary of Roman teaching and strong proofs of the purity of the teaching of the Russian Church. The last thing with papism in this period was under Exarch Stephen. The favorable treatment of Tsar Peter with the prelates during his stay in Paris gave the Sarbonian Academy hope for the union of the Roman Church with the Russian. In 1717, a note from members of the academy about means of connection was sent to St. Petersburg. Tsar Peter in 1718 replied that this was a matter for the Church and left it to the exarch to write a response to the Sorbonne. At the same time, one answer was written by Stefan himself, another by Prokopovich. In the general meeting of clergy, with the consent of Tsar Peter, it was necessary to send Feofan’s answer; and it was received in Paris (1720) in French with a German translation. The response of the Orthodox Church said that the Russian Church prays for the union of the Churches, but fears that the attempt at union will remain as useless and even harmful, like all the experiments that were previously carried out by the Greek Church 286. § 25. Losses of Orthodoxy in the North, dispute with Lutheranism under Patr. Joseph; Quaker Kuhlman; fanatics of Calvinism under Exarch Yavorsky The troubled times of Russia also opened up the opportunity for Lutheranism to make attempts to appropriate the property of Orthodoxy. And fanaticism, which distinguished Lutheranism no less than papism, forced the use of measures to appropriate other people's property, without considering the cost of the measures. Thus, whole thousands of Finns, inhabitants of Lake Peipus, were kidnapped from the Orthodox Church by Lutheranism. In Stockholm, they also hoped that all Russians who remained under Swedish rule after the conclusion of an unhappy peace for Russia would be converted to Lutheranism. A Slavic printing house was established there, in which Luther’s Catechism was printed in the Slavic language, and the same catechism in Finnish, but in Slavic letters. It was not good will that drove the Russians, subjects of Sweden, into the borders of Russia: they felt terrible about Lutheran tolerance. This state of affairs required countermeasures. The dangers of the cause of Orthodoxy turned out to be so great that the Tsar (Aug. 1624) ordered the governors of Novgorod - Russians coming from the Swedish side - to let them into the city in no other way than to first investigate whether they had accepted anything Lutheran, and not to let them into the St. Sophia Church at all. This applied, without a doubt, to those Russians who, having remained outside the new border of Russia, were left, at the insistence of Russia, under the jurisdiction of the Novgorod archpastor 287 . The decree of 1620 on the rebaptism of Roman Christians also applied to Lutherans. The Tsar strictly ordered that both in Moscow and in other cities, Orthodox Christians who were in the service of foreigners should leave their homes and not come to them for work and service 288. In 1641, Tsar Michael wanted to marry his daughter Irina to Voldemar, Prince of Denmark, but so that the prince would accept Orthodox baptism. Patriarch Joseph forwarded to the prince, who arrived in Moscow, a brief summary of the dogmas and rituals of the Eastern Church with an exhortation to accept the Eastern confession. The prince sent a written response, outlining the reasons why he wanted to remain with the Lutheran confession. Here, among other things, he wrote that he recognizes the origin of the Holy Spirit from the one Father. The Patriarch wrote comments. Pastor Philgobert, who guided the prince, responded with comments to comments and sent them to the embassy office. Then the Tsar and Patriarch appointed a verbal debate. Mikhail, archpriest of the Chernigov (otherwise Arkhangelsk) cathedral, archpriest Ivan Nasedka and abbot Gennady were supposed to defend Orthodoxy. The subject of the dispute was: the meaning of watering baptism, the worship of saints and icons, and the priesthood. Regarding the latter, our people said: “if you have neither the Church, nor the veneration of holy icons with the sign of the cross, nor the supreme saint... nor the holy liturgy... then where can you have a decree for the sacred order?... Last year you wrote to us that you made up your own faith, and you scold the pope and his faith. Following the holy fathers, we know that the Pope and the Romans deviated from the Greek faith even under King Charles... But, comparing your bad faith with them and distinguishing the Greek one, we find that theirs is better than yours... Their pope appoints cardinals, archbishops, etc. But how can you sanctify others or baptize when you yourself have not been sanctified by anyone? The dispute remained without consequences and the marriage was not concluded; upset by Voldemar's bad behavior and illegal origin, Tsar Michael soon died 289. Foreigners, Lutherans and Reformed, both before and after freely conducted their worship in Moscow, but with a strict obligation not to seduce the Russians into their faith 290. Under Tsar Alexei, the number of foreigners entering the Russian service in Moscow increased; did not decrease even under Theodore. Among other Germans, during Peter’s early childhood, Quirin Kulman appeared in Moscow with Norderman, a dreamer to the highest degree, as only an ecstatic Quaker can be. He was one of those unfortunates who, feeling the willfulness of Lutheranism, indulge in new dreams and reach confusion in their thoughts. Kulman called himself a spirit seer, prophet, prince, son of the Son of God; his teaching is an apocalypse; He said that he was preaching a new law, but he did not explain well what it was. Kulman and his comrade were sent (in 1689) for interrogation to a special commission; the commission asked Protestant pastors in Moscow for feedback about them and their books, and they answered on paper that these books were madness. After interrogations and investigations, it was determined that Kulman and Norderman and their books should be burned; and there is no other way to allow foreigners into Russia except after strict questioning of who is coming from, where and why? Does it have a view? etc. 291. OK. 1702, in the vicinity of the new northern capital, where foreigners gathered most, the teachings of Luther and Calvin began to spread. The virtuous Job of Novgorod rose up against danger with pastoral care. He himself wrote warnings against German innovators in letters. And he inspired the zealous Likhud brothers to write (in 1706) “a demonstration and denunciation of the heresies of Luther and Calvin,” which the Likhuds dedicated to the Eastern Patriarchs, as guardians of Orthodoxy 292. In Moscow, left without a shepherd after Patriarch Adrian, a sect of the most frenzied Calvinists little by little formed in freedom. Dimitry Deryushkin, learning the art of medicine from some foreign doctor, became infected with Calvinism and began to dispel blasphemies against the Holy Eucharist and relics, against holy icons and the cross, against the invocation of saints and prayer for the dead, against the liturgy and fasts. The infection of freethinking spread between the archers and the artisans. The barber Thomas Ivanov reached such impudence that he publicly scolded the image of St. Alexis the Wonderworker in the miracle monastery. In 1713, Stefan Yavorsky, then the patriarch's locum tenens, made a private, secret study regarding this society; in 1714, according to a new study, he pronounced a condemnation at the council and brought the chiefs before a civil court; Thomas was sentenced to death, but before his death he repented 294. Stephen then considered it necessary to write a lengthy denunciation of the errors common to fanatics and wrote the famous essay: The Stone of Faith 295. Peter the Great loved foreigners as useful collaborators for him in transforming the civil life of Russia: but the repeated warnings of the shepherds of the Church, Patriarch Joachim, Adrian, Saint Mitrofan of Voronezh, Stefan Yavorsky, who urged to value Russian Orthodoxy and not to be trusting of Lutheranism, did not remain without effect in the soul of Peter 296. In 1719 he published... [two pages missing – approx. email editors] ...at once the Annunciation or with crosses and cherubs, and below with bells. Shepherd's staff with serpents, a symbol of wisdom; The hood is white 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 rod 297 . 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 for the Metropolitan: a sakkos without a sewn-on epitrachelion, a purple-like mantle, but not of light colors; tablets of scarlet satin without crosses; white miter and kamilavka, but without a cross; with panagia a cross; the cross preceded him in his travels, but only in his diocese 298. Archbishops and Bishops wore a phelonion, but the former had it with multiple crosses. Patriarch Paissius of Alexandria (in 1669) suggested that Patriarch Joasaph allow, according to a report to the Tsar, 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: gaiter, omophorion, panagia, miter and black kamilavka. At the same time, some differences in the episcopal service, which had been adopted for quite some time by many Archimandrites in Russia, were assigned by the Council of 1675 only to three Archimandrites 299 . After 10 years before the patriarchate they began to limit the damage to books to printing, and now with the introduction of the patriarchate they introduced so many 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 to compare them before printing late ones with ancient, better lists. 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 even for simple embossing of manuscripts 300. 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 301. 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 (§ 18): then what could come out of the Moscow printing house? Thus, it is very natural that both under Patriarch Job 302 and under Hermogenes 303 they felt the severity of the errors that burdened the written books and recognized that many shortcomings remained in the new printed books. § 27. b) After Hermogenes and under Patriarch Filaret; the correction of books by the Monk Dionysius and his suffering; Loggin and Filaret; taming schism and continuing correction 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 Klementevsky priest, Ivan Nasedka (§ 24) complained to Tsar Michael 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 breviary 304. 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 305; Arseny knew Slavic grammar and Greek 306 well. With such methods, they saw that the later lists 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 do to the best of their ability and their conviction. But in Moscow they were denounced as heretics. In July 1618, at the cathedral 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 become priests.”307 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 hymns to the Holy Trinity, ending various prayers; b) in the rite of blessing of water, the word and fire were excluded, as introduced by the arbitrariness of ignorance. In vain did Dionysius write a defense of his amendments 308. 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 they threw whatever they could 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 Novospassk 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 309. 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 (§ 23), 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 headmaster 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 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 the Monk 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 310. The charterer Filaret was a friend of Login. 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 Most Holy Virgin Mary. Another thought to him is without wisdom, the co-creator of God, incomprehensible and indescribable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, described in a verb and human-like being” 311. And so in one and the same person there 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! The entire history of Dionysius was sealed with the same sad seal that sealed the time of Habakkuk and Lazarus. Arseny writes that out of the 12 Slavic lists, 10 lists did not contain the word and fire; in one of the other two it is written on the margin, and in the other above the line; but in the printed missal this word is already included in line 312. It would seem that this is already too enough to see the late forgery. No, the strange novelty was passed off as antiquity and the forgery was defended with bitterness! Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem, arriving in Moscow, immediately drew the attention of love to the sufferers; he suggested that Patriarch Philaret 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 a 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 with fire in the prayer of the blessing of water and that this word should be blackened out in the missal 313. Thus, the agitation of ignorance, which breathed schism, was tamed. Meanwhile, even before receiving the answer from the Patriarchs, and even after that, Patriarch Filaret continued the begun correction of the books 314; Dionysius's collaborators and St. Dionysius himself, in order to justify himself, showed many errors in various church books 315. In accordance with the will of the Patriarch, the missal and 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 Philaret himself sought most of all to protect the Russian from foreignness, from Latinism: then in correcting books under Patriarch Philaret, they mainly followed the Slavic lists, although they introduced quite a lot of news 316. However, in 1633, he, too, by a district letter, demanded that the charter printed by the inspector Loggin 317 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 eating raffle 318. 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 319. § 28. c) Under Patr. Joasapha I (1634–1640); damage to books and a return to better things under Patr. Joseph (1642–1662) Philaret's successor, Joasaph, at first allowed Philaret's missal, charter and service book to be published without changes: but then he considered it necessary to correct a lot of things in them 320. The main correction consisted in replenishing the ranks with prayers and actions 321, and partly in the abolition of some actions 322. In other books, e.g. in the Octoechos they wanted to correct the mistakes of the scribes by checking against the lists, but according to the Slavic lists, or by their own reasoning 323. They continued to print especially diligently the services that had not yet been published 324. To help improve books, he collected Slavic lists from monasteries in Moscow 325; but just as under Patriarch Philaret 326, and under Joasaph I they deeply felt and recognized that many different sins remained in the corrected books 327. Joasaph's successor Joseph (1642–1652) had no more liturgical books left to publish for the first time in Moscow 328 . 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 329 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 330 . 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 331. 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 332, the book about the united faith 333, and the small catechism 334, then 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 d. 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 alleluia, 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 other people’s works. These were archpriests Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, priests Lazar and Nikita, deacon Theodore Ivanov 335. 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 the Churches the canons and kathismas were read, for speed, in two or three voices at the same time; Even at the liturgy, the litanies and exclamations completely merged with the singing of the clergy. Nikon strictly prohibited this disorder. Instead of corrupted singing, he introduced more correct and pleasant singing, applying it to the ancient Kievan and Greek melodies 336. The Emperor liked both very much, as he soon learned about it; The Tsar introduced the corrected singing into his court Church, from where it began to spread throughout 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 offered the review of Paisius to the Tsar and Patriarch Joseph 337. 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 cast his voice against the new oddities, they became convinced that the people trusted by Patriarch Joseph were ill-intentioned. 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 (§ 6), “and with the blessing of Patriarch Joseph,” Arseny set out from Moscow in May 1649 338. And in Moscow, the Patriarch, on Nikon’s advice, became more careful. In place of incapable and bad people, scientists and conscientious monks were assigned to the printing house, summoned from Kyiv (§ 20). Henceforth, in 1650, when the Shestodnevets, a collection of daily services of the week, had already been published, 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 339. 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 340. At the same time, it was necessary to stop the printing house and subject it to a new revision, the helmsman’s book 341 printed in 1650. Following this, a comment was heard in Moscow from the Holy Mount Athos 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 would persistently teach the same was anathematized. In 1652, the Athonite fathers sent this decision to Moscow to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich 342. All this worried Patriarch Joseph so much that he, with a deep awareness 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 343. § 29. Correction of books and rituals by Patriarch Nikon: a) Nikon feels the severity of the feat; is not in a hurry; Sukhanov Proscinitary; other ways to do things; cathedral; relations with Constantinople 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 experiments in 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 did not stop asking him to accept this rank, he announced that he would agree in 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 says from the divine commandments and laws; and Nikon decided to take upon himself a heavy burden 344. Having accepted with high rank the duty of care for the best order of the church, Nikon slowly began to correct the errors, and having begun, he slowly completed it. For the first year and a half, he allowed books to be reprinted almost exclusively with one plea for forgiveness of mistakes 345. Meanwhile, he prepared and prepared what was necessary for the great task 346. In July 1652, Arseny returned from the East and presented his proskinary 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, which was useful for his time. The Proscinitary, after an article list or diary of adventures, in the second part speaks about the city of Jerusalem, in the third about how the Greeks maintain church rites and singing. Arseny was in Constantinople, but then, as the Church was in confusion and crying on the occasion of the painful death of its Patriarch Parthenius; in Alexandria he talked with the wise Patriarch Ioannikios and received permission from him on various church issues; in Jerusalem he observed and described in detail the order of worship. Describing the Jerusalem rite of worship, Arseny forgot that the charter and the implementation of the charter are not the same thing; accustomed to seeing splendor and order in calm Moscow, he did not take into account the suffering situation of Eastern Christians, in which they had no time for rituals, but only to observe the holy faith; He not only exposes with some joy every petty deviation from the rules, but also speaks cruelly about every deviation. In this regard, Arseny's proskintarium was a poor help to Nikon. But Arseny’s proscinary was also useful; eg and Arseny wrote: they three alleluia in the Churches, and in Constantinople the Greeks are marked with three fingers 347. Having distinguished the good from the bad with his bright mind in Arseny's proscenary, Nikon continued to check Russian rituals and find ways to improve them. 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 did not agree with the Greek symbol embroidered on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius; Nikon saw a lot of this 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 we prefer the ancient Greek and Slavic books, of which both contain the same rules, 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 first 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 Tsar and Patriarch 348. Superstitions tried to stop Nikon: during the plague, they spread a rumor that in a heavenly vision it was ordered to stop the printing of corrected books. But Nikon was difficult to deceive. The imaginary spirit seers became confused before him in their testimony, and Nikon wrote to boyar Pronsky, “and it is significant that they lied, and they would not believe in such fabulous visions in the future” 349. 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 how 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: “I 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 disagreement in 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 not in the essential dogmas of the faith, but only in unimportant things. § 30. b) Sukhanov’s departure for Greek manuscripts; cathedral, three Patriarchs; subsequent orders 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 (§ 20). 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 Arseny’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 350. By the time of Arseny's return, Patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia arrived in Moscow with such treasures; 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 many times the eastern shepherds had already reproached the Russian Church for the defectiveness of its books and rituals and, as an example, pointed to the sign of the sign of the cross... “To Zazirach, said the Patriarch, to our humility, to me to Nikon the Patriarch, who come to us in the reigning city of Moscow for their 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 Paisius of the holy city of Jerusalem and the holy city of Nazareth, Metropolitan Gabriel and others 351, and we asked a lot for the uncorrection of divine scripture and other church faults, from them this one is like three fingers, the last two small ones connected with the great finger, and two others great-medium, depicting on our face we create the sign of the cross, from the Theodorite writings, which 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 my Tsar and Patriarch, who met below the council when the Bishop. Before that, I depicted all the first three fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity, as even now there are many still to be seen, the Elites 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 “since ancient times, the sign of the honorable cross has been performed with the three fingers of the right hand.” He pronounced an excommunication against the bilinguals 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 the consideration of the cathedral the corrected service book and the 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 the ones who spoiled books under Patras. Joseph and who now, as a result of the definition of the councils, had to be responsible for damage to books. Such was Habakkuk, the first to show displeasure in correcting the books he had damaged. He was approached by Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and Archpriest Daniel of Kostroma, 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 the books of 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 352. 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 restored the Tsar himself against Nikon, appeared to Nikon and announced: “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 Tsar; The rude Neronov, even then, appeared with repentance, made cruel reproaches to the Patriarch for his severity. Nikon either humbly asked for forgiveness: “for my sins, I am not patient against the Lord for the sake of the Lord,” Nikon responded to insults. 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 officials. And the patriarch said: according to what you want, you serve according to" 353. 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 breviary and the following psalter (1658) were corrected and published. After that, until 1667, when Nikon was deprived of patriarchal power (§ 8), 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 the Council of Bishops 354. § 31. Open separation of schism 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 delusion went its own way. It is known that in the middle of the 16th century several erroneous opinions and false beliefs were formed. 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, 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 corrector, preparing measures to strike Nikon, but being powerless, she had to remain silent. Nikon's unfortunate fate opened up a free path 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 been revealed 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 355. When Nikon lost his power, superstitions told everyone 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 strange change in the actions of superstition was revealed. 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 356. “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” 357. 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 messages about the right faith and about 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) with frenzied hatred against the correction of books 358 became very famous among the people. Avramiy, a student of Avvakum and Saltykov’s favorite, submitted a request to the Tsar 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. 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, if even 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, then 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 shouting? 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.” From what? 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, not understanding themselves 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 359. 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 must be performed according to old books, written or printed, 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” 360; 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 divine services, alleluia should be pronounced not three times, but twice, adding: glory to Thee, O God; 4) in church passages one should walk with the sun, and not against the sun; 5) one should cross and bless with two fingers, the index and the middle; 6) only the osmic-pointed cross should be venerated; 7) the name of the Savior should be written and pronounced Jesus; 8) one should only worship 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 (1. 3. 4). Others just appeared in the half of the 16th century (5th and 8th); others were formed already in the 17th century (2.6.7.9). Thus, the very history of these opinions spoke against them. § 32. Councils of 1666 and 1667 The excitement raised by superstitions necessarily required special measures. In January 1666, the pastors of the Russian Church gathered in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber to discuss the correction of books. – And this is how they themselves described their actions: “we tested in detail and for a long time newly corrected and newly translated printed books, and examined old, charatean, Slavic-Russian manuscripts. And they did not find anything bad or corrupted in the new books, nothing contrary to the faith, but in everything they saw that they were in agreement with the old Slavic-Russian charatean books. In them we saw the holy symbol without the addition of the “true” one, as corrected and printed in newly printed books. And alleluia is written three times in a row: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia; then: glory to you, God. And regarding the sign of the honorable cross, i.e., the addition of the first three fingers of the right hand, and regarding the Jesus Prayer and the order of the holy liturgy, and everything else, we found it in the old Slavic-Russian charatean books, just as in the corrected printed books... We proposed, read and testified in the presence of our most pious, great Sovereign Tsar... in his royal chambers. We showed some of the books at the council in the patriarchal chamber and to all the priests of the reigning city of Moscow” 361. The Council wrote and sent out an order to the abbots of monasteries and deans with warnings against schismatic talk; this order, according to the definition of the council, was to be written off for each Church. At the same time, Simeon of Polotsk wrote a denunciation of the petitions of “the Siberian priest Lazar and Nikita Pustosvyat” 362. Thus, the act of the Russian council, which called the cry of superstition the whispering of Satan 363, was the beginning of the last formidable blow to superstition from the Church. In August 1666, they saw the need to send exhorters Archimandrite Sergius and the Assumption archpriest with several clergy and secular persons to the Solovetsky monastery under the Tsar's charter. The exhortations were unsuccessful; on the contrary, “the turmoil began even more after that” 364. In December 1666, as already seen (§ 8), the Patriarchs arrived in Moscow and in the same month the trial of Nikon began and ended. In January 1667, Joasaph was ordained Patriarch. And in May, at a general meeting of Greek and Russian pastors, three Patriarchs, 14 Metropolitans, 8 Archbishops, 5 Bishops, 25 Archimandrites, 6 Abbots and 25 Archpriests, a) all books corrected and printed by Nikon were approved, as well as those published after his retirement into solitude; b) repeated condemnation of all those superstitious opinions that were condemned by Nikon and the council of 1666. c) “This is our conciliar command,” said the council, according to all the above-mentioned ranks, we betray to the Orthodox and command everyone to keep it unchanged. If anyone does not listen to those commanded from us and does not submit to the saints of the Eastern Church and this consecrated council, or begins to contradict and resist us: and we condemn such an enemy by the authority given to us by the all-holy and life-giving Spirit.” d) “This is our legalization and saying signed and approved by our hands... in the year from the creation of the world 7175, from the incarnation of God the Word 1667, ed. 5th month of May on the 13th day" 365. As a result of these definitions, priest Nikita Pustosvyat and archpriest Avvakum, as stubborn rebels, unrepentant superstitions, were stripped of their hair and excommunicated from the Church 366. The Council continued its deliberations and in the same year approved the book: The Rod of Government, composed previously to refute the points of Nikita Pustosvyat and Lazarus; decided the definitions partly to relieve the conscience, which bound itself with unreasonable, imaginary Church definitions; the council decided: 1) “about the sign of the honorable cross, that is, about the folding of two fingers, about the special alleluia and about other things that are written unreasonably and ignorantly in the book: the hundred chapter, an oath taken without reasoning and unrighteous, we, the Orthodox Patriarchs ... and the entire consecrated council, resolve and destroy”; 2) what was written in the life of Euphrosynus about the extreme alleluia was recognized as the work of a flattering and false writer, not worthy of any faith; 3) Dimitry Tolmach’s writing about the white hood was condemned as fabulous; 4) “the writing on the formation of fingers, printed ignorantly and unreasonably, in psalms with punishment and in other books” was subject to prohibition. 5) But the cathedral also canceled Nikon’s order, which strictly forbade the blessing of water after the liturgy on the feast of the Epiphany and ordered it to be performed only in Vespers; 6) but Nikon’s service book, again revised, and his tablet 367 were again justified; 7) it is forbidden to walk on the sun on Holy Saturday and during the consecration of the Church in the procession of the cross; 8) since Nikita brought repentance and promised not to rebel against the Holy Church anymore, he was accepted into church communion, but was left defrocked. And the former archpriest Avvakum, priest Lazar, Solovetsky monk Epiphanius, deacon Theodore and Nicephorus are supposed to be left under the weight of anathema until they repent. Kolomna Bishop Pavel, whom Nikon had already tried for superstition, was sent to the Paleostrovsky monastery. The Eastern shepherds did not want to show in any way that the Orthodox Church could patronize popular ignorance, as the Roman Church did. On the contrary, the council made several new regulations regarding worship, partly to put an end to the unrest that had crept in, and partly with the desire for better order; By the way, the ban on widowed priests and deacons serving as priests has been lifted, the decree of Patriarch Philaret on the rebaptism of Western Christians has been canceled (§ 23, 24), etc. Notes In general, regarding divine services, the council of 1667 decided: 1) The bishop in the diocese, the priest in the parish, should observe that on great holidays and Sundays all courts, except for royal needs, all work and trading, except for trading in food, cease; all laity, especially monks, should stand in church with reverence, especially during the liturgy; 2) bow to everyone together: “for there is harmony in the Holy Church, and not discord”; 3) priests to teach their children literacy, fear of God and church decorum; 4) do not recognize incorruptible bodies as saints without reliable testimony; 5) in the Church there should be a pulpit; 6) do not extinguish candles during the liturgy after the Cherubic song or after “it is worthy to eat”; 7) there should not be a mirror in the altar, but in the monk’s cell. About the service of bishops and archimandrites: a) “some Archimandrites, according to local regulations, light candles, like Bishops. There is no such custom in the East, and it is not proper for an Archimandrite to perform an episcopal action. But out of respect for the wishes of the Tsar, we do not forbid wearing silver and gold hats similar to mitres.” Only in the presence of the Bishop should the Archimandrite not overshadow; b) to express unanimity, all Bishops, monks and priests should wear uniform attire; however, the council blesses this, but does not command it. Metropolitans wear a white hood, such as is worn in Greece; c) at one liturgy, not ordain three deacons, but one. The priest cannot sit in the high place, but only the Bishop; d) two serving Bishops to occupy places of equal honor; e) The Patriarch should give communion to the Bishops, to the Bishop to the Priests, but never to an equal to an equal. Regarding baptism, it is prescribed: in the rite of baptism, the prayer should be read to the priest, and not to the deacon. Do not immerse candles in the font at the beginning of baptism, just as in the Epiphany blessing of water. About marriage: when the bride and groom go to the church for the wedding, do not sing a song, and the priest should not ride ahead of them on horseback with a cross. Regarding the commemoration of the dead: during the burial of the deceased, it is proper for the priest to walk in front of the coffin, and for others behind him; This is what happens in the East. When a memorial service is performed: sing the same as at the funeral, excluding the stichera, apostle, gospel and kissing 368. § 33. Order of Patriarch Joasaph II. Bible correction Patriarch Joasaph II remained to carry out the decisions of the Council of Eastern and Russian Shepherds. And he acted in the spirit of the cathedral. a) In 1668, it was learned that some priests, contrary to the cathedral prohibition, served on prosphora with an eight-pointed cross and did not perform services according to the new books. The priests and clergy were deprived of their positions for this and put on trial; and the prosphora were sent to the monastery 369. The Patriarch sent out a voice to the clergy leaders 370; b) A complaint was submitted to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich about the ugly painting of icons 371. Patriarch Joasaph sent out instructions about the icon image 372; c) the correction of books on the Greek text did not stop. In 1670, a colored triodion was published, verified with the original, and in 1672 a Lenten triodion was published, which was again translated from the Greek text 373. One of Nikon’s great thoughts was to publish the Slavic Bible in a form worthy of it. This, by the way, was meant even when they called Kyiv scientists to Moscow 374. The business required not only a lot of work, but also many benefits; it was necessary to find the best editions and the best copies of the Greek Bible. With the benefits that were then in Moscow, of course they could not correct the Slavic Bible in the best possible way; but Nikon was not the type to lose spirit when faced with difficulty. If he had not retreated into solitude from the troubles of the boyars; then the complaints of Bible publishers about the lack of aids for correcting the Ostroh Bible would not have been heard. Meanwhile, superstitions began to shout that any amendment to the Bible was heresy. The latter circumstance especially prompted the fact that in 1663, according to the decision of the council, the Ostroh Bible was printed in Moscow with a few, some amendments, leaving the work of a complete correction to a better time 375. When the Council of the Patriarchs (1667) already approved the correction of books in the extensive form in which Nikon performed it; then in Moscow they began to be less afraid of the cry of superstitions about the Bible. Epiphanius said: “It is a great sin for us and reproach and dishonor from foreign nations, as if the imams of the Bible were not well translated, and even more so in the Holy Gospel many are sins.” In 1674, after the death of Patriarch Pitirim and before the election of Joachim, the council of shepherds decided to verify the entire Bible with the Greek text 376. Metropolitan Pavel of Krutitsa, who ruled the patriarchate, took upon himself supervision of the correction of the Bible, and the correction itself was entrusted to Epiphanius and the learned brotherhood. Epiphanius began the correction with the new testament; he compared the Slavic text not only with the printed Greek text, but also with manuscripts, especially with the Gospel of St. Alexius. But as soon as this comparison was completed and Epiphanius had not yet had time to reconsider his comments, Metropolitan Paul died, and after him Epiphanius (November 1676). The matter remained unfinished; but its beginning was also useful, as a sermon against superstitions 377; at least, it was more useful than an untimely dispute about the merits of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible 378. § 34. In the Solovetsky monastery, disobedience to the Council of Patriarchs 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 379. People, such as Prince Lvov or the former Archimandrite of Savvinsk and the 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 380. 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 381. 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 Church 382. Azarius and Gerontius wrote that “priests and deacons and cathedral monks and all the ordinary and hospital brethren and all the servants” shared the thoughts and desires expressed in the petition. But this is a complete lie. Many did not even think of sharing the thoughts of superstitions and even persuaded others to be submissive to the council; there were even more of those who did not want 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 383. 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 monastery villages and lands under his jurisdiction 384, Borodin, centurions Isaiah Voronin and Samuil Kemlyanin announced (at the beginning. 1669), that the connection for them with the Tsar is over and the one who would pray for him is their open enemy 385. 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 Tsar to fulfill their will 386. Having torn up and thrown new books into the sea, they opened fire on the royal army 387. 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 Tsar. But they were severely punished, thrown into prison, starved, and beaten with whips. The one who managed to escape from a crowd of villains 388 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 389. Volokhov, with a small team of archers, managed the selected monastery estates rather than acted against the rebels 390. Streltsy head Iovlev (in 1672) was sent with 1000 archers; but he, in accordance with the will of the Tsar, limited himself only to keeping the monastery under siege; he sent a letter with the Tsar’s promise to forget the whole past, if only they would submit; even the Tsar himself, in his letter, assured the rebels of the same thing 391. But it became all the more clear that they were dealing with sworn enemies of the Church and the state. Finally they saw the need to act decisively. Stolnikov and governor Meshcherinov, having 1,300 archers at their disposal, managed the siege quickly, built batteries, led mines, sent cannonballs and bullets to exhort. Finally, on the instructions of one of the monks, the army (January 22, 1676) was introduced into the monastery by secret means. The rioters rushed to defend themselves; The monks who remained in the monastery met the governor with holy icons. The rebels were adequately punished 392. § 35. The revolt of Nikita Pustosvyat and the cathedral in Moscow 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 393. 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 sick John are called Kings, and Sophia is named 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 Titus Streltsy Regiment 394. 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 previously been burned in court 395. Khovansky gave them a leader, Nikita Pustosvyat, who was condemned so many times for the schism. Savvaty, a Solovetsky fugitive like Nikita, and others were deliberately summoned to Moscow 396. They insisted that changes begin immediately. Khovansky barely persuaded them not to rush, flattering them with the promise that the upcoming wedding of the Tsars (June 23) would take place according to the old books 397. Nikita and other tramps walked among the people, calling for the protection of the old piety. “Wait, wait, Orthodox, don’t accept Nikon’s new faith as the true faith,” Pustosvyat made a noise. Elected Titus regiments 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 Titus’s regiment) managed to suggest that the matter of faith is not the business of the archers; They refused to sign the petition drawn up in the Titus regiment by the vagabond monk Sergius. On July 3, Prince Khovansky appeared with the elected representatives of Titus’ regiment to the Patriarch; assured that the archers of all regiments demanded a dispute about faith at the execution site and announced that the Tsars 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, and not the archers’, but declared that there could be no debate at the place of execution. A day was appointed for hearing the petition 398. On the third day, July 5, crowds of schismatics, many of them drunk, noisily burst into the Kremlin. Carrying in front of them leashes, images, lighted candles, and stones in their bosoms, they approached the Archangel Cathedral and settled down on the square 399. Sergius climbed onto the bench and read aloud the Solovetsky petition. Others simply cursed Orthodoxy. The people, excited by the fanatics, were terribly worried. 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 a denunciation 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 Tsars, 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 spiritual ones, 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, and the petition would be heard there. 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 sat with the Patriarch 7 Metropolitans, 5 Archbishops, 2 Bishops, between them the Voronezh Saint Mitrofan. 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 400. They submitted a petition, Sofia ordered it to be read 401. “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 remarked: we do not blaspheme old books, on the contrary, according to them and the Greek books, the later ones that are damaged are corrected; 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. Kholmogory Archbishop Athanasius, himself formerly 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 told the electors: what does this mean 402. 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? The current Tsars are not Tsars, the Bishops are not Bishops? We are forced to leave the kingdom." And she stepped down from the throne. The boyars and elected officials said: we are ready to lay down our heads for our Sovereigns. And some of the conspirators said: “It’s time, Empress, for you to go to the monastery long ago: just stir up trouble with the kingdom.” It was left to another time to punish the impudent ones 403. They continued to read the petition. Sophia made a few comments; solid evidence was provided by the Kholmogory Archbishop. But even at the very beginning of the matter, it was supposed to have as little to do with the excited crowd as possible. The petition was left to be sorted out piece by piece in quiet time and in the ears of calm people 404 . 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 those who disagreed with this were printed under Patriarch 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. Feeling that they had done nothing for themselves, 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 placed a levy 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 405, others fled 406. Prince Khovansky soon began a new rebellion; but was warned in the plan and executed 407. § 36. Liturgical institutions and orders against schism under Patriarch Joachim Patriarch Joachim, even before Nikita’s rebellion broke out, cared a lot about the improvement of divine services. And Pustosvyat’s rebellion called him to special feats against the schism. In 1675, the council considered the function of the bishop's ministry, and determined the advantages of the patriarchate, metropolitan and others; instructions were given to the elders about behavior and dress 408. In 1678, the cathedral considered the celebration of the Savior’s entry into Jerusalem, and the solemn procession with the vaya was prohibited for other cities except Moscow 409. In 1682, the charter was printed, again translated from Greek and certified according to the ancient order of service 410. In November 1681, a council was assembled, which did a lot for worship, especially against the schism. The enlightened and pious Tsar Theodore himself took an active part in the actions of the council. 1) “It has come to our ears from many cities, the Tsar said, that many stupid people, having left the Holy Church, have held prayer services in their homes and, when gathering, are doing things incompatible with Christianity, and are uttering terrible blasphemies against the Holy Church.” The council responded that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ordered that stubborn opponents of the faith be sent to civil court; Accordingly, the council asked that the Tsar deign to: a) send apostates from the Church, who, after church admonition, turn out to be disobedient to the Holy Church, to civil court; b) confirm to the governors and judges that they provide all possible assistance to the spiritual authorities in matters of schism. 2) The Tsar drew the attention of the cathedral to the fact that in Moscow, at the Spassky Gate, notebooks are sold under the name of extracts from holy scripture, but with blasphemy against church books. The Council stated: “The Patriarch will select from among the clergy a capable and trusted person who will strictly supervise this and bring the guilty to the judgment of the Patriarch.” 3) The Tsar proposed: if they sell books from previous editions, then turn them into a printing house and instead give them the corrected ones. The council decided: newly corrected books should be given out without money to everyone who brings books from previous editions. 4) The Tsar proposed that self-will creates deserts so that they serve as a haven for schism; it also multiplies the chapels where people gather to listen to prayers before dubious icons, but leaves the holy liturgy. The Council decided: a) from now on, such new deserts should not be allowed, but those living in such deserts, where lay people live nearby, should be brought into monasteries, and churches should be converted into parish churches; b) leave only those chapels to which the guards are close, and close the others 411. These definitions then began to be enforced 412. When the Pustosvyat revolt broke out, the decree on the persecution of schismatics by the civil court was confirmed with severity 413. At the same time, upon discovery of Pustosvyat’s affairs, the spiritual authorities took their own special measures. a) Patriarch Joachim acted tirelessly and intelligently. aa) His lengthy refutation of the petition of Pustosvyat, presented to the council in 1682, is an essay worthy of a Christian shepherd. It constitutes, as it were, an account of the amendments to the divine service, which the schism pointed out as a departure from the truth. Each such amendment is shown to have a basis in true sacred antiquity. The spiritual advice (that is the name given to the refutation of the petition) was sent to all archpastors for reading throughout all Churches 414. bb) The Patriarch published several more small works against the schism. In 1682, a “word of thanks for the salvation of the Church from evil apostates” was sent out. “A Sermon on the Suzdal Priest Nikita Pustosvyat,” published in 1684, and “an exhortation to schismatics about uniting with the Holy Church,” breathed the same pastoral concern for the poor blind 415 . c) Exposing self-will in the schism, the Patriarch denounced the same self-will in those who seemed to be friends of the new enlightenment, but with their self-will only seduced the simple-minded zealots of antiquity; he strictly forbade the sale of printed sheets with the image of the Savior exported from the West 416. b) In addition to written teachings, the Patriarch sent exhorters to various places of schism. Some of these preachers offered written instructions in addition to oral instructions. In 1682, Archbishop Afanasy went to Kholmogory and there he zealously acted against the Pomeranians 417. He collected an extensive library of manuscripts to enlighten the ignorant and wrote the Shield of Faith for them. In 1688, Hierodeacon Mikhail was sent to the Siberian forts and volosts “to correct church dogmas and spiritual affairs” 418, and was later appointed abbot of the Yenisei with the same purpose 419. Ignatius Korsakov in 1689, in the rank of Novospassky Archimandrite, was sent to Kostroma and Kineshma to admonish the schismatics there 420. Kazan Metropolitan Adrian wrote for his flock “about the sign of the cross.” § 37. Further matters of the schism: a) escapes abroad; unsuccessful uprisings within the state and self-immolation The schism, driven out of prominent places in the state, rushed into remote places. He did not want to be content with the Solovetsky and Moscow rebellion; he continued to act in the same spirit, but in a different way. Following the example of Ataman Razin, the schismatics began to seduce the peasants with independence from the landowners and raised a different kind of excitement among the simple-minded. 1) Many thousands, breaking their oath of allegiance to the Tsar, fled abroad and created nests of schism there. This is how the famous settlements of schismatics were founded in Livonia along the banks of the Peipus 421. Others crossed the Polish border in 1683 and founded Vetka, which had long been in glory among the schismatics, and the equally glorious Starodubye 422. Others did even more: they fled to the Crimea to the Tatars and from there, together with the Muslims, either by sea or by land, raided Russia, robbed and killed Christians 423; or were hiding in the ridges of the Caucasus, near the river. Terek and Kuma and from there they raided peaceful settlers, following the example of the wild mountaineers 424. 2) Inside the state, crowds of peasants, carried away by the dissenters, fled to remote Siberia. But since neither here nor here the schism teachers found themselves able to maintain a schism by rebellion or other lawless means, in hopelessness they preached suicide, giving it the appearance of martyrdom for the faith. Although few of these preachers applied their preaching to themselves, on the contrary, they hastened to use the property of the people they deceived; nevertheless, this unfortunate sermon did not remain without effect 425. In Pomorie, a gang of Emelyan Ivanov (in January 1687) robbed the Paleostrovsky monastery and burned a crowd of simpletons 426. In 1688, the same preachers, having multiplied the gang by 500 people, again burst into the monastery with guns and sabers, seized the abbot with 10 monks and locked them in a cellar; and they themselves secluded themselves in the monastery, like masters. The Metropolitan of Novgorod sent an admonishing archpriest from Olonets; and the civilian authorities sent a detachment of soldiers, but in order to somehow capture the leaders of the rebellion without taking up arms. They tried for a long time to bring some sense into the blinded people, but there was no success. Inveterate villains, not seeing salvation for themselves, set fire to the monastery and killed the unfortunate “struck by insane charm” 427. A similar thing happened in the Pudozh churchyard. In 1693, schismatics, among whom one was a Muscovite Ilya Fedorov, probably a fugitive from Nikita Pustosvyat’s gang, and the other a Solovetsky fugitive Joseph, seized the village Church, smeared it in their own way, beat and drove out the priests; and when the last to send a denunciation to the Tsar, they sent their slander against them. The truth was soon revealed, a detachment of soldiers was sent to catch the rebels; then they were burned in the hut 428. There were many similar examples, especially in Siberia, where there were crowds of desperate exiles, some of whom turned villainy into a craft and were ready to do anything to disobey the laws, while others, by the very feeling of guilt, badly directed, were disposed to hatred against life 429. § 38. b) Fragmentation of the schism into debates; talk of clerical and priestless 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, which is 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 high asceticism, no longer considered the need for either the priesthood or the sacraments 430. But Kapiton’s thoughts, given the general hostility against Orthodoxy, did not have time to attract special attention. The division between clerical and non-clerical was discovered 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 to baptize and anoint, etc. 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 priestlessness 431 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 at the time when the separation of priesthood from priestlessness 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” 432. 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 “tri-essential”, dissected into three equal natures and the source of divinity flows in three streams 433; b) about Christ Jesus he taught: “Christ sits on the throne, reigning with the Holy Trinity”; he is a special God 434 ; 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” 435; 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, as something corporeal, flesh-like 436 f) did not believe that the Antichrist should appear visibly 437; g) taught that it is permissible to commit self-imposed burning 438. 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 439. Among the superstitious people there were also those who said and wrote: “Habakkuk’s letters are brighter than the sun and they are all good” 440. The famous Lazarus, so famous for his behavior worthy of a teacher, was one of those who shared the thoughts of Habakkuk 441. Avvakum earned the honor by the wickedness of his thoughts that the heretical interpretation of Avvakumism was established among superstitions, which was later (from 1690) called Onufriyevism according to Onufry, and Avvakum was honored as a saint 442. 2) Other schismatics had enough sense to understand the wickedness of Habakkuk’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” 443. 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 the Orthodox who came to them, either by rebaptism, or by walking around the font and by anointing; 4) Deacon Alexander in 1706 separated from the Vetkovites on Kerzhenets by rejecting the need for chrismation over those going into schism and saying: “just as we protect ourselves with our hands in a cruciform manner, so we should burn incense in a cruciform manner.” This is how the meaning of Diakovism was formed, otherwise censers 444; 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 Stephanism 445. The priestless thing soon had its own meanings: 1) the fugitive sexton Danila Vikulin, since 1694 the founder of the Vygoretsky monastery, in addition to the thought of the Antichrist, common to the non-priests, 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 Ic. Xs. Thus, the understanding of the Pomeranians and Danilovites 446 appeared; 2) another fugitive sexton Theodosius in 1706 separated from the Vygorets 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 the Sovereigns is unclean; e) marital cohabitation – also 447; 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 he knows. Henceforth, Kozminshchina, netovshchina or spasovo consent 448 arose; 4) the 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 wild beasts, as a propitiatory sacrifice 449; 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 450. § 39. New dogma of the schismatics regarding barber shaving. Denunciation of the schism by Metropolitans Ignatius, Stephen and Demetrius Upon returning from abroad (in 1696), Peter the Great, having decided to defeat the people's prejudice towards civic education, recognized the measure of this as rapprochement with 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 451 . 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 452. The pastors of the Church with tireless zeal continued to admonish those who were in error. Such were especially Metropolitans Ignatius, Stefan and Demetrius 453. 1) Ignatius, one of the monks and Archimandrite of Novospassky, since 1692 Metropolitan of Tobolsk, traveled throughout his vast diocese to exhort apostates from the Church and wrote (since 1696) three district letters to the flock one after another, showing the groundlessness of schismatic opinions and the recent emergence of a schism. 2) Stefan Yavorsky, since 1702 the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, in 1703 issued signs of the coming of the Antichrist. The reason for this was that schismatics, not understanding the transformations of modern times, spread the opinion in Moscow that the Antichrist was already close, Moscow was Babylon, the inhabitants of Moscow were the servants of the Antichrist and the sons of perdition. Stephen described (in 14 chapters) those signs of the coming of the Antichrist, which are shown in the Holy Scriptures, accompanied by a denunciation of the daring opinions of superstition. 3) The most excellent mentor of this time for superstitions was Saint Demetrius of Rostov. The dissenters, hiding in the Bryn (Kaluga) 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 is found the cross that John the Theologian gave to the Monk Abramius, but it is not octagonal” 454. A meeting and conversation in Yaroslavl with schismatics prompted him to write an essay: about the image of God and likeness in humans. As he was leaving the church, he was inadvertently asked by the beard worshipers who were unfamiliar to him: “They tell us to shave our beards, but we are ready to lay our heads by our beards. What do you command us, sir?” The saint, not at all expecting such a question, was able to give a correct and witty answer. “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 Tsar, 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 this work to be published as often as possible. Meanwhile, the saint was preparing an extensive essay: 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 wrong; in the second, because their teaching is harmful to the soul; in the third, the fact that 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, prosphyra, which does not yet constitute faith; b) their faith is wrong, because it is mixed with heresies; c) faith is 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 incapable of teaching salvation and teach falsely about many things; bb) in the teaching of their heresy; cv) 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. 455. § 40. The nature of the time: a) 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 son of the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri. The fulfillers of the desires of the ruler Boris Godunov slaughtered him as a lamb in Uglich, where he was sent along with his mother by the will of the same Godunov. No matter how hard they tried to hide the truth, they knew it 456 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 the ancient Kings was still active among the people, although they were mistaken about the royal person. When the first impostor died, died in sight of all of Moscow, then no one in their hearts believed that Dimitri was alive; however, the chosen Tsar Vasily did not know peace on behalf 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 Tsar. The oath and oath became nothing. The Other passed from the impostor to Tsar Vasily and from Vasily to the impostor five, 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 457. 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 the impostors, along with the fact that they represent so much darkness in the life of the 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 Lyakhs. 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. Poles in 1613 ravaging Vologda, they desecrated the shrine of the churches, carried babies on pikes around the city, did not spare anything, they 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 458. 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, 12 of the impostors 459, under Tsar Alexei, trembled Russia with murders. 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 Tsar 460. Metropolitan Joseph of Astrakhan died as a martyr of fidelity 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 cease with their stubbornness to be ridiculous in the palace and destroy the fatherland during the war 461 until, according to the decision of the council of clergy and secular persons, the rank books were burned. To this sad picture of time were finally added the gloomy scenes in Peter's young years: these are the deeds of the brassy 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. § 41. b) The influence of foreigners on the life of Russians; Saints Mitrophan and Demetrius; the best of socialites The war with Poland and Livonia introduced the Russians to the ways of a better civil life, and at the same time to the main disease of the West, the passion for the benefits of earthly life. From here, a revolution began in the spirit of the Russian people and especially the upper class. – The vices of the Polish magnates, ruinous luxury and arrogance, which valued the common people at nothing, passed on to the Russian boyars in the form of decency for a noble family 462. Kings Alexei and Theodore tried to limit these passions; but they grew 463 . The selfish free-thinking of the Western Reformation began to humiliate the statutes of the Church by its very deeds. Most of the nobles no longer had the same zeal for the churches of God and for worship; others even allowed themselves to openly blaspheme the sacred statutes of the Church 464, such as for example. there was Prince Khvorostinin 465. The Council of 1667 determined: a) to maintain church posts and rites; b) all laity in the Church stand in silence with the fear of God, with a contrite heart, and not talk about vanities 466. At the Council of 1647 It is prescribed that on Sundays and holidays they should not engage in either trade or work, but everyone should come to the churches of God to reverently listen to the service of God 467. The Council of 1667 found it necessary to confirm this again. Foreigners, who since the time of Tsar Alexei settled in Moscow more and more often, weakened the effect of these measures with their very lives. Peter, the Great Emperor, wanted to elevate Russia with better governance, better laws and better education, and not with Western vices, which, unfortunately, were instilled against his will. Saint Mitrofan of Voronezh, more than once donated money for the Russian fleet, helped Tsar Peter both in word and deed. But his pastoral act during the stay of Tsar Peter in Voronezh 468 is known. Saint Demetrius of Rostov, so famous for his denunciations of the corrupt schismatic antiquity, lived in love for the crucified Lord and in the spirit of this love observed strict abstinence in food, constantly paid attention to himself and grieved for frivolous violators of the decrees of the Church; He used his income for churches and the poor; in word and life he nourished and supported piety in those around him 469. Among secular figures, examples of Christian life in the fight against European vanity were under Tsar Alexei Boyarin Ordyn-Nashchokin, under Peter Sheremetyev and Dolgorukov. A great politician and wise minister, not inferior to any of the European 470, Afanasy Lavrentievich rendered as much merit to the fatherland as any other modern nobleman. Educated not according to the example of modern boyars, he loved the Orthodox faith with a sincere soul. Tsar Alexei, investing him with the rank of a Duma boyar, wrote: “We have bestowed upon you for your great services to us and your zeal, because, remembering God and his holy commandments, you feed the greedy, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked, bring strangers into their homes, and also wash their feet... and are kind to the military people, and do not let thieves down.” The king showered him with honors; but not seduced by either fame or wealth, Nashchokin dedicated himself to serving God under the name of monk Anthony. Tsar Theodore called the diplomat to serve the fatherland, and Anthony fulfilled the will of the Tsar with honor for the fatherland; but then he again hid in a secluded cell, where he died in 1680 471. Boris Petrovich Sheremetyev, as brave as he was smart, field marshal of Peter the Great, traveled throughout southern Europe to educate himself in the art of war. Victory accompanied the brave leader in battles with the Swedes; but with him was the wonderworker Sergius in his ancient face. The habit of the clothes and foibles of old times was not his passion. His house was open to all the poor; at his table, on which even during campaigns no less than 50 cutlery was ever placed, the invited and the uninvited sat down; kind and attentive to everyone, he assigned some of the poor to service, gave support to others, and a bitter tear did not remain on the face of the poor man after leaving his house. His last wish was to be buried in the Kyiv Lavra; but Tsar Peter (in 1719) saluted the great field marshal in his new capital 472. Prince Yakov Feodorovich was a Christian, but in a different spirit. In public service, he followed the people's voice with all accuracy: the Tsar is the best servant of truth. He spoke the truth to Tsar Peter, ready to give his life for the truth, and more than once stopped Peter’s decrees when he saw harm to the fatherland. He advised the Tsar to introduce collegial management, as better than the rule of orders, and assisted him in useful transformations. But this did not stop him from loving the good old days; he adhered to the example of his pious ancestors and reproached Peter for hastily changing his ancestral customs. He spent nine years in Swedish captivity. When he and 44 other Russian prisoners were sent on a schooner to Umeå; During the all-night vigil, by prior agreement, with the words of the sacred song: dare, the prisoners threw down their oars, and with the words: dare, people of God, everyone grabbed the Swede, and the prince skippered and the schooner delivered the prisoners to Russia. The eighty-year-old servant of truth died in 1720, without receiving the awards that were showered on others; he died as he lived, a Christian 473. § 42. Special care of shepherds for the poor In addition to constant concern for the dangers of the time, church administration during the patriarchate was distinguished by special concern for the poor. 1) At the Patriarchal House a) on major holidays and days of remembrance of Sovereigns and Saints, the Patriarch distributed significant alms to the poor; b) on the day of the cathedral feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, up to 2,500 poor people of all ranks were fed at his house; c) at the Patriarchal Cathedral Church there were 12 beggars, called Bogoroditsky, who received 35 kopecks every day; d) at the expense of the patriarchal government order, almshouses were maintained in different parts of the city (on the outskirts, at the Arab gate, at the veil, etc.); they were called home, cell almshouses of the Patriarch 474; e) in 1676 the Patriarch was supposed to support 412 people in his almshouses. Considering previous expenses, it turned out that this required very significant costs from the patriarchal house (1,780 rubles, 412 quarters of rye and 200 pounds of salt). Therefore, it was ordered that all diocesan hierarchs send the Patriarch a hryvnia from each new Church; and in return it was canceled to send the Tsar and Patriarch an icon on great holidays 475. In the same year, the Patriarch ordered the poor to live near the parish churches, and the poor huts, too ugly, to be demolished, and for the establishment of a new place to assign a ruble for each 476. In 1681, Tsar Theodore proposed to the council of shepherds to carry out an analysis of the poor in all cities and, having appointed a refuge for the helpless poverty, and for the sick of the hospital, force the lazy and healthy to earn their living by work; “The shepherds of the Church,” the Tsar added, will take upon themselves these orders.” The Council stated: “We approve this proposal, as pleasing to God and saving the soul,” 477. It is clear from the monuments that both resolutions of the church administration were carried out: the maintenance of the poor and sick, after sorting them out, in Moscow remained in the care of the Patriarch, and the beggars received alms from the royal court only on major holidays 478. Patras was distinguished by his special love for the poor and those imprisoned. Nikon 479. 2) The diocesan bishops, in addition to assisting the patriarchal house, established by the definition of 1666, supported the poor at their departments. This is also shown by the words of Tsar Theodore about the analysis of beggars. Novgorod Metropolitan Job (1694–1716) was especially distinguished by his intelligent and tender concern for suffering, sinful humanity. He built and maintained an almshouse, three hospitals, and two hospice houses. During the pestilence that raged in the Novgorod and Pskov regions, he commanded strict fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays for all Novgorodians, and he himself performed prayer services every day on Wednesdays and Fridays with a procession of the cross - and his Christian hope was not fruitless: there was no pestilence in Novgorod 480. 3) The monasteries, for their part, separated alms from their income to the poor and prisoners in prison 481. § 43. Monasticism in the North and South; disasters of the South from Muslims 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 metropolitanate) and the Patriarchs themselves were the diligent builders of many. The magnificent monasteries of Patriarch Nikon are known: New Jerusalem, Iveron and Cross. The largest part of the 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 482. 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 Lyakhs and Swedes left in most of the monasteries only empty walls, and in others they did not leave even that. Moreover, in some deserts there were already only two or three monks living, with some means. The Western sword prompted zeal for the monasteries; but the Polish war under Tsars Alexei and Theodore also depleted the rich monasteries 483. Under such circumstances, it was considered best to give meager, small monasteries to the care of departments and famous monasteries 484. 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 (§ 35). For the same reasons, it was forbidden to tonsure husbands in front of their wives and wives in front of living husbands 485. Tsar Peter in 1701 ordered the removal from the monasteries of Beltsi and Belitsa, who lived without tonsure, for which a 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 486. Until the half of the 17th century, up to 45 monasteries were founded in Lithuania and Belarus 487. In Volyn, Chervonnaya Rus and Little Russia, up to 55 monasteries were founded 488. The subordination of small monasteries to famous ones in the South was considered even more necessary than in the North: they wanted to protect, albeit a few, Orthodox monasteries from violence and robbery 489 . 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 490. Look impartially, says Metropolitan Peter Mogila to the Uniate, look at our Orthodox monasteries, poor, without rich content, oppressed by various disasters... Look in the land of Kyiv (I am not mentioning monasteries endowed with estates) at the Mezhigorsk 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 Desert-Dweller. 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 Bukovina) to Skete: there you will find at least two hundred angels living in the flesh and imitating the life of the ancient hermits. Look at the Krekhtov monastery near Lvov: there, just like in the Skete, 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 brethren, in the same way imitating the life of the angels in the body. You will find the same thing in the Bojnitsky monastery. I am not mentioning 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 491 . Blessed Job, nicknamed the Iron One, served as a high example of ascetic life. Having become famous for the severity of his life at a young age, 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, awarded visions of the Mother of God, moved into blessed eternity in 1651 492. 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 Phillipovich (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 a hundred and fifty years” 493. Until 1700, most of the monasteries in the South-West still professed Orthodoxy, having endured both flattering offers and cruel persecution from Roman fanaticism. The severity of the sorrows of Southern Orthodoxy was increased by the constant enemies of the name of Christ - the Tatars and Turks, who from time to time made devastating invasions of Ukraine. So in 1678, the Sultan, having released the mediocre son of the great Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Yuri, from prison, called him, as if in mockery, the prince of Ukraine and sent the Tatars and Turks with him to devastate Little Russia. Chigirin was consigned to fire; They did the same with Kanev, where many Christians were strangled by fire in the monastery church. Then the same sworn enemies of Christianity tortured the blessed one. Archimandrite Macarius of Ovruch, who was appointed Archimandrite Met. Joseph (1663–1672), managed the monastery for 10 years and gave shelter to Khmelnichenko when he did not know where to lay his head 494 The establishment of the patriarchate was written in detail by: a) a historiographer in 10 volumes. II. G.R. pp. 67–73 with extracts from the code on the patriarchate (supra in the collection of state gran. vol. 2. No. 52 in pr. 197–220); b) G. Muravyov aa) in East. Ross. Churches pp. 161–171. (SPb. 1838); bb) in two articles: “the coming of Patriarch Jeremiah to Russia” and “the coming of Met. Dionysius,” with extracts from the same code and from the journey of Archbishop Arseny (Journal of M. Patr. Enlightenment 1840. Part 20, art. 22–60, 61–84). – It remains to beware of slips and mistakes of both authors. The sources should also include the “Tale” about the beginnings of the patriarchate and about the installation of Patriarch Philaret with the rank of decree (Addition to the historical act. 2, No. 76). The rank and certificate of Patriarch Theophan in the Collection. state gram. vol. 3. No. 45, 46. See The Legend of the Beginning of the Patriarchate, pp. 189, 191. Karamzin looked for the beginning of the patriarchate in the power-hungry plans of Godunov. It’s completely in vain. a) Godunov, in his dealings with Jeremiah, is more an enemy of the patriarchate than a well-wisher. b) The pious Theodore would not have dared to undertake an extraordinary church innovation if he had not had his own pious motives. c) Even less could the Patriarchs decide to do something beneficial to Godunov and very unprofitable for them. On the contrary, the Russian Metropolitan has long enjoyed very high respect, almost equal to the respect for the Patriarchs: he was elevated by the very prosperity that Orthodoxy enjoyed in Russia, while the Patriarchs were humiliated by the yoke of Islam. The Council of 1564 wrote: “With an envoy to those under the region of the Holy Russian Metropolis... The Metropolitan is the Archbishop and the Bishop of all.” (Ist. Act. 1 No. 173). The Council, having approved the desire of the pious Tsar, said: “Pious Tsar! If your pious power pleases, let this be announced in writing to the four Patriarchs. “Even though you are a pious power and we all have these as pillars of piety, even if they are in the region of the filthy, they are holy, just as the scripture says, but they are never desecrated.” “Besides,” the council also said, “let not other nations, especially the Latin and other heretics who write against our holy faith, think that in the royal city of Moscow the patriarchal throne was established only by the royal will,” and so on. (Additional to. ist. act. 2, pages 191, 192). The main cause of the disaster, said the Patriarch, was one apostate Greek, who, having exchanged faith for earthly gain, reported to the Sultan that Jeremiah was very rich, that his church owned treasures that had no price; Moreover, the other was looking for honors, which Jeremiah was preparing to give up due to old age. The Sultan broke the promise of Mohammed II, who swore an oath for himself and his successors not to interfere in the affairs of Christianity and ordered Theoliptus to be Patriarch without a conciliar determination. – Jeremiah boldly reminded through the pashas of the Sultan’s oath and the Sultan exiled him to the island of Rhodes, where he stayed for four years. Amurat also dismissed Theoliptus, robbed the Church of God, turned the patriarchal church into a mosque, and returned Jeremiah from prison to new sorrows. “Shedding tears,” the Patriarch concluded, I begged Amurat for permission to go to Christian lands for alms in order to build a new church to the true God. Having heard about such a pious King, I came here so that the King would help us in our sorrows.” Regarding the place of the meeting with G. Muravyov, see the error above, § 113. The charter of 1652 (Act. Exp. 3 No. 164) lists in detail monasteries and churches in different counties and cities, subject to the court and punishment of the Patriarch. According to the inventory of 1656, the region of the patriarchs shows Moscow with its district, tithes: Pekhryanskaya, Vokhonskaya, Seletskaya, Radonezhskaya, Zagorodskaya, Khatunskaya, Pereyaslavskaya, Meduzhskaya, Zvenigorodskaya, Yuryevskaya, Plyosskaya, Kaygorodskaya, Surozhskaya, Ruzskaya, Borovskaya, Mozhaiskaya, Serpukhovskaya, Shchitovskaya, Nizhny Novgorod, Arzamazskaya, Alatyrskaya, Kurmyshskaya, Lukhovskaya, Yuryents Povolsky, Kostroma, Galician, Soligalitskaya, Belozerskaya, Poshekhonskaya, Vyatskaya, Penezhskaya, Kevrolskaya, Toropetskaya, Rzhevskaya, Bryansk, Sevskaya, Rylskaya, Kursk, Karachevskaya, Oskolsk, the city of the Tsar Alexey. – (Snegireva Monuments 2, 198). Throughout the inventory, there is a lack of documents against the charter of 1626 for Balakhna, Kineshma, Gorokhovets, Yadrin, Temnikov, Volokolamsk, Kamaritsa volost, Putivl, Belgorod, Valuyek. Consequently, the Moscow patriarchal diocese at the beginning included the current dioceses of Moscow (excluding the Kolomna region), Kostroma, Vyatka, Nizhny Novgorod, Kursk and Oryol, some in the dioceses of Arkhangelsk, Vladimir, Novgorod and Tambov. The boundaries of the diocese were quite confused. Thus, the Belozersk and Belomorsk monasteries remained under the jurisdiction of the Novgorod Metropolitan, although Belozersk, Koprol, Mezen, Kholmogory and Arkhangelsk belonged to the patriarchal region. “But I do not indicate to you, Abbot Jonah... You are the metropolis of Novgorod,” wrote Patr. Filaret in 1625 to the Abbot of Siysk (Act. Exp. 3, 242). In 1702, there were 3,750 churches in the patriarchal region; and in the Pskov diocese there are 159 Churches (see note 32 below). See Snegirev monuments 2, 198. The charter of the Patriarchal Court, given to the first Patriarch and confirmed by the successors of Theodore's Church, determined the Patriarch's court exactly in the form in which it was defined by the charter of Tsar John given to M. Athanasius. East. act. 4, no. 216. Syrian Deacon Pavel, who was in Moscow under Patriarch Nikon with Patriarch Macarius of Antioch. His “journey” to the Biblioth. for reading 1846 T. 15. Snegirev monuments 2, 198–200. Certificate of 1675 in 3 T. East. act. No. 259. East. act. No. 355. Inventory of the courtyard and officials. 1610 Act. Exp. 2, No. 223. Sl. T. 3, No. 264. Act. Exp. 4, No. 155. East. act. 5, 118. Deacon Paul on a “journey.” Snegirev monuments 2, 197. Sorry. gram. in 3 volumes. Act. Exp. No. 164. That orders were indeed formed no earlier than his time can be seen from notebooks, where spiritual orders are found no earlier than 1626 (Ancient Vivliof.). Moreover, Patriarch Job did not have enough time, and Hermogenes did not have the opportunity, to engage in the formation of orders. On the other hand, none of the Patriarchs enjoyed such respect and power as Patriarch Filaret. Items of the patriarchal category are shown in detail in the gram. 1667 and 1794 Ak. Exp. 4, No. 105, 309. See the charter given by Patr. Job and confirmed by Patr. Hermogen in collection. gram. 2, No. 73. Collection. zak. 1, No. 200, Patr. Filareta in personal gram. 3, No. 71. Collection. zak. 1, No. 201. A. Exp. 3, No. 164. The monastic order probably founded the spread of its power on Art. 153 ch. 10. The Code there decided to take away certificates of non-conviction and not give them in advance, which, however, applied specifically to secular persons. See Stowed. Ch. 12, Art. 1, ch. 13, art. 1–3. However, the unconvicted letter of Patr. Philaret in 1625 noted the violation of the unconvicted Patras. Job and Hermogenes on the part of the secular judges, and she said that before that, the order of the great palace summoned the clergy of the patriarchal region to itself upon the complaint of the laity. See gram. 1653 May 6, 1654 May 23 and 25 20, 1657 in personal gram. No. 38. 124. 200. 201. 205. Nikon’s complaint: “they do all sorts of things in the monastery order and force us to serve.” Collection gram. 4, no. 35. 36. Gram. 16 Jun 1667 “It is up to the spiritual father to judge and judge the priestly and monastic ranks in the patriarchal house... Let them not henceforth drag priests and monks into secular courts.” Collection zak. 1, No. 412. A Exp. 4, no. 105. Muravyova East. pp. 339, 340, about Soph. Cathedral. appl. No. 42. Decree of November 7, 1692 Act. Exp. 4, 205. East. act. 5, 233. 270. See charters 1628. 1632. 1633 in 3 volumes act. Exp. pp. 260, 284, 337. Extract of church rights, carried out by Patriarch Adrian for Tsar Peter in 1700 in the RKP. S. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy. The same can be seen in the letters. Patriarch Adrian 4. T. act. Exp. pp. 455–460. Act. Exp. T. 3. No. 201, T. 4. 205 Act. ist. 3. 563. 364. Collection. zak. Decree 1711 Nov. 20. Snegirev is remembered. Art. 198. Koshikhin about Russia in Tsarsov. Alesya M. Ch. XI. Art. 2. sl. Ave. 16. East. act. 5, 233. 234. 270. Act. Exp. 4, 261. Cases of the patriarchal order from Snegirev p. 199. Confirmation with restrictions in relation to women's monasteries in 1581. Ist. act. 5, 113. In addition to Deacon Paul and the council of 1675, some letters indicate the same. Act. Exp. 3, 176. 228. Act. Exp. 3. 166. 176. 226. East. act. 5, 233. 269. Collection. law. decree of September 4, 1722 The Council appointed a) Archbishops of Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod, Smolensk, Ryazan and Tver; b) Bishops of Pskov, Rzhev, Ustyug, Belozersky, Kolomna, Seversky, Dmitrovsky and a still unknown place. The first Bishop of Pskov, consecrated in 1589 Patr. Job, Misail died in 1592. The Pskov chronicle about him and his successors is 214. 242. 243. The first Bishop of Korel, Sylvester, from 1593 † 1616. There were no successors until 1685, when Leonty Bishop of Tambov was named Korelsky and vicar of Novgorod. Pskov. years. 242. East. Act. 2, 422 and approx. 27. 34. 45. 54. Vostokova description. music 785. 786. Legal. Act. No. 385. 2. In 1602, the diocese of Astrakhan was opened with the significance of an archbishopric, and in 1667 it received the title of metropolis. In 1621, the Siberian Archbishopric was established in Tobolsk. In 1616 in Pskov, Archbishop Joachim (Ancient Vivl. 15, 214–216). In 1667, Bishops were appointed for Kholmogory, Vyatka, Tomsk, Yeniseisk, Ustyug, Voronezh, Tambov, Uglich, Kargopol, Beloozero, Dmitrov and Rzhev, i.e. 13. But the Council of Russian Archpastors remained satisfied if bishops' sees were established in the first 6 cities. On Nov. 1681 The Tsar and Patriarch intended to introduce degrees between pastors so that 13 Metropolitans would have 25 Archbishops and Bishops, namely 6 Archbishops and 19 Bishops. But when the Tsar proposed this to the council, the council (1682) decided: to reopen the departments of Archbishops or Bishops, only without dependence on the Metropolitans, so that otherwise church disagreement would not arise in the hierarchical rank, and strife and exaltation would not appear to the detriment of the Church. Regarding new sees, I believed that it would be enough if Archbishops were appointed in Sevsk, Kholmogory, Yeniseisk and Ustyug - Bishops in Galich, Arzamas, Tambov, Voronezh, Bolkhov and Kursk. In fact, in fulfillment of these definitions, only the dioceses of a) Belgorod in 1667 and Nizhny Novgorod in 1672 with the title of metropolis could be opened; b) in 1682 the dioceses of Ustyug and Kholmogory were given the title of archbishopric, and the same name was then given to the diocese of Vyatka, opened to the Bishop in 1658; and the Suzdal archdiocese was named a metropolis, “for the sake of the ancient great reign of Suzdal”; c) at the same time, in 1682, the Bishops of Voronezh and Tambov were consecrated (Act. Exp. 4, No. 204. 155. Act. Ist. 2, 422. 5, 110. 111. 480. 481. Collected grams. 4 391. 393. Notes for the Siberian History in ancient times. Viv. 3, no. 2. Ir. 1, 30. 35. 169–73.). According to the inventory of 1702, the most extensive dioceses, after the patriarchal ones (pr. 6), Novgorod with 1017 Churches, Ryazan with 955, Suzdal with 902, Rostov with 731, Vologda with 588 Churches, the smallest Voronezh with 182 Churches, Vyatka with 181, Tambov with 168, Smolensk with 171, Pskov 159, Siberian from 150; and all the Churches were 12,076; but the inventory does not show the Churches of the dioceses of Kyiv, Astrakhan, Chernigov (Ist. Jer. 1, 72.). With the appointment of the Irkutsk diocese, the districts of Tobolsk, Yenisei, Iset and Yekaterinburg remained under the jurisdiction of the Tobolsk Metropolitan. The Suzdal diocese included the counties of Suzdal, Yuryevo-Polish, Shuya, Upper and Lower Domovsky, Temnikovsky and Kirensky; before 1667 and Tarusa. The boundaries of the diocese still presented many difficulties for administration, although they were better defined than before. The parishes of the ancient Novgorod region, which were transferred to Sweden in 1611, remained under the jurisdiction of the Novgorod pastor. (Act. Ist. 5, 243. 325). Tabletop. gram. Jan. 10, 1619 to the Ryazan Archbishop: “blessings of the council... to be the third Archbishop, and the seat and hierarchal seat under the Suzdal Archbishop.” Lay down Ch. 13. art. 1, 3 ch. 12 tbsp. 1. Gram. Jun. 1667 “in all bishops’ houses to be a spiritually skilled man, to judge clergy and spiritual affairs, just as in the patriarchal house... Do not judge the entire church rank and other people by worldly people in anything.” Collection zak. 1, No. 412. p. 272. 73. 77. Vostokova's description of the music. Page 610. Conciliar act of October 1666: “order all priests to keep four notebooks in all churches for recording” baptized, married, living parishioners who have introduced themselves. Code, ch. 17. Art. 42. confirmed to departments and monasteries not to accept land without a decree. By decree On May 2, 1673, it was ordered to give land from the wild fields of Ukraine to the Patriarch, archpastors and archimandrites. (Sobr. zak. 1, no. 549. 521). In relation to Siberia, the general decree was confirmed by the decree of 1678 (Collected Laws 2, No. 73. 11. A. 5, No. 32). Sob. zak. uk. 18 Apr 1756 Ak. Exp. 2, no. 1–10. Spiritual gram. Job in ancient times Vivl. 6. According to the RCP. Philaret and according to the rite of wedding (Ak. Exp. 2, No. 47). Tsar Vasily, elected on May 19, was crowned king on June. 1, 1606 Novgorod. Metropolitan Isidore; according to RKP. Philareta Hermogenes was then in captivity in Kazan. According to the Tsar’s charter (Act. Exp. 2, No. 48), when the relics of the Tsarevich were brought into Moscow, on June 3, there were Metropolitans and Archbishops; until June 5, when the relics were brought into the Arkhangelsk Cathedral, “the Tsar and the Patriarch” met. And further, “The Tsar and the Patriarch committed cancer.” According to the summer. o Mutiny. pp. 1, 103. Hermogenes was installed in the Patriarchate “after the accession of Basil.” The modern Polish historian Kobierzycki calls this impostor a Jew. Our court under Tsar Michael called him a Jew in diplomatic correspondence with Moritz, Prince of Orange. Certificate in 3 T. Act. Exp. pp. 127. 132. No. 57. 58. 67. 188. Buturlin about the time of interregnum 2, 189. Buturlin 2, 182–189. 136. 142. 52–54. Act. Exp. 2, 57. 58. Act. East. 2, 132. Palitsyna East. Ch. 6. East. description laurels (M. 1342) pp. 80–99. In total, 547 people died during the siege (Synodik of the Lavra No. 6). Act. Exp. 2, No. 269 and approx. to this gram. Letop. on riots 202–205. Philaret's manuscript 27. Collection gram. No. 226. 227. 229. In the reply: “After the birth of Christ in the fifth week, Feodor Andropov and Mikhailo Saltykov wrote from Moscow that in Moscow the Patriarch openly calls all sorts of people to himself and says: if the prince is not baptized into the peasant faith... he will not be the Sovereign” p. 294. Karamzin’s footnote (Vol. 12. pr. 684.). “Summer 7119 March 2, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Hermogenes... so that the Cherdyn hound Ivan Igosha would naturally be given a cart... for all military affairs.” East. Act. 2, no. 323. Years. about rebellion. 204.–206. RKP. Philareta. Years. about rebellion. 208–211. Nick. years. 154–159. Maskevich (diary 87) says: “The Patriarch, as the main instigator of the disturbances, was given into custody (in March 1611) ... Malitsky, who guarded him so much that no one without his knowledge and permission entered the Patriarch, and he himself did not let him out of the threshold. From such oppression this high priest died six months later.” According to the RCP. Philaret Hermogenes was locked “in the Saint’s courtyard” next. in the Chudov Monastery; according to Ber and Sapieha, he was imprisoned in the Kirilovsky courtyard, where 50 archers guarded him; but he was transferred here from Chudov m. (Golikov in addition 2, 220). Ber also makes it known that the Patriarch was deprived of his freedom for the first time before the Vai holiday. (203.204.205.). Years. “from then (when he again refused to stop the troops) he began to starve him and put him to death by starvation and gave up his righteous soul in the hand of God Feb. 17 days.” According to the RCP. Filaretova Hermogen died on January 17. and that's right, in Feb. In 1753, the relics of Hermogenes were transferred from Chudov Monastery. to the Assumption Cathedral. Historical description of the Lavra 101–103. About the exploits of the Novgorod Metropolitan Isidore against the Swedes Pov. 3. Years. and gram. at 3 T. East. act. No. 283. 284. A.E. 3. No. 105. (1619). A.E. 3. No. 115. (1620). See the addition to the code of law 1620–1645 in 3 T. East. act. No. 92 and 3 T. pp. 304–307: Michael’s decrees begin only from the time Philaret became Patriarch. With the name of the Tsar and Patriarch No. 3–5. 7. 9. 10. 12. 14. 15. 22. 23. One contemporary (in the chronograph of Metropolitan Pachomius of 1639) depicts Patriarch Philaret this way: “He partially understood the Divine Scriptures, was suspicious in his disposition, and was such a ruler, as the Tsar himself feared him. The boyars and all ranks of the royal ranks suffered greatly from irrevocable imprisonment and other punishments; he was merciful to the clergy. He was in charge of all kinds of royal and military affairs.” The same contemporary says that the unfortunate Polish war was started on the advice of Patriarch Filaret and that Filaret allegedly wanted to take revenge on her for his insult to Poland. Posterity cannot agree with his contemporary on this point: Filaret’s deeds show that he sacrificed everything for the fatherland and, therefore, was too far from exposing the fatherland to the dangers of war for revenge. If Filaret did not see that it was not yet time to fight with Poland for Russian property: that is a different matter. The main source of information about Nikon is the life of Patriarch Nikon, described by Shusherin, ed. in St. Petersburg 1784 and 1817 Muravyov, when writing in his history about Nikon (pp. 50–321), used the original cathedral file about Patriarch Nikon, which is stored in the synodal library. We will point out other sources in their place. Act. Exp. 4, No. 57. If we had no other evidence, this one letter from the Tsar could show how the Tsar loved and respected Nikon. “O mighty warrior and sufferer of the Heavenly King, oh my beloved favorite and comrade, holy Master!” This is what the Tsar writes to Nikon, repeating similar names more than once. The Tsar speaks to Nikon as to the closest person, for whom the Tsar has no secrets; he sends him the most detailed report on how they dealt with the estate of the late Patriarch, who died suddenly, without a will, what his feelings were during the burial of the Patriarch - and so on. The Tsar himself, at the same time, as he informed Nikon about the death of Joseph, wrote: “Yes, I know from Prince Ivan’s letters to Khovansky that he disappeared, and he writes about his abyss, that you make a rule with yourself every day. Yes, and they whispered among us: there has never been such dishonor that now the Sovereign gave us over as Metropolitan... Yes, Vasily Otyaev writes to his friends: it would be better for us to be in the abyss with Prince Ivan Ivanovich Lobanov on the new land beyond Siberia than with the Novgorod Metropolitan; “However, even if one forces one to fast by force, one cannot force anyone to believe God.” Nikon's treatment of the boyars sent with him to the Solovetsky monastery is explained from the attached royal decree. The Tsar writes: “It became known to us that many nobles and servants sent with you, our pilgrim... did not fast during Lent and eat indecently. Therefore, you, our pilgrim, will certainly be forced to fast during the fast of Peter the Great or on the Mother of God, etc.” The king also wrote: “but my word now in the palace is good and is done without hesitation (immediately).” This again could not please Nikon as much as the consciousness of boyar self-will. Shusherin. Act. ist. 4, 251. No. 185. Collection. state gram. 3, 480 history of Little Russia Markevich 1, 213–345. Rigelmenga book. 2, 175. 176. see below, pr. 71. 79. Act. Exp. 4, No. 71. Letter of the Patriarch on the sending of carts from the Vologda monasteries to the Sovereign service: “The Sovereign Tsar... and We the Great Sovereign ordered... by our decree it was possible to take from the Vologda monasteries”, etc. No. 86 in May 1655, the letter of the Patriarch to Galich with the same content. Shusherin; Palace zap. 2, 224. Add. ist. Act. 3, No. 120. 121. 123. Palace notes 1654–1655 Treaty with Poland in the collection. state gram. East. act. 4, 225. 259. 278. 280. Markevich I, 347–367. Act. Exp. 1, No. 73. gram. Patriarch of August 20, 1654 “And he orders those supplies to be prepared in monastery estates in good places, where pestilence was not known among people.” Acts on the pestilence of 1654–1655 in addition. to East. Act. 3, No. 49. Here we read as many as 65 letters and reports written from July 26 to October 28. 1654 However, there is no charter here yet 3 September. 1654 ed. at Richter's in East. medicine in Russia. Act. Exp. 4, No. 74. 75. 69. Shusherin, palace. zap. 2,255. Shusherin, gram. royal in East. 4, 227. 229. This letter “hoped with the blessing of the great lord Saint Nikon Patr. Through the labors of the brethren of that monastery of Iveron 1665.” Letters from Nikon to the Tsar, January 27. 1653 dated 2, 3 and 27 February. 1655 ed. in the life of Patr. Nikon, m. 1843. “With much prayer the Tsar told us about this, so that we could be written as the Great Sovereign,” writes Nikon in response to Streshnev’s 12th question. Since when did they start calling Nikon the Sovereign? In all likelihood, from the time when they began to call him the Patriarch of Great and Small Russia. In the canon and color triodion of 1652 in the Apostle of May 1653, the Helmsman of June 1653 called Nikon the great Master. The same in the letters of September 20. 1652 beginning of 1653 (Act. Exp. 4, 92. Historical act. 4, 191). But in the Council Act of October 1st. 1653 on the annexation of Little Russia, Nikon is already called the great Sovereign (Collected grams. 3, 481). And we see the same in the letters of November 18. 1653, February 2, May 16, July 9, 1654, as well as in the charters of subsequent times. (Act. Exp. 4, 102. 106. 108. 111. Additional. Ist. Act. 3, 522). Maksimovich has decrees on July 30 and August 31 in his monument of laws: the first ordered not to allow anyone from the cities into Moscow. The latter are forbidden to send reports to the Tsar. East. act. 4, No. 87. 92. Shusherin. Certificate in ancient times Vivl. 6. 162. 182 from Tolstoy according to the description. No. 119, it was written in 7194, i.e., probably in September 1655. Berkh (reign of Alexei Mikhailovich 2, 115) says that there is a typo in the year. But Berkh, believing that the letter was written at the beginning of the epidemic, either did not read or did not understand the letter: its content clearly shows that it was written after harmful rumors about the epidemic had spread and become known. East. act. 4, No. 103. Shusherin. Kelch and Gadebusch spoke about the Swedish War as Germans. See the experience of reviewing the lives of dignitaries managing foreign affairs, op. Tereshchenki (St. Petersburg, 1837 pp. 31 – 62. 65). About Nikon's letters to Moldova. East. act. 5, 477 on the accession of Moldova. Collection law. 1, No. 180 ff. Exits of the Kings. If Shusherin had not told us that these boyars hated Nikon and tried to harm him, then the mere fact that these particular persons appear on every occasion unpleasant for Nikon shows an oddity that is disadvantageous for these persons; it is known that under Tsar Alexei the court was very numerous: there were 2714 stewards alone; close boyars 11, boyars 69, okolnichy 60, Duma nobles 37, Duma clerks 11 (Berkh reign of Alexei Mikhailovich 2, 126–147); and in Nikon’s case we see either Odoevsky and Rodion Streshnev, then Odoevsky and Saltykov, then Trubetskoys and Streshnevs, etc. How they managed to get into Nikon’s history is explained by Mayerberg and Collins (pr. 85). Baron de Mayerberg iter Moscoviticum pag. 97. Mayerberg was in Moscow in 1661 and 1662. Collins, physician to Tsar Alexei 1659–1666, says exactly the same. “The Tsar is usually kind, beneficent, chaste, accurate in the performance of church rites, a patron of the faith; and if he were not surrounded by a thick cloud of informers and boyars who direct his good intentions to evil, then without a doubt he should have been placed along with the kindest and smartest sovereigns” (Readings of the M. General History No. 1, p. 13). Chronicle of a self-witness about the wars of Khmelnitsky (p. 50. Readings of the Moscow General History): “Although there was no greedy heresy against the Patriarch, it was only out of hatred that the boyars committed it, and after that there was a great mess in Moscow.” Mayerberg also hinted at this; Collins spoke more clearly: “He (Nikon) two years ago considered himself offended and retired to the village. They say that he wanted to make some innovations, or better yet, transformations, because he is not one of the icon-worshippers to whom Russians are very devoted.” (Page 5. 6.) About icon painters and painting - Snegirev - monuments I, LXVI-LXVII. About the same thing about Collins' music p. 2. 9. 10. Metropolitan Plato in history. 2, 239. The opinion of the intelligent Khmelnitsky about the boyars can be attributed to this matter: “It’s strange to me that you boyars do not recommend anything worthwhile to His Royal Majesty.” Nov. 18, 1657 The Patriarch wrote to the Iveron monastery that the Tsar promised to be in the monastery after Christmas; The Patriarch made a lot of orders for the reception of the Tsar (Ist. Act. 4, No. 109.). But it is not visible that the Tsar was there. In a charter dated March 17, 1658, the Patriarch named the Polotsk Epiphany Monastery a stauropegy (Ist. act. 4, no. 113.). This order was canceled by the royal charter of February 21, 1659 (Vivliov. 3, 352). But Patriarch Joachim again asserted the advantage given to him by Nikon for the monastery. (Belarusian arch. 1, 121–124). For the monastery of the cross, built by Nikon in 1656, the Tsar donated 4,537 peasants by letter of July 1, 1657; in addition, he gave 6000 rubles. and the richest sacristy. Tsarevna Tatyana Mikhailovna donated rich contributions from herself. But Queen Mary did not give anything (East. Jer. 4, 828–831). In addition to Shusherin's collection. 4, 182. Notes on the arrival of Teimuraz in ancient times. Vivl. 14, 33. 38. In a letter dated August 17, 1658 they wrote: “in the current year 1656, on the 10th day of June, our father and pilgrim, the former Nikon Patriarch, left the throne of St. the conciliar apostolic Church and the entire patriarchate of their own will and went according to their promise.” (Act. Exp. 4, No. 108). According to the note about Teimuraz, the table for him was July 6; According to Shusherin, Nikon left Moscow on July 10. Therefore, the letter misspelled June 10 instead of July 10. Tatishchev was the first to tell an anecdote about Nikon’s defense of the Tsar’s confessor, who supposedly imposed a ban on the Tsar for refusing to forgive the murderer. The joke is extremely ridiculous in all parts. There is no hint of such a case in any business paper. About the piety of Tsar Alexei, a contemporary Englishman: “With his head uncovered and on foot, he is present at all church processes, unless it rains.” Lighthouse 1843. About Romodanovsky below. 465. In addition to Shusherin, Nikon himself speaks about what happened in the church in his 5th answer to Streshnev. Having said that in the church he spoke not only about his departure to the monastery, but also about the reason for it - that the promise made in this church is not fulfilled and they are angry with him without reason, Nikon also shows the contents of the letter sent with Deacon Job to the Tsar. “Then what was written was found in him: and behold, I see that your anger has increased against me without righteousness, and for this reason the councils in St. The churches are being deprived. I am a stranger on earth. And now, remembering the commandment of God, giving way to anger, I depart from this place and city. And you must give an answer before the Lord and God. And having examined the Scripture, the Sovereign, return it to me; It wouldn’t do him any good.” Nikon said it was July 10th. In addition to Shusherin, Paisius wrote in a letter to the Tsar (Collected grams. 4, 119). Theodosius testified that it was as if Metropolitan Pitirim and the Miracle Archimandrite Pavel had sent him. The case was left without investigation. East. act. 5, 477. More details in Muravyov 280–287. The Tsar himself wrote about Patriarch Joseph: “Forgive me, Holy Master, even if he adhered to heresy, and how can I alone set him aside without your council?” Act. exp. 4, 83. Voice of Ignatius in 3 T. Ross. Vivl. About Saltykov below. 338. This is what not only Nikon says about Paisius in his objection, but also Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem in a letter to the Tsar, written in 1668. Likewise, Patriarch Dosifei in his church history. Paisius, when the Patriarchs arrived, did not appear at the council. He arrived in Moscow with an approving review from Patriarch Parthenius of Constantinople; but it is unknown how he obtained the review. The Patriarch recommended him as knowledgeable of church rules: but this did not mean that he made him a judge of the affairs of a foreign Church. According to Nikon, Paisius was a Roman priest in Rome. There is at least no doubt that he studied in Rome under the name of Panteleimon (Allatii de cousensu ecct. p. 996), and in Moscow. The archives of foreign affairs contain his letters to Cardinal Barbernia. (Dictionary 2, 147). Nikon could collect information about him from foreigners - Greeks, Germans and others who came to him. (Shusherin). Forced by a letter from his Patriarch (pr. 98) to leave Moscow, Paisius lived in Kyiv, but from here he began to make denunciations to the Tsar about the Kiev clergy; at first they instructed him to read philosophy here, but they soon forced him to remain silent (Dictionary 2, 148). Trubetskoy himself did not know how to get him out of Kyiv. (Simbir. Collection - Malor cases. 47. 73. 193). Paisiy, proving to Streshnev that Nikon was no longer Patriarch, wrote: “a wife about whom her husband has not thought at all for more than four years has the right to choose another husband.” The Patriarch rightly ridiculed Paisius for such a judgment. From Vostokov: “Reply to boyar Simeon Lukyanovich Streshnev from M-ta Paisiya of Gazskago, in 1661.” Nikon’s answers: “Objections of the humble Nikon, by the grace of God the Patriarch, against the questions of the boyar Simeon Streshnev, written to the Gazan Mt. Paisiy Ligarid and to Paisiov’s answers.” RKP. Sunday mon. No. 110. Extracting some passages from Nikonov’s objection from Backmeister Beyträge z. Lebeusgeschichte d. P. Nikons. Riga 1788. Nikon's response, consisting of 27 objections, was written in a restless spirit, with extensive knowledge of church rules and with a bright mind; eg Up to 85 passages from different works are cited to explain the difference between “audacity and daring.” The answer was written when the ambassador had already been sent to Constantinople, or as Nikon the spy puts it, and after the case of Babarykin’s denunciation. However, Nikon, despite all the fact that he was irritated, and in such a mood wrote the answer, valued the honor of the Tsar and the peace of the Church more than his enemies. He did not make his objection public; it is not clear that his enemies knew about him, who otherwise would not have failed to talk about him at the Councils, just to say something against Nikon. Shusherin says that Nikon, when going to the last Council, took with him Streshnev’s questions and Paisius’s answers, but does not mention the objection. So, Nikon wrote the answer as a preparation for the answers that could be demanded of him if they were discussing the matter calmly. In the list of Gr. Tolstoy says that the questions were written in May 1663 (Description of the RKP. 1, 309). Letter from Paisius to the Tsar dated July 7, 1663 in the collection. gram. 4, no. 28. The case began shortly after Dec. 24. 1662 Report of investigators dated July 19, 1663 to the collection. gram. 4, No. 34. 35. Shusherin; Nikon's objections. Shusherin writes that in addition to Obolensky and Streshnev, the Duma clerk Almaz Ivanov, Colonel of Philosophers with 50 archers, many other secular officials and boyar clerks were in the monastery. On the clergy side there were, in addition to Paisius, asters. archbishop Joseph and Epiphany. Archimandrite. Investigators write that after Nikon announced that Paisius either should not come to him, or would present his Patriarch’s letters about himself, he stopped Paisius when he began to make a speech and “called (Paisius) a thief and a non-Christian and a dog and a self-made man.” Nikon in his objection says that Paisius was told that he, as a deceiver and slanderer, was subject to execution according to the new code and, however, the Tsar spares him, while he, the Patriarch, is treated cruelly based on false denunciations. The noble investigators don’t say a word about this, but they say their own. The Patriarch writes that he said: now the prophecy is being fulfilled: they will lay hands on you. When they asked: Do you already consider us to be Jews and not Christians? He answered: I don’t see your Christianity, and your actions testify only to untruth and violence. Odoevsky ordered Nikon to remain in his cell. The Patriarch answered: perhaps - and in prison, but listen, if you want, to the judgment of the Council of Constantinople: a worldly person who throws a Bishop into prison without a trial, or insults him in any other way, is cursed. However, Nikon added, let the Tsar do what he pleases. Shusherin says that the Patriarch was locked in his cell. The nobles in the report: “if only he (Nikon) was not of such rank, we would not have let him go alive.” Of course, this related to the rank of investigators. They: “and he, Nikon, taught to commit all sorts of lies, while he was in the Patriarchate... he taught to tamper with your state affairs and in city courts and taught to write to the great Sovereign and to the memory of the decreed orders from himself, and sent all sorts of things without your... decree from the orders and - to take away the estates.” The entire report is obviously the work of Odoevsky - Nikon’s original words are not in it; and the words cited were partly composed in defense; The order was made, moreover, in order to denigrate Nikon in a formal matter and arm the Tsar against him. Sl. pr. 97. Answers in the collection. gram. 4, No. 27. They were transferred to Moscow. Hierod. Meletius on May 4, 1764 (Description of the RKP. Tolstoy 1, 309). Letter of the Tsar from O. Apollos in the Life of Nikon and in Readings. total ist. 1848 No. 5. The Tsar wrote: “Yes, you are sorry - you write, you grieve for us. And if God willing, you will live, for your most holy prayers: we have not promised and do not promise to come again. And having buried your elder Sovereign, the new Jerusalem, he sent 50 archers of Savva the Wonderworker to you, and Tsar Alexei sent him with much love, joyfully kissing your honorable right hand, hitting the Sovereign with his forehead.” East. Act. 5, 478–480. Shusherin. Decree on Zyuzin’s exile to Kazan in the assembly. gram. 4, No. 38. Zyuzin said that A. S. Matveev and A. A. Ordyn-Nashchokin told him about the Tsar’s desire to see Patriarch Nikon in Moscow. Subsequently, when Matveev, through the intrigues of the Miloslavskys, was exiled, Nikon’s fate at the same time was even more aggravated. What kind of connection is this? About Ordyn Nashchekin, see below § 40. Letter of the Patriarch dated January 13. 1665 by O. Apollos in the Life of Nikon pp. 158–17. (m. 1845). East. Act. 5, 178. 181. In Vostokov's description. music 215 about the fate of Methodius ist. act. 5,480. Metropolitan Plato (Church history 2, 239) found this definition in one manuscript with the name of the conciliar definition. The same accusations are read in the handwritten document of the council, kept in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Metropolitan Plato rightly noted that another, lengthy accusation of Nikon in life. 3 and 7. (Collected gram. 4, 183–186), was not actually a definition of the council, but only a civil manifesto. The reason for the latter was the circumstances. The people respected Nikon, despite the machinations of the boyars, and the latter were afraid that there would be unrest among the people for Nikon. Therefore, when Nikon was removed from Moscow after the council, he was surrounded by numerous guards. For the same reason, they considered it necessary to explain Nikon to the people as broadly and sharply as possible. The very content of the boyar's letter shows the same thing. For 1) in it many things are attributed to Nikon’s faults, for which Nikon brought a fair justification and for which the Patriarchal Council could not accuse him, for example. a) the letter accuses him of giving the Resurrection monastery the name of the new Jerusalem; but this is how the monastery was named before Nikon by the Tsar himself (approx. 99); if they understand that the name is given without a conciliar definition (Hist. Jer. about the resurrection of the mon.); then the subject was too unimportant for the Patriarch and builder of the monastery to decide on his own; b) Nikon, living in solitude, far from the pulpit, ordained some to the clergy; but he remained in his diocese and dedicated only for his three monasteries; c) Nikon left the Church for 8 years without a Patriarch, opening up freedom to schism and unrest; but it is more fair to blame Pitirim for the unrest, who arbitrarily assumed all the rights of the Patriarch and did not know how to manage the affairs of the Patriarch. Nikon, although he acted ardently and unfairly, anathematized Pitirim for arbitrariness (in Vostokov, p. 215); but why did they neglect Nikon’s fair thought? d) The charter also accuses Nikon of appearing at the council in the rank of Patriarch; but the rank had already been removed from him by the Council of Patriarchs; 2) some of Nikon’s orders, discredited in this letter, soon again received their former force; eg aa) The Tsar, by letter of 1669, returned the three Nikon monasteries to their former names and advantages (Hist. hierarch.). The boyar's letter bb) accused Nikon of interfering in civil affairs and could not mean by this anything other than a monastic order; but the order was destroyed by the decree of the Tsar and the Eastern Patriarchs demanded the same thing that Nikon demanded, that is, the independence of clergy from the secular court. cc) The boyar charter accuses Nikon of condemning Kolomna Bishop Paul; but Paul, as a schismatic, was accused and exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery by the council of 1667 (§ 31). Metropolitan Platon's will to the church. ist. 2, 364. About other things East. act. 5, 178. 480. Act. exp. details from Muravyov Ist. 298–300. Although Sylvester greeted the Moscow ambassadors in Kyiv with honor, he refused for a long time to bring his nobility and servants to the oath of allegiance to the Tsar. He said: “if the king finds out about the oath given by the gentry and courtyard people, then he will order the bishops and clergy to be chopped up.” (Bantysh-Kam. ist. malor. 1, 357–359. note 320–323). Jan Kwitkiewicz (Supplement rocznych dziejow 1646–1696, edition 1708) says that about submission to the Moscow Patriarch, Sylvester wanted to communicate with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but he submitted to the Tsar without communication. Khmelnytsky, in a letter dated March 23, 1657, wrote to Patriarch Nikon that Sylvester himself was ready to appear in Moscow to express his submission to the Patriarch, but due to circumstances he could not, why the hetman asked the Patriarch not to be angry with the Metropolitan anymore, as if he were disobedient to the Patriarch. (About Soph. personal appendix No. 17). In 1659, one of the articles of the agreement between Little Russia and the Tsar stated: “The Kyiv Metropolitan and other Little Russian clergy should be under the jurisdiction of His Holiness the Moscow Patriarch, so that it does not affect the benefits of the Little Russian Church.” (In Markevich, vol. 3, p. 183. 184. 186. More fully in Rigelman: about Little Russia, book. 4, pp. 31. 33. 35). About the dioceses of East. Hier. Years. Samov. about Khmelnitsky’s wars p. 44. 50. 56. 57. Molodik on 1844 p. 226. 227. East. Malor. Markevich 2, 179. 187. 194. 195. T. 3 p. 224. 225. Historical. Malor. B. Kamensky 2, pr. 193. 195. Tyapkin wrote in January 1658 to Ordyn-Nashchokin: “Archimandrite of Pechersk (Innocent Gisel) and Metropolitan of Tukal have great love between themselves and among the people.” B. Kamensky 2, pr. 61. About other things in the same place. 147. 181. 194. 196. Letter to Nashchokin written on August 9, 1670. Rigelman did not know Tukalsky. (Book 2, pp. 123. 124). His oath at his consecration as Bishop by Metropolitan Dionysius in history. Malor. B. Kamensky 2, pr. 197. Collection zak. T. 2, No. 1191. 1198. 1199. Molodik on 1844, pp. 227–229. Certificate of Const. Patriarch and his council, signed in June 1686 in annex. to description Soph. personal No. 21. 22. Only Archbishop Lazar Baranovich and the Pechersk Archimandrite asked for the right of direct dependence on the Moscow Patriarch. Oh soph. personal 201. 202. East. act. T. 2, No. 43. T. 3, No. 46. See T. 2, No. 346, the royal letter of March 18, 1605 on the departure of the triodion to Verkhoturye, Tobolsk, Tyumen and Turinsk. Another of the same content, December 16, 1648. T. 4, 28. Certificate of January 10 and February 15, 1621 in 3 T. East. act. No. 93. 96. Consequently, Cyprian was not dedicated in 1621, as stated in East. Hier. 1, 231, and September 8, 1620 Novgor. 2 years. p. 188. Letter from Patriarch Philaret to Metropolitan Cyprian dated February 11, 1662 ex. in 3 T. collected. state gram. In Turynsk, the Nikolaevsky, in Alapaev, the Nevyansk Epiphany, in Tara, the Spassky, in Tomsk, the Znamensky, in Tagil, the Nativity of Christ, in Tobolsk, the Nikolaevsky (Hist. Jer. 5, 141. 250. 561. 710. Hist. act. 3, 141). In 1651, the Abbess of the Verkhoturye Pokrovsky Monastery wrote to the Tsar: “the former Church and cells were dilapidated and there was no fence,” built on the site of the dilapidated one in 1646, it burned down in 1650 (Hist. act. 4, 35); Other acts also indicate the existence of this monastery under Cyprian (Hist. Act. 3, 141.407). Before Cyprian, the monasteries of Berezovsky Resurrection were founded in 1605, Verkhotursky Nikolaevsky 1606, Znamensky Tobolsk around 1605, Tyumen Transfiguration 1616 (Hist. Act. 2, 59. Ist. Jer. 6). East. hierarchy 4, 549–553. 602. 609. East. review Siberia, book. 1. M. 1833 p. 190. The first of the remnant to accept Christianity, Prince Alachev. This was in 1590. The Prince built a wooden Church in 1602. In its place, the Trinity Monastery with a stone Church was founded in 1653. Spassky's list from a drawing of the Siberian land. page 3. 26. East. Act. 4, 67–76. 454–456. Shchukin's exploits of the Russians on the Amur in the 17th century. - in the Son of the Father. 1848 books 9. Albazin has been in the power of the Russians since 1650. Hieromonk Ermogen, the founder of the Albazin monastery, was taken from the Kirensky fort in 1665 (Hist. Hierarchy). There is no doubt that 243 women and 118 children captured by Khabarov in 1651 after the battle with the Daurs were all baptized. East. Act. 5, No. 69. p. 178. 445. Collection. zak. T. 3. No. 1541. East. Hier. 5, 645. 6, 78. East. Act. 5, 109. 110. 183. Act. Exp. 4, 397. East. Hier. 1, 234. Golikova about Peter the Great 3, 159–158. Das veränderte Russland, Frankfurt 1721. S. 209–215. Histor. review Siberia 1, 358–362. The company still belongs to the yellow banner of the Manzhurian Guard, with the same name. Gram. in history hierarchy 2, 491–500. Another on the same subject in history. act. 5, No. 243. Grigory Petrov, who was himself in Pskov, in his testimony in July 1699, said: Priest Maxim is old, sees poorly; Archpriest Vasily Alexandrov was with Spiridon Lanchusov and served the liturgy. People are released from the village yard to the church, accompanied by two or three guards. There are few Chinese in the church; servants come and, standing in the vestibule without hats, listen to the singing. In Kolgan, near the Kolgan wall, the merchant Sahaltu was baptized with the name of Simeon, and Spiridon Lanchusov was his successor. An official was baptized with him and named Theodore, and the successor was the kisser Peter Druzhkov. The third newly baptized is the servant of Theodore Petrov. Son of the Fatherland 1847 No. 7. East. Hier. 2, 448–490. Spassky Siberian Bulletin, part 18. 1822. 117–192. Glagolev monuments 165. Lighthouse 1844, December. Vozdvizhensky history Ryazan diocesan 122–120. On the saint’s mantle, kept in the Ryazan Archangel Cathedral, where Misail himself was buried, two holes and drops of blood are still visible. Glagolev in the same place p. 120. About the Kazan Mordva, which the monks of the Selizharov monastery tried to convert to the faith, see the Code of Tsar Alexei 16, 144. Ist. news about the Sergius Lavra p. 156. 157. (M. 1842). Temnikov Mordva was led to the holy faith by the monks of the Temnikov Purdyshev monastery, which stood on the banks of the Moksha River and behind which were peasants from Mordva in 1612. East. act. 3, 120. Read. Cherniev Nikolaev Monastery. Kharkov 1849 History of the Georgian Church of Yosselian 108–115. St. Petersburg 1843. Epistle to Tsar Alexander in 1, T. East. act. No. 227. About other things, Karamzin has embassy affairs in pr. 114–118, 122–125. T. XII. Then “teaching people” were sent to Georgia, the cathedral elder, former treasurer, Zacchaeus and Hieromonk Hierotheus from the Sergius Lavra, Deacon Theodosius from the Miracle Monastery, icon painters Dormition priest Bogdan, Arkhangelsk priest Dimitri and Deacon Theodore. It was promised to send others. Yosselian 102–105. The cathedral scroll ref. speaks about Teimuraz’s embassy in 1619. with the service book of Patriarch Joasaph M. 1668. Yosselian 106–112. Vostokova described. music No. 410. Moscow. Georgian archive. Case No. 4. 27. The very oath ex. in addition to the acts of Peter the Great, T. 3, 15, in the same year there were Georgian, Kakheti and Imeretian ambassadors in Moscow. East. act. 4, 115. East. act. 7, 182. 207. Palace notes 2, 183. In 1654, Russian ambassadors went to Teimuraz and Alexander (Hist. act. 4, 231). Our ambassadors returned from Persia already in November 1654 (ibid. p. 238). Queen Helena and Tsarevich Nicholas left Moscow for Georgia in 1660 (ibid. 290.291). See about the Imeretian Tsar Archil, about his Metropolitan and various spiritual and secular persons in 5 T. East. act. No. 227 in collection. gram. T. 4, No. 218. 259. in ancient times. wifliof. 15, 306–326. In 1688, Archil left Imereti and in 1693 was captured by the Kabardian prince; in 1694 he asked to come to Moscow and, having arrived, lived from 1700 and died in 1712. Encycl. vocabulary 3, 293. Letter to Princess Chertoryzhskaya. Cheat. East. Rus. Cer. Period three, § 14. The Uniate Lev Kishka speaks about Potsey's education at the Krakow Academy and his close acquaintance with Cardinal Comendonius in his publication of Potsey's works. The Uniate Metropolitans Veniamin Rutsky (1613 - 1637), Raphael Korsak (1637 - 1641), Anthony Selyava (from 1642), Cyprian Zhokhovsky (from 1674) were formed in the Roman Collegium; Archbishops of Smolensk Lavrentiy Krevsha, Andrei Zloty and Polotsk Nikolai Losotsky; Bishops of Vladimir Jerome Grokhovsky, Lutsk Jeremiah Pochanovsky, Pinsk Pachomius of Oransky, Turov Alexey Dubrovsky, Vilna coadjutor Markian Trizna. Allatius de eccl. et. occid. consens. pag. 387. See Lositsky's words in the description. sofa personal 124. The apocrisis has been written. 1597 “The same Satan deceived the Unionists with the promise of a place in the Senate, who promised to give the whole universe to Christ if anyone would worship him.” The Uniates were doubly deceived, because they lost their pure faith and did not receive seats in the Senate. Skarga's essay O iednosci Kosciola Bozego pod iednim Pasterzem I o Greckiem I Ruskiem od tei iednosci odstapieniu. Warsz. 1590. “Prestoroga” written by a Lviv priest (Lositsky) says that Potsey was even a Jew. Potsey himself denies this, but admits that he was a Calvinist. Zubritsky about the beginning of the union in reading. ist. total 1848 No. 7. M. Evgeniy about sof. personal 124–132. Additional to foreign act. No. 59. 61. Gustin. Years. 371. Brest Councils 1590 and 26 October. 1591 by Zubritsky: about the beginning of the union 25. 27. 30. 31. Letop. Lviv. brothers 60–62. Meletiy Khrebtovich was still present at the last Council. Track. Potsey took control of the Vladimir flock not earlier than November. 1591 In a letter dated December 22. 1592 Bishop. Mikhail denied the rumor that he agreed to the union. About Gideon's dispute with Lvov. Zubritsky's brotherhood began the union on 27. 30. 31. Years. Lviv. fraternities 59–64. Sl. Suppl. ad. hist. docum. 150. 151. Act. Zap. Ross. T. 3 No. 167. About Gideon’s Orthodoxy himself. Metropolitan Cattail in March 1595 wrote: “he swore an oath before the Gospel that he knew nothing about it (about the union) and did not want to communicate with them.” And Gideon was not at all at the councils of 1593 and 1594, as can be seen from their actions. Letter from Patr. Meletia dated May 8, delivered to Russia by Exarch Cyril Lukar, published along with his other letters in Ostrog in 1598. Letter to Prince. Ostrogsky at Markevich 3, 11–18. Letters of Hypatius from Met. Evgenia in app. to description sofa personal 66–68. There is no doubt that there was a meeting about union at the end of 1594. Potsey, in a letter to Ostrozhsky dated June 16, 1595, wrote: “nothing has been decreed, neither good nor bad; one Grigoriev calendar has been adopted.” (Apocrisis, 1597). In another letter of 1595 (from Metropolitan Eugene) he said that the Bishops had made an agreement among themselves. Def. Cathedral 2 Dec. 1594 ed. Baronius: Annal eccl. ad calc. T. XVI. What M. Eugene says against the authenticity of the council of 1594 has no force. The titles - Exarch, Prototropius - were ordinary. There were also “nominated Bishops” who did not manage to be valid. (See Act. Zap. Ross. T. 2 and 3). Nevertheless, the oath of Met. Mikhail in the fact that he did not think and does not think about union, makes us think that the definition of 2 Dec. 1594 was nothing more than an essay by Terletsky. Metropolitan Michael in 1596 in Brest directly called the compilers of the union falshers - compilers of lies; “I didn’t instruct those fakes to do this.” - “Prestoroga.” Union albo displays the article to the Greeks' convent with the Roman Church. Vilno. 1596. The writer in a letter to the Novgorod governor Skumin calls himself a clergyman known to the governor. This is Potsey. He also wrote Review of the Brest Cathedral of Vilna 1597. Defense of the Florence Cathedral. Vilna 1603 on the harmony of Eastern and Western rituals. Vilno 1608. Additional. to foreign act. No. 63. The image of Pope Clement and the Russian falling before him was cut out on the medal, with the signature: Ruthenis receptis - for the acceptance of the Russians.” A story in the chronicles of modern Cardinal Baronius. The oath with a confession of faith from B. Kamensky in East. union 43–48. Gideon submitted a written protest to the Seym of Vladimir on July 1, 1595. K. Ostrozhsky on July 25, 1595. And Ipaty and Kirill returned to Russia in the fall of 1596. Pyasetsky Chronica p. 139. Hungarian Hist. Kosciola Evang. Slowiansk. 1650 p. 465. District message of Metropolitan. Michael and his letter from Met. Evgenia. Piasecki, modern Latin Bishop: “on returning to Poland, they did not find at all what they had hoped for. Other spiritual and worldly people of that rite turned away from them and from the union. They rebelled against the union and made it hateful, so that upon hearing only the word about union they abandoned all reasoning.” Chronica p. 164. 165. Lev Kishka, biographer of Potsey, writes: Upon returning from Rome, Potsey noticed even in M. Rogoza not much vigilance and concern for the union; and in Constantine Prince. We will see strong things in Ostrozhsky and in Bishop Gideon Balabash. “Prestorog” by a Lviv priest; Gustin. Years. 373. Christopher Philalethes about the Brest Cathedral, Vilna 1597. George Konissky. A strange fate befell the traitors to Orthodoxy: “Mikhail Rogoza, writes Kopystensky in Palinodia, himself said that he walked like a dead man, and then met sudden death. Ipatiy Potsey was terrified at the point of death, screaming, rushing about in despair, so much so that he forced those with him to scatter. Pinsky Gogol, as living witnesses say, got drunk on the burner and broke his neck. Terletsky, adorned with murder, fornication and many similar deeds, and while still alive, lost his nose from an unclean disease, got drunk and lost his soul, never to be seen. Herman of Polotsk was often tormented by an evil spirit.” The act of confederation concluded by the nobility in Vilna in 1599 by Metropolitan Eugene in the addendum on sof. personal No. 15. King Sigismund transferred the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in three letters to the Uniate Metropolitan Rogoza; but the firm Archimandrite Nikifor and the monks did not give up the shrine to shame (Journal of Min. People's Enlightenment, December 1843. Description of the Lavra, p. 22). About Nalivaika except for the letop. about the wars of Khmelnitsky (p. 3. 215) and Konissky Father Janchinsky. Pater says this about the zeal of Nalivaika’s father and brothers for the faith: “his father had three sons, distinguished by their wickedness” (i.e., adherence to Orthodoxy). “The eldest was the cathedral archpriest in the Ostrog castle and, at that, the most inveterate schismatic; Before his death, he forbade himself to be buried in the Church. I know, he said, that the Latin faith will establish itself in Ostrog, so bury me in the field, so that my bones do not become close to the Latin Church. Nalivaika’s younger brother, a shinkar, sold fur coats, not inferior to his elder in wickedness.” See B. Kamensky in the history. Malor. 1, pr. 119. Konissky; Letop. Wieliczka, T. 1. App. p. 29. Letop. Marx 3, 21. The Cossacks were declared favorable constitutions in 1607, 1609, 1618 and 1620. But in 1608–1610 they fought against Moscow, and in 1620 and 1621 against the Turks - for Poland. B. Kamensky ist. Little Russia 1, 170–179. 182. 196. About the Galicians Zubritsky in the summer. Lviv. fraternities, pp. 93. 96–98. Protest on January 9, 1601. About the Vladimir Church in Mayak, 1844 September. Collection Vilen. gram. acts 1609, 1611, 1614, 1619, 1620. (Part 2, no. 18–26). Krashevsky writes that in Vilna Potsey in 1608 selected 12 Orthodox Churches for the union, and left only 7 for Orthodoxy. At the expense of Prince Ostrozhsky, one after another temporarily abroad Bishops lived in his Stepanovsky monastery: from 1599, Metropolitan Luke of Belograd, from 1603, Metropolitan of Pelagon. Jeremiah, from 1606 “Vladyka Mokachevsky”, who remained here in 1610, then appears according to the papers of the monastery as Bishop Amphilogeus (J.M.V.D. May 1849): but they could be and were abbots of the Stepanovsky monastery, and could not manage the affairs of the Churches, except perhaps those located in the possessions of K. Ostrozhsky - and then secretly. Letter from Sapieha from Kamensky in history. Union pp. 75–84. About the affairs of Kuntsevich, a printed letter of complaint in 1623, submitted by Belarusian and Lithuanian Orthodox Christians in the Senate. The speech of Deputy Dervinsky was printed. B. Kamensky in the history of the union 69–73. Cheat. reprotest of the Orthodox nobles against the Minsk governor Patras. Tyshkevich, who in 1619 took away the ancient Peter and Paul Monastery for the Uniates. Tyshkevich himself, as the nobles say, was born in the Greek religion. The reprotest was signed by Alexander Ognisky, Prince. Jan Lubetsky, Jan Vereshchaka, Matvey Ukolsky, Jan Kirdey, Konstantin Ratomsky, Alexander Gurka, Joakim Zelin-Kopciowicz, Jan Stetskiewicz. (Read. Moscow. General. Ist. iod. 3, No. 8). Nevertheless, the monastery was given to the Uniates. (Hist. Hierarchy). Synopsis, written in Polish in 1632 in Vilna. Sl. Kollovicha Miscellanca pag. 57. Kulesha: Wiara prawoslawna. Vilna 1707 pag. 226. Metropolitan Peter Mogila says to the Uniate Sakovich: “just go to Vilna and ask: who now lives in the place where the Church was built in honor of the holy martyr Paraskevi? And you will find out that there is an inn there and a shameful house. Go to Minsk and ask: where is the Tatar mosque located? And you will find out that on the very spot where the Church stood in honor of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is how the Uniate zeal for piety increases the glory of God among Russians.” Lifos albo stone. Kyiv 1642. Peter was in Vilna in 1635. Florovskaya letop. at Markevich's. 3, 21. Belotserkovsky universal of Khmelnitsky ibid. 3, 240. Konissky, II. Metropolitan was dedicated to Theophan. Job Boretsky, Bishop of Lutsk Ignatius Borisovich, Bishop of Pereyaslovsk Isaiah Konissky, Bishop of Chelm Paisiy Ippolitovich, Bishop of Pinsk Avramiy Stagonsky, Bishop of Vladimir Joseph Kuntsevich, Archbishop of Vitebsk Meletiy Smotritsky. Letop. Gustyn. mon. in reading total ist. 1848 book. 8. Only here there is an error in the year of dedication (1629). Urban's certificates dated February 10. 1624 in Suppl. ad. hist. docum. No. 193. 194. This happened in 1629, when the Dominicans, before Konetspolsky’s campaign in Ukraine, carried a saber around the church and presented it to the military commander. That’s why it was an excellent success - Taras’s night. The Poles were then slaughtered like sheep; Konetspolsky prayed: Most Holy Panna! bring me out healthy. And then, pointing to the chests of the dead, Lyakhov said with tears: Oh, the same union lies. Lvovsk. letop. in history conciliar 3, 246. As a result of the 1623 complaint of the Belarusian nobles (note 154), the king ordered the opening of churches in Belarus, but the command remained unfulfilled. East. union Description Kyiv. laurels page 23. Bandtke history Polish. kingdoms, T. I, p. 272. 271. In a letter to the Uniate Metropolitan Pelyavit Rutsky (1613–1637), Pope Urban took credit for the fact that he attracted about 2 million to the union. Meanwhile, even the Jesuits complained about the cruelty that Rutsky used when converting people to the union. Kulesh: Wiara prawoslawna p. 262. 263. Prenot radars. myst. p. 120. 129. See note below. 161. 162 and the words of Metropolitan Peter Mohyla in § 42. Zubritsky. Additional to instr. act. (St. Petersburg 1849) ed.: a) articles November 3. 1632 b) diary about disputes at the Diet of 1633 c) gram. K. Vladisl. M. Petru. Points of reconciliation in Konissky’s book: the rights of religion or the law of Greek-Russian eg. in Warsaw 1767 and B. Kamensky in history. union 95–101, he also has a diploma of Vladislav in 1633 102–104, privilege to Bishop Joseph 104–106, constitution of 1635 p. 107. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, who then zealously acted for Orthodoxy, was greeted in this way in 1633 in Kyiv: “If only you had it in your head now go to Vilna and to the Russian borders; with what joy would those who filled the dungeons, courts and dungeons for the immaculate Eastern faith greet and lead you to their leader in patience, predecessor in piety, similar to Chrysostom in orbit, Leonty Karpovich, who died several years before this archimandrite, so that you, having looked at his incorruptible remains and the bonds endured for the faith, could feel, what a great deed you have accomplished for our unfortunate people! They would also show you Przemysl, Lutsk, Helm, Belz, Minsk, Brest, Polotsk, Vitebsk and many other cities.” Mnemosyne stanu prae y trudow Pietra Mohily. In the diocese of Vladimir-Brest there were Orthodox Bishops from 1616 Leonty Karpovich and from 1620 Joseph Kurtsevich; but after that there was not a single one. In the diocese of Pinsk, after Avramiy, who was dedicated in 1620 and who was at the dedication of Peter Mogila in 1633, there was also not a single Orthodox Bishop. In 1633, at the consecration of Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, in addition to Abraham, Bishops Jeremiah of Lvov, Isaac of Lutsk, and Paisiy of Chelm were present. Lviv. years. in 3 volumes Russian. ist. collection Isaky Boriskovich, Bishop: Lutsk and humble Avramy Stagonsky, Bishop, Vladyka of Turov signed the charter Dec. 30. 1631 (Kyiv Memory 2, 112). K. Vladislav, with the privilege given to the Uniate Metropolitan of Rutsky in 1635, gave the dioceses of Polotsk, Vladimir, Pinsk, Chelm and Smolensk with monasteries, churches and estates to the Uniates; in Vitebsk, Polotsk and Novgorod, he forbade Orthodox Christians to have churches. The Uniates were given the monasteries of Grodno, Zhidichensky, Mogilev, Minsk, Novgorod, Onufrievsky, Mstislavsky, Pustynsky, Polotsk, Bratslav, Leshchinsky, and “others that they now own.” Kulesh has a privilege. Wiara praw. p. 261. 262. Vilno. 1701 Vilen. gram. Part 2, No. 90–64 31. 23. 38. 60. Kraszewski's history of Vilna Part 3, p. 62. As soon as the commission, chaired by the king, decided to restore the metropolis and several episcopal sees to the Orthodox, one of the Uniate Bishops went with a complaint to the Pope about this determination. Kulesha. Wiara prawoslawna. Mnemosyne Universal Metr. Peter's Mogila 1640 on Thursday. Moscow total ist. 1848 No. 6. About the new transfer of some Mogilev churches and monasteries to the Uniates and about the exclusion of Joseph Konomovich-Gorbatsky from managing the Mogilev diocese of Konissky in the news of the graves. dioceses (works. part 2. pp. 196. 197); review of lips led in J.M. Prosv. 1848 July; sl. pr. 162. The royal commissioners in 1636 did not find a single Uniate in Belza, and there were only 15 people on their list: however, they gave the union two churches, leaving three to Orthodoxy, and the King added a third church for the union. Supplem ad. hist. docum. No. 70. 71. Konissky, letop. Razumovsky, letop. Florovskaya, description of the military affairs of Little Russia: words from Markevich 3, 25. 26. Chronicle. about Khmelnitsky’s wars p. 4. 5. Khmelnitsky’s speech to the Cossacks in 1647 in Markevich 1, 166. Universal M. Peter Mogila 1640. Boplan eyewitness says that “the nobility alone is blissful, as in paradise, while the people suffer, as in purgatory.” About Pavlyug and his time, the Polish Historian (book 3 p. 44): “The Polish masters wanted to treat the Cossacks as their slaves, insulted them in the most sensitive way, ruining Greek churches. The Poles cut off Pavlyuga’s head, despite their promise not to take his life.” About Ostryanitsa and the subsequent time there, pp. 45. 56. About the attack of the Jesuit disciples on the Lutsk fraternal monastery, see the protest of 1634 (Monuments of the Kiev comm. in the first section, pp. 204–224). Vladislav's words to the Senate and his response to the hetman in Markevich 1, 157. 158. Constitution of 1938. 1641 in Bantysh-Kamensky in the history. union Chronicle of Khmelnitsky's wars. Universal M. Peter Mogila 1640 on Thursday. Moscow total ist. 1848 No. 6. In his will, December 22. 1646 Orthodox Christians are mentioned “Adam Kisel from Brusilov, castellan of Kiev (later voivode), Bogdan Stetkevich castellan of Novgorod, Prince Oginsky honruzhiy. Principality of Lithuania, Theodore Proskura-Sushchansky, Kiev clerk, princes of Bratslav, Stefan of Bratslav, Gregory of Lutsk, Zakhary of Lutsk, and Prince. Nikolai Chetvertinsky. (Kiev. Memory. T. 2, department 1, p. 171. 172). A petition on behalf of the Cossacks to the Tsar, written when the Tsar’s ambassadors had not yet returned from Warsaw, following. in 1653. Ed. in reading Moscow total ist. 1848 No. 8. Years. about Khmelnitsky’s wars: “the root and cause of Khmelnitsky’s war is one from the Lyakhs, persecution,” etc. About the participation of the clergy in the war, contemporaries in the Kyiv Monument. comm. T 1. dept. 3, pp. 60–63. 335–339. Agreement to Kyiv. Pam. T. 1 dep. 3, pp. 345. 346. in Markevich 3, 244–249 in Chevalier, who wrote in Polish. sources (Riegelman, ist. mal. ros. part 1. book 2 p. 66) and from Rigelman (book 3, pp. 130–132). Lithuania and Volyn were included in the Zbrovo Treaty because they also took part in the war for freedom of conscience. (Riegelman book 2. p. 56. 57. 68–70. 91–93. book 3, pp. 122–123. 160. Zhebrovsky’s note about the capture of Pinsk in the reading room of Moscow general history. M. 1847 No. 5). Chevalier in Rigelman, Prince. 2. p. 71. 72. Gram. King dated January 12 1650 “By agreement made with the Kyiv Metropolitan and the clergy, we promised at the current Sejm to destroy the union, to calm the entire Russian people and satisfy them in relation to the Greek faith.” Then the possessions of Orthodoxy are determined: the see of Lutsk, Chelm and Mogilev are given to Orthodoxy, but not a word about Przemysl and Lvov, contrary to the privilege of 1632 (Kamensky historical union 112–117). Already in a letter dated March 20, 1650, Khmelnitsky asked the King that “everything contained in the diploma, from now on, be carried out - both in the Kingdom of Poland and in the Principality of Lithuania; because, he said, the Uniate lords are accustomed to not carrying out royal commands.” To enforce the article on the union, he did not demand much - he demanded that “after the death of the lords of the Uniate leaders, all the churches of the estate were given to our clergy of the ancient Greek religion” (Kyiv. Pamyat. T. 2, department 3, pp. 12–13). The ambassadors of Khmelnytsky, who appeared at the Warsaw Sejm at the end of 1650, insisted on the same thing. Polish Senator Adam Kisiel begged for the same thing for the happiness of Poland itself: “1000 Russian churches, he said, will calmly maintain peace with the Roman ones, but there can be no peace even with 10 Unite churches - so hateful is the union for Ukraine.” But the gullible magnates and fanatical priests insisted on resuming the bloody war with the Cossacks. Chevalier in Rigelman, Prince. 2. pp. 72–77. Rigelman book. 3. pp. 151–158. The state of affairs after the Treaty of Zborov is briefly but correctly depicted in the Moscow Council Charter of 1654 by Prince Rigelman. 3. page 176. East. Act. 4, 261. Khmelnitsky’s ambassadors said in Moscow in 1653: “otherwise they already know that all Belarusians are Orthodox Christians and want to be under the sovereign’s hand.” Kamensky ist. Union pp. 116. 120–122. Rigelman book. 2. pp. 176–180. Review lips led in J.M. Prosv. 1848 June. In his speech to the King, Zhokhovsky called Mogilev the capital and nest of schism. Bantysh-Kamensky ist. Union pp. 141–148 and further to 252. About soph. personal pp. 204–207. 211. 212. 215. 216. Review of the province. led in J.M. Prosv. 1848 June. Holy Demetrius in his Diary notes the miracles that took place in Mon. Povodvorsky, in the village of Starozhitsa and in the Starchitsky monastery, near Slutsk. Diary 1677, 1678. Golyatovsky's story about the miracles of the Mother of God, see below, pr. 215. Irrigated fleece or about the miracles of the Slutsk Icon of the Mother of God, Chernigov 1680. Kalnofoy Teratugim or about the miracles of the Pechersk Monastery and the Kupyatitsky Icon of the Mother of God. Kyiv 1638 The Council of 1621 said: “Let there be no shame in listening to the lesser and from them learn... Do not follow the godless papal rule. The Roman court dared to establish such a rule that even if the pope dragged so many people with him to hell, no one should say to him: stop! What are you doing? If the Bishops and other superiors lovingly allow comments to be made and carry out everything prescribed; then fathers will remain in sons and sons will remain in fathers”, etc. Monuments of the Kyiv Commission Vol. 1. first section pp. 224–251. M. Peter Mogila gram. 1640 invited the Minsk crusader brotherhood to take part in donations for defense against new persecutions. (Minsk gram. No. 112). Brotherhoods opened one after another in many cities. And although the Council of 1590 extended to all brotherhoods the rules given by the Patriarch to the Lviv brotherhood, it is not clear that schools were opened under all brotherhoods. There were seven brotherhoods in Minsk: the cathedral, the hospital at the Prechistenskaya Church, the Resurrection at the Resurrection, the Crusader, St. Nicholas, St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, St. Anna at the Peter and Paul Church; but the school existed only under the latter. There were also brotherhoods in Slutsk Preobrazhenskoye, in Bobruisk Nikolaevskoye, in Smolensk. (Collected Min. Gram. No. 83. 123. 154. 78. 120. 139. 148). Certificate of Patr. Jeremiah brotherhood with school ed. on Thursday Moscow total ist. 1848. No. 6. Certificate of Metropolitan. Mikhail 1592 for approval of the Lvov school ed. Zubritsky narrative. about Red Rus' M. 1845. Sl. Zubritsky chronicle of lions. fraternities; pp. 14–22. where, however, the cases are presented with passion for brotherhood and with an insult to the truth. Afterword in grammar ed. in Lvov in 1591. The preface to Octoechos was published. in the same place in 1594. Of the Lvov teachers, Gavriil Dorofeevich is known for his translations from Greek. (Preface to the demon. Chrysostom on the deeds, published in 1624 in Kiev). “Grammar is composed of various grammars by students and others at the Lviv school. In the fraternal drukarny.” Stroeva description. Tolstoy's books p. 64. Letters of the Patriarch and the King in 2 hours of the Vilna grams. No. 3, 4. The king confirmed his will in 1593, ibid. 2, 116–123. Since 1590, the brotherhood had already published books, for example. Apostle of Vilna 1591 In 1618, Prince Konstantin Dolmat Tsepersky gave his immovable estate to the benefit of the Tsepersky monastery and to the management of the fraternal monastery of the Holy Spirit, but with the indispensable condition that in the event of the retreat of the Vilna brotherhood into the union, the estate would remain the property of Orthodoxy. Collection Vilen. gram. 2, 40. In Evju the brotherhood published a psalter and a new testament in 1611, a book of hours in 1612, a diopter in 1612, an anthologion in 1613, a teaching gospel in 1616, a grammar in 1619. Cynovian, or an image of the monastic general life in 1618. In Vilna ed. about the Antichrist and grammar Zizaniya 1596, daily prayers 1596, service book 1617. Breviary 1618, the spiritual city of Fekara (with a preface by Archimandrite Leonty Karpovich) 1620, grammar (primer book) 1621, psalter and new testament 1623, conversations Macarius 1627, etc. Peculiarities in the content of Sakharov’s service book in years. books No. 166 (St. Petersburg, 1849). Vilen. gram. 2, No. 42. Gram. 1633 in history union 105. Maksimovich was a resident of Kiev in 1841, here gram. Patriarch Kirill and the founders of the brotherhood, etc. pp. 60–67. 304–323, Monuments of Kiev. comm. 1845, here a) charter of King Sigismund of 1619; b) four patriarchal letters; c) the first charter of the Lutsk school; d) the second charter of the Lutsk school and several other documents of the Lutsk brotherhood. Royal charter to the Spassky Brotherhood in Velor. Arch. Part 1 p. 36. 43. To friends with anger on the complaint of the Brolepitsky Uniate in Mogilev. governor led 1347 No. 6. The third 1602 approving the resolutions of the brotherhood of the Church of the Entry of the Lord, among other things about the school - in the same place No. 10. Pat. gram. 1633 - ibid. No. 1. Letter of the patriarchal representative Nicephorus 1597 ibid. No. 41. Sl. ist. Hier. 3, 440. 441. East. Kyiv Academy Kyiv 1843 John. Golyatovsky wrote instructions on how to compose words (ed. with the book: the key to understanding, in Kyiv 1660). Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kiev, in the addition to the works of the Church Fathers 1846, book. 1. Participation of other Shepherds in maintaining the Kyiv College: in gram. July 12, 1640 “Joseph Gorbatsky, Bishop of Vitebsk, Mstislavsky, Orsha, Mogilev and Abbot of Kiev Mikhailovsky and Joseph Chaplits Shpanovsky Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrog Archimandrite” promise to donate 500 zlotys to the brotherhood every year; and “Dionysius Balaban, Bishop of Chelm and Belge, and Anthony of Vinnitsa, Bishop of Przemysl and Sambir” promise to give 200 zlotys per year. (Kiev. Memorial 2. 199). Collection min. gram. No. 123. 127. 112. 139. 164. th. Moscow total ist. 1848 No. 6. If the corrector of this book, or the printer, has sinned in any way; We pray, grant forgiveness, brethren: “usually something bad happens in such things, especially in the beginning.” In Stroev's description. Tolstoy's books pp. 101–104. Preface to the missal, printed in the Muscovite 1844, No. 8. During the first edition of the Octoechos in Lvov in 1630, they wrote that this book “varies greatly in the lists, due to the negligence and ignorance of our scribes; it is not similar to the Greek lists, not even close to the meaning and differs in troparia and words.” Therefore, the text was compared a) with the Moscow edition of 1594 and with the Derman edition of 1604 b) with written Moldavian ones; c) finally, with the Greek octoechos sent from Patriarch Kirill of Constantinople. The second troparia, kontakia and ikos of the osmi voices for each week have been translated again from the Greek (Description of Tolstoy’s books, pp. 184. 185). During the second edition in 1639, the same book “with the great care of the notorious ktitors, dangerously with the Hellenic versions, was discussed and corrected.” (Ibid. 211). The afterword to the third edition of the anthologion of 1643 says: “it has already been printed in third place, it has certainly been studied, distributed and corrected with the Hellenic true editions.” In conclusion: “we pray with tenderness, even if some unkind words and unworthy or deliberate sins will be found in this book, without judgment or blasphemy for those who are laboring.” (Ibid. 224). The first edition of the Lvov Anthology was in 1632, the second in 1645. The Colored Triodion, published in Lvov in 1642, was verified with the Greek. See the prefaces to the books of the time of Mogila and especially the preface to the service book of 1639. Royal privilege to Metropolitan Sylvester, given in 1649: “we leave the censorship of books under the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the Orthodox dioceses.” Previously, Metropolitan Job corrected Graves' books. Stroeva description. Tolstoy's books No. 61. 63. Job, while still abbot Mikhail. mon., translated from Greek. anthology, printed in Evue 1619; Archim Zakhary Kopystensky revised the translation and published in Kyiv 1627 Book of Hours 1617 and Anthologion 1619 with the addition of songs and chants of Russian Saints from Sakharov No. 163. 178. See also the slinger of Pitirim, page 362. Sl. Goari Evchologium Graecorum, Paris. 1648. Venet. 1730. The service book of 1639 is similar to the edition of 1629 (Sakharov No. 375). The service book or Liturgiary of 1629 was considered at the Council of M. Job, Isaiah of Kopinsky, Archbishop of Chernigov, Isakiy Borisovich, Bishop. Lutsky and Paisiy Ippolitovich Bishop. Kholmsky. In this edition, after the preface by Peter Mogila and the conciliar determination on the correction of the Service Book, a) Zemka’s Preface on the Liturgy; b) Following the diaconal ministry; c) Charter of the vigil; d) The charter led. vespers; e) Consequence of Midnight Office and Matins; f) About everyday Vespers; g) The rite of blessing the wine; h) Proskomedia and three Liturgies; i) Vacations; i) Prayers over koliv; j) Table of contents and afterword by Zemka. Stroeva's addition No. 17. Service books published by the Ostroh brotherhood: the psalter following 1598, the book of hours 1598, the octoiches 1604 and the breviary 1606 in Derman. The afterword of the following psalter, published by the support of Prince Ostrozhsky, and through the labors of priest Vasily, says: “If something sinful is revealed somewhere (not an angel of writing, but a frail and sinful hand), you Christ-lovers correct with the spirit of meekness, do not slander, I pray.” Much more instructive fatherly works were published in Ostroh: a book about the fasting of Basil the Great in 1594, a book by John Chrysostom about Margarita in 1596, the legend of St. Cyril about the Antichrist in Vilna in 1596, a little book (epistles of Patriarch Meletius) in 1598, a medicine for the sore meaning (post. Chrysostom to Theodore the Fallen), in Derman, 1606, teaching gospel, 1611. Lavrenty Drevinsky in a speech at the Sejm at Bantysh-Kamensky 69. See the letter of King Vladislav in the collection. Vilen. gram. 2, 224. "Revelation" between the books. Tolstoy 2, 398. Sl. magazine min. adv. enlightenment 1844, July. Ektesis of Leontius about Brest. Cathedral, ed. in Ostrog 1597 “Kazan two chalk Leonty Karpovich archimandrite in fate 1615. Drukov. in Evyu" The first "Kazan" with an explanation of the Little Russian. printed words in the 22nd book of the lighthouse (1843). In addition, he also owns the publication on the Our Father, Vilna, 1620. About Leonty, see above, pr. 148. 168. also pr. 193. The Orthodox wrote: a) the new Roman calendar, Ostrog 1598. c) the lament of Orthodoxy about the retreat of some to the West, ed. in Vilna 1610; d) Slavic grammar in Evju in 1619 (under Leonty’s administration of the Vilna Collegium); e) the word spoken at the tomb of Leonty Karpovich, Bishop of Vladimir and Brest and Archimandrite of Vilna, ed. in Vilna 1620; f) Weryficacia Niewinnosci 1622; Oborona Weryfiaccii 1622; Appendix Defense; Elenehus Pism uszypliwych 1623. The apology of 1626 was written by the Uniatom, parenesis ed. in Krakow 1628. About his grammar II. Greek (historical literature. 51.52.), Metropolitan Eugene (Dictionary 2, 44–55). Apokrysis ed. under the name of Christopher Philalethes, without indicating the year and place of publication. Maksimovich (Vremennik general history No. 1), based on the font of the book and on the testimony of Stebelsky, believes that the Apocrisis was written by Christopher Bronsky (and not Smotrytsky) and published in Ostrog in 1597 (and not in Vilna). Copy to Hypatia's sheet, Ostrog 1598. The writer calls himself “the least cleric of the Ostrog Church.” This name is quite decently sacred. Vasily, already known for his polemics against the pope and not befitting Kirill Lukar. A collection or book in 10 sections, Ostrog 1598. Here the first place is occupied by Vasily’s essay on the procession of the Holy Spirit. (See the third period § 14), then the epistles of Patr. Meletia. - For these feats against Papism, priest. Basil, together with Stefan Zizaniy and Gerasim, were persecuted with such hatred that the King ordered them to be seized and thrown into prison wherever they were caught. See Sakharov’s acts in letp. books number 99. Berynda is known as a translator and lexicographer. See the dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene, Stroev description. books of Tolstoy No. 63. 66. 75. 115. Tsarsky No. 77. 78. 84. And that he was formed in Lvov, and not in Kyiv, this is shown by his words: “while sometimes staying in the house of the bright pious master Theodore Boloban,” etc. (Stroyev opis. book. ed. M. 1841, p. 16). He moved to the Kyiv Lavra as a typographer after Boloban’s death, when Boloban’s Stryatino printing house was purchased for the Lavra (Description of Tolstoy’s books No. 63). In Lvov he published: a) Lamentation on the death of Grigory Zheliborsky, 1615 b) Virshi for the Nativity of Christ. 1616. Trofimovich and Kosov were summoned by Peter (Mogila) from the Lvov brotherhood to the Kiev brotherhood in 1631 (Memorial Kiev comm. 2, 96–99). Sylvester, from 1635, Bishop of Mogilev, and from 1649, Metropolitan of Kiev, a) translated the Pechersk Patericon into Polish, supplementing it with historical notes; this Polish patericon, printed in 1635 in Kyiv, is also known in Russian translation; b) wrote an apology for the Kyiv school, ed. in Lviv 1628; c) his didascalia on the sacraments, read by him in 1637 in Mogilev before a meeting of priests, was published in 1640 in Lvov. in 1653 in the Kuteinsky monastery. (Military addition, p. 140. 141. Stone of Patr. Graves). The Ladder of Isaiah in Tolstoy's book 2, 305. Tsar's No. 229. This is the same work that is usually published between the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov, while in the Synodal manuscript (No. 146) which belonged to St. Demetrius himself, the title of the work says: “The Ladder of Spiritual Living According to God - written by the teacher. Father Isaiah of Kopisten, who walked the path of fasting and silence at the cave of St. Our Father Anthony, also in Kyiv, after the former Metropolitan of the same blessed city of Kyiv.” His “points for priests” in the Bible. society history No. 118. Message from the book. Printed for Vishnevsky. in reading Moscow total 1848 No. 8. Catechism of Zizanius with changes in many ways, printed. in Moscow 1627 His Slavs. Grammar with prayers and short catechism by Stephen Zizania, printed. in Vilna 1596. See Stroev's description. book Tolstoy No. 35. 36. Book. Tsar's No. 77. 259. About his grammar Greek. (historical literature p. 51). From Lvov students, Ioanniky Volkovich published in 1631 in Lvov “reflections on the martyrdom of Christ and the resurrection of Christ.” Probably, he also published the tragedy of Gregory the Theologian about the suffering of the Savior, Lvov 1630. For Lositsky’s essay, see note. 135. 138. Members of the Lutsk brotherhood, monks Pavel Motkovich-Glyantse and Sylvester published a) Statement of Faith, in Ugortsy 1618. b) Collection of words from the deities. scriptures (explanation of the Creed) in the same place, 1618 c) Liment according to Presbyter John Vasilyevich, Lutsk 1628 d) Dialogue of Albo Rozmov, a man of Horago, Albo dying with the spirit, black. mon. 1829. “Premova before the reader” ex. in Stroev's description. book Tolstoy pp. 142–154 No. 64. Mirror ed. in Pochaev 1618, gospel in Rakhmanov 1619, 1668; pearl in Chernigov 1646 Mogil. 1690 Words of praise, Chernigov 1656. In the journal. min. adv. enlightenment 1844 “blessed letter from Metropolitan Michael (January 28, 1591) to the Lviv fraternal didaskals to Kirill (Tranquillion) and Stefan (Zizaniy) for preaching the Word of God.” The first two works are kept in the Pechersk Lavra; Tolstoy's list 1, 337. Defense of the Union, pad. 1618 in Vilna, written by Lev Krevza (Stebelsky Zywoty 55 Panjeu v Matek. Wilno 1781). About other works of Zechariah in Stroev's description. book Tolstoy No. 61. 63. 70. 72, in description. book Tsarskogo No. 77. 78. 80. 84. We consider Zachariah to be a pupil of Lviv, because he was a relative of the famous Bishop of Przemysl Mikhail Kopystensky. And the translations prepared in Lvov were published by him with the help of Dorofeevich’s Lvov didaskal (Stroyev’s description of the Tsar’s book No. 77. 78. Addition to the edition of M. 1841. No. 18). In 1616, January 4, “in monasticism, Zechariah of Kopysten, confessor, hating evil and clinging to good, I accept with a kiss what was approved in the mountains. Kyiv Brotherhood”, etc. (Kyiv. Memorial T. 2, 1, 45). Let us also note that Nomocanon, ed. them in Kyiv in 1629, not his work, as some say on the contrary, but a translation of a bad collection of Greek. rules Metropolitan Eugene (Dictionary 1, 21) says that this book was written by the Belarusian monk Azaria and printed in 1624 in Mogilev. But the former is unjust, the latter without reason. The book does not show the year or place of publication, and its font is in Kiev. At the end of the preface it is monogrammed: Zacharias. On page 314. Azarias x (according to the arrangement of the letters Zacharias); on page 315. 316., “to the reader” and at the end the monogram: Zacharias. In ch. 37. Palinodia Zechariah writes: “read about this in the book of Azariah, l. 246 1619. issued." Track. the book was printed not in 1624, but in 1619. The work of Lazarus: Trumpets of words, Kyiv 1673. 1679. The spiritual sword, which is the word of God, Kyiv 1666. 1686. Polemical essay: a new measure of the old faith, in Seversky Novgorod 1676. Grace of Christ, Chernigov. 1680 Loved verses. See Gospel Dictionary 2, 6. Gabriel Dometsky in a letter to Novgorod. Metropolitan Job, in 1706, wrote: “of these times, recently there was an attack on our Eastern Church from the Western, with letters of reproach and filth, under the title of two Jesuits - Nikolai Tsikhovich and Venedikt Boima and Met. Cyprian Zhokhovsky, calling our Orthodox faith a new faith and schismatic and reproaching the Florence Council, etc. And from the Little Russian Orthodox Church, famous theologians were elected for this: Archbishop Lazarus of Chernigov and Archimandrite Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, who gave them, with their philosophical and theological rank, an appropriate response.” Tsikhovich's essay: The Court of St. Fathers about the origin of St. Spirit Warsaw 1659 Work by Boima: Old faith about the power of the Pope and the origin of St. Spirit of 1668 Zhokhovsky was a Uniate Metropolitan 1674–1694. Archbishop Lazar in his blessed letter of 1669 to Ioannikiy the new archimandrite of the Yelets Chernigov monastery, calls him a man “excellent and capable of God’s service, in the science of St. Scriptures skillful and worthy in monastic life.” East. Hier. 6,508. Ioannikiy wrote sometimes in Polish and Little Russian, sometimes in the latter language. About editions of the Dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene 1, 229–231. Stroeva description. Tolstoy's books No. 123. 135. 137. 142. 156. 173. The Key of Understanding, Kyiv 1659. Addition 1660. The second complete edition, in Lvov 1663. The third - in the same place 1665. Some of Golyatovsky’s works were translated into Russian. Alkoran and the swan in Russian. translation 1683 in the Bible. Tolstoy 1, 235. 2, 26. There is also a new heaven or the story of the miracles of the Mother of God, translated. in 1677 from the Lvov edition of 1566 (2, 352). The book The Truthful Messiah, written in Polish, was sent to Tsar Alexei in 1672 by Ioannikis himself (Little Russian affairs in Molodika 1844, p. 287). From Rumyantsev (according to description 555). Conversation with Prince Pekarsky. Tarasius's treatise on the liturgy. book 1629. 1729. translations of it by Stroev (Description of Tolstoy’s book No. 70. 72, Tsar’s No. 89. 90. Description of 1841, No. 36. 43). Works of Gisel: a) peace for man with God (1669); b) synopsis - a bad chronicle, but which was published many times; c) about the secret of confession (1660); d) true faith, answer to the Jesuit. Radzivilovsky published a collection of teachings “the little garden of 1676 and the crown of Christ” ex. 1686. He spoke to Peter the Great oration, which is in Tolstoy 2, 220. In addition, Theodosius Safanovich, a teacher and preacher, and then abbot, is known, who wrote: aa) a speech to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (in Bantysh-Kamensky 2, pr. 179); bb) chronicle; cc) report on the Church of God, ed. in Kyiv 1669 (see § 23). See Metropolitan Eugene's dictionary, history of Little Russians. B. Kamensky 1, 224–227. 2, 212–217. Almost all of Maksimovich’s works (see Evgeniy’s dictionary) are written in verse. When his “Virgin Mother of God” came out, ex. in 1707, Dmitry Rostovsky wrote: “a book of printed poems was sent to me. God gave those virus writers a printing house and hunting and money and a free life; little needful things come into being.” The letter was written in February 1708. Rukop. life of St. Dimitri Rostov. speaking about his stay in the Baturinsky monastery, he writes: “where the Parisian teacher Adam Zernikov passed away under his abbess.” The writer then points to Prokopovich’s apology against the Lutherans, written, according to him, when Feofan was rector, trace. in 1711–1716, Feofan in his apology writes about Zernikov: blessed. memory Adam Zernikov, when with all zeal he tried to find out this matter (about the origin of the Holy Spirit) and reviewed all the evidence of the Holy Spirit. Scriptures and testimonies of St. Fathers, usually brought, involuntarily submitted to the truth and, for his salvation, leaving his own, sought and found about 20 years ago the heavenly fatherland, to which he was chosen by God, here in Little Russia. He also published an excellent work, filled with incredible and most thorough scholarship, in which he proved better than all his predecessors that the Holy Spirit. comes from the One Father. Miscellanea sacra, Wratisl. 1744. p. 22. St. Demetrius was the abbot of Baturinsky from February. 1682 to 23 Oct. 1682 and from Feb. 1686 to 14 Feb. 1692 (Diaria). And according to Prokopovich, Zernikov died no earlier than 1691. Evgeniy’s dictionary about other things. Protest. ed. in Add. to Description Soph. personal No. 15. The Vilna Union was formed at the invitation of Prince. Ostrogsky. Abbot of Dubrovsky Monastery Isaac shook hands with the Ternovsky Chief of the brothers with these words: I greet you, although St. Scripture forbids communication with heretics. Belogor. Metropolitan Luke said that the union of the Orthodox with the Gentiles cannot be conditional on the former renouncing their faith. See Novikov's Orthodoxy in Chekhov, in reading. General East. 1848. No. 8. p. 6. M. Evgeniy about Sob. personal 141. Regeu. Wolstiuz Hiyt. ecct. Slavomice, p. 467. Kirill participated in the composition of the book: “The Lament of Orthodoxy.” In the Rumyantsev Museum his “science of the opposite union” p. 554. About his actions in the rank of Patriarch against the Jesuits and his fate: Lettres anecdots de Cyril. Lucar, etc. Amsterdam 1781. Meletius Eccl. Ιςορ ί α . T. 3. p. 444–446. The King of France in 1623 wrote to his ambassador at the Porte: “try, if possible, to depose the constants. Patriarch as a dangerous heretic." Hiytor. Rus. docum. T. 2, p. 424. When Cyril was sent to Rhodes: Pope Urban was delighted and wrote to the same ambassador: “The Roman Church has heard about what you are doing in Constantinople; We know what disasters struck that son of darkness and fighter of hell.” Eg. Jan Dubovich Hierarchia, p. 117. wo Lwowe 1644. sl. Meletia Ιςορ. 449. 450. See Stone of the Tomb p. 379. Golyatovsky in the book. Messiah truthful ed. in Polish language Kyiv 1672. p. 235. 236. Kyiv. Monuments, T. 1, dept. 1, 149–158. Golyatovsky: souls of the dead, p. 24. Chernigov 1687. Feodor Skuminovich (apostate): reasons for the retreat from disunia, Vilna 1643 (both in Polish). According to the Trebnik of the Grave (part 1, p. 546. 752) two more rules of the Council are known and one on the Stone of the Grave (p. 51. 116. 117). M. Eugene knew the description of the Council compiled by Jan Dubovich and ed. in Warsaw 1641. 1642 Certificate of Patr. Nektarios at the confession of faith. That the statement of faith was translated into Greek. language in Kyiv, this can be seen from the Russian construction of Greek. text of the confession, for example. * να is followed by the indefinite mood. Stone, page 380. 381. “The conciliar oath was first sent to our Shepherd, His Grace the Metropolitan. Then in the Moldavian land in Iasi it was printed in Greek. language at the Gospodar printing house. And then, through the efforts of His Grace, Your Metropolitan Father, it was translated into Polish and published. It was published for the third time in Greek. and lat. language. in Paris at the royal printing house." Allaccia also has it (De consensa ecct. p. 1032–1090). Under the condemnation, signed by Patr. Parthenius is followed by the following signatures: “With this conciliar message, St. Father and Patriarch of the new constants. Patriarch, agreeing in everything, I sign with my own hand both on my own behalf and on behalf of the entire Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ located in Little Russia, I am Peter Mogila, humble Archbishop Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia and all Russia, Exarchate of St. constants throne and Pechersk Archimandrite." Further signatures were Afanasy Puzina, Bishop of Lutsk, Arseniy Zheliborsky, Bishop of Lviv, Sylvester Gulevich-Beushinsky, Bishop. Przemyslsky, Sylvester Kossov Ep. Mstislavsky. Then the Greek Archpastors: “Ioannikis of Iraklia”, etc. Before that in Polish. language 1644 in Kyiv published: Λεθος, albo Stone to crush the book of the apostate Sakovich. Eusebius Pimen signed the foreword of the book. Golyatovsky in his essay: The foundations of the union and their refutation (Chernigov 1683 in Polish), writes: “if Mogila is a Uniate; Why did he give out the book Λεθος, albo Stone? стр. 48. In the preface to Polish. ed. articles of faith: “we will soon try to print in more detail all the points set out in this book.” Confession of Faith in Greek. language first published by Panagiot in Amsterdam 1662. 1672. in Greek. and Latin. Norman, 1696. Latest edition: Libri Symbolici eccl. gr. Kymmel 1843 Jeud. Translated into glory. M. Varlaam Yasinsky ed. Patr. Adrian 1696 Kiev, then M. 1702. K. 1712, etc. Acts of the Council Chapter 7; printed in Skryzhal in 1655. The word of Patriarchs Paisius and Macarius: “When the former Patriarchs established the Patriarchate here... and that was the covenant, that here a school council would be created for the expansion of teachings and for young people who want to learn multiplication, leading to great benefit from here for the Church and the kingdom.” Add. to ed. fathers. 1845 г. стр. 165. Ber says that Tsar Boris even wanted to establish universities in Rus', but the clergy imagined that if multilingualism came, then different faiths would settle in and the previous harmony would disappear. Margeret about the time 1601–1606: “The Russian people know neither schools nor universities. Some priests instruct youth in reading and writing, which, however, few do.” Similar Matskevich. The legend of contemporaries about impostors. Part 1, 12. 13. Part 2, 27. Part 5, 66. 67. Among the opponents of enlightenment under Tsar Michael, Prince Grigory Sanguleevich Cherkassky is known. Passek essays 5, 202. M. 1840. This is what Arseny Glukhoy said about his contemporaries; see his other words from the petition in the addendum. to ed. Fathers 1845, pp. 150. 151. Olearius (Reisebeschreibung, ed. in Schleswig 1647, p. 280) says that the school “is entrusted to the supervision and management of a Greek named Arsenia.” Metropolitan Eugene (dictionary 1, 48. 49) considers this teacher Arseny to be Arseny the Greek, who under Joseph and Nikon was engaged in correcting books. But the Greek Arseny arrived in Moscow together with Patriarch Paisius in 1649 (The Truth of the Solovetsky Monastery p. 15. 174. 189). The author of the dictionary is mistaken regarding Arseny the Greek in another respect (note 226). Olearius, if he was not mistaken, could only call Arsenius a Greek as a Greek teacher. Meanwhile, it is known about Arseny Glukhy that he knew both grammar and Greek (note 378). Simon writes: “the assistants (the first was Arseny) in truth” upon release from prison, “worked in the printing yard at the right of books for many years.” Stroeva description. Tsarsky's books p. 140. The publisher Vasily Burtsev-Protopopov took a lot from the grammar of the publication. in 1621 in Vilna (above pr. 181. Encyclop. Lex. 7, 424. 425. Description малорос. affairs in Molodik 1844. The privilege of the Moscow Academy says that they are called upon “to teach the Russian people the free sciences” (Ancient Vivl. 6, 404). At the same time as Arseny, Theodosius Safonovich arrived in Moscow from Kiev, giving a speech to the Tsar (note 205). Description малорос. Affairs in Molodik 1844, pp. 225–227. It says here that on August 13, 1651, the Kiev resident Arseny was assigned a room in the Epiphany Monastery; therefore, until now he lived in another place; and the academy’s privilege says that the learned monks first lived in St. Andrew’s Monastery and taught others there. In the preface to the publication of the teachings of Saint Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Athanasius and Damascus, it is said that the teachings were translated with care “in the philosophy and theology of the graceful didascal, and the most skillful in Hellenic and Slavic dialectics, the most honorable father, the lord hieromonk Epiphanius, who dwells in the great and miraculous monastery, called miraculously, translated... in the year from the incarnation of the word of God 1656.” Inventory of Tolstoy's books No. 136. О патриаршей библ. § 27. About the royal Bible. см. в молодике за 1843 г. ст. librarian Государей в 17 столетии. About the cry of ignorance against learned book correctors in the preface to the Bible in 1663. The Chudovsky School survived the storm of Nikon’s troubles. The answer to the Swedish envoy: “about the faith of the Greeks and Russians regarding the Holy Eucharist” was written by Paisius Ligarides in Alexiano museo, that is, in the school of St. Alexius, whom teachers and students considered their patron (De perpet. fid. eccles. circa Eucharistiam. Paris 1669). Extract from his refutation of the Solovetsky petition. в прибавл. to ed. Church Fathers 1845 pp. 160–162. Paisius says that the illness of the Russian Church depends on two reasons: the lack of schools and the lack of libraries. But the latter, even if it could be the cause of the disease, was nothing to complain about, at least in Moscow. (См. выше прим. 216). Letter from parishioners of this Church, ibid. p. 167. Letter of Patriarchs Paisius and Macarius and another of Patriarch Jehoshaphat, given in 1668 ex. там же стр. 168–171. A note on correcting the Bible in the dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene. Epiphanius wrote for the learned brotherhood: a) a complete Greek-Slavic-Latin lexicon in 2 volumes; b) a philological lexicon or a collection of various passages from the Greek holy fathers, explaining the words of holy scripture. Negrebetsky, in a letter to the Tsar, recommended the Dobromysl abbot Elisey Karabchikeyevich for the academy as an excellent preacher, the skete monk Gagalevich, theologian and philosopher, the Lubelsky abbot of Monastyrsky, an enlightened sufferer for Orthodoxy, and finally a secular man Ternovsky. And not one was called. Monastyrsky in 1689 came with Saint Demetrius to Moscow on business, and again neither one nor the other was left in Moscow; Saint Demetrius even then received a reprimand from Patriarch Joachim for his work for the saints. See note. 215. 247. In addition to the history of the academy, ex. Polikarpov and printed. at 16 o'clock Russian Vivl. read G. Smelovsky: The Likhud Brothers in the journal. min. people. enlightenment 1845 G. Gorsky about spirits. schools in Moscow in the 17th century, in addition. to ed. fathers for 1845, book. 2. On draft leave, privileges kept in the synod. Medvedev wrote to the library: “the calico book is quite well arranged with golden screens and bound in scarlet taffeta and G. Ts. presented Ianuaria on the 24th day, and it was brought by F. L. Sh. (Shaklovity) and signed.” According to the last word, it is likely that the privilege was approved by Sophia. Ioannikiy Likhud wrote a) rhetoric in 1687 (the second part of it was translated almost all from Latin); b) an explanation of Aristotle’s physics in 1689; c) a lengthy grammar in 1705 - Sophronius: a) a short grammar of the Greek language with pyitics and Latin grammar, written in 1687; b) logic (of which the first half was read from March 17, 1690 to August 11, 1691) according to Aristotle with a change in order; c) philosophical questions and answers; d) theology. Feodor Polikarpov, Likhudov's successor since 1690, wrote: a) Greek-Latin primer, ed. 1701 г.; b) Slavic-Greek-Latin lexicon ed. в 1704 г.; c) Slavic grammar ed. 1723 г.; d) history of the academy. Karion Istomin, a Chudov monk who listened to Likhudov, compiled: a) Primer, M. 1695; b) new name 1686; в) летопись; d) a word about the Okovets icons; e) service to the wonderworker Hypatius in 1704; е) службу кн. Daniel 1711 According to handicraft. Miracle Monastery No. 223 are known: We are going – op. dedicated to Tsarevich Alexy, Ecclesia, s* is the Church, - to him; Akathist to St. Dedicated to the Mother of God Tsar. Praskovya Feodorovna, poems to Princess Sophia about the establishment of a school in Moscow, etc. Kosma, hierodeacon of Chudovsky, wrote very decent rhetoric. Other students of the Likhuds: Nikolai Semenovich Golovinov, monk Job, for a short time the main teacher of the academy, Alexei Barsov, who translated the shield of Orthodoxy or the conciliar response to the Calvinists of 1672 and the liturgy of A. Jacob (description of Tolstoy's bibliography, pp. 288. 295); Feodor Maksimovich writer of grammar ed. 1723 г. See the preface to the grammar ed. in St. Petersburg 1723. About Demetrius in his life. At the same time as Dimitri, John Maksimovich, Archbishop of Chernigov, opened a school in Chernigov. According to Medvedev's catalog in 1649, translated by Epiphanius: Athanasius's word on the psalms, on the murder of the king and the liturgy of Chrysostom. In 1650 the canon of St. To Anna, Princess of Tver, the canon of Mary of Egypt and 3 words of Bernard are translated. In 1651, the service of St. Jacob Borovitsky, the service to the prophetess Anna was transferred. The name of Pathanael is shown in anticipation of the leaders. The preface says that the work was translated from Greek. About the translator there. The Medvedev catalog says the same. The same Arseny the Greek (and not Arseny Satanovsky, as the dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene writes on the contrary) translated: a) the life of St. Catherine; b) the life of Theodore Stratilates; c) the life of Saint Alexei; d) life of the Rev. Maxima; e) quatrains of Gregory the Theologian; f) Maximus the Confessor about love, printed. during the anthologion in 1660 (see description of the old book by Tolstoy, p. 272). According to Medvedev's catalogue, in 1652 Epiphanius translated the conciliar act about Patriarch Job; in 1653 service to St. John Chrysostom. In 1656 Epiphanius translated: 1) 50 words of St. Gregory; 2) the words of Athanasius against Arius; 3) in 1657, a consoling message was composed to Prince Radzivil on behalf of Patriarch Nikon; 4) Pessel's anatomy was translated; 5) in 1658 the rules of Armenopoul were translated; 6) the word of Chrysostom on Pentecost; 7) probably in 1659 the conversations of Basil the Great were translated into six days, and in 1660 8) the work of Damascus, heaven. Works No. 1, 2, 7, 8 were published in one volume in 1665. According to Metropolitan Eugene, in 1664 the works translated by Epiphanius were published in one volume in 4 days: a) the life of St. John Chrysostom; b) 6 of his words about the priesthood; c) letters from Basil the Great and Patriarch Gennady. In addition, Epiphanius translated, unknown when, Saint Athanasius on brotherhood, some works of Justin the Philosopher; laws from Thucys and Tacitus; alphabetical extract from the laws of Vlastar; geography of Europe and Asia, of which the first part was translated by Epiphanius (from Latin), the second by his collaborator Isaiah, and the third by Satanovsky. Arseny Satanovsky also translated: a) Georgy Kodin about court ranks; b) in 1653, an essay about the Royal City (about Constantinople), in 1655, a chronography of Metropolitan Dorotheus (Molodik 1844, p. 224). Especially the monk Euthymius († 1705) left many translations. He translated the work of Simeon of Thessalonica on the sacred service (1690), the catechism of Jer, the apostolic commandments of Clement (1693), and the works of the Areopagite. He also corrected Vlastar’s epiphanian translation. According to Medvedev's catalogue, Epiphanius's words of praise to Chrysostom in 1653, Jacob Borovitsky, the prophetess Anna, praise to the Church in 1657 are known; word for word: in his church everyone speaks the glory of 1662, Metropolitan Eugene has a funeral homily for Metropolitan Paul. Simeon was assigned five altyns (15 kopecks) per day, which he mentions in a letter to the Tsar in 1671, complaining about poverty; Here he writes: “I have been living according to your, Great Sovereign, decree in Moscow for seven years.” Archbishop Lazarus calls Simeon his student in a letter to the Tsar, where he asks to instruct Simeon and others to examine his pipes of words (Bulletin of Europe for 1828, RKp. syn. No. 130). In the draft original, which is kept in the Moscow library. spirit. Academy, Simeon himself wrote that the rod was written by him from May 18 to July 13, 1666. The spiritual dinner was published during the author’s lifetime. But the supper, which began with printing in 1682, was completed in 1683 after the death of Simeon († 1682). The crown of faith and the catechism in Tolstoy’s copies 1, 269–65. To the synod. The library contains a book of objections to the court of Patriarch Joachim about the writings of Simeon. Medvedev, in a letter to Simeon dated September 27, 1676, wrote: “You have deigned to create this day through the Scriptures, as... You have finished teaching weekly and holiday teachings, and you have begun to read them in the Church, with the intention of reading them every week and on every holiday to the people.” “People,” he says, always want to hear new things. Lunch and supper, the writings of a hardworking and intelligent husband, Father Simeon of Polotsk, given their height, are difficult for ordinary people and incomprehensible to a crude mind. The conversations of the divine Chrysostom on the Gospel, epistles and deeds are very unintelligible not only to those who listen, but also to those who read them. The people of this country where I live are very simple, not only lay people, but also priests. For these reasons, being rude, I began to give out the simplest conversations, partly orally, partly in writing.” RKP. Rumyantsov in the description. Vostokova. Information about Saint Demetrius in his own daily notes. In the Shield of Faith: “A letter from Patriarch Joachim to Archimandrite Varlaam of Pechersk stating that many heresies were published in his new minions without the knowledge or consideration of the council.” Vostokova described. music 798. In 1686, Hetman Samoilovich asked to send menaions from Moscow, as a guide to the description of the lives of the Saints, compiled in Little Russia. (Chertkova in the addendum to the Russian Bible, p. 436 M. 1844). Of the errors noticed by Joachim, only one was important: “Print in your book an inventory, as if the Most Pure Mother of God was conceived and born without original sin, which came from Adam; “Only we see such wisdom in the books of the Latin scholars, but even about this there is great discord among themselves.” Saint Demetrius subsequently, preparing his menaion for the second edition, carefully took care, as his letters to Theologus show (1, 8. 15), to correct the errors and shortcomings of the first edition. And the thought of the birth of the Mother of God without original sin is no longer present in subsequent editions of the Menaion. Some errors are listed in the preface to the second part of the menya. Sl. Diary 1688. 1689. 1684 Cheat. A very useful essay by a Moscow student. spirit. acad. St. Demetrius of Rostov, M. 1849, where the sources of the menaia of St. Demetrius are also critically examined. This is how the royal secretary, Chilli, an eyewitness to the audience given to the impostor by the king, describes it. Words from Karamzin vol. XI, 77–79, pr. 210. 211. De-Tou, who had in his hands a letter from the Jesuits themselves, a report from Peter of Uppsala, who was in Moscow with the impostor, writes: “First he revealed himself to the Jesuit fathers, who had great power in Poland, and gave them the word to use all measures to unite the Churches and to establish the divine in Russia faith, if they help him take over the ancestral throne. The Jesuits at first kept this proposal in deep secret and, first of all, tried to convince the Roman high priest to help them in such a profitable matter... They introduced the petitioner to Georg Mnisch; - a secret agreement was concluded with him... Having put aside his hood, he hid for some time in Livonia, learned some Latin there... Introduced to Sigismund, he made a speech.” (Biblical and foreign writers. 131. 132). The Krakow Jesuits themselves wrote about this. Words from Karamzin, vol. XI, pr. 213. Diploma in collection state gram. 2, 160. It is also in Buturlin 2, pr. 14–16. According to an ancient note: “On November 18 (1604) a papal letter was brought to the camp for Snova.” Grennepbruhl page 12. 13. De-Tu in the library. 132. Cardinal Borghese, in a letter dated December 10, 1605, wrote to the papal nuncio in Poland that Demetrius “in a letter to Pope Clement VIII of blessed memory dated July 30, 1604, promised to annex his people to the Holy See.” Pope Paul wrote the same thing to Demetrius himself (foreign act. 2, no. 61. 62). Ibid. No. 44. 49, news of the same No. 45–48. Ibid. No. 62, letter pi. in December 1605; At the same time they wrote to the voivode of Sandomierz to remind Demetrius of his promise No. 62. 68. In the letter dated July 6, Tsar Vasily (in Buturlin in appendix 2 volumes) places extracts: a) from the letter of Cardinal Malakridi; b) from a letter from the nuncio Claudius Rangoni, reminding the defrocked man of his promise; c) from the pope’s letter to the Krakow cardinal, Mniszek’s brother, where the pope in conclusion says that if the Muscovites do not join willingly, then they can join unwillingly. Ciampi cites evidence that Demetrius took with him from Poland to Moscow two Bernardines and three Jesuits (Ezame critico dolla Storia di Dimetrio. Firen. 1827). Letter from Jesuit A. Lavitsky from Moscow dated August 8. 1605 ed. to them: (Lettere dill imperatore, Firenze 1845 Bibliogr. crit. Ciampc; Firenze 1834. 1839). Grevensbruch speaks of two Jesuits who were in Moscow, Chernikovsky and Lavitsky (Tragedie moscov. Colonie 1609). De-Tu, in addition to Lavitsky, shows Sierakowski and Kiermokhovsky and writes that upon his accession to the throne, Demetrius “gave the Jesuits an extensive courtyard, not far from the Palace, where they could freely perform sacred rituals according to the Roman rite.” (Page 135. 147). Paerle shows Jesuit Sa*atsky. Page 98. In Shuisky’s letter, Buturlin has 2 adj. p. 18. The Nuncius replied on February 6, 1606 in Buturlin 1. 178, in Vostokov in the description. music Letter dated February 11, 1606 to foreign. act. 2, p. 89. A letter from the impostor sent with the Jesuit Lavitsky in the letter of Tsar Shuisky (Buturlin 2 note p. 16); about the impatient expectation of an answer and the receipt of it with Lavitsky by the pope in a letter dated April 10, 1606. (Foreign act. 2, 89. 90). Nick. letop. 8, 72. Certificate of False Demetrius in Kirillov mon. dated March 29, 1606 in 2 vols. arch. eq. No. 41. 45. See note. 63 to 1 t. act. exp. The incident with the archers took place during Lent. (Collected gram. 2, 297. Nikon. chronicle. 74). About Osipov Palitsyn 25. Margeret 89–90. Margeret 90. A legend that was done. Margeret, Ber, Detu (Tales of contemporaries about the impostor. St. Petersburg, 1834). During the general uprising, the boyar's son Grigory Valuev, pushing through the crowd surrounding the impostor, said: why talk to the heretic? Here I will bless the Polish whistler! And he killed the impostor with a rifle shot. Here he and Basmanov were thrown onto a table in the square; one nobleman put a bagpipe in his mouth, put a mask on his belly and said: you, wretch, often forced us to play the pipes, now you yourself play the pipes for our amusement. Ber. Collection Mukhanova, pp. 188. 191. Conciliar exposition, printed at the end of the breviary, ed. in 1639, i.e. after the death of Patriarch Philaret. In 1644, the Polish ambassador in Moscow, during a dispute with a Lutheran pastor, said: “Under the Polish king Zhigimont, Jeremiah, the Patriarch of Constantinople, traveled to the Polish land, and forbade that heresy to exist. Those who are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not ordered to baptize others.” Our people answered that Patriarch Jeremiah did not say anything about this in Moscow. Below is a note. 272. In 1627, Tranquillion’s “teaching gospel” was examined (above § 19) and it was determined that both this work and any other works of Cyril that could be found should be burned “and so that in future no one would buy any Lithuanian books.” Collection gram. 3, 298. The book was revised by the priest. Ivan Nasedka (see below § 25). Catechism of Zizania ex. 1627 in M.; the correctors were the Epiphany abbot Isaiah and the typographer Grigory Onisimov, who argued with Zizaniy for three whole days; they released everything that seemed to them new and introduced what seemed, although was not always, antiquity. Contemporary information about this dispute, which took place in 1627, is from Tolstoy 2, 266. Tanner in 1678: “Catholics are not allowed to have either a Church or a priest,” Legatio Moscov. Nurinb. 1682. Margeret: “all foreigners (in Russia) can practice their religion publicly, excluding Roman Catholics.” 28. Here is the confession that a Russian who entered the Roman Academy was required to solemnly pronounce: “1) All Patriarchs, Metropolitans and all clergy of the Eastern Church are not sacred, because they do not have the blessing of the pope and are disobedient to him; 2) Eastern patriarchs do not have the power to testify to a saint, even if he performed miracles; 3) after the Councils of Florence and Triden, there are no saints in the Eastern Church, but only in the Western; 4) whoever is outside the Roman Church cannot be saved, even if he acquires virtues; 5) whoever does not recognize the pope as the head of the Church is a heretic and an apostate; and whoever does not believe that the pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter and the vicar of Christ cannot be saved; 6) the bodies of the Greek Saints who remain intact are not the bodies of saints, but those who have received the oath of the pope, and therefore do not decay; 7) it is necessary to believe in cleansing fire; The Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son." This is what Dr. Gregory Skibinsky, who lived in Rome for 8 years, wrote in his confession to Patriarch Adrian. Synod. bib. RKP. No. 346. He says similar things in his confession (Russian viv. 18, 148–198) Palladius Rogowski, whom the Jesuits also allowed to listen to lectures in Vilna and Rome only on the condition of accepting the union. Joachim was summoned by Patriarch Nikon from the Kyiv Mezhigorsky monastery in 1657. East. act. 4 t. 108. Novgor. letop. page 197. Akos Likhudov p. 25. 26. The Likhuds, as can be seen from the information about their lives, secretly left Poland in January 1685 for Nizhyn and Baturyn, and from there they were sent by the hetman to Moscow (see the Likhud brothers by Art. Smelovsky in the journal of the People's Education Ministry of February 1845). Track. the dispute with Belobodsky took place in February, if not March. Description of the riot of 1682 by Tumansky 1, 209. “Semyon Petrov Medvedev, formerly a clerk in the order of secret affairs, who is a monk of great intelligence and scientific acuity.” Medvedev's notes on the rebellion of Pustosvyat and Khovansky in 1682, ed. Sakharov (notes of Russian people. St. Petersburg, 1841). In addition, Medvedev wrote: a) about the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (14 hours Russian live); b) a wedding greeting to King Theodore. in 1682; c) epistole (note 240); d) “table of contents of books, who compiled them,” or a description of Slavic works and translations in alphabetical order (syn. RKP. No. 828). This closeness is also shown by the description of the rebellion, where he praises the princess too much and where he shows himself to be a person close to the court. In 1685, Sylvester presented to the princess the charter of the Moscow Academy, composed by Polotsky, during his epistole in verse (Russian Vivl. 6, 890). In Greek; the translation was made in 1687 by their students Nikolai Simeonov, Alexei Kirillov and Feodor Polikarpov. Tolstoy (2, 86) has a list from 1698. Notebook on Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhudov according to the testimony of Osten L. 39, shield of faith l. 224. Smelovsky’s quite detailed presentation of the Likhudov’s thoughts on the Eucharist. Likhud Brothers, pp. 45–55. In addition to this, the monk Simeon, the priest Savva the Long in the world, the deacon Afanasy, the Abbot of Kirill Innokenty, who also wrote an essay with Western thoughts; from the archers Nikita Gladky and Alexey Stryzha, from the court clergy Deacon Iakov, Belorusets and charter officer Antom Muromets. See shield of faith l. 23. 24. 30. 211. About excitement in the book by Osten. Ed. in Kyiv 1688. See note. 185. There is almost not a single book left by southern scientists where Likhud does not indicate Medvedev’s thoughts. They found it in the writings of Tranquillion; in the teaching gospel, in the mirror and in the pearl; in the works of Golyatovsky: The Key of Understanding, the Sword and the Messiah; in Sylvester Kossov's essay on the seven mysteries; in the work of Innocent Gisel: peace with God, ed. K. 1669 in the small catechisms of Peter Mogila, in the sermons of Polotsk. Enormous correspondence on a small subject in the Shield of Faith by Vostokov, pp. 798. 797. According to the description. Del Malorus. (Molodik 1844, pp. 230–232) shows part of the correspondence. Lazarus, in his answer, presented the whole history of the Florentine Cathedral following the book of Syropulus, the work on the Brest Cathedral of 1596 and the work of Patras. Nektarios on the primacy of the Pope. Letter from the arch. Varlaam on July 26, 1688, written by the hand of St. Dimitri Savich ed. in the essay: saint. Dimitry Rostovsky, M. 1859, pp. 25–27. See the decree in the collection. gram. 4, 617. 618. For news of Medvedev’s last years, see Moskvityanin 1843, 9. 10, in Passek: Essays on Russia, part book. 5, 206. Council resolution to Medvedev in 5 volumes. act. 194. Sl. description riot of 1682 at Tumansky 1, 209. Zap. Zhelyabuzhsky. The contents of this book: about the time of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist; a study of where Roman opinion came into Russia; about the Florence Cathedral; about the Uniates and Western opinion regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit; about the mistakes of Simeon of Polotsk; about the misconceptions of Yan Belobodsky, monk Sylvester Medvedev, monk Simeon the Long and others; about non-acceptance of people of other faiths and open sinners; about marriage in the 3rd and 4th degree of kinship; about Lutheran and Roman errors; about purgatory; about cutting braids, etc. Read the description of this work with additions by Adrian from Vostokov, pp. 795–798 The course of the entire dispute shows in detail the Osten and the shield of faith. In Vostokov's description. music p. 334, in Tolstoy 2, 63, 127. The answers of Feofan and Stefan are printed in Russian. in 3 hours of sermons by Stefan Yavorsky, ed. in M. 1805, also in the journal of Peter the Great, ed. in St. Petersburg 1770. About relations journal. min. adv. enlightenment 1843 for March. Vostokova described. music East. Act 5, 243. 325. Valaam Monastery in the library. for readers 1848 In the Stockholm printing house, Luther's Catechism was published twice in the Slavic language (1628), and in Finnish Slav. letters; in addition, baked a set of Russian chronology from Swedish. (Nic. Borgii de statu ecct. et relig. Mohovitiw). Sakharov chronicle of books No. 239. Pskov. letop. 332–334 in 4 volumes. M. Chet. “In 1636, it was reported to the Great Sovereign, Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich and the Great Master, His Holiness Philaret... that in Moscow and in the cities Orthodox Christians serve infidels and unbaptized foreigners, the Germans, and living with them, they fall into prejudices, violations of faith and various basenesses; the spiritual father does not have free access to the dying; The living are forced to eat meat during Pentecost and other fasts. Therefore, it is commanded that all Orthodox Christians leave the houses of unbaptized strangers and not visit them in the future, so that Christian souls do not become desecrated and die without spiritual fathers.” Meyerberg iter in Moscoviam § 69 pag. 209. Collins (State of Russia p. 2) says that the severity of the Patriarchal times, which forced Lutherans and Papists to “renounce their baptism,” was the reason that under the Patriarchs few accepted the Russian confession, while “as before foreigners often accepted the Russian faith.” Letters from Patriarch Joseph and the prince’s response to the RKP. Rumyantsev Museum No. 207, 208. In the Synodal Bible. No. 893 “controversy about faith, Archpriest Mikhail of Chernigov”, etc. Sl. ist. act. 3, No. 298. In March 1644, an essay “on the Orthodox faith” was written, a selection from the works of Zinovy ​​and others, directed against the Lutherans. RKP. to Moscow total ist. No. 195. Read about churches in Moscow. Snegirev in Moskvityanin 1843, part 6. Olearius believed there were up to 1000 Lutheran families in Moscow. The inventory of households in 1620 and 1621 on Pokrovskaya and Florovskaya streets shows “several households of Nemchins and German priests and sextons.” Under Godunov and the impostor, the Lutherans had three churches in Moscow: on Pokrovka in the White City (new), in the Kremlin, on a filthy pond in the earthen city (old). And the reformers had two houses: one for the Dutch, the other for the English (Olearius, Petreus). Under Tsar Michael: a) a seductive quarrel between women for primacy, revenge tore down the Kremlin prayer house; b) in 1635, land was allocated to Lutherans for housing outside the earthen town, where a new foreign settlement or Kukuevo was formed; The church from the filthy pond was moved there; c) in 1639, behind the earthen rampart, they began to build a reform church for the Dutch; d) in 1642 it was ordered to break the German ropats in China, a white and earthen city. At the same time, the reformist one was broken; e) in 1643, May 4, Doctor Johann Belau (Belov) asked the Tsar for permission to build a church in the earthen city, where it had been before (historical act. 3, No. 225). Then they allowed to build one church for all the Germans between the Florovsky and Pokrovsky gates, 20 fathoms from the earthen rampart (collection gram. 3, 454). Tsar Alexei ordered this church to be moved to Kukuevo. In 1649, a Lutheran church was founded behind the Yauza River. The Code of 1649 ordered German churches to be outside the earthen city (19, 40). In 1656, Swedish subjects were allowed to have trading yards in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov and prayer houses on them, but not to build new pickaxes (collected law No. 240, note 4. 7. No. 301, note 11). More acts related to foreigners, vol. 3, collection. zak. No. 226. 228. 230. 231. 233. 235–237. 239–246. 293. Vostokov’s list from the search case about Quirin is in the description. music 44. 45. Extracts from this case from Tereshchenko: an experience on chancellors 1, pr. 184 there is also a list of Kuhlman’s works, taken from the Jaeger lexicon of learned people. Certificate to Novgorod in collection. gram. 4, 619. 620. RKP. translation into Nov. sofa library, and the Greek text is in the Moscow library. spirit. academies; Letters of Metropolitan Job to Sof. library; one about the baptism of non-believers in the RKP. Tolstoy 4, no. 59. St. Demetrius, already in 1708, considered it necessary to speak a teaching about the worship of St. icons (works 2, 56) and about fasting (2, 417). In the search (pp. 161. 211) he also pointed to the spread of Lutheran opinions in Russia. - Stefan Yavorsky in 1709 said: “When the Mother of God came, they saw dark, heretical, Armenian, Lutheran deeds put aside.” Two words from him in the ed. op. part 1. page 137. part 2. page 26. At the beginning of the book, the stone of faith, "the guilt and incident of sowing the book." The fate of this book, which remained unpublished during Stephen’s lifetime, will be discussed below. “The Last Voice” Patriarchs of Joachim in the Bible. Moscow total history No. 225. Testament of St. Mitrophan to the synod. library. Stefan Yavorsky’s answer to Peter’s question is remarkable: what does a miraculous and a non-miraculous image mean when they are painted in the same way? Sovereign! hat held [no page] Snegirev monuments 2, 171–177. Council definition of 1675 in history. Hier. 1, 577–610. Cathedral Code of 1589 Probably not before 1667, our Patriarchal Metropolitans began to wear sakkos instead of a phelonion; for a) this year the Eastern Patriarchs, in contrast, blessed the Ryazan Metropolitan to put on the sakkos (historical Jer. 1, 574); b) in the rank of the resolution of Metropolitan Philaret of 1619, the Patriarch says: “the newly-christened one hundred, placing his hands on his chest in a cross shape under the phelon” (ancient Viv. 6, No. 6); c) the Siberian Metropolitan (note 32) in 1675 “was given a sakkos and a white hood” (ancient Viv. 3, 205). As for the miter; then, as the scroll of 1667 says (with the missal of 1668), it has long been worn in Russia by all Bishops and even some Archimandrites. About other things: the cathedral. def. 1675 in history Hier. 1, 578–600. Cathedral. scroll of 1667. The Kyiv Metropolitans, as can be seen from the request of 1685, according to ancient custom, wore a cross on a miter and wore a cross in front of them on the road. (Appendix to the description of the sof. communication No. 19. 20). About the sakkos of the Archbishops. Hier. 1, 573. 574. Act. exp. 4. No. 230. About other cathedral. def. 1675 Under Patriarch Job (1589–1605), both triodions (1589 and 1592), octoiches (1594), a bishop's official, a general menaion (1600) and a missal (1602) were published for the first time. Under Patriarch Hermogenes, they began to publish service menaions and published them for September (1607), October (1609) and November (1610), and a charter was also issued. For the latter, see § 26; about others in Stroev’s descriptions of the elders. books. New holidays under Patriarch Job: a) in 1591, a canon was written and Job himself corrected the service to St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, and the council decided to celebrate his memory in all Churches (Volokol. RKP. No. 191. 192); b) in 1600 it was established to celebrate St. Cornelius of Komelsky everywhere (Act. Exp. 2, No. 222). In the afterwords to books of that time, only Slavic lists are spoken of; see note 305–307. 310. 320. Under Job and Hermogenes, he lived in the Kremlin and performed services for the repose of the deceased princes in the Archangel Cathedral Arseny of Ellasson (historical act. 2, 422. Act. exp. 2, 148. 3, 4–7. Palitsyn f. 78); neither the afterwords of the books printed at that time, nor other monuments show that he was entrusted with correcting the books. Stefan, Archbishop of Suzdal. in 1668 he wrote to Patr. Joasaph “in the past years, upon finding the Moscow state and the Orthodox Christians of the godless and God-hating Lyakhs, with the blessing of God and the election of a consecrated cathedral, Archbishop Arseny was in Suzdal in the house of the Most Pure Mother of God on the episcopal throne of the Greek countries of the Gelasson city, about him in the life of St. Sergius (in the description. siege of the Lavra) and in the prologue in the month of October, on the feast of St. The Mother of God, who is called Kazan, led in deliverance. the city of Moscow and the entire Russian state from the godless Lyakhs, is remembered. And being Archbishop Arseny in Suzdal, he reposed on his throne by the will of God and was buried in the cathedral Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, last year 7133 (1625), on the left side near the pillar.” (Rkp.). At the council of 1613, Archbishop Arseny signed. Arkhangelsk and Tver. (Act. exp. 3, 4. 7) and Gerasim Suzdalsky. Then in 1617. 1619. 1622 we see Archbishop Arseny. Suzdal (Act. Ist. 1, 369. Act. Exp. 3, 176. 484). Sl. approx. 305. In history Hier. 1, 339. 340 errors. According to the keymaster Anania, Arseny was transferred to Suzdal in 1613. In the afterword to the colored triodion of 1591: “They proclaim the good desire of their thoughts to their father, Saint Job, the Patriarch, and to the entire consecrated cathedral, so that ... the holy books are witnessed and corrected, and the printing works are corrected.” In the afterword to the Lenten Triodion 1589: “if anyone remembers something indecent in it, for God’s sake, correct it yourself with the advice of the consecrated council... and bless us for God’s sake.” The same is in the afterword of the triodion of 1604, the octoechus of 1594 (in the description of Prince Tsarsky 24. 27. 28. 32. 42) and the service book of 1602 (description of Tolstoy’s books 95). In the afterword to the statute of 1610: “Be merciful to us and do not pollute our minds with weakness and misunderstanding. Having received great spiritual gifts from the rich man, correct yourself.” On sheet 198 some changes and additions are listed against the lists of the charter. The preface talks about list errors. Both in the afterword to the service menia for September 1607, October 1609 and November 1610 (description of Tolstoy’s books 117. 119. 127. Prince Tsarsky 47. 49). Life of Archimandrite. Dionysius, description. in 1652 by student and cellarer Simon M. 1824. Certificate of the Tsar in the act. exp. vol. 3, no. 329. Arseny: “another tradition is extraordinary; other things were established, and even then not against Greek laws (in disagreement with Greek books); other than from interpreters of disagreement; For now, not all philosophical teachings were taken into account in them, and not everyone truly knew the language of their simple verbs... in Russian, there were no philosophical teachings for many years... And the only need is repentance... although in 50 translations (lists) there is a lot of difference, also in burials and in the consecration of oil.” Dionysius, in a defensive speech, says that when checking the missal, they had in their hands the ancient Slavic lists of the St. Sergius monastery; three of the same were sent from Moscow. Arseny in his petition (according to the Russian Synod. No. 298 and Tolstoy 2, 264. 369) writes that the Greek lists, namely four, were patriarchal and one of Arseny, Archbishop of Suzdal, that there were 12 ancient Slavic lists and some were up to 150 years old or more, and another printed missal. See note. 295. In his petition, criticizing defects in Slavic books, Arseny often bases his judgments on the rules of grammar; “They (the opponents) have no idea about the eight parts of speech and gender, numbers, tenses, persons, titles, voices; and they didn’t even hold sacred philosophy in their hands.” Acts of the Council on the RKP. Sakharov in Northern Bee 1842, No. 198. Simon's Narrative 24–26. The Mother Hen's narrative in Simon 56–60. Simon's defense of Dionysius was added to the life of Dionysius; but it is not included in the printed life; defense to the synod. RKP. No. 298. Simon in the life of St. Dionysius page 27. 41. 42. Mother hen. Simon in the life of St. Dionysius pp. 27. 41. 42. Narration of the Mother Hen, ibid. 65–75. Acts of the Council on the RKP. About Loggin's charter in approx. 318. Simon pp. 21–26. The story of the Mother Hen is also there in Simon 51–56. Message to boyar Saltykov. Simon in the life of St. Dionysius p. 27. 41. Narration of the Mother Hen, ibid. 65–75. Simon's charter in the life of Dionysius, pp. 95–97, ibid. 93–98, charter of the Alexandrian Patriarch Paisius. In 3 volumes act. exp. No. 166, letter to the Siysk abbot. Under him, in addition to the fact that a lot of books were reprinted, they continued to publish official menaia and were published for December 1620, for January 1622, etc. until the August part, published in 1630 (note 285). Under him, 1623 was published for the first time in 1623, the daytime services of the week (according to the Greek paraclitic), a book that was then reprinted many times. The Book of Hours was published for the first time in Moscow in 1631. 1632. Arseny in a letter to Saltykov, Nasedka in a speech by Patr. Filaret and Ave. Dionysius shows errors in the Breviary or Service Book (1602 and 1612), in the Psalter (1577), in the Rule (1610), in the Octoechos (1591), in the colored Triodion (1592), in the General Menaion (1602), in the Canon and in the daily Menaion. Nasedka's speech about educational lights is very extensive in the RKP. Solov. bib. No. 855. Breviary of Patriarch Philaret, ed. 1623. 1624. 1625 and 1633. The afterword of 1624 and 1633 says: “the command (Tsar and Patriarch) from the cities of the city of the book of good translations (correct lists) of the ancients and to the testimony of the divine scriptures to teach their prudent advice, and from those ancient charatean books of the divine scriptures to correct the versification.” Not a word about Greek manuscripts. Missal ed. 1620. 1623. 1627. 1630. 1632. 1633. The purpose of the publication: “toward a single good composition of church dispensation, to the agreement of dispersed translations (lists).” In the breviary a) several additions have been made; eg in the rite of purification of the wife in the breviary of Patriarch Job of 1602 there are 5 prayers, in the breviary of 1616 there are 6 prayers, in Patriarch Philaret there are 9 prayers; and in the 2nd ed. Joasaph's breviary 10 prayers. In the rite of baptism, Patriarch Philaret includes a prayer: “we glorify Thee, Master”; it is not in the breviaries of former times. In all editions of Philaret’s Breviary it was commanded: “if a baby happens to be baptized two or three times, or more, then say one prayer to each baby”; b) several cancellations. In the missals of 1602 and 1612 (who also included the rite of baptism) in the rite of holy baptism, it is commanded to place a sick baby in a font up to his neck and pour water on the head with his hand three times. In the breviaries of Patr. Philaret and Joasaph, dousing was abolished and it was even prescribed to rebaptize those baptized with pouring baptism; c) meanwhile, the amendments that Rev. suggested to be made. Dionysius, not everyone is accepted. Eg. two prayers of absolution, in which the priest absolves himself from sins, are not excluded. Act. Exp. 3. No. 228. Patr. Philaret issued the Charter of 1631 and 1632 with amendments according to the Slavic lists. The robe was sent by the Persian Shah Abbass, to whom it came from Georgia as war booty. (Summer. about the riots 333. 334. Thur. min. July 10). In Moscow they acted very carefully in this case. since, as they reasoned then, there is no written evidence about the robe, and one should not rely on the feedback of Muslims without testing: then all that remains is to perform a week of fasting and prayer, so that the Lord himself reveals his will about the robe. That's what they did. By the grace of the Lord, before a week of prayer and fasting had passed, miraculous healings began to flow from the robe. Therefore, it is determined to honor the robe of the Lord reverently. This is what the Patriarch wrote. Act. exp. 3, No. 168. In the same year, the relics of St. Adrian, abbot of Poshekhonsky; but it is necessary to record miracles and perform memorial services ahead of time (historical act. 3, no. 141). The Trebnik 1635 and 1637 were published without correction. The Service Book 1635. 1637, in agreement with the Trebnik and the Service Book of 1623 on the contents of the Service Books approx. 316. Eg. according to Joasaph's breviary of 1639 in the rite of baptism a) beginning: Blessed be God, the King of heaven, troparia, two prayers to the mother in labor and one to the baby. But in Filaret there is none of this; b) in the great litany there are 21 petitions; and in Philaret 13. In the rite of anointing, the laying of the cross, putting on the robe with the song: Give me the robe, apostle, the gospel and teaching to the recipient. Filaret has none of this. The breviary of 1639 consists of 46 chapters: chapter 40 definition of the council of 1620 ch. 42 about the saintly court: ch. 46th rank Sep. 2. seeing off the first summer. These articles are not in Philaret's Breviary. In the statute of Patr. Joasaph 1641 after Mark's chapters are followed by “chapters like Mark's” and then Russian Churches and monasteries. In the statute of Patr. Philaret 1633, as in Greek, there is neither one nor the other. Eg. in Philaret's breviary of 1623 the burial of priests was laid down; but in Joasaph it was abolished. In the first: at the beginning of the rite of confession there is a decree on how priests should bind and loose; Here, during Lent, excluding the first and last week, it is customary to eat fish on four days of the week: Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. This is not in Joasaph’s breviary. It is obvious that neither in 1631 nor in 1639 did they look at the original: in 1639, some things were corrected, which seemed to be a mistake, and others were left in unthoughtful darkness. For the first time, the canon of 1636, the following psalter of 1636, the trephologion (festive services to the Lord, the Mother of God and the great saints) were published in four books in 1637 and 1638, the prologue the first and second part of 1642. In addition to the prologue, Joasaph wanted to publish the fourth menaion; they were discharged along with the prologues from the Kirillov monastery in 1640 (Act. Exp. 3, No. 296). But without a doubt they saw that this work was too much for them. See certificates in 3 volumes. act. Exp. No. 290. 296. 302. See Stroev's description. Tolstoy's books, afterword of the official menia for December 1620, p. 161; in description books of the Tsar's afterword in the Menaion for January and February, pp. 86. 87; afterword to the apostle 1623, in addition p. 41. In the afterword to the breviary of 1639: “we pray you... if you see in them, through our oblivion or ignorance, something that is simply uncorrected or sinful from unreason; then forgive us sinners.” Similar in the afterword to the charter of 1640. In the afterword to the psalter of 1641: “we are rude and unreasonable... we ask for forgiveness... if you who have penetrated find in it undecoration in words or errors in speech or impurity in deeds... yes, correct it, we pray.” Joasaph died on October 28. 1640 Exit. book m. 1844 with index. Until March 27, 1642, when Joseph was installed as Patriarch (Palace Zap. 1, 230), part of the indicated Patr. Joasaph, partly and at his own discretion: in 1641, ed. Margaret; Missal, Book of Hours, Prologue, Charter, Canon, Holy Service. Nicholas; in 1642 – Consumer. During the life of Patr. Joasaph published up to 20 books in M. See Sakharov years. books page 124 St. Petersburg. 1849 The canon of 1641 is taken from the following Psalter, filled with canons. Contents from Sakharov No. 394. Under him, the following were published (in Moscow): the Sobornik (12 words) 1642, the book of Kirillov 1644, the service and life of St. Sergius and Nikon 1646, the ladder 1647, the Sobornik of very many words 1647, the calendar of 1648, on the one faith 1648, grammar 1648, collection of articles of faith 1649, Theophylact 1649, helmsman's book 1650, Ephraim the Syrian 1650, teaching gospel 1650. In the second edition of the Prologue, which began with part 1, the lives of the Russian Saints, the Synaxari, the Triodion are placed in accordance with the will of the Tsar. The prologue was published in 1642–1643. So, the only prayer book published for the first time under Joseph was the book of Saints of 1642. In content it is the same as the Canon of 1641. The difference is that in the Saints the first place is occupied by the Monthly Book. Sakharov No. 472. 502. But in the Canon of 1651, in addition to the Canons of the Psalter of 1649, the Canons of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary, Icons of the Sign, Kazan, Tikhvin and Vladimir, St. Sergius, M. Anthony, Ave. Maroi. In the writer of the afterword to the apostle in 1644, who discusses the benefits of grammar, one can see a person familiar with grammar. That Joseph’s books are most different from the previous ones in terms of additions, decreases and changes, schismatics also know this, for example. Semyon Denisov. See his Russian helicopter city. Other things were inadvertently transferred from Uniate books, for example. in the breviary of 1651, confession of sins is read several times before God, the Mother of God and the saints (fol. 155. 156. 161. 164. 170. 174), while according to the Greek breviary, repentance is performed before the one Lord, just as David confessed: To You alone have those sinned. She is an ed. 1644 M. Deacon Theodore in a letter to Maxim: “And the printed Moscow book of Kirilov is spoken, and it is not Kirilov’s, but it was collected by the Chernigov archpriest Mikhail Rogov with other selected men.” Neronov says that Patr. Nikon boldly cursed the Chernigov archpriest Mikhail and took off his skufia, because in the book of Cyril, the Hierarch, in two lines, it was not deeded that there would be no torment for Christians; A note about the life of Neronov. The writer of the preface says about himself that he was almost seduced into Latinism in Jesuit schools, and, consequently, he lived in the South. The entire essay is directed against the Uniates, and this again shows the writer to be a resident of the south. The work includes 10 chapters from Kopystensky’s palinody (pr. 191). After chapter 30, a chapter on baptism by immersion, and not by pouring, was added from a debate with Kaplan Waldemar. The forgeries in the book are gross. The title of the ninth chapter is: about the life-giving cross and about its glory and benefit. According to the Moscow edition, this chapter talks about the need to wear a cross, what it means to wear one’s cross, and how different crosses are. Then, out of the blue, contrary to the title and the original, it talks about making the sign of the cross. The poor people did not know how to connect their own with someone else's. The book about faith is a translation of the Little Russian book about the faith of the united Church of Azariah or Zechariah (pr. 192), with the addition of the Habakkuk sense about the cross. The schismatic Deacon Theodore writes in a letter to Maxim: “And this book about the right faith was written by a certain abbot Nathanael of the St. Michael’s Monastery during the Uniate retreat and was published in Moscow in print by royal command and with the care of his good confessor, Stefan Vonifatievich, our Blagoveshchensky pro*.” To express it so vaguely: “a certain abbot. Nathanael,” Theodore shows that he did not know the exact author of the book. All he knew was that the book had been brought from Kiev by a monk of the St. Michael’s Monastery. As an example, let’s compare one passage of the Small Catechism from the southern and Moscow editions. Pachomius also calls Deacon Theodore a reference director for books in the RKP. the life of Elder Kirill; He calls him either “the much-taught deacon” or “the holy deacon Theodore Ivanovich, glorious in wisdom and intelligence.” Let's see what the wisdom of this inspector was. Preface to the service book of 1655 Skryzhal 1655 Proscinitary: “in the summer of 7157 (1649), on the 9th day of May, according to the Sovereign Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, by decree and with the blessing of the lord saint, Patriarch Joseph... it was ordered to go to Jerusalem,” etc. Afterword of the six-day period of 1650 “Before and in the Greek translations (lists) according to this same charter, it was found that the Sunday kontakia in those places should be said: for this reason, we, following this, also decree and put at the end of this book. As for what is indicated, let no one be surprised; let no one be embarrassed about this; it was printed from previous translations, but we have not yet seen the Greek ones.” Preface to the service book of 1651 by Stroev in addition to the description. old man books No. 79. 80 (Moscow 1841). Act. exp. 4, 487. 489. Decree of the Tsar of May 25, 1651. Letter of Metropolitan Nikon to the Solovetsky Monastery in history. description Solov. mon. 3, 225. According to the thoughts of Patriarch Nikon, a) they corrected hook singing, trying to bring it to ancient simplicity and discarding tasteless voice breaking; For the same purpose, several manuals for ancient church singing were written; b) they introduced singing according to notes or lines and for this purpose in 1652 they sent singers from Kyiv (See about the correction of church singing in the reading of the Moscow Social History 1846, No. 3). Stroev has a description. Tsarskogo's books No. 168. 169. The helmsman began printing on November 7, 1649, and finished on July 1, 1650. Stroev showed (pp. 274. 275) what changes were made during the production of the same helmsman in 1653. That the helmsman of 1650 was stopped with the consent of Patriarch Joseph, this is evidenced by the fact that the schismatics did not complain about its stop, while everything that Nikon did after Joseph was subjected to the most severe abuse. Moreover, the 1650 edition of the helmsmen does not say that it was completed with the blessing of Patras. Joseph; and this makes it clear that its exit is accelerated by self-will. See Tsarskogo No. 168. Slinger Pitirim resp. 68. See Grigorovich's journey through European Turkey. page 97. Kazan 1848. Act. exp 4, no. 57. See above note. 64 and 92. Shusherin in the life of Nikon. Nikon in gram. const. Patr. Dionysius. In 1652, ed. canon, colored triodion and apostle; in 1653, the gospel, the apostle and the general menaion (all without amendments, with a prayer for forgiveness of mistakes), the psalter (without additions about the sign of the cross and bows in Church No. 198), the book of hours (written from Matins, while the book of hours of Joseph with their daughters in Church No. 1791, the helmsman’s book with some changes and with a bitter complaint about the lack of enlightenment in Russia. See Tolstoy No. 114, Tsarsky No. 153). The history of the correction of books under Patriarch Nikon is described: a) in the preface to the service book of 1655; b) in the preface to the tablet of 1656; c) in the preface to the spiritual devotion of 1682; d) in the chronicle of riots, pp. 360–366 (Moscow 1782). The schismatics included in their lists the proskinitary and things that Arseny did not write; eg in their lists, Arseny argues with Patriarch Parthenius about the two-fingered sign of the cross and about chronology, while according to Arseny himself, he never saw Parthenius at all. The mistakes and injustices of Arsnius were very efficiently shown by the Sarov hieromonk Meletius in his description of the trip to Jerusalem, ed. in Moscow 1798. Review of the proscinary by Muravyov, 4th ed. travel to Palestine. St. Petersburg 1840 prefaces 58–63. First of all, by decree of Patr. Nikon from 11 Jan. 7161 (1553) an inventory was required of the books of the sedate monasteries, at the end: “so that it would be known where which books were taken, books were printed for the sake of correction.” According to this inventory, there are 2673 of these books. The inventory was published in Reading. Moscow General East. 1848 No. 6. Additional to East. Act. 3. p. 446. 447. Gram. from 7 Sep. 1654 As many as can be seen from the catalog of the librarian Euthymius (ed. in the Moscow Reading. General History 1847) of the liturgical books brought: Bibles 2 copies. Psalms 4 copies. Gospels 6 copies. Apostle 2 copies. Glory Service Books. 4 copies Euholody or breviary 3 copies. Charter 8 copies. Prayer book 1 copy. Canon 2 copies. Book of Hours 1 copy. Songs of the Trinity 1 copy. Kondakaria 1 copy. Miney service for September 3 copies. Oct. 1 copy November 1 copy. Dec. 2 copies Genv. 2 copies August 1 copy. Rite of clergy 1 copy. Order of tonsure into monasticism 1 copy. But the catalog of Euthymius shows books taken from the Iveron courtyard and from the Resurrection Monastery, but does not show those that remained in the Patriarchal House. According to the Athos letters it is clear that from one Iveron Athos. Arseny took 150 books from the monastery. (Chertkov's addition to the Russian Bible. 434. 436). His Holiness Athanasius was very graciously received in Moscow in 1652–1653 and on the way back he died in Lubny, where his relics rest. At the same time, the Akhrid and Bulgarian Archbishop Dionysius was in Moscow with him. Patriarch Paisios of Jerusalem visited Moscow, as already said, in 1649. Gabriel, Metropolitan of Nazareth, was in Moscow in 1651. In addition, other Greek Bishops also visited at the same time; in 1644 there was Metropolitan Theodosius, in 1647 Metropolitan Kirill, in 1648 Bishop Cyprian. See "exit books" and "palace notes". Denisov, glorifying the schism, writes: “no one objected to this innovation except Paul, the noble bishop of Kolomna, and the great zealous archpriest Avvakum, who objected at this very time of the First Council and other small ones.” Neronov, who was exiled to Vologda for interfering in the Login case (§ 21) and for rudeness, wrote in a letter to the Tsarina dated May 2, 1654: “zealots of piety, their father Bishop Paul and the brethren of Daniel the archpriest of Kostroma and Avvakum the archpriest of Yuryev, were expelled for the sake of preaching the law and for the sake of teaching and for forcing im a man." In a letter to confessor Vonifatiev dated February 27. 1654 “woe is me, for the reverent one perishes from the earth and there is no one who corrects among men,” that is, there are no rebels against the Council. The king, having received letters from Neronov dated November 6, 1653 and February 27. 1654 ordered him through Vonifatiev to remain silent. He addressed a letter (dated May 2, 1654) to the Tsarina: but she, through the same Bonifatiev, said that she was surprised at his stubbornness against the Patriarch. Avvakum in the message, “and he exiled me to the Darbur (Daurian) land, from Moscow, about twenty thousand, for Siberia.” “I sent my brethren away: I tormented Bishop Paul of Kolomna and burned him within the Novgorod borders.” Pure slander! (Project 857). “There were 60 people sitting (in prison) with me.” During the all-night vigil, Habakkuk agitated the people and the participants in the riot ended up in prison. (Rkp. Life of Avvakum, op. schismatic). “Danil, the archpriest of Kostroma, was tormented a lot in Astrakhan in a land prison.” No one would have touched him if he had not sent an abusive letter about Nikon’s affairs; and they didn’t torture him, but only sent him to Astrakhan, where he soon died (Rkp. Life of Daniel, op. schismatic). Avvakum himself, in another letter, admits that the Council of 1657 dealt with him much more strictly than Nikon: “he says that the Nikonians, more than their father Nikon, were thrown into prison.” Others blame Nikon for the fact that in 1656 he ordered the previous service books to be taken away. They say this is a cool revenge that irritated the people. On the contrary, a) it is a natural measure; b) Patr. Filaret not only took away the Charter of 1619, but ordered it to be burned. RKP. a note from an unknown person attached to Neronov's letters. The four Pleshchev brothers wrote letters to Neronov, sharing his prejudices against Nikon. But then Andrei Pleshcheev wrote a wonderful letter to Avvakum, convincing him to give up his stubbornness against the Church. “For them, he himself, he wrote, suffered a lot, the all-seeing eye is the message, but by His grace and love for mankind I am brought into the minds of the pious.” In 1655, the Tablet was published, approved by the Council. Here, in addition to the tablet of John Nathanael, the preface of Epiphanius, the word of Patr. Nikon to the Council of 1655. Subdeacon of Damascus about the cross, Archpriest Malax about folding the fingers for blessing, conciliar act - 1654, several articles by Athanasius Alex., Maxim the Greek on the symbol, Gabriel Mit. Philadelphian about secrets. The collection of prayers of 1656 contains litanies and vacations, then the aforementioned works of Damascus and Malax. 1658 printed. in M. message of Constants. Patriarch to Moscow. Patr. Nikon. The publication of these three works served to enlighten ordinary people. The Council reviewed the revised Epiphanius, Colored Triodion, ed. 1658 Anthologion ed. 1660 In 1662, an abbreviated breviary was published. With the blessing of the Council, the service book of 1658, the general menaion of 1660 and 1663, the canon of 1662, and the service menaia for September, October and November, 1666 were published. These books were published without amendments. The Council of 1667, having approved the books published by order of Nikon, said: “and after his departure, with the blessing of the consecrated Council, books, service books and missals and others, were not rightly corrected, accepted.” For all the books mentioned, with the exception of the missal, see Stroev’s prefaces to the books in the description. old man books (books by Tolstoy No. 121. 122. Tsarsky No. 183. 184. 253). Addition in 1841 No. 90–94. Bible Histor. General No. 49. See note above. 86. The unknown author of Habakkuk’s life says that 6 years later (after 1654, therefore in 1660 or 1661) Habakkuk was returned to Moscow and was even received kindly by the Tsar himself. Habakkuk soon began to fervently preach his teaching here; the spiritual government asked the Tsar to curb Habakkuk; The Tsar sent Semyon Streshnev to advise Avvakum to remain silent. – Avvakum “through his faithful” submitted a request to the Tsar that Nikon be deprived of the patriarchate. At the insistence of the clergy, the Tsar (in 1666) announced through Peter Saltykov that Avvakum should go to Mezen. At the same time, the most frenzied spreaders of superstition lived in Saltykov’s courtyard: Saltykov’s butler and favorite Isaiah, Avramiy, Avvakum’s student, and others. The king, recognizing Saltykov as a disciple of Isaiah, brought Isaiah to a civil court; Abraham was sent to admonish the Krutitsa Metropolitan, but he had so much hope for himself that he submitted two requests, one after the other, to the Tsar. However, he was executed. Among the zealous students of Avvakum and Avramia were the widow Fedosya Morozova, née Sokovnina, her sister Ekaterina, and Marya Danilova. The first owned enormous wealth, was in power, at court and, as is clear, used all this in favor of the schism. (Rkp. Lives of Sokovnina and Avramiya). Habakkuk about all three: “My spiritual children, I know them.” (Episode of Habakkuk). In the same 1661, as Avvakum was returned from Baikal to Moscow, Deacon Theodore was sent to Tobolsk together with the educated Serb Yuri (Yuri in his denunciation of the petition): Avvakum was in a quarrel with Theodore (note 438); and they rebelled against Yuri because he, being useful in his grammatical knowledge, was close to the Patriarch, and meanwhile expressed his displeasure at the rebaptism of the Romans. See the book on faith, ed. in M. 1648. See note. 321. Cathedral scroll from the missal of 1667 Stroeva materials source. liter. § 209–211. East. act. 5, 480. The Word of Theoctistus in Tolstoy 2, 358. Spiridon’s work consists of 9 words: all that can be heard in it are exclamations: faith is lost, and abuse for the exception of the addition to the symbol: true, etc. But here it is clearly expressed that the superstitions were finally ready to defend Nikon himself, just to deflect the blow that the arrival of the Eastern patriarchs threatened them with Moscow. Spiridon writes (a word about the permission of Satan): they lie against Nikon, as if he condemns the book of Cyril and the hundred chapters, etc. Nikita Pustosvyat’s petition, 1682 “Yes, in the new books it is printed in the troparion, in the carnal tomb: and you were on the throne. And in all the old books it is written: beyashe (in the oldest books they wrote: beyashe).” “It is very badly printed on the dismissal of the Trinity Vespers of the exhaustion of the Holy Spirit: Who has exhausted himself from the Father’s and divine bosom. And in our old books it is written: pouring out to yourself. That’s in vain, since God’s grace is never exhausted.” (Poor ignorance! The words of the holiday do not speak about the Holy Spirit, but about the Son of God: “And sent down the ever-present Spirit” - who? That’s why they wrote very badly: pouring out for themselves.) “Yes, in the new books: and into one Lord Jesus Christ, with the adjective they separate the Son of God into another composition.” (What is this adjective and? Where is the Son of God separated into a different composition? Just think, God knows what terrible heresy they are speaking against! And the whole point is only that it is not printed, due to the incorrect pronunciation: Jesus.) “In many places the resurrection of the Son of God is not preached” (i.e. words that are not in the Greek text are excluded in one or two places.) “The holy rods with the damned serpents were completed (Nikon). (Cursed is the devil; but no one cursed those made by human hands!) The Solovetsky petition of 1667 in its particulars is distinguished by exactly the same nonsense of ignorance and anger. See its analysis in the book: the truth of the holy Solovetsky monastery. St. Petersburg 1844. Spiridon's words in response to Pleshcheev's letter. See also written. Habakkuk, Lazarus, Nikita, and others. Cathedral scroll from the service book of 1667. Cathedral scroll for the service book of 1668. Collection. Zach. 1830 T. 1. No. 412. RKP. Rumyantsov No. 405, in Vostokov’s description, p. 609. See note above. 246. At the same time, Lazar was sent to Tobolsk and that is why Polotsk calls him a Siberian priest; otherwise, before the cathedral, he lived in Romanov. At the same time, Avvakum was sent from Moscow (note 358). At the same time, Theodore the deacon was tried and condemned, who was so impudent that at the council itself he condemned the Eastern Patriarchs. (Cathedral act of 1665 against Fyodor in Russian Vivl. 3. 393. 400). See split. Lives of Theodore and Habakkuk. The royal charter dated August 14, 1666 in the book. “The truth of the Solovetsky monastery” p. 21. 22. RKP. letop. Solovetsky ibid. p. 13. East. act. 5, 340. Cathedral scroll. There is almost no difference between the service book of 1655 and the service book of 1667. The Eastern Patriarchs left in Moscow, with their signature, “weekly dismissals”, as well as “the teaching of the priest, the order of the bishop’s clergy and the order of the liturgy,” a conciliar act, part of which was included in the preface to the service book of 1667 (Moscowite 1846, No. 2, p. 142). Cathedral scroll for the service book of 1667. Spiritual blessing pp. 30–37. East. act. 4, No. 203. Legal. act. p. 315. Act. exp. 4, No. 184. 188. At the same time, a bloody rebellion occurred in the Nile Desert. A priest was sent there to perform a service using the corrected books. Superstitions have formed a conspiracy. Stroeva materials source. liter. § 206. Description Tolstoy's books No. 141. Vostokova described. music page 554. Metropolitan Eugene in the dictionary. Stroeva description. Tolstoy's books No. 145. 149. Letter from the Sovereign to Kyiv to Metropolitan Sylvester about sending the learned men Arseny and Damascene for reference to the Bible (Molodik 1844, 223. 224). Gabriel Dometsky in a letter to Metropolitan Job: “It was not more than 40 years since Nikon started (the Bible) and printed it from the Little Russian Bible of Ostrog.” Preface to the Bible of 1663. However, the corrections in this edition were not limited to those four places that are shown in the preface: several other places were corrected, especially the correction related to spelling, which was bad in the Ostroh edition. The publishers had in mind, in addition to the Ostrog Bible, the handwritten Bible of the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady and Metropolitan Varlaam (description of books of 1681 in the Muscovite 1846 No. 2, p. 142). The publication of the Bible was undertaken according to the thoughts of Nikon; but the execution of the publication did not correspond to his thoughts; Nikon even criticized this publication in his responses to Streshnev. The Bible was published according to the decision of the council, but without communication with Patriarch Nikon. Acts of the Council in the RCP. Novgorod Seminary. Pitirim was Patriarch from June 1672 to April. 1673 Joachim was elected on June 5 and dedicated on July 26, 1673 (Nov. 3 Chron. 274. Vivl. (2, 241)). According to a contemporary (Otech. Zap. 1330. Art. 323), Joachim died on March 17. 1690, having spent 15 years in the patriarchate. 7 m. 12 days. Therefore, if from 1689 liters. 2 m. 17 d. subtract 15 l. 7 m. 12 d. then it turns out 1673 June. 5th day of the election of Joachim to Patriarch. A note about this work has been printed. in the dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene 1, 179–183. And under Epiphanius, especially after Epiphanius, there was a lot of debate about the merits of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. They argued about something they didn’t know, that is, something Jewish. Epiphanius did not allow Simeon of Polotsk to participate in the work of correcting the Bible, for the reason that he only knew Latin well. The Likhuds wrote an essay against those who detracted from the translation of 70 interpreters (Dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene 1, 180. 248). Gabriel Dometsky wrote to Metropolitan Job of Novgorod in response to this work by Likhudov (RKp. Library of the Vologda Seminary). The first exhorters were the Yaroslavl Archimandrite Sergius and the priest of the Assumption Cathedral Vasily, who were then sent from Moscow with a letter dated August 14, 1666. Then they took Prince Lvov and the treasurer Savvaty (former Moscow nobleman Abryutin) to Moscow, as they were found guilty “in a state matter” (historical description of Solov. vol. 1, 159. 3, 166. M. 1836). Testimony of Priest Paul and Elder Dionysius: “The rebellion started with the arrival of Archimandrite Sergius from the former Archimandrite Nikanor, and from the black priest Gerontius.” East. act. 4, 536, same 532. “By the decree of the Tsar and the letter of Patriarch Joasaph, Archimandrite Joseph was sent to us in the Archimandrites at Bartholomew’s place, and he was ordered to serve with us according to the new missal” - this is how Azarius and Gerontius wrote to the Tsar and said that they did not want anything new (Rkp. last with Elder Cyril); They also say that Joseph arrived to them on September 15, 1667. This is how Metropolitan Ignatius and Solovetsky Archimandrite Markell, who lived in the monastery after the end of the siege, show the internal course of Solovetsky history (the words of Metropolitan Ignatius in the historical description of Solovki. 1, 150–154. Archimandrite Markell's preface to the Irmologue in the reading of the general history. 1846. No. 3). Exactly the same can be seen from the testimony of Solovetsky immigrants (historical act. 4, No. 248). In Denisov’s story we read that at the first news of the reluctance of the Solovetsky simpletons to perform services using new books, superstitious people from different places hurried to the northern monastery, among them the former Archimandrite Nikanor. East. act. 4, No. 248. Metropolitan Ignatius and Archimandrite Markell wrote the same thing. The title of the petition: “sent in 176 (7176), in the month of October,” therefore in 1667. At the same time it was shown in Tsarsk. gram. (Act. Exp. 4, No. 160), where also about the imposture of Azarias and Gerontius. It was sent with the letter (note 379). And Denisov writes that the petition was sent even when the Eastern Patriarchs were not in Moscow (l. 12-14). About the author of the petition, Gerontius himself: “And Gerontius wrote out extracts for the newly corrected printed books, and he wrote the petition.” East. act. 4, 531. Testimony of the Solovetsky Elder Varlaam: “But how were their thieves’ gatherings, and the brethren and servants, who did not bother them with theft, were severely locked up in the meal.” Next we talk about drawing up a petition. East. act. 4, 536. 537. See note below. 388. Archimandrite Markell: “those who denounced these rebels suffered much evil in chains and prisons from them.” Act. exp. 4, No. 160 grams. 27, Dec. 1667 Chadayev and Archimandrite Joseph arrived at the monastery with the Tsar’s letter on February 23, 1668; but Joseph was not accepted even now. Azary and Gerontius wrote to the Tsar that they allegedly did not accept Archimandrites Bartholomew and Joseph because they illegally disposed of the property of the monastery, and meanwhile at the end of the letter they said that they would never agree to accept new books (rkp. letter with Chadayev). “The thieves, centurions and comrades say such words about the great Sovereign that it is scary not only to write, but even to think.” East. act. 4, 533 the very words of page 532. Azary and Borodin in October 1669 ended up in the Sumy prison (royal charter October 25, 1669 in act. exp. 4, No. 171). since, according to the testimony of the immigrants, the shooting was opened at the insistence of Azaria and Borodin, and in October 1669 they were already in Sumy prison, then the monastery was locked without a doubt at the beginning of 1669. According to Denisov, under Volokhov there were up to 1,500 people in the monastery. It's too much. The immigrants said: “there are 200 brothers in the monastery, and 300 people from Balti; and during the siege in the Solovetsky monastery they died, and 33 people were killed on the towers and throughout the city from cannon and musket fire.” They are also talking about military shells and food supplies. East. act. 4,533. East. act. 4, 532. 535. According to the testimony of Archimandrite Markell, the frenzied fanatics “torn up and threw into the sea more than 200 books from the Moscow and Kyiv press: gospels, apostles, psalters, bibles, service books, missals, octoechos, menaions.” Thaddeus Borodin reached such a frenzy that he chopped and burned all the holy crosses with titles. But let them not accept new books! What kind of conscience forced you to spoil old books, scrape out, stick up old words and write in your own new ones? And Archimandrite Markell saw this. And he was convicted of the same thing under the RKP. Rev. Ignatius (historical Solov. ob. article on the formation of the finger). Elder Varlaam, who lived in the monastery for 37 years, said that he was starved in prison for his obedience to the cathedral, first for a whole year, and recently for 13 weeks and was not given either bread or water for 5 days in a row. He added that they do the same with others, both monks and laymen. Raguyev: “who will tell thieves about the truth, and they put those people in prison and starve them to death.” Hieromonk Ambrose fled from the monastery; but they turned him back and locked him up. Hieromonk Paul: “Today they are thieves, having taken them out of prison, they beat him and Dionysius with whips.” East. act. 4, 536. 534. In 1670, 11 monastics and 9 laymen confessed to the Sumy prison, 120 versts from the monastery (royal charter dated October 15, 1670); 4 hieromonks, 3 monks and 2 novices came to Meshcherinov in September 1674. Of these, Gerontius and the monk Manasseh announced that they did not accept the definitions of the council, but were ready to listen to instructions; others testified that, as they had been before, they now remain obedient to the council. After the exhorters of 1666, the rebels were exhorted in 1668. 1672. 1672 (act. exp. 4, 191). In 1674, the priest of the Archangel Cathedral, Kirill, and the clerk Istomin came with an admonition; but they were driven out with dishonor (dv. years. 37). Volokhov in October 1669 only managed to catch Azaria and Borodin with 28 comrades (pr. 385), Denisov exhibits 5 servants and 3 monks caught by Volokhov. Of these, one monastery clerk wrote from prison “a letter (to the Kandalash side), in which he praises the rules of ancient piety, but reproaches the newly devoted institutions,” i.e. incited to revolt. Volokhov, with the permission of the Tsar, subjected him to torture. By motor years. 38 Meshcherinov spent the “winter of 7184” on the island. and in the same winter he took the monastery, therefore, in 1675 and at the beginning of 1676. Denisov a) says that the monastery was taken on January 29, and the Tsar died on the same day. But the monastery was taken on January 22, and the Tsar received Holy Communion on January 28. Tain, 29 Jan. ordered Theodore to be proclaimed heir and died peacefully during the night from Saturday to Sunday. Collection gram. 4, 333. Palace. Zap. 4, 27–38. 126. b) he also writes: “the number of all victims is more than 300 and approaching 400, or up to 500, as the saying goes.” But then, like everyone else in the monastery, there were up to 500 people (approx. 386), how many of them dropped out during the siege! (see pr. 385. 386. 388. 390). According to the acts, we know that in 1674 there were only 2 hieromonks left in the monastery, and of the remaining novices, many did not want to join the rebels (act. exp. 4, 538). In another place, Denisov himself, speaking about the six executed rebels, says: “he commanded the rest to bring the monks and Beltsy, numbering up to 60.” This is another matter! This number is close to the truth. Even in the schismatic memorial, only 30 “sufferers” could be counted by name, including 15 novices, but not a single hieromonk, not a single hierodeacon; c) Denisov cannot find words to praise “piety.” And we are ashamed to even mention the abominations that, according to eyewitnesses, they did in the holy place (act. exp. 4, 532. 434. 535). Let alone the fact that true sufferers never allowed themselves to rebel against the authorities; d) Denisov presents it as a miracle that the bodies of those executed did not deteriorate, lying on the ice “for Pentecost and the vespers of Peter’s Lent.” But who among the residents there does not know that a killed bear will lie there intact until July. The mouth of the White Sea is blocked by ice until July 15. (Fomina's description of the White Sea. St. Petersburg, 1797). Famous Solovetsky fugitives who sowed a split in the seaside: the black deacon Ignatius (approx. 426), the monk Herman (approx. 427), the monk Joseph Sukhoi (approx. 428), who spent a year in the Sumy prison under Volokhov, Gennady Kachalov, Epifaniy, Savvaty (Denisov p. 55 et seq.). According to Pachomius, they first lived with the Kargopol Spassky abbot Efimy; others like them also gathered here. “In Kargopol at that time there were many zealots of piety (schism), the Isakovs, the Kushnikovs, and they took care of our brethren.” To destroy this nest, “persecutors were sent from Moscow from the authorities, two monks Philotheus and Sergius.” The “priest’s elder” did not cover them either. In the Paleoostrovsky monastery lived Kolomna Bishop Pavel, who, with his example and instructions, sanctified superstition for the simple-minded. Savva, who himself was at the council that same day. Contemporaries wrote about the schismatic rebellion of 1682: a) Patriarch Joachim in spiritual reverence, ex. M. 1682, 1753, 1791; b) Medvedev in notes; c) Matveev in notes (notes of both, edited by Sakharov: notes of Russian people, St. Petersburg, 1841); d) Metropolitan Ignatius in 3 epistle. About the same thing, but in his own way, the schismatic Savva, a former cell attendant of Archimandrite Makaryev’s monastery, which is on the sands, and during the riot, a townsman of the sheep settlement and an ardent participant in the riot (RKP. Tale). Savva wrote with the aim of a panegyrist to an apologist and long after the event; That’s why I intentionally exhibited some things in a different form, others unintentionally. Savva. According to Denisov, Avvakum, Lazarus, Epiphanius and Theodore were burned in the log house on April 1. 1681 Pachomius says that it was in Pustozersk. Avvakum a) when the Solovetsky monastery had already been under siege for 7 years (hence in 1677) he wrote “a district message of an inglorious man”; b) in 1678 he wrote a message to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, although he was no longer alive. In this message he urged the Tsar to “repent” and told two visions; among other things, he wrote that in a vision he treated “the Tsar’s ulcers on his belly, sprinkling tears on his entire belly.” He also treated his back, but did not cure everything. Matveev writes that Avvakum and his comrades were burned for great blasphemy against the royal house. Probably, the daring letters of the madman Habakkuk most of all took part in this decision of the fate of Habakkuk and others. Savva says that he brought the two Savvatievs, Dorotheus and Gabriel, from the Volokolamsk forests, and the monk Sergius lived in Moscow even before the conspiracy began and he wrote the petition. Nikita, as can be seen from Savva’s words, lived in Khovansky’s house. These six vagabonds are presented as the main rebels by Patriarch Joachim and Medvedev, but Savva is not visible, while, in his own words, he read the petition on the shelves, was with the archers at the Patriarch; it means he dodged trouble. “Savvatiy, stripped, boyar serf” (from Joachim), the same Solovetsky fugitive whom Denisov praises (note 395). Savva about this. He also says that Nikita, relying on Khovansky’s promise, baked some prosvir so that the Patriarch would serve on them on the day of the wedding of the Tsars, and carried the prosvir to the Kremlin, but returned with them: “it’s impossible,” he said, to get through.” All contemporaries are talking about this. Savva says that the Patriarch had a meeting “on Wednesday a week before the council.” Wednesday was July 3, and the cathedral was, as everyone says, July 5. Therefore, the Patriarch had two days before the council, as Patriarchs Joachim and Medvedev write. Savva was with the archers at the Patriarch’s and said a lot of insolent things. But when they asked: “Who is he?”, he called himself Vasily, and the archers said that he was a Pentecostal, that is, without blushing, they lied. Matveev: “many of them came in, drunk on wine... almost all of them had their sinuses filled with stones.” Same with Medvedev and Patriarch Joachim. Patriarch Joachim, Medvedev, Metropolitan Ignatius, Savva say that queens and princesses sat in the faceted chamber. The letter informing about the crimes of Prince Khovansky said: “and that thief, the damned schismatic, Nikita Pustosvyat... the Kholmogory Archbishop Athanasius, who had accused Nikita of his blasphemy, in that chamber, in the presence of the great Empresses, queens and princesses, seized him and began to beat him.” But neither Peter nor John were there; in the same way, it never happened that schismatics expelled the Patriarch from the cathedral, which, however, Krekshin writes about. Savva writes that the Patriarch asked the first questions to the conspirators. But Patriarch Joachim and Medvedev say something else. And in itself it is clear that even if Sophia had not occupied first place, the Patriarch should have allowed the royal person to start a conversation, especially with such people as those who burst into the royal chamber. We convey Nikita’s words as Savva conveys them. Medvedev, Joachim, Savva, letter of betrayal of Khovansky. We convey Nikita’s words here as well, as Savva reports. Only from both the letter and the words of the Patriarch it is clear that Nikita said much more insolence than Savva retells. The Patriarch writes: “the damned Nikita, drunk and drunk, began to shout and annoy the words of our measure and the entire consecrated cathedral, as if possessed.” Even the elected officials said: “The people are indignant and there are a lot of people standing near your chambers, so that we can pass on that day as best we can, lest we suffer harm from them.” (Medvedev). Savva himself writes that although the defenders of the old faith came to the Kremlin even before lunch, the Patriarch and Sophia deliberately filled the day with some events so that there would be as little time as possible for “conversations.” And yet Savva does not stop reproaching and scolding the Patriarch for his silence on this or that article of the petition. He makes several comments unfavorable to Sofia. But besides the anger that bursts through his words, his presentation of the responses to the petition also makes suspicious the disorder in which his petition is presented. It is clear that Savva composes things more than he expounds them, like a historian. The answer to the petition is spiritual respect, ed. 1682 Patriarch Joachim, Medvedev, Savva. The latter, of course, knew about the deception in the book, but does not talk about it. The unknown author of the sufferings of various superstitions, Habakkuk, Lazarus, etc., was not ashamed to include the oath-breaking rebel Nikita among the sufferers. And what does he write? “Nikita, together with the pious Father Savvaty, was taken. Having given up the passion-bearers to the most severe languor, their backbones to wounds, their shoulders to be beaten, their trains to be crushed, and their blood to be shed, and having suffered so valiantly, finally their heads were truncated, and thus they died.” Based on these words, everyone will think that Nikita and Savvaty endured God knows how much torment! But in reality there was nothing of the kind, as even Savva’s story shows. Savvaty was sent to the monastery to pray to God and nothing more. Meanwhile, the author of suffering (in all likelihood, Denisov) describes his other sufferers, for the most part just as magnificently and with the same phrases. And the simpletons listen and cannot hear enough of the tales “about the sufferers”! Patriarch Joachim: “the men are rude and the rebel thieves are running away.” This included Savva, who otherwise would not have escaped the dark cage and justice. Detailed description in the notes of Matveev, Zhelyabuzhsky and Krekshin. The Khovanskys instructed the archers to kill several boyars because “they don’t like the old faith, but are starting a new one.” The act of the council was published under the official in 1677. It is also in the first volume of history. Hier. 577–610. Certificate of Metropolitan Cornelius in 4 volumes act. exp. No. 205. The official of the bishop's ministry was first published in Moscow in 1600. Sl. Naberti Αρχιερατικον, liber pontificalis eccl. grec. Paris. 1643 f. Ancient vivliof. 6, 357. ff. On the title page of the Lenten triodion: “the third was printed (and from the stamped chapters, from the old printed Moscow ones, before the charter was still in Greek) by command,” etc. See Stroev in the description. book Tsarskogo No. 221. Tolstoy’s No. 149. In Tolstoy’s library manuscript. (p. 709, no. 332): “the order of the construction and consecration of the holy world, translated from Greek by the will of Patriarch Joachim in 1683.” See the source. act. royal letters to the Novgorod Metropolitan Cornelius dated November 14, 1682. Memory of the Verkhoturye governor of November 16, 1682. Dvinsk governor of September 2, 1686. No. 93. 100. 101. In December 1685 it was prescribed: whoever shelters schismatics will be punished with a whip. (Chulkova legal dictionary 2, 136). East. act. 5, No. 98. act. exp. 4, No. 260. For an extract from the uvet, see the book: the truth of the Solovetsky monastery, pp. 141–154. Stroeva description. Tolstoy's books pp. 243. 346. Addition to the description (m. 1841), p. 201, where there is also a “prayer for the unification and pacification of the Orthodox faith,” sent out in 1688. Act. exp. 4, no. 174. 220. On the occasion of this trip, he wrote “historical news of my journey.” East. act. 5, No. 127. Archpriest Andrey pp. 76–83. Pitirim's sling p. 348. Archpriest Andrew's news about the schismatics p. 72–76. 83–86. Vetka is an island on the river. Sozhe, in the Chernigov province, then belonging to Poland. The chronicle of Khmelnytsky’s wars says that after 1668, “many (without accepting the definitions of the council of 1667) went to Ukraine and settled in its north, leaving their belongings behind, or deprived of them against their will.” Read Moscow total ist. 1846 No. 2, p. 66. East. act. 5, No. 215. 220. 221. 241. 254. These fugitives are the basis of the current Greben Cossacks. (Riegelman's history of the Don Cossacks, 139). Let us note here the cunning of the schismatic teachers. They brought all these suicides into the synodik; but they did not say about anyone: he himself was burned, or they themselves were burned, but they write: “remember, Lord, those who were burned,” or “those who were burned for the sake of piety.” They feel that even a simple meaning, a simple feeling would turn away from suicide and would not dare to pray for the embittered. And therefore they distort the truth. East. act. 5, No. 151. Search, part 3, ch. 12. Metropolitan Ignatius in the 3rd last. Denisov and the schismatic synodik extend the number of suicides to 2,700 people. The acts do not show exactly how much was burned. But the events of 1688 show that Denisov’s number has increased; The synodik shows that the poor died on March 4, 1687. Denisov and the synodik put forward the Solovetsky fugitive Ignatius as the leader of the suicide, who, according to the first, had previously traveled through “many deserts, countries and cities.” Denisov makes him out to be a great saint for the simpletons. East. act. 5, No. 151, pp. 254–256. 260. The number of Emelyan’s accomplices in the royal decree extends to 150 people; Paleo-Island monks reported that there were more than 500 schismatics. It is said here and there that they entered the monastery armed with sabers, reeds and arquebuses. Denisov and the synodik, calling the Solovetsky fugitive Herman the mastermind of the suicide, say that 1,500 people died with Herman. The testimony of the Paleoisland monks, without a doubt, deserves faith more than others, especially since, according to their testimony, 20 elders and 80 Beltsy were saved from the fire. East. act. 5, No. 223. According to the study, one of the main culprits of the riot turned out to be the tramp “monk Joseph”, p. 386. This is the same Joseph whom Denisov places among the Solovetsky sufferers. According to his description, he spent a year in the Sumy prison, was pardoned and sowed a split in Kargopol; here he gathered several for the fire; but was warned and sent to Kholmogory; he fled from here and wandered around Onega; in the Pudozh case he was at the head of others who armed themselves against the soldiers, but a bullet ended his life. According to Pachomius (in the life of Cornelius), 50 people were burned in Pudog. According to the schismatic synod: a) August 9, 1687, several people were burned on Berezovoy Volochok. Contemporary news (search 588–590) says that they were burned by deceivers who themselves escaped; b) 1000 people were burned on the mountains near Olonets; c) in the Tobolsk district, 1,700 people were burned with the monk Daniil. (Wanted 580–583); d) 200 people died in Tyumen; e) in Siberia 8 and 148, another 78, then 600, then 100 and a few more people; only about 1000 people. Wanted Explanations 522–585. 591–595. 605. Search p. 570. 571. Metropolitan Ignatius in the 3rd last. in Pachomius (Rkp. Life of Cyril) Kapiton appears between the first schism teachers, such as Habakkuk and Daniel, and together with the strict hermit of the Vetluga forests. The schismatics of the priestless talk, instead of dealing with what was necessary for spiritual salvation, talked with all the boldness about the coming of Christ and the Antichrist. More than once they took up calculations and set the day and hour when Christ would come to judgment. And in accordance with their calculations, they dug graves, made coffins, sewed shrouds and lay down in the coffins to wait for Christ. But the time passed and they took to the lestovki with assistants, sometimes by the grace of their quick-witted mentors, remaining in the same shrouds (Arch. Andrei 104). One of these calculations dated the coming of Christ to 1691, as can be seen from the testimony of the Solovetsky elder Dionysius; In 1674, during interrogation, he said: “he saw in the monastery (Solovetsky) at Golovshchik with Elder Matvey, who was originally a city dweller, who visited the all-merciful Savior as a sexton, a letter from his hand; and in that letter it is written about the coming of Christ, that the coming of Christ will be in the year 199 (1691). East. act. 4,536. Search p. 77. We have already seen (pr. 395) an example of Habakkuk’s visions. In the same letter to the Tsar, he wrote: “I haven’t eaten for three or ten days now... my tongue spread out and became great, then my teeth were great, and her arms and legs were great, then all wide and spacious under the sky, spread throughout the whole earth. And then the Lord God contained heaven and earth and all creation within me... You see, autocrat, you own, living in freedom, one Russian land; but the Son of God gave me heaven and earth for my time in prison!” Avvakum in a letter to Ignatius of Solovetsky: “See Ignatius of Solovetsky and believe in the Trisubstantial Trinity, unsecret. Seki, do not be afraid, for three natures and three images are equal. The source of the deity flows to three. According to Arius, the three natures are not equal; equal to nature, to the goodness of beings. Don’t move any more.” In a letter to Deacon Theodore: “Let my spiritual son, Fedka, the renegade, ordained by the Nikonians, hear. You commit fornication, writing to the breast and saying about the Holy Trinity: there is no one and one person is inseparable from each other. Not like that, don't be a fool. To whom there is special graying, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three heavenly faces sit without hiding.” Deacon Theodore wrote in his justification: “What will happen, Lord? There in Moscow all the authorities impose an oath on me for the old faith and on the other faithful. And here we began to make oaths among ourselves... They, then, Archpriest Avvakum and Priest Lazarus began to confess the Holy Trinity on three thrones, and they say triboss and triessence. And Lazarus speaks in three persons and three compositions, and Christ is the fourth God and sits on the fourth throne. And they do not confess the very essence of the divine in him, but they speak of the power and grace from the filial hypostasis poured into the maiden.” Other words of Habakkuk to Theodore is wanted, pp. 77. 78. Words of Habakkuk; sl. Feodor's review in approx. 433. Words of Habakkuk. His other words about the same thing are wanted, pp. 57–62. Review of Theodore in approx. 433. Letter to Theodore: “And you speak of the same soul with blindness. There's nothing to listen to. Verb for three parts. Not like that, don't be a fool. All the saints teach that the soul is one-piece and body-like, a mind, a word, a certain angel, the purest spirit, the soul is flesh-like, one-piece and one-piece, and not three-piece.” “Every faithful one, do not hang your ears, do not hesitate, coming with boldness and with the joy of the Lord for the sake of suffering... the ancients for the sake of the books of the saints. Blessed is this pleasure." See note above. 433. An example of Avvakumov’s eloquence can serve as the following excerpt from his letter to Deacon Theodore: “Fedka! According to you, there needs to be one face and one image! Oh, the dog is slanting! fool sufferer! If you don’t know the power in books, then ask the village women: tell me, oh madam, about the Holy Trinity, what is the Trinity? That’s what she’ll tell you, and you, Su Fedka, hit that villager’s forehead on the ground.” Search page 78. Words of Habakkuk's disciple Hierotheus. Search page 601. See also pages 387, 388. See note. 433. Here is what an eyewitness, priest George, writes about Lazar: “this city (Tobolsk) knows about Lazar, as if the streets were once cramped for him and people led him under the arms (drunk), when he himself could not come to the house. And once Lazarus sat down with his guests, beginning to preach the fables and riddles of a woman, like a certain woman, although she was younger, crawling on the path naked. The guests hung their faces.” Search 98. This was written in 1675. Search p. 67. 601. Sling p. 22. 23. See note above. 433. With the name of Hierodeacon Theodore, the schismatics published “the debate with Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconia,” who was at the council of 1667 (published together with the history of the “Solovetsky sufferers”). Archpriest Andrey pp. 182–187. 227–229. In addition, Alexander forbade condemnation of the four-pointed cross. Search p. 603. Archpriest Andrey pp. 95–105. RKP. history of the Vygovskaya desert. Search page 6. Prot. Andrey pp. 106–122. 123–152. Search p. 606. Prot. Andrey p. 127. According to the Chuguev correspondence of 1689, the Kuzmintsy in 1689, in the spirit of their hopelessness for Christian funds, worried the Don and from 14 towns they took the inhabitants under the rule of the Muslim Khan. Prot. Andrey p. 65. 605. 606. Search page 599. Simon page 19. In Astrakhan in 1705, there was a revolt of the archers for the command to shave their beards and wear German dress. In 1708, Bulavin's revolt on the Don was partly because of his beard, but more because the former schismatics did not want to return to their landowners. Ignatius Nekras, after the end of the last revolt, fled with crowds of schismatics to Kuban, under the rule of the khan, from where the fugitives crossed into Turkey in 1778; These are Nekrasovites. (Riegelman story about Malor. 41 about Don Cossacks. 89. 140. Golikov 2, 188. 3, 27). Korb Diarium itineris in Moscoviam (Vienna 1700) pag. 73–75. 95. Shane was the first to lose his beard; others followed him. But many of the nobles did not agree to this. They were pursued by an inexorable barber; he appeared with a razor at royal feasts, in the palace, and in orders. At the head of the boyars, who did not agree to lose their beards and ancient clothes, was Romodanovsky, the prince, Caesar. In 1702, a decree declared: in Moscow and other cities, all military personnel, courtiers, clerks, merchants and townspeople should shave their beards and mustaches; if anyone does not want to part with his beard, he must pay annually from 30 to 100 rubles. The decree of 1705 prescribed a fine for beards and mustaches: from an employee 60 rubles, from a merchant 100 rubles, from a merchant and townsman 60 rubles, from a cab driver 30 rubles. Priests and deacons were exempt from this fine. Novgorod Metropolitan Job issued a response to the letter about the birth of the Antichrist. M. 1707. St. Dimitri is wanted: “in the past 1708, in the month of November, we had in Rostov the black priest Joasaph, the builder of the Spassk Roevskaya hermitage, Balakhonsky district. He gave us small notebooks in which the Word in response is written against the schismatics, and who is the creator of that Word is not written” p. 64. In another place (pp. 588. 598) he quotes words from the letter of “Joseph the priest, who in recent years, by order of the Sovereign, was on the Olonets top and wrote to the schismatics in that country as a teacher - to Daniil Vikulin, and to Andrei Dionisov and to all their hosts." In a letter to Theologist, he wrote: "The little book of the nameless creator, called: The Mirror, which was sent to us from your honesty, having listened and commanded to be rewritten, I return the book to your honesty, a great reproach and shame for the schismatics. If only that little book had come to them before I wrote it. e. Search), I learned a lot from her... That little book is worthy of being published: just a few things need to be cleaned up and corrected here and there.” Pososhnikov (his works, M. 1842 p. 15) wanted the Mirror to be printed for schools. Teaching on the erection of the cross. 3, 238. There are also 491 teachings about the four-pointed cross. Read more about the Search in Sochi. Holy Dimitry Rostovsky, M. 1849. pp. 68–76. 87–95. Both Poland and Russia knew, as diplomatic papers show; contemporaries Palitsyn, Shubin, Shuisky knew; the nuts and towel found in the hands of the Tsarevich during the opening of the relics were the most powerful exposers of slander, as if the Tsarevich, playing with a knife, stabbed himself in a fit of illness. Dictionary of Saints. See also in the source. Hier. 6, 223 about the Spassky monastery, where more than 200 people died in 1615; about Chernoostrog in the same place 702. In the Kolyazin Trinity Monastery, 68 monks were killed; in Kostroma Epiphany and Holy Cross there are 22 monks (historical news of the Kostroma Epiphany Monastery p. 9. 10. 45. St. Petersburg, 1837). Impostors 1) the so-called Grishka Otrepiev - the first False Dmitry; 2) Ilyushka Gorchakov False Peter; 3) the second Jew False Dmitry; 4) slave False Theodore; 5) serf False August; 6) Aspen False Joseph; 7) slave False Laurus; 8) son of Marina Mnishek; 9) Sidorka; 10) Zarutsky; 11) Timoshka Akudinov; 12) Stepan Razin - imaginary Tsarevich Alexei; 13) Cossack False Simeon. See daily palace notes 1, 210. 217. 2, 28. 44. 84. 92. 109. 174. Eg. in 1647, “Prince Danilo and Prince Boris Myshetsky beat the Sovereign with their foreheads in the patronymic of Peter Pushkin. And the Emperor ordered... the Myshetskys should be beaten with a whip in the stable.” 2, 100. In 1650, the okolnichy prince Ivan Romodanovsky complained about Buturlin’s preference for him, and did not go to the table. The king ordered him to be brought and imprisoned. “And Prince Ivan fell from the bench and they lifted him up and ordered him to sit down... and they held him in their arms at the table,” etc. Trade Charter of 1667 in collection. gram. 4, No. 55. Decree of Theodore, ibid. p. 395. Margeret: “I know many Russians who did the same (like an impostor); among other things, the fasting Dimitri, having been Boris Feodorovich’s envoy in Denmark (Lutheran) and having learned there partly of the true religion (Lutheranism), upon returning to his fatherland, clearly laughed among his friends at the ignorance of the Muscovites” See above § 7. Gram. Ts. Michael 1632: “and you yourself Prince. Ivan declared his guilt in many of his obscene deeds and did not order his people to go to Church; but he said that there was nothing to pray for and there would be no resurrection of the dead, and about the Christian faith and about the Holy Saints of God, he spoke blasphemous words and began to live in a non-Christian custom, drinking incessantly, and in the year 130 (1622) during Holy Week you drank all the time without waking up and was drunk against Easter Sunday.” Collection op. Gram. part 3. p. 331. Patr. Filaret wrote to Siberia in 1622: many Russian people and foreigners, Lithuanians and Germans, who have been baptized into our true Orthodox Christian faith, do not wear crosses on themselves and do not keep them on holy fast days, Wednesdays and Fridays, and eat meat on fast days, etc. Collected. Gram. Part 3, page 245. 246 Act. exp. 4, no. 19–324. Vostokova described. music The chronicle says that the decree was issued on February 14, and in the documents it refers to March 17. The first probably refers to the pre-conference meeting. See the Dictionary of Russian Saints. Cer. p. 185. St. Petersburg. 1836. Saint Demetrius of Rostov M. 1849. pp. 82–83. This is how the modern Englishman Collins responded in ch. 20. Information about his life in G. Tereshchenko 1, 30–70. Bantysh-Kamensky biography of generalissimos and field marshals 1, 35–60. Description of the Sergius Lavra (M. 1842) 18. The Legend of the Family of Princes Dolgorukov, op. Patr. Dolgoruky (1840 St. Petersburg) pp. 47–80. Snegirev monuments 2, 198–201. Act. exp. 4, No. 228. In 1683, the Patriarch wrote a letter to the Kholmogory Archbishop with the same demand. Vostokova described. music 73. East. act. 5, No. 75 sentence. 9 and 10. Although the Tsar in 1618 volunteered to release maintenance from the palace order; but the patriarchal charter of 1683 shows that 412 people still remained in the pay of the Patriarch. Vostokov’s palace note in the inventory shows the same thing. music 482. Life of Patr. Nikon, op. A. Apollos. M. 1845. p. 50. Novgor. 3rd summer 277. Dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene. So the leaders of the Chudov Monastery in 1643 decided to send each time a) 10 loaves of bread, 1 ruble each, on the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and the Holy Resurrection, as well as on the farewell week. for rolls, for beluga and sturgeon, for osmina cereals, 10 buckets of beer; b) half of this proportion to a small women's prison. Vostokova described. music 480. About 23 Siberian monasteries, see above note. 112–114 and part 6 ist. Hier. Tambov monasteries: Nikolaevsky Cherneev from 1585 (Cherniev Nikolaev Monastery, Kharkov 1850), Purdyshevsky Temnikovsky and Nikolaevsky Mamontov (Act. Exp. No. 235, Act. History 3, 119–124. 5, 110. 111. 230–234), Lebedinsky Troitsky from 1620, Kozlovsky Troitsky from 1657, Usmansky Uspensky around 1655, Semaksarsky from 1659, Vyshenskaya Hermitage around 1670, Tregulyaev Predtechev from 1678, Voznesensky from 1690, Sarov Hermitage from 1699. in the Voronezh diocese up to 15 monasteries were founded, in the Vologda diocese up to 24, in the Moscow diocese 14, in others 8 to 2, see 6 parts of history. Hier. In 1684, the Moscow monasteries were forced to ask the Tsars to somehow ease the duties imposed on their estates, which were twice and three times more than on the landowners’ and royal estates: “We pay from the estates all your, great Sovereign, taxes; against the landowners and votchinniki, with a great increase, the Streltsy bread was tripled, and the Yan regiment money (for the maintenance of prisoners) was doubled, and in addition to that, the military men were paid half a half-ruble, and half-a-ruble and ruble money” (act. exp. 4, 417). In the inventory of the time of Tsar Alexei it is said: “in the princely volost there is a monastery of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary at the mouth of the Lyavli River, and in the monastery there is a black priest Gerasim, and a sexton Grishka Semenov.” The Lyavlenskaya Hermitage in 1633 was assigned to the Siysk monastery along with 4 others. East. Hier. 5, 34. 6, 125. Before 1698, 18 monasteries and 8 Churches were assigned to the Pskov department, and this year another 15 Churches (collection of law 10). Tsars Michael and Alexei assigned up to 17 monasteries to St. Savvin's monastery. There were 18 monasteries under the care of the Svir Trinity; In the 17th century, 15 monasteries were assigned to the Yuryev Monastery (historical Jer. 6, 47. 77. 79). At different times, a lot of hermitages and monasteries were transferred to the Sergius Monastery; in 1764, there were 14 monasteries under him, while the others had already been abandoned. The custom of placing small monasteries under the jurisdiction of larger ones began much earlier than the 17th century; but at first they were transferred only for spiritual guidance (historical description of the Sergius Lavra, pp. 147–154. M. 1843). Memory 1681, November 25 (bib. general history, p. 39). Thus, Prince Bogdan Tsepersky and his wife Anna endowed the Tsepersky monastery they founded with contributions and entrusted it to the head of the Vilna Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit, with the following condition: “we wish that with her (with the Church), under the blessing of the Holy Eastern Patriarch of Constantinople, a monastery would be established with capable people, i.e. hieromonks, hierodeacons and monks, according to rank of hostel, according to the rules of Vasily the Great. If, God forbid, the Church and the monastery of the Vilna brotherhood would retreat from Orthodoxy and join the recently established union, and would not want to be under the control of the holy ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople; then our monastery will belong to the monastery that in the Principality of Lithuania will remain faithful to ancient Orthodoxy” (Vilnius gram. 2, according to m.). Book Adam Koribut-Vishnevetsky and his wife, nee Khodkevich, in a fundush note of 1609 given to the Brazinsky monastery, founded by them, pronounce a curse on those of their descendants who apostate from Orthodoxy, and the apostates are deprived of their monastery. Minsk. gram. No. 43. Minsk 1849. New monasteries: a) in Vilna, the fraternal monastery of the Holy Spirit around 1600, the Annunciation maiden monastery, the Goldovsky Trinity monastery; b) in the Wilkomir voivodeship the Surdetsky Uspensky from 1627, the Keidansky Preobrazhensky (in Zhmudi); c) in the Trotsky voivodship, Yevey Troitsky from 1619, Yablochensky Onufriev; d) in Jacobstadt of the Holy Spirit; e) Slutsk starchitsky, maiden prophet. Elijah; e) in Pinsk povet Tsepersky Preobrazhensky since 1618 (approx. 181, 485), Dyatlovitsky Preobrazhensky near Pinsk from 1622, Pinsk Epiphany from 1633, Grozovsky from 1639; g) in the Minsk voivodeship Pokrovsky, Petropavlovsk Minsky from 1633, Disna Voskresensky from 1633, Bryakhimovsky Seletsky from 1631, Minsk Troitsky, Rutsky, Goretsk Kryzhborsky; h) in the Mstislav voivodeship, Bratsk Mogilevsky from 1619, Orsha Kuteinsky Epiphany from 1623, Kuteinsky Assumption Maiden's Voivodeship from 1631, Miory in the Breslav povet from 1633, Lukomsky in the Orsha povet, Mogilev Kraminsky hermitage with 1633, Buinitsky of the Holy Spirit, Belsky Nikolaev, Balkolabsky Voznesensky from 1641, Mstislavsky Tupichev of the Holy Spirit from 1641, Okhorsky, Shkilovsky male and female, Muzalovsky maiden, Grivensky, two maidens in Mogilev, Kostyukovsky maiden with 1665 About the sad fate of their Vilna letters, ed. 1843, pp. 114–118. 124–132. Minsk. gram. No. 66. 70. 75. 81. 118. 125. 136. History of the Bantysh-Kamensky Union p. 146. 153. 166. 182. 190. 191. 195. 199. 202. 220. 235. 281–285. 302. 312. 326. 356. 360. 300. 423–429. 435. 448. Memory. Kyiv. con. 2, 174. East. Jer. and without knowing them, it is not correct to speak about others. See in 6 volumes. Hier. chronological list of monasteries. East. union 147. Molodik 1844, p. 223. About Lutsk fraternal 1617, Charnitsky 1639. Kiev resident 1841, p. 517 and monuments of Kyiv. com.; about the monasteries of Gustinsky, Ladynsky and Mgarsky RKP. from Thurs. Moscow East. 1648. Oct. 1616 The Bershad Transfiguration was built. in Olgiopolsky district of Kamenets-Podolsk region. Monasteries that were in charge of others: the Kiev Lavra, the Vilna fraternal monastery of the Holy Spirit, the Slutsk Trinity, the Kuteinsky Epiphany, the Drogichansky Trinity. Vilen. gram. 2, 124. East. Union 167. 182. 190. Vostokova description. music Oh soph. personal 245–248. “Other monasteries usually belong to the Archimandry,” wrote Metropolitan. Varlaam Mazepa, proposing to establish an Archimandry in the Baturinsky Monastery; St. Demetrius, being the Archimandrite of the Chernigov Yelets Monastery, was also in charge of the Glukhov monastery. Diaria 1692, 1697. Metropolitan Peter Mogila wrote to the Uniate Sakovich: “Look at your brethren, the Unites, what are they doing with the monasteries and Churches that were endowed with estates? Did the glorious monastery in Lithuania have little property? And now what has he been reduced to? Where previously, under the control of the Orthodox, there were up to 100, or at least up to 70 brethren in addition to the singers, under the authority of the Archimandrite, now barely a few monks live there and, what is even worse, the worldly master owns the wealth of the Church and the villages and, through his servants, gives the monks a certain salary as he wants. And the units don't care about that. Ask whoever you want in the same monastery: where are those ancient icons that were decorated with silver and gilded vestments? And you will find out that they are united in their needs; Instead of silver icons, Italian linen icons were placed in the Church. They change well with God. For him the canvas is painted, and for himself the silver is gilded. Look at the Lavrashevsky monastery, which has long been endowed with rich estates; Several dozen monks lived there among the Orthodox, and the name of God was glorified every day. Now it stands empty; there is not a single monk in it. Look at the Novogrodsk monastery, to which the Lavrashevsky villages and estates are assigned: you will not find more than four or five monks there; and in the Church of this monastery, where the metropolitan see is, you will see paper icons. Look at the Cherei monastery, in which several dozen monks lived under our management, and now there are hardly ten. Look at the monastery called Leshch (in Pinsk): there is only one monk there, and sometimes even that is not there. Look at the Onufriev and Pustynsky monasteries, where several dozen monks formerly lived; now only Korsak lives there (the remaining Unite Metropolitan Raphael). And how many peasants there are in these two monasteries! I’m not talking about other smaller Lithuanian monasteries, which were completely destroyed by your union.” Pointing to two more monasteries, the Zhidychinsky monastery in Volyn and the Dorogobuzhsky monastery, the Metropolitan also points to the pitiful state of the worldly Uniate Churches. “Just go to Vilna and ask: who now lives in the place where the Church was built in honor of the holy martyr Paraskeva? And you will find out that there is a tavern and a shameful house there,” etc. Stone p. 365. 366. Book: stone, albo lyphos. Kyiv. 1644 pp. 367. 368. In his will of 1649, M. Peter also places the Ugornik monastery and “nunnery monasteries” among “dormitory buildings that do not have any income” (Kyiv. memorial 2, section 1. 168). East. Hier. 5, 359. Lighthouse 1845, v. 23. See the source. Union of Bantysh-Kamensky p. 314. 315. seq. above § 17. On what was the “Dictionary of Saints” based when it said that Athanasius was killed by the Tatars in 1648? This year there are no Tatar raids or wars in Lithuanian Russia. Ave. Athanasius, Abbot of Brest, in 1644 showed his zeal for the Orthodox Moscow state by revealing to the Moscow ambassadors a new impostor, Ivan Luba, nicknamed Tsarevich, son of Marina; and Luba then confessed before the ambassadors and the Polish Chancellor that Cor. Sigismund ordered Lev Sapieha to take care of him just in case as a Tsarevich, which was done until the conclusion of peace between Poland and Russia. Collection gram. Part 3, pp. 411–413. Konissky, letop. about the wars of Khmelnitsky, life of Pr. Macaria. Death Ave. Macarius was attributed to 1653, but Kanev was destroyed precisely in 1678.