IV. Вопрос о пресуществлении. св. Даров на почве церковно-исторической и малорусские духовные

Patriarch Joachim's view of the Little Russians - Letters of Innocent of Monastyrsky - Patriarch Joachim's dissatisfaction, the exile of the Chet-Minea of ​​Met. Macarius and the letter of St. Dmitry to the Patriarch - Letters of Joachim to Metropolitan Gideon and Lazar Baranovich - The matter of the Four Menaions of St. Dmitry - Book of Innocent of Monastyrsky - Reply messages to the Patriarch of Little Russian spiritual - Trip of Mazepa and St. Dmitry to Moscow and the fall of Sofia - The fate of Sylvester Medvedev and the Latin party - The death of Patriarch Joachim and Patriarch Adrian - The weakening of polemics and the Greek party - The case of Peter Artemyev - Latinizing opinion and St. Dmitry - Characteristics of Latinizers and their meaning. The Little Russian Church, which for so long was almost independent, with the weak influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, submitted only in 1685 to the Moscow Patriarch, and the submission itself, as we have already seen, was not a completely irreproachable matter. Patriarch Joachim had long looked suspiciously at the Little Russians who had joined Moscow. He himself took monastic vows at the Mezhigorsky Monastery in Kiev 768 and, of course, knew the deviations of the Little Russians from Orthodox customs. Back in 1677, he ordered “to tear out sheet 239 from the psalter that was printed in Cherkassy Novgorod, because the litanies in the prayer service are different from their books and those from Moscow... and sheet 146, because the chronicler printed on that sheet is different from their books and those from Moscow.” 769 In 1683, sending a letter to Samoilovich, he reproached the Bishop of Chernigov Lazar Baranovich for consecrating several deacons and priests at the liturgy. 770 March 27, 1686 he gave Ignatius Zhigmontov, abbot of the Polotsk Epiphany Monastery a letter of direct dependence on the Moscow patriarchal throne, under the pretext of “the lack of legitimate bishops, until, by the will of God, their own Orthodox bishops will be established in that country,” although the monastery, as part of the Belarusian diocese, was to be subordinated to the Kyiv metropolitan. 771 In 1687, Joachim made the Kyiv Mezhigorsky Monastery his stauropegy. 772 In January 1688, Metropolitan Gideon of Kyiv was forbidden to write himself as Metropolitan of “all Russia.” 773 At the same time, at the beginning of 1688 in Little Russia they became acquainted with the Moscow literary dispute about transubstantiation. The book of Mann by Sylvester Medvedev, upon presentation to Princess Sofia, was sent to Hetman Mazepa and the Kyiv authorities for testimony. This is understandable: Medvedev was from Kursk, was in relations with the Little Russians, 774 the very doctrine of transubstantiation was Little Russian, and Hetman Mazepa himself was a benefactor of the princess’s close friend, Prince V.V. Golitsyn, the patron of Sylvester. 775 Another Greek book about the same transubstantiation was also sent with “Manna.” This deportation to Kyiv is also discussed in the entry of St. Demetrius of Rostov, which we cited earlier (p. 151 - see footnote 699 at the end), and from these books he made extracts for his own personal use: proof that he himself was interested in this matter. Medvedev's book aroused general approval among Little Russians. Already known to us, Innokenty of Monastyrsky, abbot of Kirillovsky, wrote to Mazepa (in December 1688): “About the letters that I saw and partially read when I was with your nobleman, I now say this in my letter, that in the oral verbs with which I am ready to die... I praise and honor the most honorable monk Medvedev’s faith, works, reason... I do not from that honorable Bear bear beast, but I judge from the knowledge of honey... it is not in my mind to write about how the transubstantiation of the words of Christ... happens... but divine power is perfected in weaknesses, I can write something about that.” The same Innocent later wrote to Sylvester; February 9, 1689: “If I were writing to the Likhuds, I would say: for you Sylvester is not Silvester, but Solvester (your sun). 776 I saw a little book written from them, from the south they new your Medicine (Akos) and in Kyiv from Moscow those Greeks sent a little different book; 777 in both nothingness acquired exactly the same heresy. Our Little Russian church will soon talk at length about this with your honor.” Mazepa writes about the same thing to Shaklovity: “Your nobleness gave me the books for a great secret (that is, Akos and Revelation), 778 but I see that they have been known all over Kyiv for a long time, and also in Chernigov. For from the cathedral miter (patriarch?) the books were sent to the metropolitan, to the archbishop and archimandrite... they want the two to understand the same thing with the Greeks and so that they send their understanding in a letter, but... all the spiritual (not only) subscribe to it, that Medvedev writes the truth, and they (the Greeks) write a lie, but they are also ready to die. The Greek book on it, by decree of the Metropolitan and the entire spiritual rank, is signed by the Monastic.” 779 Meanwhile, in Moscow, the opposing party did not remain in debt: Sylvester was directly accused of wanting to kill the patriarch and “certain other ranks of the bishops and other Orthodox - and it seems that Joachim fully believed this.” 780 In the essay “On Those Who Create Discord and Confound the Holy Church” 781, the Latin party is attested as follows: “the nets of men, one of them was once a priest (Sava), another was a deacon like him who was deposed (Athanasius), and the third was a commoner, only monastic on the outside with robes, but on the inside having a brutal name and disposition (Medvedev) ... puffed up from the open. their lips in blasphemy... and so the already cut-off dessa is dead and rotten... damnation of existence and lamentation... they will raise strife and quarrels everywhere, wanting to appear wise and teaching, like nothing existing. And these are the nets, who, after them, have become corrupted and are on two knees in a cultish way, with whom they are of the same mind, and even though the churches seem to have flattering and persistent words, in both thoughts they are very much the same and with those... These vessels of the essence of malice, filled with the destructive poison of the Latin poisoning, move their tongue like a serpent, (the venom of asps under their lips noun) on the champions of Orthodoxy, the saints of the Eastern Church - teachers of dogma, spew out their deceitful ... corrupting poison to the Orthodox. They write and speak deceitfully and deceitfully... they sow it into the rumors of ordinary people, they indignate the people, as if these words of Christ would be dismissed and dishonored...” In February, the people of Kiev had to work for permission to come to Kyiv for spiritual and secular people from Poland: the patriarch wanted him to be the only Orthodox shepherd in the eyes of the Little Russians and so that there would be no mention of the Galician authorities. 782 True, the Kiev-Pechersk elders Kirill and Sila 783 who arrived in Moscow on February 10, 1688 managed to ask for the title of stauropegia for the Lavra, but they were not given the privilege of a printing house, which provided the Lavra’s main income. 784 In March of the same year, 1688, the patriarch, unable to find out whether the saints he had sent to Kyiv were needed. To Demetrius, the Makariev chety-menaion for December, January and February, demanded them back first from Varlaam Yasinsky, Archimandrite of Pechersk, then from Metropolitan Gideon, and did not give them back later, upon the arrival of St. Demetrius to Moscow in August 1689. Why did he need menaia when there was another copy of them in Moscow at the Assumption Cathedral? Of course, only as a result of displeasure against the Little Russians, but we must remember that the work of Demetrius - the compilation of menyas - was a people's affair and was even included in the Wieliczka chronicle. Dimitri had to stop working. Sending the menaion to the patriarch, he writes (dated March 15) that the books “in the Baturinsky monastery are still held in my unworthy hands and with attention that we have received many benefits from them... I give them to your shrine with thanksgiving and notify, as in holy obedience, from the Little Russian church entrusted to me... from the great blessed Metropolitan Macarius From Moscow and all Russia books and from other Christian historians he wrote the lives of the saints for six months... and the lives of the saints that have already been written are mostly discussed by some noble people, 785 and especially in the holy Pechersk Lavra. Now it is due to the goodwill and desire of many to publish the type for the spiritual benefit of Christians, in which case we are especially excited by frequent writings from the Most Reverend Archimandrite of Pechersk. For such a work of the Church of God (as I think) it is not obscene, I seek the blessing of your supreme archpastor. 786 The Patriarch did not answer. Meanwhile, in the Lavra, having received the February patriarchal letter without the privilege of a printing house, they decided to act in a different way, in addition to the patriarch. We turned to the long-time patron of the Little Russians, you. You. Golitsyn and Princess Sofia. Both Mazepa and Varlaam wrote a letter to V.V. Golitsyn in which, sending the book “The Crown of Christ,” they asked for forgiveness of guilt to the Pechersk archimandrite for the unauthorized printing of the book, referred to the sovereign’s letter to the printing house, and asked to continue to place the name of the Kyiv metropolitan in the titles of Pechersk books. 787 On May 12, Mazepa issued a travel document to the Kiev-Pechersk envoys, Fr. Paisius, Joel, Heraclius, Ilya and Triphyllia, and on June 1 they arrived in Moscow at their request “for alms”, with books to present to Princess Sophia, under the title “Crown of Faith” and with complaints against the Kyiv governor and the military people about insults and violence. 788 How they were received in Moscow, we do not know. But the Moscow messengers of the patriarch parted ways with the Kyiv envoys. On March 29, 1688, 789 Patriarch Joachim sent two letters to Metropolitan Gideon Chetvertinsky and Lazar Baranovich, 790 asking their opinions about the Council of Florence. “Nowadays,” writes Joachim, “there is a sin for our sake, visually, as if the serpent of hell is breathing on our flock... a new certain Elymas and Theudas are inciting..., accepting and praising the Florentine Council, but the friends who oppose them do not accept that Florentine Council very much... And you, son, would like to have our standards in writing to inform: for the sake of guilt this council was held and what custom it began, and from whom and what was in it and the number of proposals that were... we want to learn from your books.” 791 Of course, there were no discussions about the Council of Florence in Moscow, and the entire letter was written with the goal of finding out the opinion of the South Russians about the Council of Florence, to find out their opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts, a question resolved, as stated above, at the same council. Joachim himself, in the superface to his first “Conversation,” says: “I write to the Kyiv diocese... This writing is not ignorant of that assembly and those who were in it, but wanting to be informed if they agree in everything about the saints of the Eastern Church.” 792 This is how the Little Russian clergy understood it and did not touch upon the question of transubstantiation. A rumor about a letter from Joachim asking about the Council of Florence; reached the hetman. Mazepa, an enemy of Metropolitan Gideon, the father-in-law of his predecessor Samoilovich, wrote not to the metropolitan, but to Varlaam Yasinsky “tsedulka” and asked what was the matter. The answer of Varlaam, who at that time had an eye problem, was written by the hand of St. Demetrius, abbot of Baturinsky. 793 “The Most Holy Patriarch wrote, even more so to the Most Reverend Prince, His Grace the Father Metropolitans, not through a deliberate (messenger) messenger, but through the hands of different people, and a letter was sent in which the torture was as follows: are we, Little Rus', really going to accept the Florence Cathedral as a cathedral? This is exactly what we heard in a letter to His Grace the Father Archbishop of Chernegov. (Then) the Most Reverend Metropolitan, having called all of us spiritual.... explicitly ordered that question to be read; that upon hearing everyone was surprised and unanimously agreed to answer in the negative that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not accept that gathering at all and did not regard it as a council... (wanted to write?) the letter of response, the eminent father abbot Theodosius, clearly showing... (that) the council does not have to be a legal, canonical council; We, the Orthodox, seduced by the Roman Church (and) by many heresies due to the autocracy of the pope, infected, and those of the same mind, should not imitate them. To this answer we put all our hands.” But this letter was written later - July 26, 1688. Lazar Baranovich was the first to answer the patriarch’s letter to the question about the cathedral: “I know little about it; In such books and writings, which speak about that Florensky Cathedral, I am scant...,” and then, not without a second thought, he adds: “in another book (except for the Ostrog history of the Listrian Cathedral) in the reigning city of Moscow itself, printed under the title of a recomendation: the life of St. Sergius, abbot and wonderworker of Radonezh... is completely given to know about the Florence Cathedral..." To conclude his answer, Lazarus briefly outlines the history of the council. This letter was written on May 26, 1688, 794, and on July 15 of the same year, in response to a letter from Lazar Baranovich dated March 7, 795, the Chernigov archdiocese was taken away from the Kyiv Metropolitan and subordinated directly to the Moscow Patriarch. 796 Meanwhile, Gideon assembled, as we already know, 797 a council of the all-honorable father Archimandrite of Pechersk, the honest abbots of Kyiv and other hieromonks; one must think that St. was also at the cathedral. Demetrius, who was visiting the Lavra at that time and was holding the position of secretary under Varlaam. Hegumen Kirillovsky (Innocent of Monastyrsky) was instructed to correspond with Theodosius of Uglitsky, Chernigov archimandrite, Lazar's right hand and subsequently his partner. Hegumen Kirillovsky wrote twice to the Chernigov archimandrite, and he replied that His Eminence Lazar would send an authorized representative to Kyiv. Gideon waited until it turned out that Lazar had managed to both send an answer and free the diocese from under the control of the metropolitan. Gideon's answer was sent only on July 14, 1688 and received in August. 798 Joachim’s goal was not achieved: “in these metropolitan and archbishop’s writings, how great was the debate in Florence about the transubstantiation of gifts, when and with which words, no less was revealed and commemorated,” says the Shield of Faith. 799 “On the form of the consecration of the most holy Eucharist,” writes St. Demetrius, on behalf of Varlaam, in the letter to Mazepa already known to us, “there was no mention in that sheet and to this day (July 27, 1688) there is no mention. We heard very often (that), besides, these Greek and Greek Latin teachers in Moscow are philosophizing; but this (cruel?) question has not reached us, but we, as we learned from our fathers, confess this. This has been prepared in many copies; behind the happy turn of your nobleness, God willing, you will powerfully see in the books the people of wise and holy opinions, hand in hand around that matter. In September 1688 (1689 according to the Moscow account), 800 Joachim sent new letters to Metropolitan Gideon, Archbishop Lazar and Archimandrite Varlaam, with which he directly required them to express their opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of St. gifts and about the book “Exhibition”, to which a denunciation was attached with the letter. “One thing... was not found in your writing (about the Council of Florence)... the pope and the cardinals were forced to confess, to the eastern, the fulfillment of the mystery of St. The words of the Eucharist: take, eat... the Greeks of Orthodoxy did not at all accept it, as the Russian Church from ancient times certainly held, even before that time, when the Uniates, the sowers of weeds, began to come, especially the Jesuits themselves... and then this thought began to covertly... now and in reality the rebels of Netia are beginning to debate about it and create disagreements, and also divulge other Latin seductions. There is no word now about all of these. Only this one thing is sought from us.” 801 Further, it is said about the appearance in Moscow of the “Exposition”, published - the patriarch venomously concludes - "under the name of the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra by the Jesuits: as if they had the filial essence of Orthodoxy and, according to the piety of the champions of the monastics, the bread of the mother of their church of the East was published." 802 In a letter to Varlaam, the Patriarch says that he knows the Orthodoxy of the Kyiv Lavra “but for the sake of confirming the truth... and shaming some senseless... libertines and rebels who divulge and multiply those notebooks of lies and to you, the honest Kiev-Pechersk monk, attributing this norms.” 803 But writing about this, the patriarch was wary of popular unrest and therefore notes in both letters that they should be read “to the worldly ear with enlightenment, so that something unhelpful does not suddenly happen to the worldly rumors about the Chicks by the suggestion of the Holy Church from unpunished certain people.” 804 But despite these denunciations that were fair from the dogmatic side, Joachim’s position was extremely awkward. Little Russia was a country that had not yet completely joined the Moscow state; treason could constantly be expected from it, and here he, the patriarch, now accuses these recently joined subjects of the great sovereign, who considered the word Catholic to be the biggest insult, of Latinism. This accusation falls on the clergy, on the clergy who played such an important role in their homeland. It could easily happen that the lower clergy, always loyal to Moscow, because of this accusation, would go over to the side of the higher hierarchy, which was drawn to Constantinople. In view of this, Joachim resorts to this means. He writes to the former Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius and asks him to write a council against the opinion of the Little Russians. “Your blessedness and other patriarchs... reprove and forbid, and judge heavily” the heretical opinion of the Little Russians about transubstantiation and the freedom given to them to print books. There should be three messages from the ex-patriarch: the first - written generally to Kyiv by the bishop, abbot, monk, chief and all the people... write the second to the council and to Moscow, the third to me... It is fitting to write as part of you wrote to nature, having heard such new cuttings... and not as I wrote to you and announced this, for let no annoyance come to us and to the patriarchal throne from those in Kyiv and from some other spiritual ones, for their sake of shame, and send 50 gold pieces as a sign of brotherhood to Archimandrite Isaiah.” 805 Having not received an answer to his messages from Kyiv, Joachim, having waited six months and more, on March 5, 1689, sent a third letter to the Little Russians, 806 in which he reproached them for their slowness in responding. The first to answer Joachim was again Lazar Baranovich. The letter dated February 4, 1689, which disagreed with the third patriarchal letter, was sent by Archimandrite Theodosius of Ugletsky. Having stated that there was never any doubt about the time of transubstantiation in the Little Russian Church, Lazar directly says; “Having learned and taught, believed without doubt and confessed, like the words of Christ the Lord... there is transubstantiation; this is not from any new cuttings of corrupted Latin books received, but from various Greek teachers who observed the dogmas, teachings, acquired and believed... Not only one notebook was brought to me with a letter from your All-Holiness, called Lay... a man in a holy life testified and wise, who has already reposed in the Lord, Theodosius Safonovich, abbot of the golden-dominant Michael of Kyiv, collected from the divine teachers, reveals this, but also in many different ones, not from Latin, but from the true Greek language... given that we will also find unanimity. And the notebook was subjected to a Uniate or Jesuit... agrees with all other books in the Pechersk Kyiv printing house revealed to the world, the same essence: Conversations of St. Chrysostom under Archimandrite Elisha Pletenetsky (in 1623 - 27) published, the Great Breviary, the Service Book, the Catechism, the Lyphos or the sling stone of the Eastern Church to crush the blasphemous prospect published by the Huneyat..., the book Peace with God from Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich and His Holiness Patriarch Joasaph, praised with merciful letters.” 807 Further, Baranovich refers to John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Cyril of Jerusalem and concludes: “I do not create the final answer, since I myself hold it as I have received from time immemorial... I wish to learn from your All-Holiness... and until my death I promise to your All-Holiness, moreover, what is consistent with the ancient dogma of the Church of God and faith holy obedience." 808 At this time, a new circumstance occurred that added fuel to the fire and increased Joachim’s discontent with the Little Russians. The matter concerned St. Dimitri. We have already seen that he wrote to the patriarch, sending him the Menaion of Macarius necessary for the work, but Joachim did not deign to answer him. Then the Lavra, taking all the costs at its own expense, decided at its own responsibility to print the first quarter of the Menaion of Demetrius, just as it printed the Crown of Christ, that is, without patriarchal permission. Printing began on July 2, 1688. Demetrius arrived at the Pechersk Monastery in January 1689 to print October. 809 The book, completed in January, was reviewed not only by Archimandrite Varlaam and the cathedral elders, but also by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the Archbishop of Chernigov. 810 Barlaam sent the printed menaion to the patriarch, along with a letter of apology. In a letter, briefly outlining the history of the writing of the Chet-Menya in Kyiv and mentioning the blessing of Joachim himself, previously given under Archimandrite Innocent Gisela, Varlaam asked to graciously accept the book and present it to “the most illustrious royal maestat” and not to refuse to send the next books of Makaryev’s Menaia. Joachim, having received the books printed without his review, wrote a severe reprimand to Varlaam. “Having copied the Makaryevsky Menaion, we were to send you our books and your prescription from them, and we had that prescription of yours... having witnessed at the council to correct... Your reverence did not do it according to your promise, neglecting our archpastoral command... you yourself will publish it without inspection and blessing.” 811 The compiler also got it: “add some words of the church... unusual.” The first is about the Immaculate Conception of St. Virgins, which even among Latin scholars is forbidden to interpret under all kinds of church and civil executions. 812 The second in the names of creators and chroniclers is the life of Jerome, who is also named after the Orthodox teacher. Third - and you have a little something before this, a book called The Crown of Christ was published and there it was attributed as if for our patriarchal blessing, and this third is not true: we not only did not give blessings, but also imposed prohibitions.” 813 In conclusion, Joachim demands that the sheets containing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception be reprinted and distributed to those who received these books, “and those that have not been distributed... having been placed in those, before our decree, under our archpastoral prohibition and under church execution... we will not at all distribute until it has been completely abolished; Nowadays there is non-unity among other imams. And from now on, what books you happen to print, first announce them to us and send them in writing.” 814 This accusation greatly struck Demetrius: he even intended to answer it and collected materials to support his opinions. 815 In turn, Varlaam did not hesitate to subsequently jab the patriarch in his letter: Asking to send St. antimins and myrrh, Varlaam notes that “it is fitting for us to use these holy things from other bishops, even Orthodox, except your archpastorship,” and then asks how to print the psalter: “if it is in Moscow, then these people are not accustomed to read this way and do not have a cup, unless there was a special royal decree for this and a patriarchal decree for all the people; If it’s according to Kyiv, then is it possible to put the blessing of Joachim.” 816 The patriarch's displeasure towards Demetrius, however, did not prevent the latter, probably thanks to Prince V.V. Golitsyn, from receiving a new charter for the lands of the Krupitsky Baturinsky Monastery. 817 The Metropolitan of Kiev has not yet sent an official answer to the question of transubstantiation, although a literary answer is being prepared for the Great Lent of 1689. This answer was written more than once by the already mentioned abbot of Kirillovsky, Innocent of Monastyrsky, and was considered lost for a long time. However, it exists, and its full title is as follows: “The Book of the Transubstantiation of the Words of Christ through the Action of St. The Spirit of the accomplished, Innocent of Monastir, abbot of Cyril of Kiev, against the Likudievs, who create the words of Christ in idleness, written in the summer from the incarnation of God’s words [ahpf] (1689) during Lent.” 818 In the “preface of this little book to the willing reader” it is said: “This little book was written about the divine liturgy, in which the deeds of Christ the son of God our redeemer are remembered, hidden for centuries, but at the last day revealed to the world (l. 22). ...This was written on the holy day of Pentecost of that time, which every faithful believer should remember more than other times... but alas... (fol. 22 vol.). ...a warrior, with a copy piercing the rib of Christ the Savior on the cross, countless zealous imitators beyond reason, who in place of the copies, with blasphemous or heretical tongues like fiery arrows, pierce the divine side of the rib even to the heart.” The word of the psalm came true over them: “My goodness is always mine to those who eat and drink, but those who despise Me do not open their minds to know Me and the power of My words found in the divine scriptures” (fol. 24 vol.). Further, the author makes allusions to the liturgy of the Apostle James, to the writings of Clement, translated by the Likhuds in Moscow, as containing a refutation of the opinion of the Latinists, and to other church fathers, to whom the Orthodox referred: “How many ungrateful pupils in the great covenant have the all-generous God, only now in the new grace of those who pray have schismatics, destroying the divine covenant, the omnipotent command of those who despise, saying that they should be in the place of Paul with Jacob, in the place of Apollos with the Clementians, in the place of Cephas with the Ignatievs, Chrysostom and Saint Basil” (l. 25). This is an old heresy, says Innocent: it has not disappeared for 654 years, the heresy of Berendarius. 819 “This Berendarius, in his vain opinion, began to teach as the word of the Lord: you will accept... you must understand historically... there is even today an evil branch from the evil root of Berendarius, which has sprouted and even stretched from sea to sea” (l. 28). Further, having told a fable about the giants who ascended to heaven and about the gods who, as a result, left with changed faces to Egypt, Innocent continues: “The rage of the giants convinced the vain gods to change their images for them... (fol. 29 vol.): those who sweep away the words of the Lord in the transubstantiation of divine gifts strive with their malice to apply this image, with his divine lips Christ the Savior Himself established His own for the transubstantiation of divine gifts” (l. 30). Then the author, according to the general technique of southern Russian preachers, which is retained in current sermons, speaks on behalf of the church: “The Orthodox Church speaks with tears to its harmful and harmful sons (l. 32), inviting them to repent.” An extensive speech from the church follows. The preface concludes with the words: “The Sacrament is accomplished by the Father’s good will, by the words of the Son, by the action of the Holy Spirit” (l. 39). Next follow epigraphs, one of which contains the following antics: “Amen, amen, I tell you, it is not Moses who will give you bread from heaven [below James, the brother of God, below Clementius, below Ignatius, below Basil and John Chrysostom, below another who is from the servants of Christ]: but My Father gives you the true bread...” (fol. 41 vol.). The essay itself comes from page 44 in questions and answers: “what is the Divine Liturgy and when in the liturgy does the transubstantiation of the Divine Gifts occur, since the Divine service is composed of many parts” and so on. The answers are provided with references to Justin the Philosopher, Herman of Constantinople, Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysius the Areopagite and others. “If the apostles were from Christ, the disciples were from the teacher, the holy fathers from the apostles were taught by the tradition of the holy church to be the words of Christ in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine of the flesh and blood of Christ, for the Greeks of today, and especially those in the reigning city of Moscow, Sophronius and Ioannikios of Lycudia, repeat that the words of the Lord are They literally say commemoratively in the liturgy... (l. 166). They write with annoying fury, calling the holy and miraculous Lavra of the Pechersk Pechersk of Kyiv unyeats or apostates, blasphemers and heretics; And so they write in their little book, sent from the reigning city of Moscow, where in the first objection the monastery of the holy Pechersk is annoyed by these Greeks: “Shamelessly and openly lies untruthfully to itself and slanders the holy teachers, and by its words itself will be shamed, exposed and condemned.” This is the essence of the words of the most verbal and wise theologians of the Licudievs. In the book called Healing (Akos), in the sixth answer they call blasphemers and heretics (l. 166 - vol. 167). These Likudian theologians write, like notebooks printed in the summer of 1668, in which they remember the transubstantiation of being the words of Christ, as if they were subjected to unification or the Jesuits under the name of the holy, great miraculous Lavra of Kiev-Pechersk, but they Likudian theologians soften their annoying rage with unctuous words, for they know completely how in the Pechersk monastery, not only the remembered notebooks were printed, but also read and published at the cathedral” 820 (fol. 167). Then, refuting the opinions of the Likhuds, Innokenty again ironically remarks: “But you, the wisest theologians, will learn from the unwise Russians” and speaks about them with a Little Russian proverb: “The Likhids (Likhuds) will find something to annoy the good.” The essay concludes with the words: “The Likudievs shamelessly slander the holy cathedral Little Russian Church, calling it the sons of Macedonians” (l. 194). The author twice promises to write another essay: “I must have a lot of research about this for you, but I entrust the power of the things I seek to the most free time; (l. 129) and further: “they will say in a Kalvenian and Lutheran heretical manner, as these words of the Lord from the sacred priest are reminiscent, that is, historically, and not significant, but I will give the answer to them in another place” (l. 137). This answer is given in another work by Monastyrsky: “Refutation of Akos.” It is not distinguished, perhaps, by the strength of evidence, but one cannot deny the author’s animation, irony and ardent patriotism. “The theologians of Licudia cite as evidence of the rightness of their faith the notorious theologians of the Church of Rome, Vuik the Jesuit, and another Goar, the Dominican, for it is clear that Licudia rightly believes in the transubstantiation of gifts. Meanwhile, they, the Likuds, annoy the Little Russian Orthodox Church with their language: not the only ones they hear about this, as if the Little Russian people who learn from the Jesuits are accustomed to their dogmatic deeds. For this reason, for the sake of the students of the Little Russian people, the Jesuits preach that they do not have the faith of the perfect Eastern Catholic Church, but of the Western Church. This slander and disgrace is not in accordance with the conscience of Christians from the Lycudians inflicted on the Little Russian church. By the grace of God, the Church of Christ in Little Russia has countless witnesses in its unfailing firmness of faith. The Little Russian Church of Christ, even under the rule of the Polish king, of the existing Latin faith, in the person of the Jesuits, always stood boldly, even to the point of bloodshed. To have the Little Russian Church of Christ in the Brest Lithuanian city before fourty years of faith for the sake of the suffering hieromonk Athanasius, whose relics remain incorruptible to this day. In the great cities of the Kingdom of Poland in Lublin, Vilna, Lvov, many suffered from worldly people for the sake of faith, even to the point of death. Some swords were cut, some were burned by fire, our memory is this news. If only we had seen in Lublin the time of the passing debate (in 1680, where Innocent took part, see above), how much the Mother Church of Christ in Little Russia had sons willing and ready to suffer martyrdom for the Orthodox faith. There is a clear argument that the Little Russian Church of Christ does not agree with the Latins in its dogma of faith.” The author reproaches the Likhuds themselves, who call their opponents three-repentant, for the four-belief about the transubstantiation of gifts and therefore gives them the epithet of four-repentance. This four-belief essentially boils down to unbelief. “The natural poverty of every hypocrite is, having a log in his eye, taking away the bough from his brother’s eye... Why bring the Likhudia of their faith into the testimony of the priests? This argument is obvious, since the Lihudians are the essence of the Jesuit faith.” 821 Monastyrsky's book remained under wraps for now. But then, in Lent 1689, on March 25, Metropolitan Gideon, with Varlaam, Archimandrite of Pechersk and the entire spiritual council of the Kyiv Metropolis, sent a response to the patriarch. 822 Defending the book “Exposition” and the Latin opinion, the Little Russians refer to the conversations of Chrysostom of 1624, the Euchologion and Trebnik of Peter Mogila, the Liturgiarion (service book) of 1635 (Polish), the “Book of the Seven Sacraments” of Puzina of 1635, the “Orthodox Confession of Faith” in the cathedral manuscript of 1642 (in Kiev-Pechersk Lavra), Catechism 1645, “Lithos” 1644, “Peace with God”, etc. 823 Meanwhile, Joachim sent a reproof to Lazarus in response to his answer and, seeing that “the people of Kiev, in their customs, had come from the Latin teaching, had little questioning,” he wrote a new huge letter to Gideon, in which, reminding to him about previous evidence in favor of the Orthodox opinion and citing a whole mass of them, he accuses the Little Russians of referring to new books and misinterpreting the sayings of St. fathers. Here the patriarch speaks about the book “Peace with God” by Innocent Gisel, printed with the blessing of Patriarch Joasaph, and declares that Joasaph was sick at that time and did not read the book, “but Simeon of Polotsk praised him, who studied with the Jesuits and was the master of the wisdom of those, and in his name you write whatever you want.” Having once again reproached the book “The Crown”, published without his blessing, the patriarch demands a direct answer: “will you follow the Eastern Church in every way about transubstantiation... and if you are satisfied with the limits of our saints, fathers... it is fitting for you to correct yourself... and agree and immediately and urgently unsubscribe.” Threatening the wrath of the rest of the patriarchs, Joachim demands to send “on behalf of your (Little Russians) spiritual rank a husband of humble wisdom, a sincerely Eastern Church son, who knows the writings of the holy fathers of the ancient teachers of the Holy Eastern Church of Christ, and not just practicing syllogisms and arguments, so that through him you will know all of ours, and we are yours, and so on there will be discord." 824 Gideon and Varlaam notified Joachim with a letter dated August 22, 1689, that on the day of his Dormition (August 15), they received the patriarchal blessing in a multi-honored letter teaching at length about the mystery of St. Eucharist. “We are pleased with all the extensive (scriptures) of your most holy archpastorship with all attention, but after the imminent departure of the one sent to this and the books of various holy teachers, in the epistle... which are not remembered, we briefly answer with all humility... to all this the holy conciliar apostolic received from Him (Our Lord Jesus Christ) Eastern Orthodox Church we will follow in every possible way..., the same siege confession as in all members of the holy Orthodox faith, and in the most precious mystery of the Holy. the Eucharist from our conscience informing.” This letter was received by the patriarch only on September 9th. 825 Meanwhile, by this time a sufficient number of Little Russian confessors had gathered in Moscow. Back in July, the hetman began to prepare for Moscow to visit V.V. Golitsyn and Princess Sofia, who favored him. 826 Stolnik Kudryavtsev was entrusted with repairing the embassy courtyard to receive Hetman Ivan Stepanovich. 827 On July 21, the hetman with a large retinue left Baturin for Moscow and arrived there on Saturday, August 10. 828 Their reception was magnificent. They were “greeted by the ranks of the conscripts sent out by the monarch’s expensive six-window carriage, and received with plentiful hospitality.” The princess praised their victories by “sending food and drink from her royal table, and providing them with all kinds of contentment.” 829 Of course, they treated not only the hetman, but also his retinue, including Dmitry and Innocent. Innokenty brought his works with him and probably saw Sylvester Medvedev, with whom he had corresponded before. 830 On August 11, all the Little Russians presented themselves to Tsar Ioann Alekseevich and Princess Sophia, but Peter, notes the cautious Dimitri, was not there, he was still on a campaign. We also visited Patriarch Joachim. 831 Meanwhile, more new envoys from Kyiv arrived in Moscow: Hieromonk Sila Zhuravsky, Hierodeacon Melety Trofimovich and Ilya Ponovsky, “sent (d.b. July 31) following the hetman all the way to Moscow.” They brought with them the recently printed three-month chetu menaion with a request to dedicate them to the Royal Majesties. “The book of the lives of the saints, for many years in the Slovenian language has been published by all Orthodox Christians and has been coveted, and many have worked hard to correct it in the Holy Lavra,” was graciously accepted by the Great Sovereigns (August 25, 1689) and two fox furs were awarded for it. 832 Another copy of the menya with a letter of gratitude for good deeds and generosity was sent with the same Zhuravsky Force to the governor of Great Perm, Prince Alexei Vasilyevich Golitsyn, brother of V.V. Golitsyn. 833 Afanasy Zarutsky 834 also bothered the Golitsyns about his affairs. “I want to work hard in writing books to glorify the throne of Their Royal Majesties, so that the entire chronicler of their kinship, Ts.P.V., will write, so that both in the present and in the present times, wise people will have something to read.” Then Zarutsky promised to publish his work and bring it to princes V.V. and A.V. Golitsyn and asked “to provide chroniclers, since such chroniclers are not found in Little Russian cities.” 835 At this time, at the end of 1689, circumstances in Moscow were extremely vague. Peter fled from Moscow to the Trinity Lavra; this was the beginning of an open break with Princess Sophia. The Little Russians, as we have already said, presented themselves on Sunday (August 11) to Tsar John, Princess Sophia and the Patriarch. 836 The latter, who had not gotten along well with Sophia and Golitsyn for a long time, went to Trinity, pronouncing excommunication on the princess for belonging to the Latin party. 837 The sending of Prince I.B. Troekurov on August 13 for Peter was unsuccessful. Peter (or rather B.A. Golitsyn) demanded (August 16) the expulsion of the archers. Sophia refused and promised to cut off the head of the first archer and go to the Trinity. On September 1, 1689 (1690 Moscow time), on the New Year's Day, Peter demanded the extradition of Medvedev and Shaklovity. This caused a movement at court and general confusion among the people. The Patriarch was not there, all preparations for the celebration were destroyed, only the archers were given vodka, and Sophia announced in a public speech that they were looking for her life from the Trinity, and not the extradition of Shaklovity. V.V. Golitsyn was demanded to appear at Trinity, but he appeared there only on September 7 and was detained. Gordon and the foreigners left for the same place on September 4th. Moscow was emptying. 838 The hetman's position was extremely delicate. He was imprisoned by V.V. Golitsyn, and the hetman’s enemies said: “It was in vain that they removed the old hetman and installed a new one.” 839 He also praised Golitsyn upon his arrival in Moscow. 840 The Hetman was in friendly relations with Shaklovity and Medvedev. It was impossible to hesitate: the Little Russians in the retinue were already talking about choosing a new hetman. 841 On September 9, in the evening, Golitsyn was demoted, and on the same day, in the morning, Mazepa arrived at Trinity, but he was forced to stop 10 miles away (zu Irwischinski). Only on September 10, the hetman was admitted before the bright eyes of the Sovereign. 842 Mazepa was received kindly at Trinity: Ukrainians praised his exploits, and Mazepa’s flattering speech pleased Peter so much that the clever hetman immediately brought a petition against his benefactor V.V. Golitsyn. 843 It is clear that Troitsk diplomats well understood the importance of the hetman - the head of the Cossacks, they caressed him in every possible way and fulfilled all his petitions. The clergy presented themselves to the patriarch on August 11, and now, according to the testimony of Diarius of St. Demetrius, in the Trinity Lavra “they often visited him.” Probably, Demetrius had to explain himself about the mena and other issues. We don’t know what explanations Dimitri gave. The matter ended with the Patriarch blessing him to continue writing the lives of the saints and giving him an image of the Mother of God in a frame, but did not give him a menaion. “Innocent of Monastyrsky behaved, according to the Orthodox Damascus, in an extremely hostile manner. When the others “piously and modestly ranted, as it befits to rant about church dogmas, and united with the most holy patriarch,” at that time Innocent of the Monastery, “of Jewish origin, added to the church discord even the most holy Joachim the patriarch to dishonor and shamelessly reproach, such for the sake of guilt, as the oud rotted, was cursed and sent away.” The Latinist Dometsky notes that Innokenty was “secretly soon exiled from Moscow by Evfimiev’s providence.” 844 But despite the writing and protests of Innocent, the people of Kiev, as we have already seen from their letter, on August 22, submitted; Joachim then writes to Lazar Baranovich: “Brother of your love for God... Rev. M. Gideon of Kiev with all his flock and Archimandrite of Pechersk sent their consent and unanimity... they will all agree upon us, even though the imams are the only one who informed us about this.” 845 The Patriarch threatened Lazarus with the court of the ecumenical patriarchs and forbade him to “do anything sacred without informing us about himself.” Lazar and Archimandrite Theodosius responded on November 18, 1689 (1690 Moscow time) by expressing their agreement with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. 846 Even earlier, on September 18, the people of Kiev were on vacation: at parting, they were given a triple daily salary against the specified one and equipped with 500 carts. 847 On September 22, Sunday, Kiev residents began to get ready to go home. “Lord, hasten,” St. noted in Diaria. Dimitri, probably not quite calmly “kissed Peter’s hand,” although he received 15 altyns for vacation. 848 Meanwhile, in Moscow there was a reprisal against the adherents of Princess Sophia, who, as we know, were also supporters of the Latinizing party. The Naryshkins and B. Golitsyn handed over to the patriarch to be judged by his enemies. Sylvester Medvedev, who fled from Moscow, was captured on November 13, 1690 in the Bizyukov Monastery, brought to Trinity on the 24th, tortured on the 30th, 849 and sentenced to death on October 5th. 850 But the death penalty was not carried out for a whole year. Sylvester allegedly wrote a penitential scripture about his errors, read it in church before the image of St. Trinity, in the presence of Archimandrite Vincent, and asked to hand it over to the patriarch. 851 This was apparently at the end of December 1689 (1690 Moscow time). The archimandrite sent repentance to the patriarch. Joachim, having received Sylvester’s repentance, “certain days” (in January) gathered the bishops, archimandrites and other clergy of Moscow into the chamber of the cross and ordered to read the penitential writings of Medvedev, Simeon the Long and his instructive word. Actually, it was not a cathedral, and its actions, as far as is known, have not been preserved. 852 It must have been not without reason that the Latinists reproached Joachim, “that he did not convene a council about such a matter, but secretly forced him to confess through the kutuks and fear of death,” and the Orthodox did not deny that there was no council. 853 The consecrated cathedral consisted of: “Adrian Metropolitan of Kazan and Sviyazhsk, Evfimy Metropolitan of Sarsk and Podonsk, Pavel Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod and Alatyr, Athanasius Archbishop of Kholmogory and Vazhsky... having the will and consent of the bishops not inherent here... existing throughout Great, Lesser and White Russia 854...” It is curious that the southern Russian bishops were not invited to the meeting at all. The resolutions of the council were directed mainly against Medvedev personally. “We accept him, Senka, as a prodigal son returning to his mother of the Orthodox Catholicism of the Eastern Church... the book of Mann and others and others similar to his writings, all such writings, are anathematized. Likewise, we judge having burned a book full of all kinds of slander, written by a certain abbot of Kiev Innocent, called Monastic... then we have Senka Medvedeva as a catechumen; We assign him a time to stand outside the church (.) years and denounce his blasphemies to everyone who comes in and out, and pray, and let them pray for him. Therefore, stand with the faithful in the church, but do not receive fellowship (.) years... and we determined that he should live in repentance from there (?) until the day of his death... and in the reigning city of Moscow... below, in nearby cities and monasteries, we do not allow him to live in any way, so that no other evil, sedition and harm to the church or to the kingdom will come from him. He should live there, where he was commanded by our regularity and by the entire sacred council, under a strong leadership... with other people he should come together in person and order nothing to rant... he should not be given paper or ink at all.” 855 Apparently, they didn’t have much faith in Medvedev’s repentance: after all, “Nikita the empty-headed man repented, and then rebelled again until he was sentenced to the main beheading. Therefore, for the sake of such inconstancy and wickedness, it is appropriate to encounter great dangers.” 856 Then a whole series of curses are pronounced if Medvedev's repentance is feigned. But Medvedev's days were already numbered: as a political criminal, he was executed on February 11, 1691, after a second torture by fire and other tortures. 857 The Greek party celebrated the victory and carried out “civil” executions on its opponents, who were so conveniently supporters of Sofia. Gordon reports that the tsar agreed to the execution of Shaklovity, S. Ryazanov and others only at the insistence of the patriarch. 858 The execution of Medvedev was the work of the same patriarch: as can be seen from the Shaklovity case, Medvedev had no special crimes against Peter, except for his proximity to Sophia. Mazepa, a friend of Golitsyn and Shaklovity, went over to Peter’s side, where the patriarch also joined, who did not yet know Peter and his utilitarian views on the church. On March 14, 1691, Patriarch Kalinnik of Constantinople and Dositheus of Jerusalem sent Patriarch Joachim the long-desired letter, resolving the issue of the Eucharist and objecting to the false writings about it that had appeared among the Greeks. The letter was translated by the monk Euthymius, known to us. 859 On March 17, Patriarch Joachim died, and his place was taken by Adrian. 860 The Greek party lost its leader, but more than a nominal one. It was decided to canonize Joachim. Ignatius Korsakov, already known to us, wrote the life of St. Joachim, decorating it in every possible way. So Mikhail Golovin told the following to the writer of his life: Being a land surveyor, he had to take a survey of the patriarchal lands, which “was not pleasant” for P. Joachim “before these lands were taken from him for the sake of the citizens.” The Patriarch called Golovin and, despite the fact that he said: “This was created righteously, and not contrary to boundaries,” threatened him: “Be careful, brother, so that nothing happens to you from God.” Golovin responded with “disobedient” words, but when his wife fell ill, he, on her advice, asked for forgiveness from the patriarch and the illness stopped. Another time, this same Golovin anointed his sore neck with water from washing Joachim’s hands during the liturgy and also received healing. 861 During the agony of Joachim, “many already knew that he was a saint of God,” and during the funeral service, a certain Peter the fishmonger saw Joachim burning incense at the altar and ascending to a high place, which he told the hierodeacon monk Iakinthos, the former sacristan of the patriarch, and he told the writer of the life. The steward, the prince, who exactly the writer does not say, once saw in a dream how the patriarch blessed him, but did not bless the other steward, but went to the altar; Another time he served liturgy with the patriarch in a dream. The leader of the Novospassky monastery, Kharlampiy, also saw Joachim “blessing him along the ridge of both arms.” Finally, the famous Andrei Vinius, who owned a portrait of Joachim, wanted to neglect it, for “what was in the image when the patriarch passed away,” but Joachim, appearing to him in a dream, declared: “Take care of my image, as it will be useful in the future!”, about which miracle he told another. Euthymia. Joachim also appeared to Archimandrite Petrovsky Job and some prince George. 862 In conclusion, Ignatius praises the “true and beloved disciple of Joachim and his co-throne,” the new Patriarch Adrian, and talks about Joachim’s prophecy of the patriarchate to Adrian, whose “sweetly teaching and eloquent broadcast the church rejoices in, but the opponents of Latin wisdom are put to shame, for their evil intention will not be overcome according to the above words.” 863 Fortunately, the new patriarch knew both Joachim and Ignatius well enough to believe the reported miracles and praises. The controversy over the issue of transubstantiation began to wane, although it did not cease. In March 1691, Patriarch Dosifei, congratulating Adrian on his accession to the patriarchal throne, informed him of his book, published in Iasi (Yashev), against false opinions about the Eucharist. 864 This work, “Enchiridion,” together with the work of Meletai Sirig, was translated by the disciples of the Likhuds and edited by Euthymius. 865 The compilation of Ostn by Euthymius must also be attributed to the time after 1691 and before 1693. 866 “The Shield” was compiled under Joachim, according to the life of Patriarch Joachim, by Afanasy Kholmogory, but it must have been edited after 1693 by Euthymius. The book “Icon” was probably compiled at the same time. 867 The translation of the liturgy of the Apostle James dates back to 1692–3 - essentially the old translation of Patriarch Euthymius of Ternov, corrected by Ioannikius Likhud. 868 The translation of the Interpretation on the Liturgy of Nicholas the Bulgar, edited by Euthymius, dates back to 1693, as well as the works of Gabriel of Philadelphia on the seven mysteries. The doctrine of transubstantiation is supplemented with extracts from the works of the Likhuds. 869 In 1696, the Orthodox Confession of Faith, translated back in 1685, was published in Moscow, with an Orthodox judgment about the time of transubstantiation. 870 At the same time, the Orthodox confession of faith was included in both the bishop’s oath and the oath of the royal confessors. At least on April 13, 1698, Archpriest Theophan, upon his election as the royal confessor, made the following promise: “I promise not to accept strange customs in church traditions and rites, especially from the Latins that are newly introduced... I still believe and wisely perform the Divine litorgy of the transubstantiation of the Body and Blood of Christ, as the East and our Russian teachers the ancients teach, by inspiration and action of St. The Spirit through the invocation of the bishop or priest in prayerful words to God the Father: create this bread and other bread. 871 In 1703–1705, a translation was made of the book of Sebaste Kiminit: On the Time of the Transubstantiation of St. Darov. 872 Under Adrian, and probably by Euthymius, a “Demonstrative Statement collected from the writings of St. Apostle and St. father at the request of certain priests and deacons and other reverent clergy who want to teach the truth, at which time and by which words bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.” 873 However, despite the abundance of published works and the defeat of their opponents, the members of the Greek party no longer played their previous role under the new patriarch. The Likhuds were compromised by a letter from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dosifei to St. Adrian. “Reprove and ban the teachers (Likhuds),” Dosifei wrote in 1693, “so that they would become chaste, that is, they would not trade, neither they themselves nor their children would be called princes. 874 By chance, poor people (and artisans) and not born, both themselves, and their parents, and their great-grandfathers. It is appropriate to be diligent about the school, but not to show the Latin teaching too much, as an intercessor of the great evil ones, and finally, to know themselves as teachers only of the school, and not of other matters. And if it happens, a church matter - to speak to them at your command, and not to accept the person of the judge... without the great need of the will to teach, or to speak a certain word, either generally, or nationally, or personally, would not have... if there were no discord in the church.” 875 In a letter to the Likhuds, the patriarch wrote: “You appear not to be experts in natural sciences in a proper manner, but below grammar... you are naturally charming and arrogant... quickly the merchants, intertwined unlawfully with worldly purchases... having been deceived, they sought to be princes, children of the most indecent, and teach Latin... We command you through this, as if you left all worldly purchases, and left to be called princes, be diligent about the school, in which you will remain for eight years, devouring royal stern." 876 Fyodor Polikarpov says that the Likhuds were removed from business in 1694, thanks to the surviving friends of Medvedev. 877 Solovyov (XIV, 150) gives another story about the Likhuds. The son of Ioannikios, Nikolai, started a relationship with some girl, and, taking her to school, kept her locked there in a closet. Her father invited the archers to help her out, and then went with the clerk and the archers to capture Nicholas. When they were leading Nicholas along the upper passages, suddenly the elders and students ran out of the schools, grabbed the clerk, began to beat him and drag him by the hair, the clerk shouted to the archers, but they could not do anything: the monk and his students chased after them, threw a bench, shouted: “Why are you coming as thieves”; Finally, the clerks and archers were driven out of the passages and the gates were locked. The Likhuds fled, but were caught and exiled from the academy to the printing house. It seems that this was not without the influence of the Little Russians, who hated the “damned wolves” of the Likhuds. At least, Dositheus 878 wrote to Adrian at the same time: “Now I am leaving to see the most clear Mr. Hetman for the last time and take the will to depart from him.” Such was the position of the Likhuds. In turn, no matter how hard Euthymius tried, neither Osten, nor the Shield of Faith, nor other works of the Greek party were published, and he himself, soon after the death of Joachim, on July 1, 1690, was removed from the post of reference, allegedly due to the fact that many people doubted and in the churches of God there are riots and the Great Sovereigns are suffering many losses to the monetary treasury from the alterations.” 879 One consolation remained for Euthymius: to pour out his indignation to the fullest on his dead opponents, which he did with great success. Simeon of Polotsk is directly “the real Uniate of the Roman Church,” and Sylvester Medvedev “thinking untruth in his heart all the days, composing abuse and sedition and sharpening his tongue like a serpent, according to the psalmist, under his lips is the poison of asps, full of sorrow and flattery, wicked barefoot from his youth, and verbose, and sharp-tongued, as St. writes. Epiphanius about Aria the heretic, having a doorless mouth and a throat, spewing out the soul-destroying poison of all lies.” Sylvester called “the eastern patriarchs demonoarchs and manteiarchs,” wanted to introduce the Latin Church and kill “Joachim and other bishops.” 880 They composed a whole anecdote about Sylvester: The story of the self-witness of the truth, Hierodeacon Pimen of the Chudov Monastery, about Sylvester Medvedev's mother: when Sylvester left the Molchin Hermitage to Moscow, and he was escorted from the monastery by the monks, with them he was Pimen, and when he left the monastery after two journeys, and At that hour, a great black serpent, like twenty or thirty fathoms, flew out of the monastery, and, rising into the air, flew out after him and disappeared. At the same hour, another sign of God’s wrath appeared: an oak tree, large and thick, stood not far from the monastery, falling near the path for no reason. And these two stories were told to us by Father Pimen, testifying with God and with all the truth that it was so true and true with him, who sees the gray unpretentiously. 881 Euthymius remained in the pen until his death (1705). Ignatius Korsakov received the honorary degree of Siberian Metropolitan on April 3, 1692, but this removed him from Moscow. We'll hear about him again. Archimandrite Vincent of Trinity retired on April 22. 1694, and he was replaced by Job (from 1697), the future saint of Novgorod, a supporter of Latinism (see above). Just as we have already seen, Kyiv books continued to spread, and Kyiv scientists continued to travel to Moscow. 882 True, in 1698 there was a new case for the manifestation of zeal for the faith of the Greek party, but the details that emerged here compromised the Greeks themselves. The above-mentioned Peter Artemyev, a student of the Moscow-Slavic Academy, then a deacon of the Peter and Paul Church in the Moscow Novomeshchanskaya Settlement, who traveled to Venice in 1688-91 with Ioannikiy Likhud, returned from there a fierce Catholic fanatic, 883 which he did not even think of hiding. Besides other Latin errors, he professed immaculatam conceptionem and transubstantiation “only to be accomplished by the words of Christ.” He called his Greek teachers Likhudov 884 “worshippers on both knees”, and Euthymius – “a rotten head and stinking arable land”, who “for twenty years or more has been out of his mind and rattling like a dog at the Eastern Church of Christ, an angry son against his natural mother”, who did not even study at the academies “unless behind the stove in the corner, like a cricket or a fly in a crack.” “Akos” got it too. Evfimy couldn’t stand it. “The writing off of the Greeks is disgusting to your dear father, your damned grandfather and your adopted grandson,” and he demanded a council against Artemyev, showering the latter with unprintable abuse. Patriarch Adrian reacted, despite all the notes of Euthymius like “Prayers to St. Adrian of the Russian Church,” very calmly and, although, according to Euthymius, he promised to burn both “Peter the Deacon and his father,” but the matter was limited to Artemyev’s exile under the special supervision of Archbishop Afanasy to Solovki, where the unfortunate fanatic died. 885 Although Evfimy composed all sorts of denunciations against Artemyev, Artemyev’s testimony hardly served as the reason for the final fall of the Likhuds. “My great teacher Ioannikis, Artemyev showed, having arrived from Italy, came many times to the Roman priests, to the Caesar’s (Austrian) court in the settlement, and boasted about them - the existence of their wisdom, but was hidden here for fear; what they believed and about this they proclaimed to me as Caesar’s priests.” Once Artemyev took the book Mechetz, the work of the Likhuds, and showed it to the Latin priests, and when Ioannikis came, they accused him of hypocrisy. But the Greek replied that Sophronius wrote this book while he, Ioannikis, was in Venice. “If I had known my brother’s intention, I would not have ordered him to write such a book.” This may be true, added Peter Artemyev: he, Ioannikis, is much more inclined towards all truth (i.e., the teachings of the Roman Church) and has a warmer faith in God than his brother Sophronius.” 886 Of the Latin speakers, the only ones who survived were the Southern Russians. Let us note that it was not only Great Russian figures who proved the Orthodoxy of the Greek opinion on transubstantiation. The same opinion was supported by Dosifei, Metropolitan of Suceava, who wrote an entire essay on this subject and presented it to the new Metropolitan of Kyiv, Varlaam Yasinsky, who replaced M. Gideon, who died in 1690. 887 But despite this essay, the letters of the patriarchs and the official recognition of the teachings of the Greek party as Orthodox in the last letter of Metropolitan Gideon, the Latin opinion remained in their theology textbooks. 888 The future saint of Rostov was no stranger to it. In his own Notata per Alphabetum (synod. bib. No. 187 l. 21) we find extracts from the words of Chrysostom, the book: “Peace with God,” “little books printed in Moscow in 1649,” and others speaking in favor of the Latin opinion. 889 In his 1704 collection “Uncorrecting the Thing of Distinction” 890, we find the treatise “On the Sacredness of the Most Pure Mysteries,” presenting a number of extracts on transubstantiation in the spirit of the Latin party from John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, John of Damascus, Gregory Dvoeslov, Justin, Cyprian, the Moscow Catechism, Cyril of Jerusalem and Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Eusebius of Samosata, Proclus of Constantinople, Ignatius and others. Let us not forget the above-mentioned extracts he made from Akos and Manna, and the placement of Manna after Akos and large excerpts from it indicate that the saint shared the general opinion of the Little Russian church and his friend Innocent of Monastyrsky. Some scholars ascribe to Demetrius of Rostov another treatise on transubstantiation, distinguished by a conciliatory direction and preserved in several copies. 891 Professor Petrov, it seems, was the first to begin to assert that it belonged to Dimitri, but without any particular reason. 892 This opinion was followed by Prof. Sumtsov. 893 G. Mirkovich published the treatise as an appendix to his work under the name of the work of St. Demetrius, as if written by his own hand. 894 Indeed, in the semi-statutory list of the Imperial Public Library (F. No. 181) on the first page it is written: “this book was written by the own hand of St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov,” but this is incorrect because the answer of 1718 to the Sorbonne’s proposal was rewritten right there, in the same handwriting, and Dmitry died in 1709. It remained unknown to venerable researchers that the Right Reverend Philaret of Chernigov published this treatise almost in its entirety back in 1861 in the Chernigov Diocesan Gazette, No. 9, pp. 429–447, as the work of Stefan Yavorsky. We don’t know what the Right Reverend Philaret relied on when attributing this work to Yavorsky, but Theophylact Lopatinsky in his Apocrisis directly attributes to Stefan Yavorsky a Discourse on the time of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. 895 In any case, the author of the treatise was a Little Russian, 896 and it was written after 1690. The author recognizes transubstantiation as taking place both in the words of Christ and in the words of the priests: “In the text and in the teaching of the blessed memory of His Holiness Patriarch Joachim, who in the Moscow Cathedral in the year of the existence of the world [zrchi] (7198 = 1690) in the month of Ianuaria read it is written that the words of Christ are the beginning and foundation of transubstantiation, and prayer is the completion... to this we also enclosed." 897 Then the question is examined, “whether it is proper to bow down in the proclamation of the words of Christ: about which many are heard arguing in spiritual circles.” Having mentioned two opposing opinions, the author says: “It is painful to hear and see the disagreement and strife of people of the same faith... What heart disease has hitherto endured with patience, loving silence, and forbearing with human disposition. Whenever I hold in my hand the notebooks of two creators from a high spiritual rank, not only bowing in the proclamation of words that prohibit, but also excessively blasphemous... then the judges will put aside their silence... say something to reconcile the non-peaceful, in order to bring the dissent into agreement (if they deign to come to terms and reconcile), and also with the questions of many, who seek instruction from us, we are inspired to do this... The creators of these in the high spiritual rank (I do not reveal their names, the leaders lead) accepted the notebooks and read and understood the power of these notebooks, here I present them at the beginning.” 898 The first creator is undoubtedly Patriarch Joachim, the second must be Likhuda, judging by the fact that in “Akos” they have a common reference to the seventh council and so on, but we cannot say for sure about the latter. 899 Likhuds are also remembered: “Speech: two Greek teachers of the hieromonastic order who came from the Greek countries to His Holiness Joachim, Patriarch of Moscow, began to teach the hedgehog not to bow in time to the words of Christ - the answer: we do not blame those Greek teachers, but we do not despise the most holy patriarchs,” and then the testimonies of Athanasius’ officials are given Patriarch of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch. References are given to Limonar, the lives of Mark Fryazhsky, Peter, Alexy and Jonah, the liturgy of the Apostle James, Basil the Great, John of Damascus, Ephraim the Syrian, etc. In general, the entire discussion is written very softly and conciliatory. The further development of this issue in the controversy that broke out in 1705 between Hierodeacon Damascus and Gabriel Dometsky, already known to us, does not concern us. But we cannot help but make here a general outline of both parties: the Latinizing party, to which the South Russians belonged, including Demetrius and the Greek party. We will not touch upon the question of whether the 17th century was a century of decay, as Solovyov, Kostomarov, Zabelin think, or a century of prosperity and the highest expression of Russian life, as the Slavophiles thought 900; the important thing is that in this century there are two currents: one traditional current, prone to closed inertia, in its extreme representatives reaching the point of gross ignorance, and the other current - a vague movement forward, the search for something new, ideal. 901 Both of these trends were expressed with particular force in the religious life of Moscow Rus'. The first direction went in two directions; the part that included the best people from a moral point of view went into schism, the other “old Moscow” party temporarily yielded to Patriarch Nikon, but, having accepted the external forms of his innovations, remained faithful to the old, Moscow view of the relationship between the church and the laity, a view that had in mind mainly external improvement. The representatives of this party at this time are the suspicious and narrow-minded Joachim, who burned both his schismatics and the crazy sectarians of the West (Kulman) at the stake; dry, pedantic, with inquisitorial habits 902 monk Euthymius; the false, hypocritical Ignatius Korsakov; Archimandrite Vincent, etc. The second direction did not become clear immediately: among the ordinary spiritual mediocrity who lived within the old framework, single people with a spark of God in their souls, with a search for the Kingdom of God on earth, began to stand out. Around the great innovator Nikon they group and after him enter into close relations, feeling their spiritual kinship: Metropolitan Pavel of Sarsk and Podonsk († 1675) a real father in writing, 903 gracious husband Fyodor Rtishchev, 904 royal confessor Andrei Savinovich, 905 Simeon of Polotsk, Epiphanius Slavinetsky († 1675). Their work is continued by: V.V. Golitsyn, Sylvester Medvedev, Lukian Golosov 906, Shaklovity, Dometsky, unknown author Statira, Alexey Silvestrov, translator Feofan, monk Feolog and, no doubt, many others. The mutual dislike of these two parties was clearly expressed in the controversy measured above on the issue of transubstantiation. For the first time, both parties were sharply identified. The Old Moscow party is reinforced by the Likhuds, self-proclaimed princes and [zealots] of Orthodoxy, and in essence clever Greek scoundrels with one desire to profit and rise. They, precisely, under the cover of zeal for pure Orthodoxy, and taking advantage of ready-made circumstances, inflated the private question of transubstantiation, inciting the patriarch and the Old Moscow party against the pseudo-Latin party, and prudently hid during the Trinity flight of Tsar Peter. The main grain of the opposing Latinizing party was the Little Russian clergy. In their church life, constantly standing in a combat position before Roman Catholicism, they acquired both the mental development and logical thinking methods of their opponents. It is not the contemplative life that is for them the highest feat of personality, but the direct implementation of Christian morality into worldly life. This is where their somewhat theocratic views on church power flowed, but this also led to their attachment to the conciliar, and not to the individual principle in the Church. An individual may have his own passions and his own delusions: the council, the more numerous, the more impassive; on this basis among the southern Russians in the 16th and 17th centuries. So the councils are frequent and numerous and the brotherhoods flourish: they guarded Orthodoxy more faithfully than individual archpastors, not excluding Mogila. But since many people are needed, the education of the masses must also be raised. Naturally follows the founding of schools and the printing, primarily for the masses, of various religious books. 907 At the same time, the Little Russians understood perfectly well that general education in the West is higher than education in the East, and that is why, while remaining Orthodox Eastern Christians, communicating with the Eastern patriarchs on matters of faith, they do not disdain Western newcomers, and they themselves go to Western schools. The benefits of such views immeasurably outweighed minor shortcomings and deviations from pure Orthodoxy. Thanks to the historical course of events, Little Russians developed a unique religious-local patriotism. Thanks to him, they so ardently defended the Orthodoxy of their native church against the accusation of Latinism. On the other hand, they did not assert unfoundedly, like the Muscovite people, that Kyiv is the third Rome, but really tried to assimilate for themselves all the best from Western life, and then diligently transferred their habits and views to Moscow of the same faith, where these views were undoubtedly instilled. It was not for nothing that Baranovich wrote in 1668: “Let the envious people suffer, but I see that Russia is moving forward. My opinion about the Russians is that the time will come when they will not need outside help and will even neglect it.” 908 The view of Christianity among the South Russian spiritualists was predominantly historical, “adhering not to words, but to the burning (of the deed itself).” The strict difference between scripture and tradition, not that of Christ, but of the church fathers, deserves attention. Here a significant difference is manifested with the view of the same objects of modern Moscow spiritualists, who attached enormous importance to ritual, appearance, and took on faith everything that was endowed with the holy name. Apocrypha, apart from sermons, is almost never found among the Little Russians, who tested every position with theological criticism, 909 and this is why in the polemics about transubstantiation: the Greek party accused the Little Russians “of interweaving syllogisms and exercise arguments.” The Little Russian supporters in Moscow are distinguished by the same character: among them we find the same desire for education, the same tolerance for opponents, the same strictly logical reasoning in treatises. The majestic, poetic image of the ruler Sophia, the patroness of Latinists, after the works of Shchebalsky and Aristov, does not need an apology. We described Golitsyn’s humane personality earlier. Let's turn to the bloody shadow of elder Sylvester Medvedev. Before the publication of the Shaklovity case, on the basis of Ostn’s testimony, as we have already seen, Medvedev seemed to be a violent man, a furious instigator of the Streltsy, a Uniate, a Jesuit, and almost an atheist. But from the case of Shaklovity and from the above polemics, it is clear that Elder Sylvester, the favorite of Tsar Fyodor and Princess Sofia, was a gentle man, cautious almost to the point of cowardice, remarkably smart, which his opponents could not deny, deeply educated, a joker and a lover of nature. 910 At the same time, Medvedev knew how to stand up for his convictions: it was not for nothing that the repentance prepared for him did not have his signature, and it was not for nothing that he was sentenced to solitary confinement and deprived of ink and paper. The calm tone of his writings (historical notes and sermons) finally outlines his bright personality and high moral views. “Pastors,” not only “teach the word of teaching to people,” he writes in one unpublished sermon, but also show yourself a good way of living and diligently send up prayers for the flock entrusted to you to God. 911 True fasting, he writes in another work, not only in abstinence from food: “these people truly fast: they do not eat meat, they do not eat the flesh of their neighbor, they do not drink wine, they do not drink brotherly blood, they do not gnaw their brother with malicious false verbs and harmful flattery.” 912 Medvedev did not fall a victim of his character or delusions, but thanks to historical circumstances that were unfavorable for him and the machinations of the Likhuds. The history of the controversy about transubstantiation shows, in our opinion, that the best talented people of their time fell into imaginary Latinism. In comparison with supporters of the opposing party (excluding the Likhuds, who were educated abroad), the Latinists are much higher both in erudition and in the humanity of their views: they demand more tolerance towards Latinism, towards non-believers, and even make sacrifices for them at proskomedia (see Austen). In the polemic itself, they are distinguished by greater gentleness and require persuasion by word, and not by imprisonment and burning. It is not for nothing that the Latin fanatic Peter Artemyev, reproaching the Old Moscow clergy for cruelty, says: “Mute teachers stand on their hind legs in the Tower of Constantine: instead of the Gospel they enlighten with fire, instead of the Apostle they teach with a whip.” In this sense, they are the harbingers of the future reforms of Tsar Peter. In unison with their direction, his decree of 1709 sounded: “We do not want to force the human conscience and willingly present to every Christian the responsibility of caring for the bliss of his soul.” 913 But in other respects, too, long before the harsh Petrine reforms, Latinizers were representatives of new social trends. All of them, Great Russians and Little Russians, were grouped around Princess Sofia and Prince V.V. Golitsyn. The latter, according to Neuville, was the only person willing and able to carry out reform in Russia. This reform, with the assistance of the Latinizers, of course, would have been different, with a different religious overtones, than the reform of Peter, marked by sympathy for Protestantism. But even during the fall of Sophia, the Latinists served Russia their service: they prepared the ground for Peter’s church reforms, weakening the Old Moscow party, although the latter seemed to have won a complete victory. The surviving Little Russian leaders and their supporters became, at least at first, assistants and supporters of Peter; and the old Moscow party disappeared almost without a trace or joined a new fresh trend that came straight from the Latinists. Three well-known names stand out during this period, these are the names of Feofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky and St. Demetrius of Rostov; we will now return to reviewing the later life of the latter. Smirnov, Patr. Joachim, 1881, p. 3. Mansvetov. How we edited church books M. 1 883 p. 20 compare. pp. 14 and 17. Sumtsov Lazar Baranovich p. 174. By the way, here is another indication of the difference between the Little Russian and Moscow rites: “...The Little Russians receive communion as one, confessing as one of the Trinity the Person of the Son who suffered in the flesh, doing good: The Great Russians receive communion three times, confessing that by the good will of the Father, by the action of the Holy Spirit, the Son was incarnate, so that he may suffer for we... for this reason they do good things too. We, who both praise the customs of the country in which we live, hold on without a doubt. (Manufacturer of Undolsky No. 658 l. 483 vol. Collection of works mainly by St. Demetrius, the first half of the 18th century. The beginning of this note: Not evil, the most holy patriarch...). Belarusian Archive p. 121 Acts Zap. Ross. V page 190. Smirnov, p. 192 with reference to History. grew up Hier. II, p. 627. Sumtsov, Lazar Baranovich p. 166. M. Arch. M.I.D. Little Russian. affairs of St. 72 No. 12. The famous portrait of Sofia was carved by Little Russian artists at the request of Shaklovity, Mazepa’s great friend, and Shaklovity himself was depicted in the engraving. Rozys. Cases, I pp. 596 and 659. This play on words is already found in the funeral eulogy for Metropolitan Sylvester Kossov (Makariy I. R. Ts. XII, 107). The Greek party, in turn, mocking Medvedev, derived his name from silva “hedgehog is interpreted as forest or wild, so it is easy for this Sylvester to be named from the name or nickname of his wild or goblin bear.” (Collected synod. neper. I l. 366.) And in another place she declared: “This bear opened his mouth to blaspheme” (Ruk. I. P. B. F. I No. 186 l. 44 vol.). Probably this is about the “Reproach” attached to Joachim’s letter (September 1688). Duma nobleman Fyodor Shaklovity was sent in October 1688 to Mazepa for a conference on the liberation of Christians in Moldova, Serbia and Greece and on the attack on Crimea. (Moscow Arch. M.I.D. Malor. St. 78 No. 98). Probably around this time, Dimitri Savich made a note in his work Chronologia imperii orientalis (from Justin II to 1459, director of the synod. No. 156 l. 203) Itatotum Orientis imperium eversum et in Turcas translatum, quorum etiam periodus fatalis impiae et exosae Deo tiranidis finis instare videtur. The news is true... M. 1886 pp. 80 - 83. According to the “Shield of Faith” (Manual A.N.F. 12 l. 133), it turns out that Innocent wrote without the blessing of his bishop, the Kiev Metropolitan. Hand. I.P.B.F.I No. 186 l. 42. We do not know exactly the time of this work (1690), nor the author, and whether it was published? We quote by hand. Blush. music No. 47 l. 283 rev. Moscow Arch. M.I.D. matters are minor. St. 73 No. 17. Moscow Arch. M.I.D, things are not going well. St. 73 No. 17. Release of Joachim's charter for stauropegy and archandria dated April 18, 1688 Moscow. Arch. M.I.D. is a small matter. St. 75, no. 51. Perhaps Fr. was one of them. Vasily, rector of the Baturin Church. At least the following entry has reached us from the sheets of a printed prologue that belonged to N.P. Filatov, given by him as a contribution to the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Rostov Monastery in 1843: “I am Hieromonk Dimitri Savich, Abbot of St. Nikola Krupitsky Baturinsky I give this book to me from the Pechersk monastery in exchange for the newly issued prologues to the honest gentleman Father Vasily presbyter of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Baturinsky castle. Roku 1688 February 25.” Moscow Arch. M.I.D. matters are minor. St. 45, No. 48, dated April 9, 1688 Moscow Arch. M.I.D. gran. small No. 547 (529) sheet of Mazepa and No. 548 (530) sheet of Varlaam. M.A.M.I.D. things are small. St. 16. No. 61. On June 3, a letter from Mazepa was sent about the chronicler Athanasius (grammatical minor No. 554 and 536 and deeds of St. 32 No. 63). On July 21 of the same year, the same books were brought by the governor of Kiev-St. Rukop. A.N.F. No. 51 l. 48 rev. G. Sumtsov says (Lazar Baranovich, p. 172) that the letter was also sent to Archbishop Varlaam, but from the letter below it is clear that Varlaam did not have such a letter. Archive of Southwestern Russia, I, V, pp. 245–246. This certificate was received in Kyiv on April 20. (Moscow Arch. M.I.D. Malor. St. 78, No. 92). From the words of S. M. Solovyov (XIV, 90), and especially N. Ya. Aristov (Moscow Time of Troubles, p. 139), we can conclude that they considered Joachim to really not know the essence of the Florence Cathedral. This opinion is supported by Mr. Belov (J.M.N.P. 1887, No. 2, separate reprint p. 92) and refutes ours. We note that, at the very least, it was strange for Joachim, having the brothers Likhudov and Euthymius at hand, not to know himself what the Florence Council was, and to begin correspondence on this matter with the Kyiv Metropolitan, and further considerations of the venerable scientist about the resourcefulness of Joachim, who wanted to justify his ignorance, show that the author, firstly, does not know that Joachim personally did not compose letters, and this was done by his associates (in this case Euthymius), and secondly, that he did not read the further correspondence of Joachim with the people of Kiev. Rukop. Ak. Sciences, F. 12, (Shield of Faith), l. 47. The letter was published in its entirety in the book (Gorsky): St. Dmitry of Rostov. M. 1849, pp. 25–26 and in Appendix II. Letters from Lazar Baranovich. Chernigov. 1865, pp. 230–235. Archive South-West. Russia, I, 5, pp. 246 and 257. Lazarus had long disliked Gideon because he had previously hoped to become a metropolitan himself. Archdeacon Anthony, sent from Lazarus, arrived in Moscow on March 30, 1688 (Moscow Arch. M.I.D. case small St. 75, No. 44). Mazepa's travel document was issued to Archimandrite Anthony with Hieromonk Ignatius and Victor on March 15 (Moscow Arch. M. I. D. gram. mal. 535–517). Lazar's charter was printed, in addition to the Archive, in Letters of Lazar Baranovich Chernigov 1865 p. 228. In addition to the above letter from Yasinsky, Gideon himself testifies to the cathedral (Archive of South-West Russia. I, 5 p. 269). Description of the river With. b. II, 3, p. 306. The original answer, similar to the answer of Lazarus, in neper. collection Moscow synod. librarian in notebooks, No. 1, l. 373–426; Archive, Yu. Z. R. p. 269; handwritten Ak. Sciences F. 12, l. 48 rev.–52 rev. Moscow Arch. M.I.D. is small. St. 78, No. 92. This is how we restore the chronology of these letters. Otherwise in the Lithuanian Diocesan Gazette 1881, p. 369 and other works. Smirnov. Patriarch Joachim, p. 198; handwritten Ak. N. F. No. 51 faith l. 5. Rukop. Ak. N. No. 12, Shield of Faith. Indeed, the Jesuits were in Moscow at this time and enjoyed the patronage of Prince V.V. Golitsyn. One of them, Votta, writes in 1689: P. Schmid potra apprire scuola (in Moscow) et avra casa propria:.. se il padre sapra fare et i superiori averano Ia cautela e desterita dovuta, molto s'avanzara la gloria di Dio. Theiner, Monuments historiques relatifs auf regnes d'Alexis Michaélowitsch, Feodor III et Pierre le Grand. Rome. 1859, p. 238, see also 240, 295, Tsvetaev. To the history of foreign religions, pp. 310 et seq. Rukop. Ak. N. Shield of Faith F. 12 p. 58. With the letter there was also a Denunciation of the Explanation (manuscript of A.N. No. 12 l. 61–72 vol.). This refutation, in addition to the Shield, is also read in Ostna, in a somewhat widespread form, and belongs either to Euthymius (Opis. s.r., II, 3, p. 421) who also translated the works of Simeon of Thessalonites or to the Greeks. Here, among other accusations, the “young wise men who studied with the Latin heretics” are accused, who added a pretext to the liturgy of St. Chrysostom (Austen 56–57), meanwhile, “the archpastors snore like Jonah into the ships, but they do not care about the calico and do not forbid it.” Shield of Faith, Ak. N. F. 12 l. l. 57 rev; Smirnov, p. 200. Rukop. Ak. Sciences F. No. 83; ibid., “Icon” l. 223, 229, 230. This letter was probably written at the beginning of 1689 (Smirnov, Patr. Joachim, pp. 201–202). It was at this time that Isaiah was in Moscow (Kapterev, The Nature of Russia's Relations to the Orthodox East, pp. 273–274). Rukop. Ak. N. F. 12 l. 73. Letters of Lazar Baranovich, pp. 236–237. Appendix I. Op. I, 477. In January 1689, Demetrius probably traveled from Kyiv to the borough of Rudnya (60 versts from Chernigov) to venerate the icon of the Mother of God and probably wrote the following verses at the same time: On the image of the Mother of God of Rudnitsky. // Where iron is created from cronyism // There the Virgin takes possession of the dearest gold, // Yes, softens the cruel morals of people // And turns iron hearts to God. (Manufactured by Titov No. 100, sheet 700 vol.). On March 29, Good Friday, severe grief struck Dimitri: his mother Marya Mikhailovna died at the age of 70 (op. I, 479). On the day of her funeral, April 3, in the Kirillovsky Monastery, where Father St. Demetrius, the preacher of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Feofan Prokopovich (cousin of the saint - cf. above, pp. 1 and 16) died. At the same time, stories about the vision of Lazar Baranovich and the martyr Orestes were recorded. Author of the book: “St. Demetrius,” attributing censorship only to the former, did not know Varlaam’s letter (in the book “Icon”), printed in the Archive of the South-West. Russia I, V, pp. 276–280. Archive V, 1 p. 280. The Lavra, however, had the right, according to paragraph 7 of the articles at the dedication of Gideon in 1685, to independently print Soloviev’s books XIV, 32. Indeed, this question then arose among the Uniates. Bishop Cyprian Zhokhovsky asked (August 4, 1678) for the resolution of his doubts in Rome, since in Russia it is prohibited to venerate the Immaculate Conception of St. Virgo will cause a storm. The service for this conception is performed daily in the Zhiroviciense monastery. Circumferuniur hie prohibitiones et revocationes Romanae libelli Immaculatae Conceptionis, quod asserunt a Paulo V probatum fuisse, sub data Romae die VII Martii anno 1678 typis reverendae camerae Apostolicae. Item sub data Romae die 17 Februarii anno 1678 ubi expresse prohibetur officium Immaculatae Conceptionis ne illud audeat quisquam apud se retinere legere vel imprimere vel imprimi curare (this teaching)... a XL vel L anmis ita invaluit per domos principum nobilium et plebejorum ut prohibere illis predictam recitationem innumera scandala ex hoc capite tum catholicorum tune haeriticorum orirentur. Theiner Monuments historiques relatifs aux regnes d'Alexis Michaelowitch Feodor III et Pierre le Grand czars de Russie. Rome 1859 p. 140. Now since the Vatican Council things stand differently, see Friedrich Geschichte des Watikanischen Konzils Bonn. 1877. Printed data from southern Russian literature of the 17th century. summarized by Gagarin “Curious testimonies about the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. Leman 1868" and criticism of it "Christ. Reading" 1859, No. 11. Stroev points to the manuscript of N. Stolbenskaya Hermitage No. 43 about the conception of the Virgin Mary Ave. (Biblical Dictionary 393) Wed. Gorsky Description of the synod. handicraft IV, 480 and Polotsk. Rod of government, l. 16. Lazar Baranovich became interested in Drexellius, and so did St. Dimitri. Macarius XII, 177, Filaret East. stat. description of the Chernigov diocese (II. 146). Archive of Yu. Z. R. V, I pp. 281–283. In his Notata per alphabetum (handwritten 1708) to the Synod. Bible No. 187, l. 97 et seq.) we read: Maria V. V. Extracts from books: De conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae Baronius in Appar. XLIII f. 17. With Damascenus de nativitate B. V. M. Ser. 1. Ioannis de Carthagena I lib. 7. In the same manuscript on fol. 238 we read: In the great Menaion of the couple, even in the cathedral church of the Patriarchs in Moscow, of the month of August on folio 896 about Jerome and Augustine, a great testimony is found: the first Jerome is the oldest presbyter of the great Church of Rome, asking for teaching in the Church of God, from Dalmatia by birth, always with the most holy life of his life, against heretics Mlat and all Christian truth is the firmest foundation. The second Augustine of Cartagena, the church, was the source of his teachings for about 53 years. The psalter with the following in Moscow is printed with Augustine's preface at the beginning, and in the Moscow type bibles in the preface Augustine is remembered with the addition of honor to him: the divine Augustine. Oh St. Jerome in the Moscow type gospel: the life of St. Mark of the Evangelist, written from St. Jerome. Lenten Triodion on Saturday cheese song 9 verse 2: with Jerome and the all-honorable Herman, let the divine lamps be sung. In the work of the saint “Adoration of the Holy Mother of God” we still read: I adore Your sinless conception and birth from the holy parents Joachim and Anna (Oc. I p. 276. Handbook Titov No. 100 l. 70 vol., etc.). In "Theological Questions and Answers" St. Demetrius refers to St. Augustine. (Ruk. I.P.B. Q I No. 201, l. 86). Wed. Radivilovsky Garden, pp. 186, 204. Archives I, 5 pp. 284–287. However, the letter was sent later than August 10, 1689. The letter of grant from Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich to Abbot Demetrius and his brethren and whoever will become abbot and brethren after him, which confirms the letter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich given to Abbot Hesychius for all possessions and lands assigned to the monastery by various hetmans; what are the possessions of the forest with its borders, starting from Lake Stuchok to Bortnoy Oak with hay fields and lakes, Staroe, Zaboroshnoye, Krivoye, Lozovitsa and Osechye (Osechye) with forest along Lake Usoroch, the village of Obmachev with all its belongings, Krasny Borok (pine forest) with a mill in Verovets, stakes with the tenant part, and above the river The Sejm and Litsetovshchina, the gentry's land is a foot with a field and with hay fields and lakes and on the river. Romna the veshnyak mill with all its belongings and with the forest beyond Lipov and under that river Kush to the same mill with hay fields and with an island opposite Koreletskaya (Korenetskaya); Yes, in the village of Khmilovo there is a garden, with bees, with hay fields and ponds, and two veshnyak mills with ponds with measured rent and with forest, and near those ponds on both sides of Smelov and from Smelovo along the empty Grebelka mountain, and the village of Khmelovo with all its belongings with veshnyak mills and with rent, and two villages in Ovrutsky district of Torchinka and Mogilnaya land and to those villages adjacent to the mill and on the river. Ushurun (Usha Rudnya), and the all-merciful Savior Starozhitnago monastery, which stands above the Seimas river, the forest with pine forests and hay fields and estates: Lyubetov, Zabolotov, Ozarichi with all the lands, and the village of Spassky field with Bozhkoy and mills (Ch. O. I. and D. 1884, II, Inventory Markevich archive pp. 20–21). Ave. Filaret (I.S.O.Ch.E. III, p. 303) indicates the date of the charter as March 11, 1689, and provides passages that we used to correct the text. On page 285 Ave. Filaret mentions two royal charters of the same year, but then indicates one. Rukop. Imp. Pub. Bible Q. I, No. 668, l. 21, Little Russian, handwriting. There are two inscriptions on it by the hand of St. Dimitria: l. 3: “from the books of the monastery of Kiril of Kyiv”; l. 22 – “Roku [akhpf – 1689] during Great Lent this was written to the blessed Father Innocent of Manastir by the Abbot of Kiril of Kiev.” The title was apparently made from this entry later, by a different hand. In the Moscow Synodal Library No. 294 (V tetr.), l. 180, the same little book about the Divine Liturgy is placed and further fol. 274, untitled, objection to Akos. Consequently, the opinion of Mr. Lyubimov falls (J.M.N. Pr. 1875), who attributed the synodal list to Medvedev and assumed that Innocent’s work was burned. Sylvester only copied it from the original. Berengarius Turonensis († 1088), Abelard's teacher, a deacon, taught around 1035 that transubstantiation does not occur in essence, but that it must be understood figuratively. Migne, Patrologia latina. CLXXVIII; Cave, Historia literaria, II, 130. As a commentary on this text, one can cite an excerpt from one southern Russian or Polish house-building (director I. P. B. Q. I, No. 480, l. 43). Suspected cases: Spanish simplicity, Italian teaching, Polish rank, Prussian jokes, Danish statehood, English liberty, French shame, German obedience, Shkotsky rest, Moscow word, Jewish promise, Arian faith, Gypsy and Volosh truth. Synod. collection neper. V, l. 274, 294, 294 vol., 295, 263, 264 vol. 295 rev. and No. 294, l. 274. In hand. I. P. B., No. 668. Both works are placed side by side, but the middle is torn out (and not omitted, as Mr. Mirkovich says, p. 127), which makes it seem like one work. Probably this answer was sent with Parthenius by Abbot of Plesninsko-Podgoretsky, who arrived in Moscow around May 30 and left on December 21, 1689. Petrushevich, Consolidated Chronicle of Galicia, p. 222. Rukop. Synod. collection of unbound No. 1, l. 377, original letter signed: “Gideon Metropolitan of Kiev, Galician of Little Russia” and Varlam, Archimandrite of Kiev-Pechersk. Description r. With. b., II, 3, pp. 509–510. Archive of Southwestern Russia, I, 5, pp. 288–289. Lit. Ep. Ved. 1881, p. 370. This messenger, according to A.V. Gorsky and others, was St. Dimitri. But Dimitri, even before receiving the patriarchal charter, on August 10, 1689, arrived in Moscow together with Mazepa - Soloviev XIV, 153; Op. V, 482 (diary); Gordon's Tagebuch II, 269). In the hetman's retinue, which consisted of 300 people, there were, in addition to Demetrius, Innokenty Monastyrsky, Hieromonk Zarutsky and two lay priests (Kostomarov, Mazepa and Mazepintsy, St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 33. According to Diarius, with Demetrius there were two deacons Peter and Ephraim). We have no information about the reason for Dimitriev’s arrival. The Latin polemicist Dometsky speaks about Innocent: “in order to compete and express the truth about transubstantiation, the theologian Abbot Kirillovsky was sent from Kyiv at that time”; Damascene, objecting to him, adds: “when the bishops sent from Kyiv and Chernigov about that agreement, not only this Cyrillic theologian, but many” (although, as we will see, no one was sent from Chernigov). Rukop. Yakhontova, L. 174 rev; Wed l. 12v.: “from Kyiv by decree of St. the patriarch came to the election and speech of men and promised to agree on the transubstantiation of St. Mysteries of the Holy Fathers' Tradition." Yakhontov, Hierodeacon of Damascus, p. 27. Mazepa's letter to you has been preserved. You. Golitsyn, where he thanks the latter for sending gifts to his mother, the abbess of the Kiev-Pechersk nunnery (Moscow Arch. M.I.D. affairs of the small St. 79 No. 7). It was not for nothing that in 1691 Mazepa was accused, in addition to being partial to Poland, of being close to Princess Sofia and Golitsyn (Bodyansky, Sources of Little Russian History, M. 1859, II, p. 3). Mos. Arch. M.I.D. is small. St. 80, No. 19 (notebook of steward Kudryavtsev). Don’t we know if this is the same as the hetman’s court on Pokrovka? Op. I, 482. Acts, Zap. Russia V, 224. Book No. 51 of the Moscow archive Min. We did not have the justice containing information about Mazepa’s stay in our hands. We extract other information (contrary to the above) from Moscow. Arch. M.I.D. Hetman arrived on August 16 and with him the spiritual abbot Kirilovsky Innokenty, Baturinsky abbot Dimitri (feed 5 altyns per person), hieromonks of Damascus 2 people, hierodeacons Kirilovsky 2, hierodeacons Nikol. Batur. Moscow 2 yes Nikita hierodeacon and lay priest Afanasy Zarutsky Nezhinsky and Yakov... yes Hermogenes (four money each) [consumable book 1688–1690 affairs small. St. 78 No. 94]. We don’t know what kind of arrival the documents are talking about. small St. 81 No. 55 in [pчs – 196] (?) year we were visiting... with Hetman Ivan Stepanovich Mazepa from Kyiv Nikolsk. deserted of the monastery, hierodeacon Ignateus, and of the Kirilov monastery, hegumen Innocent of Monastyrsky, and with him one vicar of two hieromonks... they drank a cup of mead and beer, but of the Kirilov monastery there was no food for the hieromonk, because it was not written in the painting on the neve... Wasn’t Monastyrky in Moscow back in 1688, and now hasn’t he come a second time? Letter from Mazepa to Colonel Novitsky August 12, 1689 Acts West. Russia V, 224. His letters were given above, but here is the testimony of the Shield of Faith: “In Kyiv, Abbot Innokenty of the Kirillov Monastery, nicknamed Monastic, was a Jew by birth and by faith was openly a Jew or, even a Christian, both feigned, and then negli, the Latin part, and the commoner monk Sylvester wrote off that malice with him.” (Ruk. Ak. N., F No. 12, l. 133). The list itself (synodal) of both works of Innocent (or rather, two parts of one work) - “Reproach on Akos” and “Books on the Divine Liturgy” - was made by the hand of Sylvester, which forced some researchers (Mr. Lyubimov) to attribute their composition to Sylvester. There is a misunderstanding regarding the transfer of books. During interrogation, Sylvester testified that he received it from the Kyiv clergy, through Prince V.V. Golitsyn from the hetman. “Shield of Faith” says that Innocent “without the blessing of ours and his bishop of the Kyiv Metropolitan (which is not true), he conceitedly wrote a book in support of the Latin heresy, corrupting the saints of the father of words and being in Moscow, he gave that book to him to Sylvester” (Search for the case of Fed. Shackle. I, pp. 544–5). Road map of Varlaam in August 1689 in Mos. Arch. M.I.D. gram. small No. 603 (622). The matter of dedicating the book of Lives of Saints to the sovereigns is also there. Maloros affairs. St. 80 No. 24 dated August 28. Mos. Arch. M.I.D. St. 80 No. 24 (endless) – dated August 28, 1689 Mazepa wrote to V.V. Golitsyn about this Afanasy, a resident of Glukhov (sic), on July 3, 1688. Athanasius asked permission to print a book praising the name of the kings and princesses. The book was corrected by Laz. Baranovich, and he is Zarutsky, “having quickly studied the chroniclers’ writings, he did not sin in that book (Moscow. Arch. M. I. D. grammatical minor. No. 554 (536). Moscow Arch. M.I.D. is small. St. 80 No. 30–20 September. Has this book survived? Here, by the way, I will note about the author of the Synopsis, which is attributed to Innocent Gisel, and is published in the works of St. Dimitri. Isn't the author's name hidden in the acrostic of the printers in print? edition 1680: Ivan Armashenkov? This person was sent as a clerk to Moscow in 1680 together with Varlaam Yasinsky and Paisiy Pechersky (Eugene, Description of the Kiev Lavra, appendix 44; Maksimovich III, 715). Wed. above. Op. I, p. 482 “were at the pen,” as St. says. Dimitri. It is to this time that we attribute the information recorded by Ignatius Korsakov (in the life of P. Joachim, p. 64) that “the Most Holy One excommunicated Princess Sophia for certain people opposing the kingdom, as if interceding.” Gordon. Tagebuch II, 269–276. Aristov. Moscow Troubles, page 124. And in Little Russia it was restless, as can be seen from Mazepa’s letters to Novitsky (Acts of Western Russia, V, 224 et seq.). Kostomarov. Mazepa and the Mazepinians, St. Petersburg. 1885, p. 35. Hand. Yakhontova M. L. 174 rev. and 175. He left Moscow on September 28 on 8 carts, which cost 6 rubles. 8 alt. (M.A.M.I.D. case. small, St. 78, No. 93). In the Shield of Faith, among the enemies to whom this shield is opposed, Innocent is finally attested as follows: “The weapon of the great dragon of Satan, the many-insidious and diverse one, appeared in Kyiv - Abbot Innocent, called Monastic (his own names, as if there is a Jewish family, where is the Christian or where is the monastic image and the priesthood accepted, no one knows even to this day). The book was written clearly contrary to the tradition and custom and rite of the sacrament of the Holy Eastern Church of Christ, and in this satanic transformation, like a Christian and a priest, a son of the Jews, the flattering servant of Satan imagined, in this he pretended to be writing about piety, completely although the traditions of our saints, the ranks, and customs were transformed and to destroy, rejecting, as a Judean and naturally a Dukhoborite, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, taking with them certain like-minded people and detractors, existing in Kiev (Manual of Ak Sciences, F. 12 l. 15). Rukop. Academician Sciences, F. 12, l. 108. Letters of Lazar Baranovich, p. 246; Description r. With. b., II, 3, pp. 512–513. At the beginning of the message, it is said in the Description, it is clear that Lazarus received seven charters from the patriarch on this subject, but we know only four: in my opinion, Lazarus is talking about seven charters - seven columns of paper on which Joachim’s extensive message was written. It can be seen that the letters did not always arrive in Moscow accurately (unless this is just an invention, for the sake of apology). Hand. Academician Sciences, F. 12, l. 110. 8 altyn - 120 rubles. (Moscow. Arch. M.I.D., consumable book in affairs. minor., St. 78, No. 93). Op. I, 482. Soloviev XIV, 235. Tortured by the royal court according to civil laws with fire and scourge until blood was shed. (Synod. Sat. neper. V, l. 370 vol.). Search cases about F. Sh., I, pp. 527, 542, 635. Osten, 82. Und. No. 478. Original in Sin. collection neper. I, l. 307 et seq. It is curious that the true repentance was not signed by Medvedev, but the signature of Savva and others is. Was everything really as the Shield of Faith tells it? Among the books of Job of Novgorod, a conciliar notice about the folding of fingers and the veneration of St. the mysteries of the liturgy, but I don’t know what they are. (Description of documents and files stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, vol. I, St. Petersburg 1868, art. XCIII). Rukop. Yakhontova L. 12 rev; Yakhontov, Hierodeacon of Damascus, page 27. Dometsky says that the word was written after the death of the patriarch. Joachim, but Damascene rejects this news and says that “to the patriarch presiding in his chamber of the cross, the word came from his saint. The patriarch was written and given to the protopresbyter of the Great Assumption Church, John Grigoriev, and read in the hearing of all the assembled parochial presbyters, who were then found in the reigning city of Moscow.” (Ruk. Yakhontov, l. 182–183). Hand. Ak. N., F. No. 12, Shield of Faith, l. 151; Wed Acts of history, vol. V, p. 338. Hand. Ak. N., F. No. 12, l. 153–154. Senka, according to the city law, was tortured by fire and scourges and other tests and was revealed to be evil-minded and made friends with the wise men and sorcerers and asked great and lofty fortune-telling about himself... his head was cut off. (Syn. collection. non-trans. V, l. 372 vol.). Gordon Tagebuch II, 283. These executions inspired one of the poets of that time, who was not particularly disposed towards the defeated party, and he wrote “A five-line concurrence about the delights of this vain world... accusatory and reproachful of great people, judged by unjust judges, cunning and feigned hypocrites, evil predators and bribe-takers... written summer [zrchf – 7199] for the common benefit of all.” Think for a moment, // O son of a man, // And think for yourself, // For what you need in a little way // Take it into your fingertips! // ... // Today you are among the wards, // In the government of war, // You are building the world for people, - // In the morning you are preparing // An axe! // The day of the ruler // You and the ruler // He does terrible things to many, - // Morning with the wretched // Makes up! // Today the prophet of your face // Installs a ruler // Creates for all the people, - // Morning drives you into exile // Dishonestly! // Take a closer look at this // Everyone and understand, // As in our summer // The wheel (wheel) of this world // Show! // Kiya bo misfortune // Nobles and authorities // They know the limit soon, // For they change // It’s wonderful! // ... // Oh, oh, oh, if I’m evil // Oh, if I’m dishonest // Oh, if I’m dignified // Oh, if I’m great // Be human! // It’s not only strange // Say it, but it’s scary // Don’t even think about it // Who could take away // Their honor. (Ruk. Und. No. 467 l. 466–469). Arch. S.-W. Russia I, p. 449; Description With. r. II, 3, p. 490. Smirnov, Patr. Joachim, p. 245; Acts Arch. Exp., IV, No. 301. Life of Patr. Joachim pp. 39–42, 42–43 Ibid., pp. 61, 70, 81–83, 89–90, 84–86, 91–92, 93, 94–95. Arch. Yu. Z. Russia, I, 5, p. 449. Synod. collection neper. IV 100. Gorsky, Description. With. r., II, 3 pp. 490–493. That it was Euthymius who compiled Ostn is clear from the synodal lists edited by him (Op. R. S. B. II, 3, 424, 436, 493); Wed also Spirit. Conversation 1864, No. 27, Art. Obraztsova. That it was written before the Shield is evident from the fact that Osten was compiled hastily and subsequently much from Osten was included in the Shield. Here are some examples: Shield of Faith (Act. N. F No. 12) // Osten [list of synod. No. 292 (546)] l. [p?e] about worship…………....156–167 l. [rza] about the hedgehog as it should be, etc..167–168 l. [rza] about particles…………….…..188–199 l. [rze] about antidor………….……..199–203 l. [rzo] about heterodox...................203–204 That it was written after 1691 is evident from the story about Medvedev (different from the story in Shield). However, in the charter placed at the beginning of the Shield, Euthymius says that the Shield and Osten were collected and left from His Holiness Joachim, who even intended to print the Shield (Osten, 85; Description II, 3 p. 429), and, if we believe Euthymius, our consideration is only relevant for the last, final edition of both monuments. Considerations about. Smirnov’s statements about Joachim’s conversations are completely incorrect, for the conversations were not published separately, and they were subsequently composed for the Shield of Faith. There are quite a few Ostn lists. Gorsky O. With. r. II, 3 pp. 495, 516. In Pogodin’s manuscript No. 1963 l. 178 we read the following, apparently a draft passage: “This book, called the Spiritual Treasure of the acquisition of the Miracle Monastery of the sinful monk Ενθνμια. In this book, by decree from Patriarch Joachim (assigned from above), (eight) books are collected. The first Shield of Faith, the work of the Right Reverend Athanasius, Archbishop of Kholmogorsk and Vazheskago with those who worked with him. The second book Akos or healing is based in this same book. The third book is Dialogues between a Greek teacher and a Jesuit. The fourth book of Basil the Great is five words accusatory of Eunomius the heretic and his other various conversations, and some words of the same and other newly-consecrated saints (from the Greek dialect). The fifth book of Nektaria of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The sixth book of Ignatius the God-Bearer, ten epistles. The seventh book on the verbs, supposedly it is not appropriate to write the image of God the Father with gray hair, and the register on that (on the side: all these books and words that were not in our Slavic language until now, but now newly labored have been taken from the Greek books as much as possible). Then in this same book there is a conciliar denunciation of the newly-forged heretics Yan Belobodsky, Gregory Skibinsky and Peter the Rozdeacon. And there are other needs of the Church of God: about the holy sign of the cross, about the worship of the most pure Body and Blood of the Lord at the Divine Liturgy, about icon writing and testament about fasting. Also, because baptism and other sacraments are unpleasant, performed by a commoner, not being a priest, but falsely pretending to be a priesthood and thus acting all sacred things. Everyone in the bottom of this notebook [рзг] (163). This contribution to the Great Assumption Cathedral was to be accepted by the sacristan Philaret on March 25, 1702. I don’t know if this manuscript exists. (Cf. Bychkova Description of the collections of I. P. B. I p. 64, - Euthymius’s presentation to Adrian about the publication of these works). Further (l. 180) a letter from Adrian (is it not supposed?) is placed on the intended printed edition: to publish everything with printed embossing together with the book “Shield of Faith”, which was collected by His Holiness Joachim the Patriarch in his days on the withered thorn of the Latin vegetation, which began from the rosemonk Sylvester Medvedev and the soclevrets and satanic his co-secretaries and advisers, on the Holy Eastern Church of hidden warriors, of whom there is only one Monastery called a Jew, and their other faces and names, their conscience, their message. South-West Archive Russia, vol. I, part V. Hand. Ak. Sciences F No. 26 l. 120, Pogodina No. 1963 l. 181, Spaso-Yakovlevsky Rostovsk. Monastery No. 377, Moscow. Spirit. Academy No...., Kyiv Lavra No. 10, Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral No. 6 (80), Shlyapkin No. 95 (a very interesting collection compiled at the end of the 17th century, with clippings about transubstantiation from printed service books, etc., acquired by us in the city of Kashin). Synod. non-rep. collection. III. Probably Likhudami also translated the Latin rank of moss (missae), place. in the same hand. Ak. Sciences No. 26 l. 132 rev. Isn’t this the translation (the synodal list is attributed to Gorsky II, 3 p. 459 to Euthymius) and in the manuscript of Afanasy Kholmogorsky, copied, according to him, “for the sake of knowledge of Latin nonsense from Novospassky archimandrite Ignatius Korsakov in 1689? (Stroev Bibl. Words. p. 392). Gorsky Op. With. r. II, 3 pp. 293–294. Gabriel's translation is included in the collection. synod. neper. III l. 341, following the liturgy of James, but the exact date is not known. There is also the beginning of the essay: About the holy mysteries of God (fol. 498). Gorsky. Op. pp. II, 3 pp. 495. Acts of history. Vol. V No. 218, p. 374. Gorsky, Op. r. With. II, 3 p. 529 also indicates Pogodin’s list. The translation was made before 1705, for it is mentioned in the defense of Ostna Damascene in 1704. In the manuscript of the Spasoyaroslavsky mon. There is also an indicative statement (Zap. Ak. Nauk vol. XII protocols II separated, p. 83). Also Undolsky No. 432 l. 433 and in hand. K. Sofiysk. personal No. 351. Evidence of Neil, Patr. Joachim, Epiphanius, Thomas Aquinas and James Gohar. However, this did not come true. The grandson of the Ioannikievs was Prince Ivan Likhud. He was wheeled on the wheel in 1740. Nikolev, Materials for the biography of Likhudov. M. 1881. Collection Synod. neper. IV pp. 60 rev.–61. Smirnov. Histor. Moscow glory Greek. lat. Academy, pp. 31 and 36. Collection syn. neper. IV l. 74 rev. Brief biography of Dosifei from Matchenki in Dushep. Readings of 1877 and 1878 Mansvetov. How our church books were edited in the 17th century. M. 1883, p. 157, appendix. Hand. I.P.B.F.I No. 186 l. 41. The Tale of S. Medvedev. Another story says: Medvedev “praised the Pope and was the head of all.” Collection Synod. neper. V, l. 367. Wed. reviews about it are higher. Hand. Ak. Sciences. No. 12 p. 21 (The Tale of S. Medvedev in the Shield of Faith). So on August 19, 1691, the prefect of the Kievobratsky monastery Seluan came to Moscow to present conclusions to the kings (Moscow Arch. M.I.D. Little Russian affairs, St. 87, No. 39. Apparently, he studied after returning from abroad; On the week of April 19, 1691, the teacher of the Zaikonospassky school Sophrony Likhud and his students came to the patriarch to see the patriarch, and they made speeches and orations, and his student (among other students of the upper schools), deacon Peter Artemyev, was given a ruble. Zabelin, Materials for history. archaeol. and statistics of Moscow I, 1883, art. 1045. Orthodox Review 1863, III, pp. 246–270 Peter Artemyev excellent article by M. Nikolsky. There is also a note by Mr. Borozdin in History. Bulletin 1886, VIII. In addition to the above works and the Dvina Chronicle, I used, for quotations, the manuscript of Acad. Sciences No. 191, which preserved the ending of this case, unknown to M. Nikolsky and Borozdin: this ending is not available to these researchers from the Synod. manuscript No. 393. I assume, judging by Artemyev’s fits in childhood, his manner of serving mass of his own invention, and other behavior in Moscow, that he was a man suffering from mania religiosa. Here is information about his exile according to the Dvina Chronicle, where, however, Pyotr Artemyev is not named. “On the 5th day of September 1699, an order was ordered from the house of the bishop's court with the clerk Karp Andreev to the Arkhangelsk city of the exiled Rozdeacon Latynin, who was sent from Moscow this spring to the Right Reverend Archbishop, to be sent to the Solovetsky Monastery and locked up in a dark prison, to death, for his dispute and wrong teaching in the church and for reproachful words of the pre-future state (purgatory?) a govoril cto rossiiska cerkov soedinitca s rimskoi. In the bishop's house on Kholmogory, this rosdeacon lived hopelessly in prison and wrote books of his own hand to the bishop that did not happen. And in prison, in his windows, on the sides, on the wood, it was written and after it was seen, as if it were written below.” Next are verses to the Savior, the Mother of God, John the Baptist, Joseph, Joachim and Anna. Here are some examples: Our Lady. Rejoice, Mary, Most Gracious! // The Lord is with you, O joyful one! // Blessed are you among the wives of the earthly man // And since you are incomparable in the generation of all the heavenly powers, // As blessed is Jesus the fruit of the womb, // The foremother of all, Eve, rejoiced in him. // Virgin of God, O holy Mary, // At the hour of our death, pray for us good! These verses are apparently a translation of the Latin prayer: Sancta Maria, mater Des, ora pro nobis peccatoribus et nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae, Tipov, Dvina Chronicle. M. 1889, pp. 109–110. Here is another poem: Caves. // Whenever I see myself inflamed, // Have the memory of torment in yourself renewed: // I inflame myself with fire, // I imagine the image of the future of fire, // I am not only burned by fire, // As long as you are enslaved by carnal passion, // Even if you wanted to get rid of them, // Remember death, judgment and how the minutes of hell. We learn about the final fate of Pyotr Artemyev from a letter from Arch. Athanasius to Patriarch Adrian, placed in an academic manuscript. “In the present year 1700, March 30, the exiled and anathematized Rosdeacon Peter Artemyev grieved and confessed to death.” His confessor, the monk Bogolep, at first refused to confess to him, but then, seeing his repentance, he began to listen to him, but did not have time to give him communion. Orthodox Review 1863, III, p. 265. The library of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral preserves the manuscript for No. 38, 713 pages. Here's a brief description of it. On the reverse there is an inscription: this book was written through the diligence of the Right Reverend Dosifea Metropolitan of Suceava and was donated to Metropolitan Barlaam to the throne of the Metropolitan of St. Sophia of Kiev. Title of His Beatitude Archbishop Simeon of Thessaloniki Conversations about Christ on all heresies. On l. 363 rev. we read: these notebooks [аi – 11]... were sent to your saint, Christ’s saint, through the beloved and spiritual and kindred and noble young man Pan Elijah, while the rest of the notebooks were sent in part before the separate times of the citizens of St.... I pray, most holy father, kindly accept this obedience of mine in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos Our savior and Ever-Virgin Mary, the most blessed, and ascribed to you at the beginning of the saving hierarchical installation in the holy Wisdom of God to the throne of the holy city of Kyiv. May the Lord grant you to His holy churches whole, honest, long-lasting health, the right to rule the Word of His truth for salvation. Leta [zrchf – 7199]. Your humble servant Dositheus M. Suchavsky. On l. 364: The same (Simeon F.) with the testimony about the Divine Church and those existing in it. On l. 383 – 387 the Orthodox teaching about the time of transubstantiation is expounded. On l. 449 twelve chapters of faith (αρθρα πιστεως, articula fidei) by Simeon F. with a note: if the Lord willing... I will strive to die, accept the handiwork of your servant. L. 527: Behold, the entire book of blessed Simeon of Thessaloniki or Thessalonica from Hellenic into Russian has already been completed... offered... in praise of Metropolitan Barlaam... accept therefore our wretched obedience to the saint of Christ and bless your humble servant Dositheus, who was sometimes the metropolitan of Moldova in the summer [zska - 7221] (?) fevruaria. On l. 529 – Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch translated. named after Dositheus; On l. 588 – On the transubstantiation of St. secrets (Beginning. Every word begins and verbs and ends); on l. 591 “nets... what is new to think about: I saw the newly-conducted liturgy in Latsen letters, and in it I did not see the invocation of the Holy Spirit, but the Lord will bring forth His truth like a light,” and further on fol. 592: “the holy gifts, even from the very beginning, are sanctified by priestly prayers and the indication of the words of Christ, but here, by the revelation of the Most Holy Spirit, they are completely transubstantiated, as if they were seeing. On l. 600 – Διαταγαι τῶν ὰγίων ὰποστόλων with (ed. 1663) part translated. On l. 607. – Prophecies of the Sibyls in Greek, Latin, Russian and Moldavian (Cyrillic). On l. 616 Varlaam is also called an archimandrite, which proves that the collection is composed of works from different periods. On l. 672 – Church history or the mysterious vision of Herman of Constantinople. On l. 713.– On transubstantiation (also almost as before) – translation from Herman of Constantinople, February 12, 1692. In the library of the Kievosophy Cathedral. No. 219. Tractatus theologicae controversiae de sacramentis anno Domini 1701. Januario 21 feliciter inceptus. There we read Controversia prima. Quibus verbis fit conversio eucharistica seu qua est forma sacramenti eucharistiae? Praenotandum: irrepsit noviter erronea quorumdam opinio dicentium conversionem eucharisticam fieri non per verba Christi: "Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus Meum", sed per orationem sacerdotis consecrantis et per verba S. Basilii: fac, Domine, panem hunc corpus Filii Tui quod ut resolvatur per quem necessarium homini catholico sit. Evidence given: Iustinus Martyr, Gregorius Nissenus, Irinaeus, Ambrosius, Ioannes Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Damascenus, S. Basilius, Gregorius Nazianzenus. Rationes solidae (X) probant couclusionem. We also find the same opinion in hand. Kyiv Lavra Tractatus de Evcharistia 1697 (No. 17) and 1702 (No. 18). Hand. Syn. No. 187 l. 21. The manuscript was rewritten in 1708, and the next one in 1704. Demetrius did not give up his opinion subsequently. Echoes of it are partly heard in the Search for the Bryn faith M. 1745 p. 198, although in Questions and Answers about faith (op. I, 104) the opinion is Greek. Hand. synod. No. 811 and another list of A. A. Titov’s library in Rostov, which he kindly provided us with in a copy. G. Mirkovich also indicates the third in the manuscript from Moscow. typographical libraries No. 1234 (4000). It is attached to a printed book with several articles, the first of which is entitled Kwiaty koron krolewskich Zygmunta III, Krakow 1633. The binding page is written “On the transubstantiation of the Rostov Bishop Demetrius.” Manuscript on seven unnumbered leaves in 4° (Mirkovich p. 243). In another work attributed to Demetrius, “The Twelve Articles That Convince Those Who Doubt or Have Unbelief About Transubstantiation,” we find the following words: “since the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord, by the same word of God we change bread and wine into His Body and Blood” and further: “believe - for this being is by the influx of the Holy Spirit and the action of it and by the power of the omnipotent word of God is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.” About this essay, see above. In addition to the Kyiv lists No. 296 indicated by Ave. Petrov (his description of the river of the Kyiv Museum, II, No. 296 and 227) and the list donated by Ave. Shchegolev in December 1883, we can indicate the lists of Imp. Publ. Bible F. 1 No. 181 Pogodina No. 1227 l. 83 rev. – 103, and decree. G. Mirkovich list of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Ak. No. 197. Journal Min. Nar. Enlightenment 1884, April, 356, in a review of the book about Damascus by Fr. Yakhontova. The only reason for the venerable professor is that this treatise stands among the works of St. Dimitri; but there you also come across sermons that are obviously other people’s. Sumtsov, Lazar Baranovich, p. 180. G. Mirkovich About the time of the transubstantiation of St. Darov. Vilno 1886, I-XXV1 and 243–245. Samarin, Works V, 153. Evgeniy also speaks of a similar work by Yavorsky. Dictionary of spirit. writers II, 260. Stroev also mentions the work of Stephen “contrary to the opinion of the Likhuds” Bibl. Words 267. Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote about something similar in 1703 to Stefan Yavorsky: You issued general provisions (theses?) that were clearly contrary to the commission of St. the secrets of divine thanksgiving and also: “Your bishopric writes that you are a champion of the Eastern Church,” but this is unfair: at a certain meal, while chilling with many (some Greeks were also present), your bishopric discredited the Eastern Church about the celebration of the most holy secret of thanksgiving; You said clearly that the Greeks say this and that... Your bishops boldly and insolently wrote (something) against the Eastern Church. (Proceedings of Kiev. Dukh. Acad. 1864 March: Ternovsky, Stefan Yavorsky, pp. 247–248). In general, Yavorky did not like the Likhuds: to the requests of Job of Novgorod to leave the Likhuds in Novgorod, he replied: they are in Moscow and both are not needed. (Wanderer 1861, I, p. 128). In “The Stone of Faith” (ed. 1730, p. 302) we read: Sixth Knowledge: We cannot show here the words with which the transubstantiation of Gifts occurs, and enough of this is written about, as transubstantiation occurs by the influx of the Holy Spirit. Spirit in the prayerful presence of the priest. The same words: Accept, etc. Nowadays in the liturgy the verbs are spoken historically. We conclude this in view of the forms found in the treatise: reasoned, not sought, sought, heard, in the year of the evening. Hand. I.P.B.F.I. No. 181 l. 200. Hand. I.P.B.F. No. 181 l. 1 rev. The first can be seen from the following: F. 181 l. 2. The first creator of his notebooks writes: from absurd and inappropriate word-questioning and inquisitiveness and quarreling, quarrels, strife, enmity and bread-worshipping heresy, etc., have proliferated... The instructive word of Joachim I. P. B. Q. I 334 l. 6. Osten. From such absurd and inappropriate word-questioning and testing and quarreling, quarrels, strife, enmity and bread-worshipping heresy, etc., have developed. F. 181 l. 2. The same packs: bow down in the proclamation of words, receive, eat bread and wine, as I exist in the Body and Blood of Christ, gives honor and worship to the creatures and sins gravely to the destruction of his soul: for the essence of the body and blood of Christ is imaginable. The instructive word of Joachim I. P. B. Q. I 334 l. 14. I invite Osten and this, as if you worship in the proclamation of words, accept, eat bread and wine, as the Body and Blood of Christ exist, honor and worship of God gives to the creatures and sins gravely to the destruction of his soul, for the essence of the Body and Blood of Christ is imaginable... By the way, let’s cite a passage from another creator unknown to me: “Another creator of his notebook writes: “When a priest speaks the words of Christ, he does not speak to people, and if people think that a priest speaks to them, they sin greatly.” Zane the priest speaks narratively and historically and reminiscently, but not to people. Again, he says: the bread of the Eucharist is simple bread, and then it is the servant who worships the bread, and not the worshiper. Again, the same creator, having gone to the seventh universal council, says this holy council and all the eastern saints command neither kneeling nor bowing, but that they should perform in the proclamation of the words of Christ. (Ibid). Controversy broke out in the 40s between A.N. Muravyov and A.V. Gorsky, but this does not concern us. Here are a few scattered facts that indicate the emergence of innovations in different strata of society not from the outside (which we developed in Chapter II), but from within society itself. Margeret speaks of Dmitry Posnik, who was in the 1601 embassy in Denmark together with Rzhevsky, who, upon returning to his homeland, joked about the ignorance of the Muscovites. (A modern legend about Dmitry the Pretender. St. Petersburg, 1859, I, p. 14). Sigismund swears allegiance to Saltykov and his comrades (1610), among other things, that “for the sake of science, the people of Moscow freely travel to other Christian dominions.” (Collection of Mukhanov, St. Petersburg, 1866, p. 177). The story of the vision of 1606 complains: from the vile language of the vile, their customs have been adopted: the brothers are tonsuring their own hair. (Bychkov. Description of the collection. I.I.B., I, p. 36). Russian military men liked the Polish order. Book Ivan Golitsyn under Mikhail Feodorovich wrote: It is impossible for Russian people to serve together with the royal ones for the sake of their charm: one summer they will be in the service with them, and for another summer we will not have half of the best Russian people left, not just the boyar people: only those who are old or do not want to serve will remain, and not a single person will remain among the poor people. (Soloviev, IX, 470). Kotoshikhin writes: “Russian children do not send to other states, fearing that they would cancel their faith and stick to others, and they had no care and did not think about returning to their homes and relatives” (About Russia in the Kingdom. Alexei Mikhailovich, St. Petersburg, 1859 p. 43). We will not dwell on some rationalistic principles in the schism. The widespread use of tobacco in Russia prompted a prohibitory decree from Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649. (Medovikov. Historical meaning of the kingdom. Alexei Mikhailovich, pp. 175 and 216). Shaving of beards also became widespread among the boyars. The famous dissenter priest Avvakum writes: Vasily Petrovich Sheremetev, sailing along the Volga to Kazan for the voivodship, ordered to bless his son Matvey brit obradets. I did not bless, etc. (Materials for the history of the schism, ed. Subbotin, vol. U, M. 1873, p. 12, Adrian’s message about barber shaving is also known (Gorsky IV, 261. Ustryalov I. P. V. III, 511). In 1572, the peasants fled from the oppression of the Zaotsky landowners to Ukraine, and lived with the bishop and Cossacks. (Soloviev, XIII, 130). From the inventory of the property of the steward Verigin († 1681) stored in the Tver Museum in the estate of his Ostashkovsky district, we see that he had twenty-eight sheets of German prints from Fryazh, which were immediately sold: this means that there were enough hunters for Fryazhsky paintings. In 1682, the peasants of the Kirilovsky monastery were accused. the fact that they drink tobacco and the monastery authorities are not charged with anything. (From the manuscripts of Barsov. Readings of O.I. and Dr. 1881, 4, p. 3). In 1683, Abraham Pankratiev Fursov translated the psalter “into simple ordinary language for the benefit of all people.” director, no. 586). Thus, citing the confession of Skibinsky (c. 1696). Euthymius concludes: the narrator of these points is worthy of the death penalty, inexorable (Synod. incorrigible collection. I, l. 307) and refers to the pope, who would be burned for one such confession. About Skibinsky, see Nikolsky’s note in Prav. Review 1862 No. 11. The expression of the funeral word above him, printed in Christ. Read 1885 by S. A. Belokurov. His life in Dr. Ross. Wiffle. XVIII, 415. During the famine in Vologda, he sold his rich clothes and silverware and helped the starving; in Arzamas he gave land to the poor and founded an almshouse in Moscow. In the name of Andrew, first called by Christ // This monastery was quickly created by the Apostle // By a grateful (Theodore) husband with abundance // And by the careful labor of monks // It was the first to be called by this title in Russia, // Founded as a refuge for the strange and the poor. (Run. Synod. No. 369, l. 3). Before his death, he set the peasants free. About his friendship with Slavinetsky, M. Pavel, Nikon, Baranovich, etc., see Life pp. 401, 405, 415, 418. Acts of Yu. and Z. R. IV, 41, etc. About him, in addition to the above, see the note by P. V. Vladimirov in the Wanderer 18, page no. Duma clerk Lukian Golosov, who presented verses to Sophia, was brought up in Rtishchev’s school and was accused of heresies. Soloviev X, 168. The preface to the Triodion of 1627 says: “even about the synaxars on the Russian general conversation by the honest hieromonk Tarasius Zemka, the preacher of the word of God from the Greek, don’t prophesy against this to Great Russia, Bolgar, Srub and others like us in Orthodoxy: this was created by the jealousy and desire of our kind of Little Russia people those who have not studied the Slovenian language." Stroev. Description of Tsarsky's books. M. 1336, p. 113. Letters of Lazar Baranovich Chernigov 1865 p. 50. Let us note that the correction of church books was entrusted to the Little Russians. From the letters it is clear that he read, for example, Aristotle in Polish translation. In his letters, he often talks about the beauty and solitude of this or that place, or worries about sending seeds of various plants. He is not averse to joking: he hits his correspondent’s foot with his forehead, as always, to see if there is a sandal from the cheerful and quick walks around Moscow are clean. This is also the humorous characterization of Abbot Fr. Romana, who often and richly drinks wine with beer and honey. (Bychkov, Descriptive collection. I. P. B. I, 364, Readings of O. I. and D. P. I, 1846, III, mixture p. IV.). Synod. collection. uninterrupted IV, 184. Full collection zak. IV No. 1910.