The history of the Russian schism, known as the Old Believers

This (third) edition of The History of the Russian Schism is a reprint of the second edition (St. Petersburg, 1858) with the addition of those few and insignificant handwritten (pencil) notes by the author that were found in a copy of this work found in his library. During the quarter of a century that elapsed from the last edition of this book until the death of the author († 1882), naturally a lot of new data appeared for the study of the schism, which the author of this work also used for his twelve-volume History of the Russian Church, when in the latter (mainly in volumes VI, VIII, X, XI and XII) it was necessary to touch upon issues raised earlier in the History of the Schism, and on the basis of these new data sometimes admitted minor deviations in the views expressed in this essay, and sometimes significantly changed the latter. The significant changes made in the History of the Russian Church, in comparison with the History of the Schism, include the following: 1) New discoveries forced the author to write in Volume VI of the History of the Church, pp. 220–243 (in the 1887 edition, pp. 223 et seq.) and in VIII, pp. 93 et ​​seq. abandon his previous view of the book - Stoglav, expressed in this essay, chap. III and IV. 2) New data changed the author’s view of Archpriest Avvakum, Nikita Pustosvyat, Deacon Theodore, as reference books for the patriarch. Joseph, which can be seen in volume XI of the note. 82. 3) Thanks to new materials, in a completely different form than in the History of the Schism, volume XII, pp. 630–638, 669–679 appears in the history of the Solovetsky rebellion, brought, however, like the entire XII volume, only to the events of 1667. 4) The opinion about the significance in the History of the schism of the heretic Martin and the legend about the council against him in Kiev (Historical rask. p. 5), now completely rejected, was introduced by the author, probably as a tribute to his time and was expressed by him hardly with full conviction, since in the first three volumes of his History of the Russian Church, published in 1857, when listing the councils in Kyiv, the author no longer mentions about the Council of 1157 on Martin and by this silence seems to make it clear that he himself does not attach much importance to the opinion about this heretic and his activities expressed in this work. Due to the fact that the History of the Russian Schism required a thorough revision and reworking: the author, busy with the History of the Russian Church in general, again did not publish his work on the History of the Russian Schism. At present, with the intensification of missionary activity for the conversion of schismatics and with the establishment of departments on this subject at theological Seminaries, demands have increased for this particular work by the late author of the History of the Russian Church, which does not exist for sale, and prompted the publication of this book again 30 years after its second and last edition. The Russian schism, known under the name of the Old Believers, as a specific sect, has existed only since 1667. But the seeds of the schism and its germs existed much earlier; they opened quietly and slowly; ripened gradually until they bore their bitter fruit. At first it was the smallest, almost imperceptible cloud on the horizon of our Russian Church; then the cloud grew more and more; increased in volume and strength, turned into a huge cloud and burst into a terrible thunderstorm. Therefore, in the history of the Russian schism, two periods differ sharply. The first, covering more than two centuries (1419–1667), represents how little by little they arose and were revealed, how they gradually strengthened and acquired followers, how those strange opinions or delusions that served as the main principles of the Russian schism finally reached the highest degree of development and power. The second, which has also been going on for about two centuries (1667–1855), shows how, on the basis of these deep-rooted errors, the Russian schism, known under the name of the Old Believers, actually took place, how it openly rebelled against the Church and civil authorities, how it spread and fragmented into small rumors and agreements, which further removed it from the Orthodox Church, and how it finally reached the position in which it is now. The first period can be called the actual history of schismatic opinions before the origin of the Russian schism; the second is the history of the schism itself and its opinions. Having decided, with God's help, to outline the history of our schism in both of its periods, I had in mind a twofold scientific goal: to explain and depict with possible fidelity, clarity and completeness one of the most remarkable and complex events of our church history, which has not yet been fully explained; moral: to present a historical picture of the schism so that, looking at it, schismatics could clearly see their errors and repent of them, and the Orthodox could receive correct concepts about schism and in these concepts find warnings for themselves against drifting into schism. In accordance with the first goal, I tried, as much as I could, to base my testimony on the most basic and reliable sources and generally satisfy the modern requirements of science. In accordance with the second goal, I did not limit myself to simply presenting schismatic opinions and telling stories about events, but often, where I found it necessary, I made comments against the opinions of the spoken Old Believers, exposed their incorrect sayings and speculations, pronounced judgment on their beliefs and deeds, and thus imparted a critical character to my story. I leave it to others to judge how I accomplished my work. But for my part, I cannot help but wish that this work, undertaken with pure zeal and love, achieves its goals, at least to some extent, and that this mite, reverently offered by me on the altar of the Church and Russian science, does not remain without good consequences for both. Some of the current schismatic thoughts were first introduced into Russia by the heretic Martin, who came to us from Armenia around the half of the 12th century (1149). But since the entire false teaching of Martin, which was a strange mixture of Armenianism and Latinism with the heretic’s own errors, was examined and condemned by the Kyiv Council of 1157, these first schismatic thoughts, alien to the Russians and brought to them from outside, seemed to have disappeared in our Church 1 . It was not until the 15th century that they began to be discovered among us again. At first, throughout the entire fifteenth century, only two schismatic opinions manifested themselves, not at once, but one after the other, and great importance was not attributed to them. Then in the first half of the 16th century, especially on the occasion of the correction of the liturgical books by St. Maxim the Greek, several such opinions have already emerged almost together and with greater force, having ardent adherents. In the very half of the 16th century at the Stoglavy Cathedral or, more precisely. in the book: Stoglav, some of these opinions were elevated by their adherents to the level of dogma, although they were not approved by the signature of the fathers present at the council. Finally, during the period of printing church and liturgical books, especially under Patriarchs Philaret (1619–1634) and Joseph (1642–1652), the main schismatic opinions were quietly introduced into the liturgical and teaching books by some of their references, adherents of these opinions, and, through the books, spreading throughout Russia, they became so established that, as soon as they began to correct church books and exclude these from them opinion, a split ensued on the part of the ignorant who could not understand the need to correct the books. Thus, the first period of the history of the Russian schism presents us with the following four gradualities: 1) the beginning or first discovery of schismatic opinions in the 15th century: 2) the multiplication and strengthening of schismatic opinions in the first half of the 16th century; 3) an attempt to elevate some of these opinions to the level of dogma in the very half of the 16th century during the days of the Stoglavy Council: 4) the erroneous introduction of the main schismatic opinions towards the end of the 16th and especially in the first half of the 17th century into printed church liturgical books. Chapter I. The beginning of schismatic opinions in the 15th century I. The first of the schismatic opinions that emerged in the 15th century is the opinion of a special alleluia. In 1419 (August 12), Metropolitan Photius, resolving various church issues of the Pskov clergy, among other things answered: “What do you write about Alleluia and in glory, say: glory to the Father and the Son and St. To the Spirit, now and ever and ever, Amen: Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God; Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God; Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to you, O God." 2 This means that in Pskov even then a question arose regarding the use of alleluia, and some either used it, or just wanted to use it, differently from the way M. Photius teaches here, i.e. not three times, but probably twice. This guess rises to the level of undoubted truth, if only we believe, as far as it is possible to believe, the life of St. Euphrosynus, the Pskov wonderworker, compiled about seventy years after his death († 1481) by the cleric Vasily (1547) 3. In the life, by the way, it is narrated: teacher. Euphrosynus, in the world Eleazar, who was born near Pskov, and then took monastic vows in one of the Pskov monasteries, and from the monastery in 1425 4 retired into the desert 25 stadia from Pskov, in which he later founded his monastery - even before accepting monasticism and upon acceptance, he grieved and “complained with immeasurable sadness before God about the most holy alleluia”: because I saw, as it were, “a great schism and discord among the churches of Christ, for two, two in three, holy alleluia.” He asked many of the “elders of the church about that great thing,” and no one could “explain to him the secrets of the divine alleluia.” Then he went to Constantinople, and reached there “in good times,” during the days of Tsar Kalianin under Patriarch Joseph. “many years” before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. He turned first of all to the patriarch, and the patriarch talked with him a lot “from the divine scripture about the mystery of the most holy alleluia” and commanded him to double the alleluia. I went to the Sophia Cathedral Church, and there I heard “the most holy alleluia being spoken twice.” He walked around holy places in the region of the reigning city and honest monasteries, everywhere he asked about the secret of alleluia, and from everyone he heard one command: “say the most holy alleluia twice.” The Patriarch blessed the saint with an icon of the Mother of God, gave him “a scripture about the divine mystery of Holy Alleluia” and sent him home with great honor. Returning to his monastery, Ven. Euphrosynus betrayed to the brethren “the scriptures from the patriarch about the Most Holy Alleluia and St. icon of the Mother of God,” and instituted in his monastery “the church rite to say holy alleluia twice” 5 . But as soon as they learned about this in Pskov, the Pskov clergy rebelled against the monk: because “the custom of the Most Holy Trinity Alleluia has become established throughout Pskov, both in secular churches and in monasteries.” In particular, the priest Job took up arms against Euphrosynus, who enjoyed the greatest respect for his learning from all the Pskovites - laymen and clergy, who called him “a pillar of the church and a firm teacher and mentor of Orthodoxy” and usually turned to him with questions “about all unresolved scriptures and about church dispensation, and also about legal things.” It was this Job who began to reason: “There is one God in the Trinity, and with a trinitarian voice we all sing the magnificent glory, chanting the holy alleluia for good; and this monk, who dwells in the desert, where did he get this from, and where is the custom, from what custom, to perform the holy alleluia in two? And how can you imagine putting a thing in the Church of God? But we have no knowledge of this thing, except for our customs, established from ancient times. When does this hermit more clearly understand our five great cathedral churches, from them the whole Pskov country is enlightened by the teaching?” And after that he began to speak to all five cathedrals of Pskov, to all clergy and laity about the teacher. Euphrosynus that “out of his own self-rule, he used to sing two holy alleluias in his monastery; In the same way, he harmed the legal rule of the church, and the true charters and customs of the church, he transferred our corrections, and written things, and in addition to the faithful charters of the saints, the father transfers to his custom, self-accordingly wise, and not as if we are uniform in customs, the consent of the holy alleluia, according to the written charter, looking faithfully betrayed from the Council saints father of God's Church" 6. Then Philip the deacon and a certain priest, “both wise and great philosophers,” were sent from Pskov to the monastery of the Venerable One for a competition. They began to convince Euphrosynus to leave his new custom, and said: “We greatly spare the gray hairs of your old age, so that one day all our church councils will rise up against you to the end, and with them, together with them, will be the entire multitude of the people of the Christ-loving city of Pskov...; Until then, all the churches of God throughout all our land trinity in the law of the most holy alleluia. It is just as good for every Christian to eat; and you, not like we tremble both the Church of God and the law, but even more so, the church thing, which has been commanded by everyone, dared to tremble and transform it into your own customs” 7 . Euphrosynus demanded from those sent to him an explanation of why they were making the alleluia. They, among other things, answered: “We glorify the Trinity, touching the most holy alleluia: for alleluia to the Father, alleluia to the Son, alleluia to the Holy Spirit, and again imagining the one God for the triple alleluia crying out: glory to Thee, O God.” And again: “since ancient times, looking at each other, so all with skill trinity holy hallelujah: because there is such and such beauty, even before we glorify God in the Trinity. Where the alleluia is threefold: there is the perfect Trinity - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the inseparable deity" 8 . Euphrosynus, for his part, told them that it was not on his own initiative that he introduced the custom of doubling the alleluia, but accepted it from the universal Church, from the Constantinople Patriarch Joseph, who gave him his own scripture for this purpose, and therefore resolutely refused to agree with the Pskovites regarding the triplication of the alleluia 9 . After this, Priest Job and his like-minded people further armed all the Pskovites against St. Euphrosynus, so that he himself began to be called a heretic in Pskov, the monks of his monastery, when meeting with them, were pointed at as apostates, the monastery of the saint was deprived of all offerings, and even when passing by his churches, the surrounding residents did not want to bow to them. Euphrosynus, in extreme grief, turned with a complaint against Job to the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius and, setting out in his message to him the essence of the dispute and the course of the whole matter, wrote: “Because I am saddened, pray, judge our rule and guide me to the truth... and always, Holy Hierarch, judge us with your supreme authority: then, moreover, for the Lord’s sake, forbid him (Job) and rebuke his severity” 10. St. Euthymius allegedly “heeded nothing or thought about the key sorrow on St. father,” and instead of really resolving the matter and saying whether the alleluia should be doubled or tripled, as if he was only answering Euphrosynus: “Weigh, father, for I am weak to set a measure for such an instrument, and I will not dare to open the treasure sealed by God.” Following this, he allowed the monk to conscientiously double the alleluia in his monastery, noting: “if you yourself saw it with your eyes and ears, you heard it, more than me, from the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph and from the entire choir of the universal church” 11. Having read the archbishop’s message, Euphrosynus realized that “no one is helping him with a higher power,” no one is taking up arms for him against the attack from the Pskovites, especially Job, and turned to God with a prayer, in which alone he found consolation for himself until his death, which followed in 1481 12. In our place we will show that this is the life of St. Euphrosyne, written with the obvious purpose of exalting the deep alleluia by one of its most ardent advocates, is a complete fiction in those parts that are directed towards the stated goal, and therefore does not deserve the slightest trust. And here we only note that what the biography writer said, as if involuntarily, or through carelessness against his own intention, of course deserves our faith to some extent and leads us to the following conclusions: 1) If in the days of the teacher. Euphrosynus and even before his tonsure (next, around 1419, when M. Photius wrote his famous letter to Pskov), some in the Pskov region doubled the alleluia, but perhaps not many: because barely the Rev. Euphrosynus (let us assume for now that this is fair) introduced a special alleluia into his monastery, as the entire Pskov clergy, all five councils, from which the entire country of Pskov was enlightened by teaching, rebelled against him. 2) The attempt of these few, very few, to deepen the hallelujah was then completely new in Pskov: because, according to the life writer himself, the custom of all Pskovites has become the same for three hallelujahs. 3) Not only in the Pskov region, but also in the Novgorod region, until then they did not use special alleluia; otherwise the Novgorod archbishop would certainly have forbidden the priest Job to rebel against the Venerable. Euphrosynus, would have denounced the Pskovites for their wrong custom and would have commanded them, following the example of Novgorod and the monastery of St. Euphrosyne, deepen the hallelujah. 4) And in general, throughout all of Russia they did not use special alleluia: Rev. Euphrosynus, defending his custom before the Pskovites and the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius, never once referred to the example of Moscow or Kyiv, or any Russian region where they would double the alleluia, but points only to the Tsaregrad church; The Pskovites themselves said: all the churches of God throughout our land triple alleluia, which can be confirmed by the already known message of the All-Russian Metropolitan Photius to Pskov about triple alleluia. 5) If we assume that the Pskov clergy, in the heat of their disputes with Rev. Euphrosynus and considered his innovation a very important matter, contrary to the Orthodox Faith: but the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius did not at all ascribe such importance to him and, giving the Venerable. Euphrosyne conscientiously doubled the alleluia, but did not at all forbid the Pskovites from tripling it. New proof of the idea that within the Novgorod archdiocese there was in the 15th century. The dispute about the doubling or tripling of the alleluia, and that this dispute was not attributed importance even then, is the message of Demetrius Tolmach from Rome to the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, written in 1493. Demetrius wrote: “He ordered me, Lord, to write to myself about the tremulous alleluia. Having looked in the books, otherwise, sir, this and here in the books is not described, as you say, whether it is trilabial or bilabial... But I am inclined to remember that we too had a dispute about this between great people; and they judged both in the same way: the first triangular alleluia, and the fourth, glory to Thee, O God, reveals the trinitarian Divinity of one essence; and the special alleluia reveals one Divinity in two natures (one should say: in two natures one person of Christ God). No matter how a person speaks in his thoughts, so does good.” And Gennady himself, in his essay on the peace circle, repeated these words of Demetrius Tolmach: “about the trembling alleluia, others judge the same: first, the trembling alleluia, and in the fourth, glory to Thee, God reveals the Trinitarian and inseparable Divinity: and the pure alleluia reveals one deity in two natures (the one Divine face of Christ). Otherwise, as a person speaks with that thought, so does good. Alleluia is interpreted: Praise the Lord, or Jehovah” 13. How did it happen in the 15th century? Could an opinion arise in Pskov about the double alleluia, when in the Russian Church, and in the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, they always only tripled and never doubled the alleluia? Further we will see that some of us called the special alleluia directly borrowed from the Latins; and this is more than likely. The Latins, indeed, have the custom of not only triangulating, but also, most often, subverting the alleluia and generally using it more or less three times 14 . And the Pskov clergy was then in the closest relations with the Latin, to the point that some Pskov Orthodox priests baptized children according to the Latin rite, through dousing, and even anointed those baptized with “Latin chrism,” as can be seen from the pastoral letters to Pskov of Metropolitan Photius (before 1430) 15 Next, at least, the first thought about the special Alleluia could appear in Pskov from the Latins. Then, little by little, this idea could strengthen and gain followers, especially because in Pskov there was then an extreme scarcity of Slavic liturgical books that could be consulted to resolve perplexities 16 . When the debate about the deepest and most profound alleluia began, then, as usual, neither side wanted to give in, and the matter was attributed the greatest importance, although outside observers thought about it completely differently. II. Another schismatic opinion. discovered in the 15th century, there is an opinion about walking in Solon. It was discovered in Moscow itself. In 1478, after the consecration of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, Metropolitan Gerontius, the chronicler says, netius the charming slanderer. Prince John Vasilyevich III against the Metropolitan for not walking around the church with crosses at sunrise. V. the prince was angry with the saint, saying: “For this reason the wrath of God comes.” The following year (1479) the investigation of the case began. First of all, they turned to the scriptures and liturgical books: but they found nothing in the scriptures about whether one should walk in the sun or not in the consecration of the church. They began to talk, and many archimandrites and abbots spoke for the metropolitan, and one, probably who was on Mount Athos, noticed that on St. They also walked against the sun with crosses during the consecration of the church. As the dispute intensified, the prince called the Chudov Archimandrite Gennady and the Rostov ruler Vassian to compete. In their presence, the Metropolitan, for his part, gave evidence that the deacon, when censing in the altar around the altar, usually starts on the right side and goes against the sun; and they, having decided to defend the prince’s side, did not present any evidence, but only thought: “The righteous sun - Christ will come to hell, and death is bound, and souls are free, and for this reason they come to Easter, they also form at matins” 17. And they argued for a long time, but “they did not find the truth.” In 1482, when several new churches and chapels were to be consecrated in Moscow, V. The prince again began to argue with the metropolitan because, during the consecration of the cathedral church, he walked with crosses around it not in the direction of the sun. The Metropolitan, upset, retired to Simon's monastery, having accepted the intention of completely abandoning the metropolis if the prince did not abandon his demand to walk on the sun. For a whole year the prince did not allow the consecration of new churches and chapels, wanting to build just one thing. But “all the priests, and scribes, and monks, and laymen according to the metropolitan verb, and according to the Grand Duke there are few of them, there is only one ruler of Rostov, Prince Asaph, and the Miracle Archimandrite Gennady.” Then in. the prince sent his son to the metropolitan with an invitation to return to the see, and soon he himself came to him, realized the wrongness of his opinion and left it to the will of the metropolitan to walk in religious processions, as he ordered, as was the case in the old days; they didn’t create a charter. The Metropolitan returned to his table 18. From all that has been said, one can see - a) that until the 15th century, the books did not define at all how to walk around churches when consecrating them: whether with the sun or against the sun, which could have resulted in a difference in customs, which gave rise to disputes; b) that the custom of walking against the sun was then accepted and defended by the high priest of the Russian Church himself and all the priests, scribes, monks and laity, trace. was universal and well-known, while the idea of ​​walking in saltwater was instilled in. the prince by some charmers who slandered the metropolitan, and is protected only by two clergy: trace. a walk of this kind, if already used in some dioceses, was very few, as a local and private custom; c) that the defense of walking against the sun was pointed out in the 15th century using the example of St. Mount Athos and the living testimony or example of a deacon who walks around the throne in the altar while censing against the sun, while they tried to defend walking in saltwater not with any examples or evidence, but only with unclear and vague speculations; d) that the prince himself finally recognized that walking in Solon was wrong and allowed the metropolitan to conduct religious processions around the churches, as was the case in the old days, i.e. recognized walking against the sun as ancient. Thus, during the 15th century, only two schismatic opinions emerged, and both had both the Russian high priests and almost the entire Russian clergy against them. But towards the end of the fifteenth, or more precisely, in the first half of the sixteenth century, circumstances appeared that contributed to the multiplication and strengthening of schismatic opinions. Chapter II. Multiplication and strengthening of schismatic opinions in the first half of the 16th century I. The circumstances that contributed to the multiplication and strengthening of schismatic opinions in the first half of the 16th century include: 1. The complete decline of enlightenment and the spread of gross ignorance not only among the common people, but also among the clergy. In the 15th century, there were still some local schools in Russia 19: with the onset of the 16th century, they disappeared altogether. Around 1500, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod bitterly complained to Metropolitan Simon that there were no schools for training pastors of the Church, that those who came to him for ordination to sacred degrees were complete ignoramuses, could neither read nor sing, did not even want to study, and that one could not vouch for their Orthodoxy 20 . In 1505, the abbot of the Eleazar monastery Pamphilus depicted in the most vivid colors the superstitions of paganism and ignorance that dominated the country of Pskov and infected the clergy itself 21 . The fathers of the hundred-domed Council, which took place in 1551, again testified to the complete lack of schools in Russia and the extreme degree of superstition among the people 22 (22) and ignorance among the clergy 23. 2. Dissemination of forged and corrupted scriptures. Ignorant scribes, either according to the mood of their own minds or according to the demands of the crowd, copied various apocryphal stories and legends, filled with the most absurd fables and superstitions, and the number of such books in the 16th century was already extremely large 24 . Other ignoramuses themselves composed stories and words, and in order to give their opinions, often extremely superstitious, more importance in the eyes of the people, they gave them out under the names of St. Prophets, St. Apostles or St. Fathers, about which the eyewitness Kurbsky complained so much, and about which so much evidence has still been preserved 26. Still others, when rewriting the helmsmen's books, arbitrarily introduced additional articles into them 27 , sometimes very unsuccessful and full of lies 28 , sometimes they took the interpretation of a rule for a special rule 29 , even inserted false rules 30 , and allowed themselves to make arbitrary abbreviations or additions in ancient articles 31 , or, when compiling the lives of the Saints, they included various fables in these lives 32 . 3. Extreme damage to liturgical books. There have been mistakes in these books before, as an inevitable consequence of constant copying and rewriting. But before, while enlightenment was still supported in Russia, especially among the clergy, while the Russian Church was ruled, for the most part, by Greek metropolitans, and with them there were always people who knew the Greek language, we did not consider it a sin and had every opportunity to correct sacred and liturgical books by comparing them with the original text 33 . From the middle of the 15th century, when there were no Greek metropolitans in Russia, when soon after that there were no more schools and the darkness of ignorance spread among the clergy themselves, when there were no more people who knew Greek, the damage to liturgical books quickly reached its highest level. The scribes, partly through oversight and negligence, partly out of ignorance, added inventory to inventory, errors to errors, and sometimes allowed themselves to correct the meaning of the text according to their darkest understanding. This extreme damage to liturgical books in the 16th century was witnessed by contemporaries: Rev. Maxim-Grek 34, the fathers of the hundred-domed cathedral 35 and publishers of first printed books in Moscow 36. II. In the midst of such and such unfortunate circumstances, in the first half of the 16th century the following schismatic opinions arose in part again, and in part intensified: 1. Opinion about the greatest importance and inviolability of old liturgical books, even according to the letter. Barely just a teacher. Maxim the Greek, who arrived in our fatherland, led by invitation. book Vasily Ioannovich, with St. Mount Athos in 1506, began, at the will of the prince, to correct the Triodion, and, also reviewing other liturgical books, began to announce errors noticed in them that required correction, as the ignorance of the crowd and even the clergy armed itself against him. There were shouts: “he cancels words according to his own will, corrects them according to his own reason...; he rejects and condemns all our saints. books, and thus gives great annoyance to the Wonderworker who shone from the beginning of the Russian land, who pleased God with calico books.” In vain Maxim justified himself and pointed out the greatest errors with which our books were filled; in vain he said and wrote: “I teach that the Son of God was not created by Divinity, and not that he was created and created, as Arius blasphemed and as your triodians preach Him everywhere, and you do not disdain to rule them... I teach the right to philosophize about the incarnate Word, i.e. not to speak of Him as one and only man, as in your books of hours... I confess with all my soul the same God-man who rose from the dead, and did not die an endless death, as your interpretive Gospels preach Him everywhere.... I found in the 9th canon of the canon of Maundy Thursday: the pre-existent Father, not being created by nature, not glorified, and did not tolerate such blasphemy, and corrected it,” and so on. In vain did the monk try to explain that “not a single annoyance will come from here, sir.” Russian miracle workers with book correction”: Maxim was not understood or did not want to understand. In 1525, by the will of Metropolitan Daniel, who was not personally disposed towards Maxim, he was called to a council trial for alleged damage to books, tried and finally condemned as a heretic, inspired books corrupting, not ruling. We agree that Maxim’s corrections could and did have, as he himself admits, their inaccuracies and even errors, especially at the beginning, due to his insufficient study of the Slavic language: but, calling God as a witness, he certified that these inventories did not happen intentionally, “not out of heresy, but either out of oblivion, or out of grief, or due to some other circumstance,” and with tears begged his judges to grant him forgiveness. He was not forgiven, but was exiled as a heretic, first to the Volokolamsk monastery, then to Otroch, finally to Trinity Sergius, and, despite all his justifications, written and verbal, they were forced to die in captivity, after thirty years of suffering (in 1556). How to explain this strange attachment to old liturgical books, which first appeared in our country in the case of Maxim the Greek? On the one hand, the reason for it can be considered the very antiquity of liturgical books, which, having been used in the Church for several centuries, naturally acquired special importance in the concepts of the people: “from these books,” he reasoned, our ancestors served God: from these books the Russian miracle workers were saved.” And on the other hand, the main reason for everything here was gross ignorance, which alone could not see or understand the greatest errors in our liturgical books of that time, could not feel the extreme need to correct them, could think that the salvation of the Russian miracle workers depended in any way on the very letter of church rites, no matter how they were translated or rewritten correctly or incorrectly; could finally attribute some minor inaccuracies or errors in the correction of these books to the teacher. Maxim of such high importance that he was condemned forever as a heretic, as a corrupter of inspired scriptures. True, we had people at that time who felt both the damage to church books and the need to correct them, because Maxim began this task only at the behest of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. But since the monk had the misfortune of earning the reluctance of the people, denouncing their ignorance, superstition, attachment to ritual appearance and various vices, and the clergy, especially the monastics, often reproaching them for the fact that they owned rich estates and peasants, and even the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Daniel himself: it is not surprising if those who correctly understood the matter of Maxim did not want or could not protect him 37. 2. The opinion that in the creed one should read about the Holy Spirit “and in the true Holy Spirit”... In 1531, when, by order of Metropolitan Daniel, the Monk Maxim was again demanded to Moscow for a conciliar trial for some supposed “blasphemy against the Lord God and the Most Pure Mother of God, and the Holy Mother.” Russian wonderworkers, and on church ranks and statutes, and on monasteries, and on the Grand Duke himself,” and when, during the trial, the monk was again convicted of various damage to liturgical books, the Krutitsy Bishop Dositheus, among other things, asked him: “in the local, in our books it is written: and in the true Holy Spirit - and you, Maxim, made amends for the true what?" To this question, although Maxim answered that he himself “didn’t smooth it out or cross it out and didn’t order it to anyone,” Mikhail Medovartsev, who was his scribe, said: “Maxim told him that they didn’t have it in the Greek books, and that’s why he smoothed it out” 38 . Be that as it may, however, it only follows that around 1531 in some of our books the creed was already read with the addition of the word: true. When did this word appear in our symbol? Without any doubt, not before the 16th century: because a) it does not appear in known lists of the symbol of the 13th–14th centuries 39 ; b) the symbol of the 15th century is also not found in lists 40; in some lists of the symbol even from the 16th century, for example. in the cell book and in the missal of Metropolitan Macarius himself, it is also not found 41; d) according to the testimony of the monk Zinovy, a student of Maxim the Greek, in his time there was still disagreement regarding this word. “Ask me,” writes Zinovy, “Zechariah the cleric, saying: in the symbol they say: and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and they say: and in the Holy Spirit, the true, - is there any difference in these verbs? I said to him: whoever believes in the right and who is unhypocritical, I think there is not much difference here, even if it seems to be not the same. Otherwise, there is fear in the village, which cannot be said: and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord. I saw that in the rules of the ancient translation of the book, it was written under Yaroslav, Prince Vladimirov’s son, and under Bishop Joachim, at the beginning of the baptism of our land: in the image of the Orthodox faith it was written - and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, and not written - and in the true Holy Spirit, but it was written by the Lord" 42. Where did the reading of the true instead of the Lord come from in the symbol? Initially, most likely. from a misunderstanding or from self-important wisdom: it is known that the member of the symbol about St. The spirit in the original reads: “???χαι ειξ το πγευμα το αγιογ, το χυριον, το ζωοχοιογ; and ???χυριος means Lord, and true, dominant, chief. The first translators of the symbol into the Slavic language, who knew both the Greek language and the deep meaning of the symbol, translated the word ???το χυριον of the Lord, and some later writer, less knowledgeable in both, decided to correct their translation and put the true one instead of the Lord 43. And this was done initially, in all likelihood, not here, but in Serbia: for the first time reading: and in the true Holy Spirit we meet in the cell psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian, who came to us from Serbia 44. In our country, with the onset of the 16th century, it could have entered some lists of symbols unnoticed, when the copying of books was carried out for the most part by ignorant people who, copying all sorts of manuscripts, both Serbian, and Bulgarian, and their own Russians, did not delve into their meaning, or did not understand it at all. 3. Opinion about the two-fingered folding of the cross. In the collection, which contains 16 words of Metropolitan Daniel (1522–1539), who is already known to us from his trial of Maxim the Greek for correcting books, there is a word under the title: “as we receive tradition, written and unwritten, and let us mark our faces with a cross” 45 . Here, for the first time, the schismatic teaching about the two-fingered folding of fingers for the sign of the cross is presented, and precisely the following are given: a) the testimony of the monk Peter of Damascus, who lived in the 12th century (c. 1157), which, however, does not have the meaning that the schismatics want to find in it 46, and b) the word or instruction of Theodorite on how to make a cross - an instruction, indeed, clear and distinct, favorable to schismatics, and therefore hitherto especially respected by them 47 . Where did this instruction of Theodorite come from? Without any doubt, blessed one. It does not belong to Theodoret, who lived in the 5th century: because, according to all research, it is not found either in printed publications or in all Greek manuscripts of the works of the blessed. Theodoret, neither in the east nor in the west, and no one ever in Greece mentioned this instruction or cited it 48. It must have been that Theodorite's word on the creation of the finger was compiled by someone in our country at a time when we were so fond of issuing false works under the names of St. fathers and ancient teachers, i.e. by the end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th century 49. And indeed, for the first time it appears at the end of the 15th century in a collection written for the Solovetsky monastery, by order of the local abbot Dosifei: only here it does not have the meaning in which it appears in the collection of Metropolitan Daniel, but is quite favorable to the Orthodox composition of the finger 50. Next, this forged Theodorite word was damaged by someone else at the beginning of the 16th century, and in a damaged form it had already become known to Metropolitan Daniel 51. In other lists it appears even more different, not only in expression, but also in meaning, with some additions or abbreviations 52: new evidence of forgery. If the word belonged to Theodoret and was translated from Greek: then in different translations it could have a difference in expressions; but would always preserve the unity of meaning and content. In some lists, the following Greek words are attributed to the end of this word: ???να ειναι αψορισμενος, i.e. be he excommunicated 53. But they didn’t say or write that way in the 5th century, when the blessed one lived and wrote. Theodoret, and began to be expressed in the modern Greek language, formed after the fall of Constantinople to the rule of the Turks (1453). In general, it should be noted that until the 16th century there is not a single written evidence, direct and clear, that in Greece or in Russia or anywhere in the East people were baptized with two fingers: on the contrary, there is clear evidence that in the Orthodox Church the three-fingered sign of the cross was used. Thus, the Greek philosopher Nicephorus (Constantine) Panagios, in his famous debate with the Latins in 1256, denouncing them for various deviations from Orthodoxy, asked among other things: “and why, not as we are baptized, a prototype of the true cross with three fingers, on the head, and on the heart, and on the right shoulder and on the left, by virtue of it we put on... you (Latins) create a cross with two fingers on the ground?” 54. Or, according to other, more complete lists, Panagiot said to Azimite: “Why do you not put three fingers together, and cross yourself with your right hand, and put it on your forehead and on your chest on your right hand, and put on the weapon of my Christ, but make a cross with both fingers, and look away from the imagination of your cross; Instead of covering them, you will be clothed with the life-giving cross” 55. Even earlier, Pope Innocent III (1198), noticing that some of the Latins were really beginning to deviate from the Orthodox, previously generally accepted, custom in drawing the sign of the cross, gave the instruction: “the sign of the cross should be depicted with three fingers, so that it goes from top to bottom and from the right hand to the left” 56 . Subdeacon of Thessalonica Damascus Studite, who lived before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, in a word on the week of the cross, denouncing some Orthodox Christians for carelessly drawing the sign of the cross, taught: “how every pious Christian should do his cross. First, let him put together his three fingers for the Holy Trinity: the great finger, and the other two that are near him: first let him put the same on his forehead, the second on his belly, the third on the right frame, and the fourth on the left frame; when he does this, then he marks the true cross” 57. Having no written ancient evidence of double-fingeredness, clear and indisputable, schismatics usually refer with special triumph and persistence to ancient icons 58 (58). But then this reference could only be significant - a) if they could prove that ancient icons were not renewed over the centuries; b) if the arrangement of the fingers on these icons were everywhere the same two-fingered, and not different, and c) if some undoubtedly ancient icons did not provide clear examples of three-fingered for the sign of the cross and a nominal blessing 59 . How could the idea be born that the sign of the cross should be made with two fingers? It is known that this arrangement of fingers for the sign of the cross is very similar to the arrangement of fingers with which the pastors of the church bless. It is very possible that in the times of ignorance among us (XV-XVI) some simpleton was literate, not understanding the meaning of the three-fingered sign of the cross, which was previously used. and seeing its difference from the arrangement of fingers with which the priests bless, I decided to reason that we need to imitate our shepherds who bless us in the sign of the cross, we need to be baptized in the same way as they bless us. And in order to more successfully spread his thought among others, he invented it under the name blessed. Theodoret “the word how to bless and how to be baptized,” which actually commands the same making of the finger both for blessing and for the sign of the cross. Whether or not Metropolitan Daniel pronounced his words to the people: the mere fact that Theodorite’s instruction on the two-fingered folding of the cross was introduced by the Russian High Hierarch himself into his word shows that this instruction was already quite widespread among us in the first half of the 16th century, and the two-fingered sign of the cross then had many followers, headed by the Metropolitan himself. 3. Opinion about the special alleluia. This opinion, which appeared in the 15th century in the Pskov region and which at first found so little sympathy, in the present century began to strengthen more and more in the same area and acquire adherents. One of them, a certain Athanasius, ktitor of the monastery of St. Nicholas, in the days of the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius (1526–1546), even dared to write to the Pskov cathedrals as a priest about St. Trinity, that is, alleluia, and convince them that it is necessary to increase the alleluia in honor of the risen Christ. Then Macarius considered it necessary to issue a decree on the threefold alleluia, in which, denouncing Athanasius, he says that through the extreme alleluia St. Trinity, that singing such an alleluia in honor of the risen Christ is the custom of the Roman Church and was brought to Russia by Metropolitan. Isidore 60; that, on the contrary, following the Psalms and the Apocalypse, it is necessary to transcribe the alleluia, as Metropolitan Photius wrote about this in Pskov in his letter, “which even now lies in the Holy Trinity.” Finally, he makes a general remark and instruction: “those who sing many times twice: alleluia, and not blasphemously, sing to their own sin and condemnation. This is how we should sing: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. Alleluia says: sing to God. The first thing that is said to you is: sing to God: then to the Father; and this second thing: sing to God: then to the Son; and the third thing: sing to God: then to the Holy Spirit. Also: glory to You, God. First, sing: Alleluia three times to the Most Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And behold, I am one God in the Trinity: Glory to Thee, O God. Sing every Christian three times, not twice. If it happens twice, it separates the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son” 61. Despite, however, this decree of the Novgorod Saint, in the Pskov region, or at least in the Pskov Eleazar monastery, founded by St. Euphrosyne, some continued to stubbornly adhere to the alleluia. In 1547, a certain cleric Vasily, based on the conviction, as he himself says, of the abbot and brothers of the Euphrosyne Monastery, wrote a new life of the teacher. Euphrosyne, partly on the basis of his previous life, compiled by an unknown person under the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady (1484–1504), and partly according to oral traditions, and here he tried by all means to praise and exalt the special alleluia. For this purpose, he, firstly, placed in the life itself the story about the journey of the Venerable, already known to us. Euphrosynus to the east, where it was as if the patriarch himself taught and authorized him with his letter to amplify the alleluia: and secondly, at the end of his life, when describing the miracles, he placed another story, as if the first writer of the life of Euphrosynus appeared, during his subtle sleep, first St. Euphrosynus and his associate Serapion twice and “I say to him: describe the secret of the holy alleluia,” then on the third night the Most Holy Theotokos herself appeared with the Archangel and the same saints, explained to him the secret of the holy alleluia and commanded him to write it for everyone to know. Those. The cleric Vasily decided to oppose the authority of the Russian metropolitans, contemporary Macarius and the former Photius, who commanded the tranquility of the alleluia, with the greater authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph, and even the Most Holy One herself. Mother of God, as if commanded to deepen the alleluia. But both stories of the pathetic cleric do not deserve any credibility. A) In the first of these stories - a) It is said that Rev. Euphrosynus went to the east because there was then a great schism and disagreement in the Russian Church: some doubled the alleluia, others tripled, and no one could explain to the monk what to follow: “no one can interpret this mystery about the divine alleluia.” Meanwhile - aa) back in 1419, the Russian Metropolitan Photius, under whom Euphrosynus began his exploits in the Pskov region, sent his letter or decree to Pskov to transcribe the alleluia, and this letter was kept in the Pskov cathedral even in the 16th century; bb) upon Euphrosynus’ return from the east, the biography writer himself narrates, it turned out that everyone in Pskov was making alleluia, that even the Pskovites had established the custom of making alleluia, that Euphrosynus alone with the brethren of his monastery defended the alleluia and no one helped him 62; where was that great schism that forced the monk to wander to Constantinople? b) It is said that Rev. Euphrosynus was in the east in good times, in the most fertile time and during the beautiful silence of unshakable faith in Christ, in the kingdom of the Christ-loving King Kalianin, under Patriarch Joseph, long years before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks 63. But - aa) under Patriarch Joseph, it was not Kalianin, but John VII Paleologus 64 who was emperor in Constantinople; bb) then it was not at all a good time for the Greek empire and for the Orthodox faith: the Turks flooded, plundered and devastated all areas of the empire; the Sultan was in charge of it. as an autocratic sovereign, and recruited troops from the Greeks; the emperor owned almost only Constantinople with several other devastated cities, and then only by the favor of the Sultan, to whom he paid tribute; Meanwhile, in the hope of receiving help from Western Christians against the Turks, both the emperor and the patriarch continued active relations with the pope regarding the union of the Churches, which began back in 1415 and ended with the Council of Florence (1437–1439) 65; cc) Rev. Euphrosynus, even if he was in Constantinople, could not see Patriarch Joseph and talk with him about the saint. Alleluia: because Patr. Joseph went to the Florentine Council in 1437 and died in Florence in 1439; and Rev. Euphrosynus could not have visited Constantinople before 1437, judging by the legend of the cleric Vasily himself. In 1425, he says, Rev. Euphrosynus had just retired from the monastery to the desert, where he began to struggle alone. Much time had passed, his mother found out about him and came to him to convince him to return to the world; but was not successful. Then a certain Serapion came to the monk in the desert and labored with him. Then, when they heard about him everywhere, the brethren began to come to Euphrosynus, and he received them and allowed them to settle alone in separate cells. When the number of brothers increased, they begged the monk to build a church for them; he built and opened a communal monastery 66. We ask whether the opening of this monastery could have occurred before 1430? Further, Vasily continues, a certain Ignatius came to the monk from Pskov and, while he was still young and in blossom in his flesh, Euphrosynus accepted him and tonsured him; Ignatius devoted himself to deeds of piety and for these deeds, at the request of Euphrosynus, was ordained a hieromonk by the Novgorod Archbishop John 67. When Ignatius was already a holy monk, his other brother, Harlampius, came to the same monastery, and was also received by Euphrosynus, tonsured, and awarded presbyterian rank for his piety by Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius. Then the third brother Pamphilus came to his two brothers Ignatius and Charlampius and, like them, was received by Euphrosynus, tonsured and elevated to the priesthood. Following this, some other persons entered the monastery of Euphrosynus, Euphrosynus himself performed some miracles, and when Ignatius, who came to him as a youth, was already the abbot of the monastery and his confessor, and therefore reached mature, if not advanced years, Euphrosynus decided to go to Constantinople, entrusting his monastery to abbot Ignatius 68. We ask: could this have happened before 1437? c) About the reverend himself. Euphrosyne is told a lot of unworthy things. For example: aa) as if he had assimilated alleluia of extraordinary significance, as a great and divine thing 69, assumed in it deep wisdom, hidden and unknown to anyone 70; considered it a matter of utmost importance for pleasing God and piety 71, and because of the special alleluia he grieved inconsolably, endured persecution and insults and shed streams of tears until the end of his life 72; bb) as if he could reason about the Trinitarian God in this way: “On this subject I pray to my God to instruct my mind in the true mind, so that we may know which lips bless pleasantly the name of the consummate One in the Trinity without blemish in Divinity and humanity, whether the most holy alleluia is twofold, or threefold, whatever is before God”; or: “equal Word to the Father and the Most Holy Spirit in Divinity and humanity, God the Word God is one glorified in the Trinity”; and also: “Yes, moreover, the three-vocals understand the power of the mystery of the divine alleluia in the fortress of a thing, for there is an everlasting God and His one-child Word is made flesh in the Father and in the Most Holy Dus” 73: c) as if Euphrosynus could contradict himself in such a way: in a letter to Archbishop Euthymius, he first wrote: “I have had a custom from my youth the divine alleluia is two and not three”; then a few lines later: “but it was not from my custom that I learned how to make the divine alleluia in two, but rather from the universal Church I took this, and learned to say this: for this reason they were in the reigning city”: and, having received an unsatisfactory answer from Euthymius, he began to tearfully pray to the Most Holy One. Theotokos, so that she herself would deign to reveal to him the great secret of alleluia, as if he had not yet heard anything about this secret from the Eastern Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople 74. In addition, the following questions are presented: aa) if on the days of St. Euphrosynus, indeed, there was a great schism in the Church and disagreement regarding the double or triple alleluia, which worried Euphrosynus so much, then why did he not, with his bewilderment, turn, as he should, to the local archbishop of Novgorod and Pskov, or to the All-Russian metropolitan, but went straight to Constantinople to the patriarch? Is it possible to believe that the Russian high priests were not able to resolve the issue of alleluia?.. bb) If Rev. Euphrosynus actually received a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, commanding him to double the alleluia: why did he not present this letter to the Russian Metropolitan, so that through it the schism that existed in the Russian Church would be destroyed? Then Euphrosynus himself would not have been subjected to such attacks from the Pskovites, and the Pskovites would not have dared to defend the threefold alleluia with such courage. Why did he even keep silent about this letter in his letter to the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius, when he complained to him about the Pskov clergy? Could he deliberately not command his brethren about it, so that after his death they would not be carried away by the example of all the other Pskov monasteries and churches that sang alleluia? 75. All this involuntarily leads to the conclusion that the story of cleric Vasily about the teacher. Euphrosyne, as an ardent champion of pure alleluia, is either a complete fiction and slander against the saint, or is based on very little historical truth, which is difficult to distinguish. d) Slander is being uttered against the Greek Church, or against the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, as if it were in the 15th century. doubled the alleluia, while both according to the monuments 76 and according to the testimony of the Eastern high priests 77, she always tripled the alleluia. e) Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius appears in the strangest form. Instead of, at the request of Euphrosynus, resolving his dispute with the priest Job and directly answering whether the alleluia should be doubled or tripled, the archbishop supposedly wrote: “Weigh, father, for I am weak to set a measure for such an instrument and do not hesitate to open the treasure sealed by God: since all the secrets of God are in God, I, father, do not Imam to attach to this thing the key of the wisdom of my understanding. But even, O wise father, you yourself have seen with your own eyes and ears and heard, more than me, from the Patriarch of Tsaryagrad Joseph, and also from the entire choir of the universal Church, and also from all those living there, you have received the measure of this thing, even if you took it from there, and while you stayed for only a while, you became accustomed to the Divine duality of the holy Hallelujah... Do not despise me, father, for my rudeness, as if I revealed nothing about the thing or managed about it that is useful to your shrine. But God knows this secret and it lies in that destiny. Now, Father, as you have received from the universal Church, do so with the blessing of the ecumenical, His Eminence Patriarch Joseph" 78 . Is it possible to agree that this message was not composed by the cleric Vasily himself, who, in his ignorance, ascribed such high importance to alleluia? In general, the correspondence of Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius with Rev. Euphrosynus, in addition to its strangeness, seems completely inappropriate or unnecessary, if we judge the matter according to the testimony of local reliable chronicles. From them it is clear that St. Euthymius personally visited Pskov several times, for example, in 1450, 1452 and 1457, lived there for quite a long time, and himself performed various services in Pskov churches with the Pskov clergy 79: could it really be that Rev. Euphrosynus could not then personally appear to St. Euthymius, to bring a complaint against the priest Job and other Pskov clergy who persecuted him for the special alleluia, and to ask the archpastor for permission on what to do - double or triple the alleluia? And really St. Couldn’t Euthymius immediately on the spot make an investigation and a legal order, and expose the wrong custom and approve the right one? Why else was there a need for special correspondence between Rev. Euphrosynus and his archpastor? f) Oddities and contradictions are described about the Pskov priest Job, the main persecutor of the special alleluia. It is said that, after the death of his wife, he laid aside his priesthood. rank and married another time, and after the death of his second wife, he married a third: and yet, despite all this, it is as if “they did not lose honor and glory from Pskovich for the sake of the rosepary..., but judged more than others, and condemned others, and taught others, and punished others, and laying down laws for others, and establishing commandments for others, and prescribing rites for the priest and dignity in church service, as if he were elegant in his work; Moreover, he was also a lawgiver among the monks: not only in the city, but also around the city, and even in the distant deserts” 80. Is it possible that a defrocked triplet priest could have such power in the eyes of the Orthodox people and clergy? Further it is narrated that Job was subjected to a terrible execution from God, a severe illness that brought him to the grave, and for what did he suffer? Not for his vicious life, if he truly was as depicted, but for that. that he stood up against a special alleluia!... B) The same and even greater oddities and absurdities are contained in the story about the first copyist of the Life of Euphrosyne and the appearance of the Mother of God to him. a) Having begun to write the life of the monk, he says about himself, I wrote in order how he was born, how he was raised and how he became a perfect husband; but when it was my turn to tell me about his visit to Constantinople to the patriarch, who commanded him to double the alleluia, I involuntarily stopped, overcome with bewilderment: “How can I write and convey the word about the divine mystery of the most holy alleluia..., ignorant of my knowledge of the thing?” And so I began to grieve and be sad and call upon St. for help. Euphrosyne, “may the merciful God enlighten me about the things of ignorance.” Soon one night Rev. Euphrosynus and Serapion appeared to me in a dream vision and began to admonish me so that I would not be exhausted from grief and bewilderment regarding the mystery of alleluia, but I did not believe them and mistook them for tempting spirits; the next night they appeared again and commanded to describe the secret of St. Hallelujah,” I didn’t believe them again. “And I, a sinner, am deeply in despondency and overwhelmed with great bewilderment, and also outraged by a green storm of ignorance about the mystery of the divine alleluia, and I was in bewilderment: and for this reason I was corrupted by the thought of not completing the life of the venerable one” 81. Where does such bewilderment and ignorance come from in the first copyist of the life of Euphrosinov regarding the mystery of the special alleluia? He himself belonged, as can be seen from his own words, to the brethren of the Euphrosyne Monastery, lived during the days of Novgorod Archbishop Gennady (1484–1505), and so on. He began to write the life of the monk only a little after his death (d. 1481), when Pamphilus, an eyewitness, disciple and associate of the monk, was still the abbot of the monastery. Euphrosyne 82. Could it really be that the writer could not have the most reliable information about Euphrosynus’s visit to the reigning city and about the special alleluia he brought from there to his monastery? Couldn’t he have deliberately asked Abbot Pamphilus about this? Couldn’t I see with my own eyes the letter brought by Euphrosynus from the patriarch and, of course, still intact? Why else would one seek a special revelation from above? b) On the third night, the writer continues, when I was in great sorrow and relaxation, first the Archangel appeared to me in a sleepy vision, then the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God herself, accompanied by St. Euphrosynus and Serapion and, standing with them, near my head, she said: “Christians are doing great things to me in their ignorance.” What need? – I asked. “They do what I need,” She answered, a threefold divine alleluia. And for this reason, write down this secret, which I, Mother of God, command you. And first of all, write about this mystery, about which the Prophets prayed, and desired by the desire of the Holy Spirit. And write to the mother: may God rise... And for this carnal Divine resurrection they have no faith in the cruelty of the Jew, and for this they are offended by the Greeks, and for this reason they suffer from unbelief in Latynov (?), and about this the barbarians will doubt... And for this reason the divine alleluia is twice spoken by the faithful: for in that there is the mystery of the resurrection of Christ, Son and God. The Jews say the same thing, and all the pagans of Latin also say the same thing, and the heretics also say this thing, sometimes twice, and sometimes three times, but they do not know the secrets of it that they seek... And for this sake, let the divine alleluia be shared by the truly faithful. Let the first word be spoken twice to glorify the Father: Alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. And this is the mystery: He is risen, risen in divinity and humanity, and glory to Him, for the Almighty Father is, God is not apostatized by His divinity of the only child of the Word, His Son Christ, and Christ is not apostatized by the incarnation of the Holy Spirit (?), the divinity of the Father. Wherever the Father is, so is the Son, the Word is inseparably in his bosom; and where the Son is the Word of God, then the being of the Holy Spirit is God incarnate (?). And behold, the Father is perfect, and by the subsistence of the Spirit (?) one is glorified in the Trinity, and by the doubling of the divine alleluia he is known and glorified. And again the second divine alleluia is spoken twice, for the glory of the one child for the sake of the Word of God: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. There is also: risen, risen Christ, the Son of God, like (?) the Father - and glory to Him: as He is inseparable from God and humanity (?), and for the incarnation for the sake of the Holy Spirit (?) the Son of God will be called, and for the sake of His resurrection God is perfect and is known and glorified. Where the Son is, the Father is also, and through these the Most Holy Spirit is inseparably equaled and glorified. And for this reason, the one Son in the Most Holy Trinity, true God, is glorified by the doubling of the divine alleluia, as God and man. In the third, the divine alleluia is spoken twice, and it is said in glorification of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit will not work for the Father and the Sons. Because the Holy Spirit is God, and His immutable incarnation, and His sonship is Christ (?). and one child is the Word without corruption to the Father. The same verb says: Alleluia, Alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. In other words: Risen, Risen, glory to Him. As an inseparable action - the infusion of the Holy Spirit (?), Christ is risen, God (?) and man are risen - and for this reason, equal glory to the Holy Spirit, as glory to the Father and the Sons. And by this work and by this the Holy Spirit God is perfectly known, one in the Trinity by His inseparable incarnation (?) and by the doubling of the divine alleluia God and man are known and glorified in the two natures. And where the divine alleluia is tripled, that is, an alien pagan god is attached”... 83. Let's not continue further... Is it possible that the Most Rev. could speak like that? Mother of God? There are so many errors, oddities, and absurdities in these words that could only come to the mind of the most pathetic ignoramus!.. c) Finally, when the Mother of God departed, the writer says, an Angel came to me and strictly commanded me to write everything that I heard from Her. I was afraid and trembled, and with tears I said to him in tenderness: “Lord, You are considered to have shone in many miracles and in great signs, trembling the divine alleluia! He, having answered, said to me: the ignorant of this mystery is not judged against him; now the one who knows will already be condemned by God” 84. And he concludes: “My Lord Jesus Christ knows that I did not lie, but the Mother of God appeared together with the Saints. To her, truly, I heard many of these words from the Mother of God, and from her great ones, a little something in the corruption of my memory, and I wore it out with my rude mind, and wrote what I was looking for” 85. Doesn’t the first writer of the life of Evfrosinov himself testify that before everyone in Russia sang alleluia? And how can one believe his words if the Most Holy One really appeared to him? Mother of God, when he only retained a little from Her great verb in his corrupted memory, and, no doubt, distorted and distorted it, to his own taste? We deliberately focused on the life of St. Euphrosyne, compiled by the cleric Vasily in 1547, to show to what extent some of us were already committed to the special alleluia even before the Council of the Hundred Heads. And they revealed quite thoroughly the shortcomings of this life because it was mainly on it that the Council of the Stoglava, or more justly, the compiler of the Stoglava, approved its decree on the special alleluia. Chapter III. The attempt to elevate some of the schismatic opinions to the level of dogma around the middle of the 16th century, during the days of the Stoglav Council, and the significance of the book Stoglav The Council of the Hundred Heads was caused by the circumstances of its time. The complete lack of schools for the education of pastors of the Church, the spread of ignorance and disastrous superstitions among the people and the clergy themselves, the increasing damage to liturgical books and many other disorders and disagreements in the administration of church services, shortcomings and self-will in church administration and deanery, the extreme decline of morality among the people and the clergy: - all this together prompted Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, who, after the unfortunate days of his youth, he wanted to be, as he himself put it, “a champion of the faith, a servant of God, a stewards of the glory of the Church,” - to convene a council in Moscow in 1551 86. Present at the Council, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Macarius, a wise and enlightened shepherd, were two archbishops: Theodosius of Novgorod and Nikander of Rostov, seven bishops: Trifon of Suzdal, Gury of Smolensk, Cassian of Ryazan, Akaky of Tver, Theodosius of Kolomna, Savva of Sara and Cyprian of Perm, with archimandrites, abbots and other clergy. Consequently, this was a council of archpastors not of the entire Russian Church, but only of its northern or Moscow metropolis, and the whole half of the Russian Church, its southern or Kiev metropolis, which included up to eight dioceses, did not take any part in it 87. The subjects for conciliar deliberations, in accordance with the above-mentioned modern needs of the Russian Church, were indicated briefly by the Tsar himself in his speeches before the beginning of the council and in detail in his questions proposed to the council, first in the number of 37, then in the number of 32. Monuments of the decisions of the conciliar, firstly, are various conciliar verdicts and orders, then separately issued and promulgated for general guidance either on behalf of the council, or from the face of the King himself 88 ; secondly, a special handwritten book is usually recognized under the title: royal questions and conciliar answers about various church ranks, setting out all the acts and decisions of the council in one hundred chapters, and therefore called Stoglav or Stoglavnik 89. The first ones, i.e. Conciliar verdicts and orders, issued separately, in their content are quite worthy of a cathedral and, without a doubt, were very useful in their time for church improvement. The last one, i.e. the book Stoglav, in addition to many decrees 90 that are very worthy and useful for the church and the fatherland, contains decrees also unworthy of a council, especially those in which, contrary to the ancient traditions of the Orthodox Church, some schismatic opinions are elevated to the level of dogmas. We will dwell, in accordance with our purpose, only on this last book and show: I) that the book of Stoglav is not at all a conciliar canonical statute, and even if it contains draft notes of the Stoglav Council, then they were redone by a private, unknown person after the council 91, which is why the schismatic opinions raised in it to the level of dogmas cannot at all be attributed to the council itself and cannot be defended name; II) that these opinions are elevated to the level of dogma in the book of Stoglav in a completely unfair and unfounded manner, and III) that, finally, there are decrees in the Stoglavnik concerning schismatic opinions that are unfavorable to today’s schismatics. I. The Book of Stoglav is not a conciliar canonical statute. Because - 1) This book was not approved by the signature of the Fathers present at the council and was sent out on behalf of the Tsar, or the council, or the metropolitan for leadership in the Church: at least, even the schismatics themselves are still not able to indicate a single list with such a signature, although lists have been preserved that are almost contemporary with the council 92 and provide evidence that the book was sent out for leadership. And conciliar decrees, both in the universal Church and in our domestic one, only received canonical significance when they were sealed with the consent of the fathers of the Council and promulgated by legal authority for leadership 93. 2) Some decrees of the Stoglav Council were then issued separately as orders and sentences on behalf of the Tsar, or the council, or the metropolitan 94, and these decrees, although in content they correspond to some chapters of the Stoglav, but in presentation and form they are not presented in the same form, not in the same completeness, sometimes not even in the same force as they are set out in the Stoglav 95. What does this mean? If the book of Stoglav was indeed approved and promulgated as a canonical conciliar statute: why else was it necessary to issue separate decrees and, as it were, an extract from Stoglav? Or, if for some reason this was necessary: ​​why were certain decrees of the council issued at the same time not in the form in which they were set out and approved by the council in Stoglava? A clear sign that the book of Stoglav in its entirety was not approved and promulgated as a canonical code, and if it contains notes from the council, considerations and codes, then only draft ones, of which only some, after a new revision, acceptance by the general consent of the Fathers, were published by them for leadership in the Church. 3) It is undoubtedly known that the chairman of the Stoglavy Cathedral. Metropolitan Macarius clearly taught about the three-fingered alleluia and placed in his Cheti-Minea the doctrine of three-fingered sign of the cross 96 . The question is: could he, against his own conviction, approve and sign the articles in the Stoglavnik on the special alleluia and on double-fingering? 4) In one ancient manuscript about the council of 1554 on the case of Viskovaty, it is said that at this council the Tsar, among other things, discussed with Metropolitan Macarius, and with the bishops, and boyars, and with all the sacred ranks “about the previous council code on various matters and orders of the church, and according to the book of the council members, which matters were corrected and which have not yet been corrected,” and the Tsar then said: “so that God will help in the future and other matters will be corrected” 97. It follows from this - a) that in 1554 there was some kind of book containing the previous conciliar code on various matters and rites of the church; b) that this book contained cases of two kinds: some that were corrected, i.e. were decided and completed by the council, and others that had not yet been corrected were not finally decided by the council, but required correction, and c) that, therefore, this book contained the actual draft notes, the draft code of the council, from which only some corrected and finally decided decrees could be issued (this is the explanation why, as we noticed, only individual decrees of the hundred-headed cathedral were actually published, and moreover in the form corrected!). In this book, at first glance, we cannot help but recognize the current Stoglavnik, who is entitled and discusses precisely “about various things and rites of the church,” and therefore we must agree that in 1554, according to the court of the Tsar himself and the council, he included some matters that were still unresolved and required correction. track. was not considered canonical law. But on the other hand, we can think that the current Stoglavnik as a whole is no longer the same book that was read at the council of 1554: in that book some matters remained uncorrected and unresolved; and in the current Stoglav, we see, all matters have been resolved, and the decisions are presented in such a tone as if they do not require any correction. Consequently, this book was brought into its present form after 1554 by an unknown person, who, at his own discretion, resolved in it matters not resolved by the council. 5) We are convinced of the last thought from the following circumstance. In 1554, at the council against Bakshin and the former abbot of Trinity Artemy, by the way, a letter was read from Jonah, also the former abbot of Trinity, that “he (Artemy) spoke blasphemy about the sign of the cross: there is nothing wrong with that, before they put this sign on their foreheads, but now, by their own will, they put large crosses on themselves, and at the council they deed about that sign of the cross the word was a sign, but nothing was accomplished” 98. Artemy denied that he had blasphemed Jonah about the sign of the cross, but said about the council that he really did. So what? Those who judged Artemy charged him with guilt - what he said about the sign of the cross, there is nothing wrong with that...; but they did not charge him with guilt and did not even confront him with what he said about the council: and at the council there was a word about that sign of the cross, but nothing was done. This means that this was the truth, which Metropolitan Macarius himself and all the bishops who tried Artemy did not reject. Whatever council Artemy is talking about here, it must be admitted that at the Council of the Hundred Heads, which took place in 1551, no final decision on the sign of the cross was made and then promulgated in the form of a binding law: otherwise Metropolitan Macarius, the former chairman of this council, would certainly have exposed Artemy in a lie. Meanwhile, turning to the current Stoglavnik, we find that it (chapter 31) sets out a direct and decisive decree on the sign of the cross, in the form of a mandatory law. Doesn't it mean that this article was introduced into Stoglav after 1554 by an unknown person, from whom Stoglav received its present form? 6) By dividing it into one hundred chapters, the current Stoglavnik is a visible imitation of the Code of Law of Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, consisting of one hundred chapters. But while the Sudebnik in all its chapters sets out the actual legalizations, and therefore has the form of positive legislation, Stoglav sets out in some chapters the non-legalizations of the council. Thus, the first chapter contains a preface to the book: Stoglav, the second - a preface to the acts of the council and a brief oral speech of the Tsar: the third - an extensive written speech of the Tsar and a remark about the amazement of the Fathers of the Council after listening to it: the fourth - a new written speech of the Tsar to the Fathers of the Council; fifth – 37 royal questions proposed to the council; sixth – preface to the council’s answers to these questions and the beginning of the answers; The 99th talks about sending the council decisions to Metropolitan Joasaph, who lived in retirement in the Sergius Lavra, the 100th sets out Joasaph’s comments on these decisions. But, what is even more important, while in the Sudebnik each of the hundred chapters is completely different in content from the others, in the Stoglavnik the chapters are separated only by numbers, and not by content. Some chapters are unnecessarily disconnected: for example, 6 and 34 about priestly elders; 27 and 28 about correcting liturgical books; 46, 48 and 69 about the crown tax, etc. Particular thoughts are torn off from one chapter and attached to another, answering completely specific questions, for example. To Chapter 24 on the fourth marriage, a rule was added about not drinking wine before dinner. Many chapters contain only extracts from the rules of the church of previous times, which were given at the council to form the basis of its decisions, and the decisions themselves or conclusions from the rules constitute special chapters. All this leads to the idea that the current Stoglavnik, in its external composition and division into chapters, which is so irregular, unnatural, unaccountable, is not the work of an entire council, which it deliberately considered and approved, but the work of a private person who did not have sufficient education or a strict, bright sense. 7) The contents of the Stoglavnik also show that it is not a book of acts and decisions of the conciliar, written at the council in the order in which the acts and decisions took place, but is a book compiled by a private individual subsequently. Thus, the first chapter was written not at the beginning of the council, but after its end: because it briefly outlines the content of the various definitions of the council, placed even in the last chapters. It was compiled in the form of a preface to Stoglav, but not by the council or at the council, but by an unknown person; because the actual preface of the council to its acts is set out in the second chapter, which begins with the words: “and about all this the preface of this council has the writing sice” 99 (“). The sixth chapter begins with the following special preface: “Once upon a time we heard the aloud of the God-crowned and Christ-loving Tsar Sovereign, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, Autocrat of All Russia, that in many Holy Churches of God they ring and sing at the wrong time, except for the Divine Rule, and many church rites are not fully performed according to the sacred rules and not according to the Rule. He, the God-loving King, hearing about this, not just imputed, but kindled by the Holy Spirit, soon ordered to write about those many different church rites that are not carried out according to the charter and not fully according to the sacred rules. And at the council he gave it to his father Macarius, Metropolitan of All Rus', and commanded him about all those church rites, having decided, to carry out the decree according to the divine charter and according to the sacred rules. He conciliarly received from the pious Tsar with all spiritual joy, they read it lovingly, and they judged about all those many different church rites and looked at the divine rules, and they laid down everything about the Holy Spirit.” Is it possible to believe that these words were written at the council by a witness and describer of the council’s actions, and not a later insertion? After it is said in detail in the second chapter that the Tsar was moved by a holy desire, not only “about zemstvo correction, but also about various church corrections,” and announced this to the Metropolitan and the council - as in the third chapter the Tsar’s written speech on this subject is presented, and in the fifth the most royal questions are presented, in writing proposed to the council - here it is said again: once it came to the Tsar’s ears about various church disorders, and he soon ordered to write about it and proposed to the cathedral... In the first of his questions, set out in the fifth chapter, the Tsar, drawing the attention of the cathedral to “so that according to St. the churches rang and sang according to the divine charter and according to the sacred rules,” says: “Now we see and hear, in addition to the divine charter, many church rites are not performed in full, not according to the sacred rules.” And here it says: “Once upon a time the King’s voices were heard.” If what happened during the days of the Stoglavy Council, and at the council was presented as the present, is narrated here as about the past, something that once happened: then, without a doubt, the narrator wrote after the council and quite a bit of time later. Some chapters of the current Stoglavnik, in all likelihood, do not belong to the original code of the Stoglavy Council, but were added by an unknown person later: because they set out definitions about such subjects that were not directly mentioned in the royal questions, while the council should have compiled answers to the Tsar’s questions, and the Stoglavnik itself is inscribed: Royal questions and conciliar answers about the many different church rites. These are: chapters 9–11, which defines the regulations for the celebration of the liturgy: ch. 14, about weddings, prayers and memorial services; Ch. 31, about putting together the fingers for blessing and the sign of the cross; Ch. 42, about a special alleluia, although it cannot be denied that the Fathers of the Council, for some reason, could talk about these subjects 100. Chapter 98 contains the meeting of the Tsar with M. Macarius about church estates, which took place on the 15th day of September 1551, next. even before the council, five months: because the council began, as they say at the very beginning of Stoglav, already on February 23 of the said year. This means that this chapter could not belong to the original code of the council, but was added by an unknown person. In some lists of Stoglav, and even modern ones (although the hundredth chapter obviously contains all the acts of the council), another 101st chapter was added, containing a conciliar verdict prohibiting the clergy from acquiring patrimony without reporting to the Tsar, separately published on May 11, 1551 101. In some more, Chapter 102 was added, containing a conciliar verdict on the establishment of priestly elders in Moscow, issued by the Russian Patriarch Job in 1594, i.e. more than forty years after the Council of the Hundred Heads 102. 8) In the manner of revealing his thoughts and presentation, Stoglav represents much that was unworthy of the enlightened archpastors of the cathedral of 1551, which in particular was Metropolitan Macarius, who presided over it; on the contrary, it directly points to a private person, little educated and even ignorant. Thus, when revealing some of his decrees, Stoglav uses fictitious and forged evidence: for example, in chapter 56 he cites the imaginary rule of the fifth Ecumenical Council, after which not a single rule remained 103; in 72 ch. the commandment of mercy towards the poor is based on the imaginary words of the righteous Enoch 104; in chapter 95, a completely new commandment “to do five days in a week”, and to celebrate two days – Saturday and Sunday (removed from chapter 41, question 21), contrary to the clear teaching of the word of God and the Church 105, is based on the imaginary rule of St. Apostle Peter and Paul. When revealing his other decrees, Stoglav distorts the priest. text of Scripture 106, incorrectly cites the rules of St. cathedrals and St. Fathers 107 and falls into contradictions 108. In the presentation there are constant repetitions of the same thing, unnecessary expansions, tedious verbosity, incoherence and confusion of thoughts, countless errors in language, etc. 9) If the book of Stoglav, in its entirety, had been approved by the council and sent out to the bishops for guidance, or if all the decrees set out in it were then issued by the council in the form of separate decrees: in this case, they would soon begin to be implemented in reality. And yet it turns out to be the opposite. For example, the decree on making the sign of the cross and the priestly blessing with two fingers, so decisively set out in Stoglav, was not in force and even known in 1554: otherwise the Trinity abbot Artemy could not have said or confirmed, in the face of Metropolitan Macarius himself, that at the council, although there was talk about the sign of the cross, nothing had been accomplished, and would remain unconvicted. It was not valid at the beginning of the 17th century either: because, for example, in the Gospel, printed in 1606 under Patriarch Hermogenes, we see an image of the hand of St. John the Evangelist, blessing with names. Likewise, the decree on a special alleluia was not in force either at the end of the 16th or at the beginning of the 17th century: for in the liturgical books written at that time, the rule is found many times: alleluia three times, and not once is it said: alleluia twice 109, or even: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to you, God, - these are the verbs thrice 110. The general conclusion about the book Stoglavnik can be expressed as follows: this book, in all likelihood, contains rough notes on the actions and constitution of the Moscow Cathedral, which took place in 1551; but notes, partly changed, partly supplemented, and generally brought to their present form after 1554 by an unknown person, although, perhaps, present at the council. Some of the decrees set out in the Stoglavnik were actually approved and published by the council itself, only in a new, corrected form: others, which include articles on the sign of the cross and on the special alleluia, were not published and are in force in our Church, following. and should not be imputed to the council. This book, apparently, was compiled by one of the most ardent zealots of schismatic opinions, who, covering himself with the name of the council, wanted to elevate some of them to the level of dogmas and protect them with anathema, but only very unreasonably and unfoundedly. II. The schismatic opinions raised in the Stoglavnik to the level of dogma are: 1) the opinion that one must bless and be baptized with two fingers (chapter 31); 2) an opinion about unshaven braids and uncut mustaches (chapter 40); 3) the opinion of a special alleluia (chapter 42). On what grounds did the compiler Stoglav want to approve them? 1. Stoglav tries to establish the opinion about the folding of two fingers for blessing and the sign of the cross as a dogma, firstly, with the following formidable rule: “if anyone does not bless with two fingers, like Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross with two fingers, let him be cursed, the Holy Fathers will recoil.” But where is St. Did the fathers pronounce such a curse? They pronounced it, answer Stoglav’s defenders, in “the order of converting from heresies,” which is found in the ancient writings of the Helmsman and “seems to be not a creation of the Russian Church, but of the Eastern Catholic Church: there. in the eastern Church, St. the councils condemned heretics, there the rules were laid down for them, and the order of conversion was laid down for them” 111. It is true that “the rank, if anyone has been in heresy, is baptized, and turns to God, any hvalisin, any Jew, any heretic,” is found in some of our ancient written Helmsmen 112; It is also true that in this rite there is a curse similar, although not the same, as that given in Stoglav. But it is not entirely true that this order, in its entirety, is the creation of the Eastern Catholic Church; otherwise it is absolutely not true that the said curse was placed on him by St. Fathers of the Church. This whole small rank, according to the Slavic written Helmsman, contains two components. The first sets out the confession of the person turning to the Orthodox Church; the second is the prayers and actions of the priest over him. In the confession, one who turns to Orthodoxy: a) first curses by name the ancient heretics condemned by the Seven Ecumenical Councils; b) then namelessly curses those who contain various heresies, ancient and new, listing many dogmatic and ritual deviations from Orthodoxy, mainly Armenian and Latin; c) finally briefly expresses his true faith in St. Trinity. The priest, having heard this confession of the convert: a) asks him again three times: “Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?”, and having received a threefold affirmative answer, reads a prayer; b) then anoints the converting saint. peace and reads another prayer; c) finally imposes a small penance on him. The curse of heretics by name, set out in the first part, and the entire second part, outlining the prayers and actions of the priest, are borrowed from the Greek rite: “renunciation of the Armenian heretics,” which was compiled in the 12th century on the occasion of well-known relations between the Orthodox Church and the Armenian, based, however, in some articles, on an older rite. Everything else contained in the first part is taken from the same Greek rite and from the accusatory word against the Armenians of Isaac the Catholicos, which was usually placed among the Greeks after the said rite 113. Track. “The order of converting from heresies,” which Stoglav’s defenders point to, was not actually compiled in Greece, and not by St. Fathers of the Church, and here in Russia, although based on Greek sources. When was it compiled? In all likelihood, not earlier than either towards the end of the 14th century or in the 15th century 114, when some Armenians (Khvalisyans) began to settle in the southern cities of Russia from the Khvalino (Caspian) Sea, for whom, judging by the content of the rank and the title, it was primarily written 115. Turning, in particular, to the rule about two-fingered fingers, together with the curse, placed in this Slavic rite, we must say that, according to the most accurate research, it is not found in any of the Greek works from which the entire rite was borrowed: it is not found further and generally in any rite of the Eastern, Catholic Church. This means that it is a Russian composition. Not only that: at first, in our country, it was included in the rite with Orthodox thought and read: “Whoever does not baptize (that is, does not bless) with two fingers, like Christ, let them be cursed" 116 . In this form, it protected the nominal blessing of our shepherds, which, in a certain respect, can be called two-fingered; not without reason, it pointed to the example of Christ the Savior, about whom, at least, it is undoubtedly known that He blessed, although it is not known with certainty in what way, and apparently it was directed against the Latins or their shepherds, who bless not in our way, not with two fingers, but with a whole hand 117. But then ignorant scribes began to write this rule in the order: “whoever is not baptized with two fingers, like Christ, may he be cursed” 118 . Here a complete distortion of the previous thought has already emerged: as if from somewhere it is known that Christ was baptized, and precisely with two fingers? As if He had the need to place the sign of the cross on Himself?... The compiler of Stoglav extended even further, he arbitrarily combined both readings of this rule and wrote first: “if anyone does not bless with two fingers (i.e. does not baptize), like Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross with two fingers, let him be cursed,” but then after a few words: “Whoever does not sign (i.e., is not baptized) with two fingers, like Christ, let him be cursed” 119. Secondly, as the basis for this rule, the Stoglavnik points to the legend of Meletius, the Patriarch of Antioch, who allegedly blessed the believers with two fingers at the Council of Antioch and performed a miracle. “I was at the council about the faith of the one being,” we read in Stoglav, “and to the Arians who spoke differently, but Meletius demonstrated the manifestation of the Divine rule. To show people who ask for a quick teaching from God: by showing three fingers, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and there was no sign. Then Meletius, two couples, and three I will bend, bless the people, and from him fire comes up like lightning; He let out a praiseworthy voice: “For we understand three things, we talk about one thing, and thus the heretics are disgraced.” But here is a complete distortion of historical truth. In Greek sources, from which this legend about Meletius could only have been borrowed, it is read differently. Blessed Theodoret (5th century) like this: “finally, the third (at the council after George of Laodicea and Acacius of Caesarea) the great Meletius rose up and expressed the direct meaning of the dogmatic teaching about God: guided by the truth as a plumb line, he avoided both exaggeration and deficiency. The people accompanied his speech with exclamations of approval for a long time and asked him to briefly repeat his teaching. Then Meletius, showing three fingers, and then bending two of them (coupled) and leaving one, uttered the following praiseworthy saying: “we mean three, but we are talking as if about one” 120. In Sozomen (5th century) it is as follows: “(Meletius) openly confessed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father. They say that while he was still saying this, the archdeacon of the local clergy ran up and blocked his mouth with his hand; but he expressed his thought more clearly than with his voice through his hand: first holding out three separate fingers in front of everyone, then he put them together (bent them) again and extended one, and with this type of hand he depicted to the people what he was thinking and what they were preventing him from expressing. When the archdeacon grabbed his hand and opened his mouth; then, having received freedom of language, he declared his thought even more clearly and loudly, that is, he exhorted to adhere to the Nicene definitions and inspired his listeners that those who thought differently were departing from the truth” 121 . Finally, Nicephorus Callistus (XIV century) is in complete agreement with Sozomen 122. And so, Greek historians actually say - a) that Meletius showed at the council first three fingers, then one to depict the sacrament of the consubstantial Trinity, but there is not a word about Meletius blessing the people; b) that Meletius, having shown three fingers, then bent two of them and left one, or bent all three, but again extended one, and not vice versa, as if he bent one or three fingers and put together or extended two; c) there is no mention at all of the lightning-like fire coming from Meletius as a result of the supposed two-fingered blessing. In Russian prologues, the legend of Meletia appeared from the 14th century; but it was read differently: in some it was close to Theodoret: “two copulated, and one stretched out” 123; in others, in agreement with Sozomen and Callistus 124: in the third, already close to Stoglav: “two copulate, but I will bend one” 125. Finally, Stoglavnik expresses himself: “two copulating, and three bending down” 126. Let us assume, however, that the legend of Meletia, as it is read in Stoglav, is true: what does it say? That Meletius blessed the people with two fingers together and three bent, and what, therefore, is it generally necessary for the shepherds of the Church to bless? Yes, we don’t argue about this: because Orthodox shepherds bless this way, two fingers together and three bent in a certain way. But does it follow from this that this is exactly how all Christians should form their fingers for the sign of the cross? In the legend about Meletia, obviously, there is not a word about this. Thirdly and finally, Stoglavnik refers to the famous word of Theodorite about the folding of fingers for blessing and the sign of the cross. But we have already noticed - a) that blessed. This word does not belong to Theodoret at all, and that it was invented among us towards the end of the 15th century; b) that initially it expressed, if only attributed to the sign of the cross, an Orthodox thought, but in the 16th century it was already damaged, as read in the collection of Metropolitan Daniel 127. Now let us add that in the Stoglavnik itself it is presented in its original form and with Orthodox thought in the discussion of the sign of the cross, although it is aimed at confirming a schismatic opinion. Here we read: “Bless the face with your hand and be baptized: have three fingers equal together, in the trinity image - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, not three Gods, but one God in the Trinity; the names are divided, but the deity is one; The Father is unbegotten, and the Son is begotten, but not created; the Holy Spirit is neither begotten, nor created, but proceeding; three in one Divinity, one power, one honor to the Divine, one we worship from all creation, from angels and man. This is a decree with that three finger! Having two fingers is inclined, and not extended, - and thus the decree is this: then it forms two natures, Divinity and humanity, God by Divinity, and man by incarnation, and in both perfect. The upper finger forms the Divinity, and the lower one, humanity, having descended from the highest, saves the lower one; also the death of the dust is interpreted: bow down to the heavens, and descend for our salvation. Yes, this is worthy of baptism and blessing, this is what the Holy Fathers indicated and legitimized.” It is only wrong here that it is commanded to fold one’s fingers for a blessing. 2) Stoglav expresses his opinion and decree on not shaving his hair and not cutting his mustache as follows: “The sacred rules forbid all Orthodox Christians not to shave their hair and not to cut their mustache. This is not true of the Orthodox, but the Latin and heretical traditions of the Greek king Constantine Kovalin. And about this the apostolic and paternal rules prohibit and deny” (chapter 40). What are these apostolic and paternal rules? “The Rule of the Saints the Apostle,” Stoglav continues, “says: if anyone shaves his hair and reposes in this way, he is not worthy to serve over him, neither sing the magpie for him, nor bring bread or candles for him to church; let him be reckoned with the infidels, - from the heretic is a habit." But such a rule among the Apostolic rules never existed and does not exist, neither in the Greek lists, nor in the Slavic ones, according to all the Helmsmen, and the old written and printed ones. For the first time it is found in the Slavic summary Kormcha already in the 16th century, and not among the rules (85) of the Apostles, but in the explanation of 2-3 rules of the local council of Constantinople, which was in the church of St. Sophia, although it absolutely does not relate to the explanation of these rules: because their content is completely different 128. Track. This rule is false, pseudo-apostolic, appeared among us in the 16th century, and in this form was accepted by the compiler of Stoglav. From the paternal rules, he points to the “eleventh rule of the sixth council, which is also in tulle polatnem,” which reads as follows: “What about tonsuring your hair: isn’t it written in the law: do not cut your hair? It's all right for the wives; God, who created in like manner, judged to be a man; Moses said: let him not come upon your fence. This is an abomination before God: for from Constantine Tsar Kovalin the heretic, and I know that everyone is a heretical servant, he cuts their braids. But you who create human things for the sake of pleasing, opposing the law, will be hated by God, who created us in his image. If you want to please God, turn away from evil.” But neither this nor even a similar rule ever existed among the rules of the Trullian Council, neither according to the Greek nor according to the Slavic lists 129. In part, it could have been borrowed from one chapter of the so-called Apostolic Decrees 130, and in a distorted form it appeared among us no earlier than the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century 131, perhaps to admonish those Russians who had already begun to imitate foreign customs and even shave their beards 132. In the Slavic Helmsmen, this article was usually placed between works directed against the Latins, 133 no doubt because barbering was then considered one of the Latin errors 134, and was written immediately after the work of the monk and presbyter of St. Nikita Stiphatus on unleavened bread, sometimes starting with a new line 135, and sometimes even on the very same line where it ended Stifat's article 136. And since the last article ended precisely with the eleventh rule of the sixth, Trullian Council, some, out of ignorance, considered the article on barber shaving, written immediately after the rule, as this very rule or as a continuation of it, despite all the differences in their contents 137 . In the summary Helmsman of the 16th century, an article on barber shaving is already given, even separately from Stifatov’s work, under the name 11th rule of the Council of Trula 138. Under the same name, without any reference to the actual rules of this Council, it was also included in Stoglav with minor changes. If we pay attention to the content of the article, we will see that, in addition to the strangeness of its main idea, it contains two more gross errors: a) it falsely cites or distorts the text of St. Scripture 139, and - b) makes one think that the Fathers of the Council of Trula decreed their 11th rule on barber shaving against Tsar Constantine Kovalin (Copronymus) - a heretic - while the Council of Trula was in 680, and Constantine Copronymus was born in 710 and reigned in 741, i.e. 60 years after the council 140. Let us say, finally, that the opinion about unshaven braids in itself does not contain anything strange, and could especially be excused by the concepts and customs of that time. But when the compiler of Stoglav wanted to elevate this opinion about a subject completely indifferent in the matter of faith and salvation to the level of dogma, when he called barber-shaving a heresy and determined to excommunicate him from the Church for barber-shaving: he discovered superstition and ignorance in himself. 3) Chapter (42) about the special alleluia in Stoglav reads: “That in Pskov and in the Pskov land in many monasteries and churches, and in the Novgorod land in many places, to this day they say the trebular alleluia, in addition to the apostolic and patristic traditions, - it is known from seeing from the writer the life of our venerable father Euphrosynus, the new wonderworker of Pskov, how, for the sake of holy prayers, the Most Pure Mother of God informed and forbade the three-lipped alleluia, and commanded Orthodox Christians to say the two-lipped alleluia, and in the third: glory to you God, as you have a holy, conciliar, apostolic Church and have given: and not to tremble alleluia, as before this was said in Pskov in many places, and in the fourth sentence was: thank you God. This is not an Orthodox tradition, but a Latin heresy: they do not glorify the Trinity, but quadruple, and say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, and thereby create servility to the Holy Spirit. And for this reason, it is not appropriate to trample on the holy alleluia, but to say alleluia, alleluia twice, and on the third: glory to you, God. Because in Hebrew it’s alleluia, but in our Russian it’s “glory to you God.” Thus, Stoglav, calling the threefold alleluia a heresy, affirms his ruling on the extreme alleluia on four grounds. a) Based on the testimony of the writer of the life of St. Euphrosyne, as if the Venerable herself. The Mother of God forbade the Orthodox to triple, but commanded them to double the alleluia. But we have already seen that this unknown writer does not deserve any trust in what he puts into the mouth of the Rev. The Virgin, as if appearing to him in a dream vision, such words that are filled not only with strange, but even heretical thoughts, and that, according to his own consciousness, he “only retained a little from Her great verb in his corrupted memory.” They also noticed that this story about the appearance of St. Mother of God to the first writer of the life of St. Euphrosyne is actually placed in the work of the second biography of Euphrosynov, the cleric Vasily, which generally contains many oddities, absurdities, and contradictions 141. Can such evidence be trusted? b) Based on the tradition of the holy catholic and apostolic Church. But - aa) Stoglav himself in this chapter testifies that in many places of the Pskov and Novgorod lands and in many others until then, alleluia was built; bb) from the life of St. We saw that in his time not only in Pskov and Novgorod, but throughout the entire Russian land, alleluia was celebrated; c) the High Hierarch of the Russian Church Photius (in 1419) and the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius (1526–1546), deliberately on the issue of alleluia, commanded to triple it 142; d) ancient liturgical handwritten books, Greek and Russian, show that in the Orthodox Church there has always been three alleluia 143; dd) the Moscow Council of 1667, which took place in the presence of the Eastern High Hierarchs, testified: “Holy Christ, Eastern Church from St. Apostles and St. God-bearing Fathers and ecumenical teachers accepted this apostolic song, that is, alleluia, in divine singing, in sacred places, saying: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to you, God, Sitsa three times, as it seems, written in the Greek and Slavic-Russian ancient handwritten charatean books" 144. c) On this, as if a three-lipped alleluia with the addition: glory to you, God, there is a heresy of the Latins, who do not glorify, but quadruple the Trinity, and, believing in the procession of St. Spirit and from the Son, thus servilely do the holy. Spirit. But here everything is false: aa) a trifling alleluia, even if it is not fair, i.e. is contrary to the customs of the Orthodox Church, cannot be called heresy: because alleluia itself in no way refers to the dogmas of faith: bb) the three-pronged alleluia is not at all a peculiarity of the Roman Church, which, on the contrary, uses this song in its Divine service once, and repeats it twice, three times, five times and much more 145; cc) The Latins by no means quadruple the saints. Trinity, but, like us Orthodox, they recognize only three persons in one God: the Father and the Son and St. Spirit, and d) although they teach incorrectly about the origin of St. the Spirit and from the Son, but they do not do this in the least. the Spirit servilely, confessing Him always completely equal in Divinity and dignity to the Father and the Son, consubstantial with Them and inseparable: all this is known from the public confessions of the Roman Church. d) On the assumption that alleluia in Hebrew means the same as in ours - glory to you, God. But alleluia actually means: praise (or glorify, sing) God 146. This is how this word was usually explained among us from ancient times before the hundred-domed Council. In the article: “The Interpretation of the Divine Service,” according to manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries, it says: “Alluya, like striking a harp. David cries out, saying: God is coming, praise and sing to the living God”: and even more clearly: “then the holy alluiah, which is interpreted: sing to God” 147. Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, whose words we have already quoted, also notes: “Alleluia is interpreted: praise the Lord or Existence.” Another Novgorod Archbishop Macarius, also in his letter already known to us, expresses himself: “Alleluia is said: sing to God” 148. Through the threefold repetition of alleluia - praise God, the Church, as it were, calls us to praise equally God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; and with a single exclamation: glory to you, God, believers, as if responding to this calling of the Church, actually praise, along with it, the Trinity, equal in honour, consubstantial and indivisible. Now, we think, it is obvious to anyone impartially reasoning that the attempt of an unknown zealot of schismatic opinions to elevate some of them in the Stoglavnik to the level of dogmas is extremely unsuccessful: everything that he cites in support of his favorite decrees turns out to be either completely false, or unfounded, or imprinted with ignorance. If, despite all this, the schismatics still continue to look with the greatest respect at the decrees of Stoglav that we have examined and generally refer to Stoglav as if to a book of the law: then we ask, why do they not completely follow some of these same decrees, and even completely violate other decrees of Stoglav? III. Stoglav’s decrees, which are either not fully observed or are completely violated by schismatics, are the following: 1) Decree on the sign of the cross. This decree at the beginning commands: “to the imagination of the cross, the thumb and the two lower fingers have joined together, and the upper finger has joined with the middle finger, extended and bent slightly, so bless and lay the sign of the cross with your hand.” And towards the end he commands: “bless your face with your hand and be baptized: have three fingers together in the trinity image... have two fingers tilted, not outstretched.” The schismatics fulfill only the first half of this decree; they are the ones who signify and bless by connecting the thumb with the two lower ones, and the other two fingers - the upper (or index) and middle ones - joined together, extended and bent slightly; but they do not fulfill the other half of the instruction, which commands that the Orthodox, having three fingers together equally, should have the other two fingers not extended, but inclined, i.e. Apparently he inspires an Orthodox figure. So, one of three things: either the schismatics must agree that Stoglav’s decree on the sign of the cross contains a contradiction; or, contrary to all possibility, must comply with this decree in full, i.e. to have two fingers at the same time when making the sign of the cross, both extended and not extended 149; or, finally, they must accept and equally use the double image of the sign of the cross: both our own, which is commanded at the beginning of Stoglav’s decree on the sign of the cross, and our Orthodox, which is commanded at the end of the same decree. 2) Decree on a special alleluia. It very clearly states that many in Novgorod and Pskov used the three-pronged alleluia, “except (contrary to) the apostolic and paternal traditions,” that the Most Holy. Theotokos “forbid the three-mouthed alleluia,” that the three-mouthed alleluia is the heresy of the Latins, and that it is necessary to “say alleluia twice, and on the third, glory to Thee, O God.” And the schismatics fulfill this decree only halfway. They actually say alleluia twice, when after that they add: glory to Thee, O God. But they also say alleluia three times, when they do not add - glory to Thee, O God 150. On what basis do schismatics use three-bit alleluia, when it is absolutely forbidden to them in Stoglav? Or do they imagine that when they say: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, they are saying it twice, and not three times, that they are aggravating it, and not destroying it? And do they rightly reproach us Orthodox for the demanding alleluia, when they themselves use it, and very often? 3) Decree regarding the reading in the Creed of a member about St. Spirit. We have already seen that even before the Council of the Hundred Chapters this term was read in two ways. Some, in accordance with ancient examples, wrote and pronounced it: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giving”...; others began to write and read: “and in the Holy Spirit, true (instead of the Lord) and life-giving.” Stoglav testifies that some went even further, and, having combined both readings, confessed their Faith: “and in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord”... Therefore, Stoglav decreed: “in the same way I believe in one God... the essence and verb: and in the Holy, true and life-giving Spirit - otherwise much more. Netzi says: and in the Holy Spirit, the true Lord, otherwise not much more. There is only one verb: either the Lord or the true one” (chapter 9). Meanwhile, schismatics now, contrary to Stoglav’s direct prohibition, read in the Creed: “and in the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”... 4) Resolution regarding the correction of church liturgical books. The Tsar himself, in one of his questions to the council, remarked: “Scribes write divine books from uncorrected translations, but having written them they do not correct them, inventory comes after inventory, and incomplete writing and dots are not straight. And according to those books in the churches of God they honor and sing, and study, and write from them. What about this negligence, and about our great negligence from God will be according to the Divine rule? (Chapter 5, Question 5). And the fathers of the council, at least, as Stoglavnik assures, determined: a) the archpriests and senior priests in every city in all churches to inspect the sacred and church books; and if there are books that are incorrect and with inventories, then such books should be corrected by the council according to the best lists: before the priest. the rules prohibit this and do not command that uncorrected books be brought into the church, and that below they should be sung (chap. 27); b) order the scribes who write books by city to write from good translations and sell the books only after revision and corrections: c) henceforth not to sell uncorrected books, but to take them away from the scribes and from those who buy such books, and then, after correction, give them to churches that are meager in books; d) for priests to have special diligence in this matter in order to accomplish and correct it, great is their strength: for this they receive a reward from God, honor from the Tsar, blessing from the council, and thanksgiving from the whole world (chapter 28). Thus, Stoglav clearly testified to the malfunction of the then old liturgical books, which were used a century before Patriarch Nikon, and the extreme need to correct them, as much as there is strength. And the schismatics, contrary to such clear testimony from Stoglav, argue that the old church books should be inviolable and unchangeable in anything, like books that are true and right; or that they were supposedly corrected by Rev. Maxim the Greek (that means, even before Stoglav or in the days of Stoglav himself? Stoglav did not notice this!), and that there was no need at all, under Patriarch Nikon, to begin correcting these books again 151. 5) Resolution regarding crosses erected on churches. Having corrected and again gilded the top of the Assumption Cathedral, which suffered a lot during the terrible Moscow fires, Tsar John Vasilyevich erected a visual cross on it, which was usually used to bless or signify the sign in churches. This cross must have been different in shape from the crosses hitherto used on churches, and from the one that had previously stood on the Assumption Cathedral: why did the Tsar draw the attention of the fathers of the hundred-domed cathedral to this subject and ask what kind of crosses should be placed on churches in the future? “And in the churches,” said the Tsar, they put up crosses according to the ancient law, - now a life-giving cross has been erected on the cathedral church of the Most Holy Theotokos, of Her honorable and glorious Dormition, on a newly gilded versa, just as there is a visual cross in churches, they bless with it: and judge about this and lay it out at the holy council, in which way to put crosses on the front. churches, and those crosses that stand on churches are worth judging.” The fathers of the council, according to Stoglav, determined: “just as from time immemorial holy crosses have been erected and erected on holy churches to this day, let them also remain motionless.” In the same way, now the holy cross was erected and placed by the pious Tsar John on the cathedral church of the Most Holy Theotokos, on the newly gilded versa, as if there is an erected visual cross, they bless with it: and so it is worthy of the glory of God, and for the multiplication of years of the pious Tsar Ivan, and for the preservation of him and the entire Russian kingdom, and such holy crosses on Let them continue to supply the churches” (chapter 41, question 6). Two indisputable consequences follow from all this. First: during the days of the hundred-domed Cathedral, two kinds of crosses were used in our churches, of which one was called an exalted visual cross, and which were different from each other in appearance: otherwise, if they did not differ from each other in appearance, why would the Tsar say that he erected a cross at the Assumption Cathedral, just as there is an exalted visual cross in churches, they bless with it, and why ask which Should we continue to put crosses on churches? Second: Stoglav equally approved for erection on churches such crosses as were previously supplied, and crosses in the likeness of the visual, which was again erected by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich at the Assumption Cathedral. Let us agree (which, of course, the schismatics will not argue against) that the erection cross, again erected by the Tsar at the Assumption Cathedral, was eight-pointed 152; but they must agree that the crosses previously placed on churches were, therefore, not eight-pointed, but of a different type, i.e. four-pointed 153 that these four-pointed crosses were equally used in our churches at that time, as were the eight-pointed visual crosses, and that Stoglav equally ordered to be erected on churches, and so on. equally honor those and other crosses, eight-pointed and four-pointed. Why do the current followers of Stoglav honor only the eight-pointed cross, and resolutely reject the four-pointed one? So, it is in vain that our imaginary Old Believers boast of the hundred-domed Council, and, in order to exalt its importance, point to the wisdom and piety of the fathers who were present at it 154: and we fully respect the enlightenment and great merits of Metropolitan Macarius, the chairman of the Council; We do not reject the dignity of all the other archpastors who were at the Council. But the book - Stoglav does not belong to them: they could reason and, perhaps, really reasoned about the very subjects that it talks about, could express similar opinions; but they did not present all these opinions in the form of a special, holistic code. they did not approve it with their unanimous consent and signature, did not publish it for general use in the Church - and Stoglav in its present form is the work of a private person, which appeared after the Council, although, in all likelihood, it contains the draft notes of the Council, only changed. It is in vain, in particular, that the schismatics try to establish their imaginary dogmas about double-fingered, barber-shaving and a special alleluia on the decrees of Stoglav: everything on which Stoglav himself thought to confirm them is so shaky, so fragile and so insignificant, let’s not even mention. that these decrees, as stated not by the Council, but by a private unknown person, cannot have any binding force. In vain, finally, do schismatics reproach us, the Orthodox, for not following their beloved Stoglav, when we ourselves have violated and are violating some of his decrees, some partially, and others even completely. It can be taken for granted that the Stoglavnik, compiled by an unknown person after 1554, was not a valid code not only in the Orthodox Church or among its Orthodox children, as we noted, but even among the zealots of the schism themselves, of whom we had quite a few at that time, although they had not yet separated from the Orthodox Church. They copied Stoglav as a book favorable to their opinions, passed it on to each other, and even included it among the books useful for reading 155. But they did not recognize the binding force of this book over themselves, in the sense of the law, and therefore did not limit themselves only to the opinions set forth in Stoglav, but little by little added others to them, partly old, partly new; they did not abandon and did not want to keep intact even the opinions clearly stated in Stoglav; on the contrary, they more or less retreated from them and changed them. Thus, in the remaining half of the 16th century, after the hundred-headed Council, and in the first XVII century, all the main opinions and misconceptions that served as the beginnings of the Russian schism were finally formed, and with them the idea was formed and quietly established that the Stoglavnik really belonged to the Council, under whose name it was originally issued. Circumstances were favorable for gradually introducing all these opinions and this thought into the liturgical and teaching books that were published in our country at that time; through church books they spread throughout Russia, received, as it were, sanctification in the eyes of the people, and reached the final stage of their development and power. Chapter IV. The final approval of the main schismatic opinions by the end of the 16th and especially in the first half of the 17th century through their erroneous inclusion in printed church liturgical books and a look at these very books Hitherto, the schismatic opinions that had come to light were the property of only private individuals, and although at times they found ardent adherents, they also met zealous denouncers. The attempt of the unknown publisher Stoglav to elevate some of these opinions to the level of dogma and make them binding on everyone in the name of the Council, in itself, would not have been successful: because the book Stoglavnik was not distributed on behalf of the Council for use in the Church and could only be copied by book people and remain known in their circle. But when we began the printing of church, liturgical and teaching books in Moscow soon after the Council of the Hundred Chapters (1553–1564), and in some other places even before, it continued almost continuously under the Patriarchs Job (1589–1605), Hermogenes (1606–1612), Philaret (1619–1634), Joasaph (1634–1641) and Joseph (1642–1652); when, little by little, previous and newly emerged schismatic opinions were introduced into these books, and with them the idea that Stoglav belonged to the Stoglav Council itself; when these printed books spread throughout Russia and began to be used in churches: then schismatic opinions acquired something that they had not had before - general knowledge and sanctification in the eyes of the entire people. Old printed books finally established their dignity and strength, which is why they subsequently became the main basis of the Russian schism. With these two thoughts in mind, we will show, firstly, how little by little schismatic opinions were introduced into printed liturgical and teaching books, giving them sanctification and importance; and, secondly, let’s take a look at these very books, which initially served and still remain the main basis of the Russian schism. I. The schismatic opinions that appeared in printed liturgical and teaching books are of two kinds: some that became known even before the books were printed; others that have now just arisen or are being discovered for the first time. But both of them were not included in printed books at once, but gradually, and it is remarkable that some opinions were not introduced in the sense in which schismatics now want to understand them, and others even together with thoughts that are opposite to them. All these schismatic opinions, according to the time they were entered into printed books, are presented in the following order. 1. The opinion about the worshiped name Jesus, as if it should be pronounced - Jesus. It is known that from the very beginning of our church writing, this saving name of the Lord was written among us, as well as among the Greeks - our teachers, in various ways: in full - ???IHCSCZ, HICÏCZ, HHCSCZ, ITSH, liiez, ITs, and in abbreviated form - ???Icz, Hcz, Ivc, 1c, and that the shortened way of writing, due to its convenience for scribes, was used even more often than the first 156. From the duality of the scripture, little by little, a double pronunciation of the word also imperceptibly occurred, and some, due to simplicity or carelessness and speed of pronunciation, instead of Jesus, began to speak and write Isus: in this very form, and without titles, it is found in some even charatean Slavic manuscripts 157 . But no traces have been preserved in our ancient history for the duality of the pronunciation and writing of the saving name to serve as a reason for any disputes, and neither before the hundred-domed Council, nor at the hundred-domed Council, no one paid any attention to this; in all likelihood, we then looked at this indifferently, as well as at the double way of pronunciation and writing of the same names: John - Ivan, Theodosius - Fedosius, Joakim - Akim, Theodore - Feodor, Hilarion - Larion, Anastasius - Nastas, Feoktist - Fektist, etc., which was used among us since ancient times 158. When church books began to be printed in Russia, then in the printed books the same thing was repeated as in the handwritten ones: the name Jesus was most often printed under the title ???icz or ???IC, and by the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, in some books of the Ostroh, Vilnius and Moscow editions the word “Iesus” appeared even without the title 159 . It is not without reason that schismatics refer to all these books to confirm their opinion 160 . But they unfairly say that “in all the old printed books the name of Jesus, like Joshua, like Christ the Savior, both under the title and without the title, is one iota to ??? (and not liiez???) it’s printed everywhere.” On the contrary, in the very books to which they point and even in the very examples they give, the name of Jesus is often found inscribed not in one iota, but in another: not to???, but is??? 161. What is even more important is that in many first-printed books published in our country, the name of Jesus is even printed in full - Jesus - Isu??? or ITs???. For example, in the Gospel, printed in Vilna in 1575, the second conception from Matthew begins like this: “Its Xiïo laughing yet bi???” (l. 3 vol.); in the Gospel, printed in Moscow under Patriarch Hermogenes in 1606, the same concept begins: “liiez Hko the birth of the sitsa Be???” (l. 15 vol.). In the book: Conversations of St. John Chrysostom on the 14 Epistles of St. Apostle Paul, St. in Kyiv in 1623, on page 1374 we read: “For if the one who comes preaches another Jesus”...; further on page 3042 it is printed: “an image of the name of Christ Jesus. For this reason, because the calico name is named in the image, hedgehog liiez???: the creature is ashamed of that very name. What else was Jesus called..., and so on pp. 256, 483, 891, 2153, 2269, 3041, 3043, 3154. In general, “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” lists up to twenty old printed books published in Moscow, Kyiv, Vilna, Lvov and other places by the end of the 16th century and in the first half of the 17th century, in which either once, or twice, or repeatedly, or even constantly and exclusively the holy name of our Lord is printed: Jesus - 1is??? or ITs???, not ¡SY??? or IS??? 162. What follows from this? It follows: a) that such an outline and pronunciation of the saving name was not at all condemned in our country at that time, but was respected; b) that our spoken Old Believers are very wrong when they accept only one abbreviated form of the name of the Lord - Jesus, which they find in some old printed books, and reject the other, full - Jesus, which is also found in many old printed books; c) that, while remaining true to their origins, they must at least equally respect and use both the name - Jesus and the name - Jesus. Let us say more: the schismatics are wrong especially because, while remaining true to their beginning, i.e. their adherence to old printed books, they should even prefer the name - Jesus to the name Jesus: not one of these books says anywhere that the name Jesus was incorrect: on the contrary, in the preface to the Apostle, published in Lvov in 1639, it is clearly noted that although the old custom is to write the holy name Is???, it should be written - Jesus, and not - Jesus, and that only in its full outline does it conclude in itself a mysterious number - 888, which, according to ancient hope, should be contained in the name of the Messiah 163 2. Opinion on the folding of two fingers for the sign of the cross. No matter how strictly this opinion is commanded in the book Stoglav (chapter 31), however, it was not suddenly introduced into printed books, especially the Moscow edition. For the first time it was published in the ABC of 1596, published in Vilna under the title: “The Science of Kuchitan and I understand the Slovenian writing” 164. Then it is found in the Ostrog printed Collection of 1598, which was subsequently included for the most part in the so-called Cyril Book of the Moscow edition of 1644. 165 From this Collection was literally reprinted in the “Book of Faith” of the Kyiv edition of 1619, which was subsequently included in a significant part in the same Cyril Book 166. Between the books of the Moscow press, an article on double fingers was placed for the first time in the Greater Catechism of Laurentius Zizanius, ed. in 1627; but placed along with the article on triplicity. For immediately before the article about putting two fingers together to make the sign of the cross we read: “Question: how is it worthy for us to place an honorable cross on ourselves and be marked by it. Answer: we signify ourselves with it: folding the three fingers of the right hand and placing it on the forehead; also on the stomach, and on the gum and on the left side, saying the Jesus Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Here, obviously, it is suggested not only to fold three fingers, but also to place them on the forehead, on the stomach, on the gum and on the left frame, the mark. be baptized with three fingers. Thus, if we assume that the article on double-fingeredness was introduced into the Great Catechism by its first publishers in the days of Patriarch Philaret; but we cannot help but notice that they introduced it somehow timidly and hesitantly, not daring to exclude the article on three-fingeredness, which precedes it, and did not at all refer to Stoglav, where two-fingeredness is commanded with such formidable decisiveness. It’s true, double-fingering was still very new in Russia and weak, compared to tripling. It is also remarkable that in the conciliar presentation of P. Philaret, which was printed in the breviary of Patr. Joasaph in 1639, although the order known to us is placed, “if anyone in heresy has been baptized and turns to God, or a khavisin, or a Jew”..., but the article about the laying on of the finger in it reads like this: “whoever does not baptize (i.e. does not bless) two fingers like Christ, let him be cursed” (fol. 508 vol.), it does not say: whoever is not baptized... Finally, those who were engaged in the publication of books in Moscow under Patriarch Joseph began to directly and decisively publish the doctrine of two fingers for the sign of the cross, and this article appeared in the book of the so-called Kirillova (1644) (chapter 14, l. 179), in the prefaces of the following Psalters (1642, 1647, 1648, 1649) and the Study Psalter (1645, 1646, etc.), in the book on faith (1648) (chapter 9, l. 74), in the short catechism (1649) (l. 16 vol.). But - Firstly, they never once referred to the book of Stoglav to confirm their thoughts, but referred only to false legends about the double-fingered nature of Theodorite, Meletievo and Maxim the Greek: this means that the testimony of Stoglav was not highly valued at that time! Secondly, we have already seen the falsity of Theodoritov’s word about double-fingered; The corruption of the legend about Meletia was also seen: here we note that the word of Maximus the Greek, to which the zealots of the two-fingered fingers have now just begun to refer, is also, in all likelihood, forged or corrupted. For, a) neither the compiler of Stoglav, who wrote shortly after the death of St. Maximus and, apparently, in dire need of evidence to confirm the importance of two-fingered fingers, which he was not ashamed to base even on inventions, nor any other of these zealots until the time of Patriarch Joseph himself ever referred to this work of Maximus; b) it is not in the list of Maximov’s works, written in the 16th century, when the monk lived, but is found already in the lists of the 17th and 18th centuries 167: a sign that it was later added by an alien hand; c) and in these later lists the writing is not the same: in some, apparently, three-fingeredness is preached, in others it is so confusing and dark that it is almost impossible to understand the meaning 168; d) in the form in which this work is usually published by schismatics, its content is completely unworthy of Ven. Maxim, a very enlightened theologian. Here, for example, is the most important passage: “by the union of three fingers, that is, a finger, and the hedgehog from the middle and the smallest, we confess the mystery of the Divine three hypostases of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God three. Over the course of a long and medium period, two natures came together in Christ, that is, the Savior Christ himself, we confess the perfection of God and the perfection of man, into two beings and the nature of the believer and the knowable.” Let's not even talk about the uncertainty and inaccuracy of expressions: what is the copulation of three fingers, that is, a finger and a hedgehog from the middle and small? What are the divine hypostases... three of one God? And we point out the thoughts: what kind of finger is long, different from the middle one, as if the middle finger on our hand is not the longest? And how can one confess two who have come together, i.e. natures united in Christ by the extension of fingers - long and middle, by extension, and not by union? Thirdly, in the instructions on double-fingeredness, which are set out in the above-mentioned printed books, there are discrepancies and even contradictions: whereas the major catechism commands that two fingers should be inclined, not extended, the small catechism and the book on faith command, on the contrary, two fingers, the upper and the middle, to be extended, i.e. to have it stretched out, and the book of Kirillov and the Psalter inspires not only two fingers, the highest and the middle great, to fold and stretch out, but also the middle finger to bend a little. To this extent, the concepts of double-fingeredness among the innovators themselves had not yet been established and were confusing and vague. Fourthly, in the same printed books of the Moscow edition, clear traces of the ancient teaching were preserved about the folding of three fingers for the sign of the cross and even reproach for two fingers. It is in Kirillova’s book, in ch. 26 – about Latin heresies, there is a well-known debate between the Greek philosopher Constantine Panagiota and Azimit. Here, by the way, the defender of Orthodoxy reproaches the Latinnik in this way: “and why do you not bend three fingers, and make the sign of the cross with your right hand, when you place it on your forehead, and do not dress yourself with the weapon of the Cross of the Lord, but make the cross with both fingers, and trace the outer part with your finger, and the imagination of your cross looks out into the place where it would be dress like we are Christians, and you wrap yourself in the life-giving cross.” 169 How do the adherents of old printed books not notice that this reproach of the ancient Greek philosopher for having two fingers also falls on them? Likewise, in the church charter of the Moscow edition of 1610. It is said that if a monk happens to be alone, during a journey, to perform the rite of panagia, then he must, having revealed the bread of the Most Holy One on his right hand, fold its three fingers and then, raising the bread in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, depict on himself with these very fingers the sign of the cross 170. Fifthly, in some books published then, and even before Patriarch Joseph, in our southern metropolis by the defenders of Orthodoxy from the Uniates, three fingers for the sign of the cross are clearly preached. Thus, the famous zealot of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Mogila, in his great catechism or Orthodox confession, which in 1643 was already considered and approved by the councils of Kyiv and Iasi, and soon by all the Eastern patriarchs, speaks about the formation of the sign: “one should depict a cross with the right hand. Placing three large fingers on your forehead, say: in the name of the Father; then, lowering your hand in the same form on your chest, say: and the Son; From now on, moving your hand to the right shoulder and walking it to the left, say: and the Holy Spirit. Having made this holy sign of the cross on yourself, conclude with the word: Amen. Or, when you depict a cross, you can say: Lord Jesus Christ, son of God! have mercy on me, a sinner. Amen” (Part I, answer to question 51). Likewise, in the small catechism of the same high priest of Kyiv, printed in Kyiv in 1645. and in Lvov in 1646, we read the following: “testing: in what way should we place the sign of the holy cross on ourselves? Rebuke. With your right hand, holding three fingers, make the sign of the holy cross on your forehead, and when placing the treasures, say: in the name of the Father; then the same finger on the Persian, Movyachi: and the Son; then on the right frame there are treasures, mov: and the Spirit; then on the left frame there are treasures, mov: Holy; Albo, the witch of Saint Chrysostom, placing the sign of the cross on himself, said: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner, ending with this word, Amen.” Why do the imaginary zealots of the Old Believers not respect the evidence of these early printed books published by the true zealots of Orthodoxy? Sixthly, the Moscow publishers of liturgical and teaching books under Patriarch Joseph are not trustworthy because they deliberately allowed themselves to damage places in these books that did not agree with their opinions. When reprinting, for example, the small catechism of Peter Mogila in 1649, translated from the Little Russian language into Slavic, they changed the passage we cited about the formation of the finger as follows: “question: in what way do imams place the sign of the holy cross on themselves? Answer: put together the three fingers of the right hand, that is, the great and the small, and the third, which is next to the small, in them we confess the mystery of the divine three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one God in three persons: stretch out two fingers, the highest and the middle, and hereby we show the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, as God is perfect and man is perfect for our salvation, and so Having folded our fingers, we place the first hand on our forehead”... and so on. And by such worthy means, sometimes by forgery, sometimes by damaging works and books, they tried to spread and establish their beloved double-fingeredness among the people. 3. Opinion about seven-prosphoria. In our most ancient written service books (XII - XV centuries), which are still known, the number of prosphoras for proskomedia is not precisely determined and even seems to be different 171: because, in fact, for the sacrament of the Eucharist, only one prosphora is needed, one bread (1 Cor. 10:17), from which the Lamb is taken out 172 (and 72|. In the largest part of these service books, however, The prosphora are not counted, but from the very rite of proskomedia the following five are visible: a) for the removal of the Lamb, b) in honor and memory of the Most Holy Theotokos, c) in honor and memory of other Saints, d) for the health of the living, e) for the repose of the dead 173. Not before, as already around the middle of the 16th century, in the days of Metropolitan Macarius, there are ranks that mention six prosphoras at the proskomedia, deeming two for the living, instead of one fourth: the fourth for the entire bishopric and the entire priestly rank, and the fifth for the kings and all Orthodox Christians and, if in a monastery, for the abbot, and the sixth prosphora for the deceased 174. But in vain the schismatics claim that at the same time, i.e. in the days of Metropolitan Macarius, Stoglav himself already testified about the seventh prosphoria 175: nothing is clearly defined about this either in the royal question or in the conciliar answer. In the first, although seven particles are counted, taken out by the priest at the proskomedia; but it is not said that these particles were taken out specifically from the seven prosphoras 176 . And in the conciliar answer, after the first three prosphoras - for the lamb, for the part of the Mother of God and for the part of the Forerunner, other prosphoras are mentioned in general, from which it is commanded to take out five more particles, and so on. – there are eight particles in total, not seven 177. Moreover, it is known that - a) the chairman of the hundred-domed Council, Metropolitan Macarius himself, placed in his Cheti-Minea the rite of proskomedia, performed at six prosphora 178; b) according to the service book then used in the Solovetsky Monastery under Abbot Philip, later a Moscow saint, the proskomedia was also performed on six prosphora 179; c) even in the service book of the 16th century, written under Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, only three prosphoras were placed on the proskomedia: one for the lamb, the other for the Mother of God, the third for the cross, so called either because it was offered, as it says in the prayer, first of all “by the power of the honorable and life-giving cross,” or because particles were taken out of it in the form of a cross 180. However, we will not deny that around the middle of the 16th century, when the six-prosphoria appeared among us, the seven-prosphoria could also have appeared: having allowed themselves to add one prosphora to the rank of proskomedia, they could have added another in the same way. But, we repeat, the most impartial look at our ancient written service books confirms: a) that in ancient times we did not have a definite resolution on the number of prosphoras and, therefore, there was no reason to strictly adhere to any one, known number; b) that the five-prosphoria is the most ancient and common custom, and the seven-prosphoria is newer than not only the five-prosphoria, but also the six-prosphoria, and c) that in general our ancestors, not only until the 16th century, but also at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th, did not at all consider it something important, dogmatic, obligatory - to use at the proskomedia any one number of prosphoras: our first patriarch Job himself granted one to one rural church a service book written on paper, in which only three prosphoras are assigned for the proskomedia: one for the lamb, the other for the Mother of God, the third for the cross 181. With this view of the purpose of the number of prosphoras, it is very natural that when our service books and other books began to be printed, the same discrepancies about this subject appeared in the printed ones as there were in the handwritten ones. And it is in the Slavic service books published in Venice in 1519 and 1554 that five prosphoras are prescribed for the proskomedia, just as in the Nomocanon, printed in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra in 1624, there is even the following decisive rule: “at the holy proskomedia of the Divine Liturgy, five prosphoras and imashi. The first is for the Lord's bread; the second is the Blessed Virgin Mary; the third - for the saints; the fourth - for the living people, whom you want to remember: the fifth - for the dead - one person in particular, each in his own rank, as the imashi is indicated and depicted in the service books" (right 201). In the missal published in Vilna in 1617, six prosphoras can be distinguished, unless less than 182. In some other church books and, in particular, service books, they began to print about the seven prosphoras, but they printed differently. Thus, in the service books published in Moscow under our first patriarchs Job, Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph, the seventh prosphorion appeared not as a general rule for all churches, but as a private decree for some monasteries. For in all of the aforementioned service books, instead of one or two prosphoras for the living, three are prescribed: the fourth - about the patriarch and about the entire priestly rank, the fifth - about the tsar and about all Orthodox Christians, and then follows the sixth, again added, about which, however, it was previously noted: “If there is a monastery, the priest, receiving the sixth prosphora, says to the mother: about your servant, our father, the archimandrite or abbot, name, and about all our brethren” and so on. Next, in parish churches, according to these service books, it was necessary to perform proskomedia only on six prosphoras, and not on seven. The service book published in Vilna in 1583 speaks of seven prosphoras without any exception or limitation, but says something else: namely, the fifth prosphora is assigned for princes and all Orthodox Christians and, “if they are in monasteries,” for the abbot and all the brethren; sixth - for the dead; finally, “reception of the 7th prosphora, (the priest) says: remember, Lord, those who hate and love us, and those who gave us alms, and those who commanded the unworthy to pray for them: remember, Lord, and me, the unworthy”... In service books published in Kyiv 1620, 1629 and 1639 and in Lvov 1637 g., seven prosphoras are also prescribed, but with new features, it is after the prosphora for the lamb that the first prosphora is appointed in honor of the Mother of God, the second in honor of the saints, the third for every bishopric, for the king. about the abbot and about all the brethren, the fourth for all the living, the fifth for the dead, the sixth only for the clergyman himself. Finally, in the form of a decisive rule on seven-prosphoria, it was already published in Nomocanon, ed. at the monastic breviary during the time of Patriarch Joasaph in 1639. Here (in the 210th article) we read: “at the holy proskomedia of the Divine Liturgy there are seven prosphora and imashi: the first for the Lord’s bread, the second for the Most Holy Theotokos, the third for the saints, the fourth for the patriarch, the fifth for the king and for the queen and for their children, and if you send to the Tsar’s Majesty, then take out a prosphora by everyone’s name, the sixth for all Orthodox Christians for the living, whom you want to remember, and the seventh for the departed - one directly with each other especially, each in its own rank, as the imashi is depicted in the service books.” But this rule, however, does not agree with the service books of the patriarchal publications, to which it itself refers. There it is customary to commemorate the tsar and all Orthodox Christians on the fifth prosphora, and the sixth is designated, where there is a monastery, for the archimandrite or abbot with the brethren; here - the fifth is offered only for the king and his family, and the sixth - for all living Orthodox Christians; for an archimandrite or abbot, with the brethren, there is no special prosphora at all. This rule about seven-prosphoria does not deserve any respect, as it is undoubtedly corrupted: because the entire Nomocanon, where it is placed, published in Moscow under Patr. Joasapha in 1639, literally reprinted from the Kiev-Pechersk Nomocanon, published in 1624, with which I agree in all the rules, except for the one already known to us 210 about proskomedia. Why do imaginary Old Believers follow some old books and not others, and, moreover, prefer less old and even damaged ones over older ones? Why, at least, do they not accept the five-prosphoria and six-prosphoria in the same way as they accept the seven-prosphoria, when both the one and the other, and the third are equally commanded in old printed books? 4. Opinion about walking in saltwater. We saw that the question about this subject first arose among us back in the days of. book John Vasilyevich III, on the occasion of the consecration of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral by Metropolitan Gerontius (1478), and concerned essentially one thing: how to perform religious processions around churches during their consecration, whether with the sun or against the sun? Then they did not find a decree about this in the church books and, after a careful consideration of the case, by the unanimous consent of “all priests, scribes, monks, and laity,” they allowed the metropolitan to walk with crosses during the consecration of churches against the sun, as was the case in the old days 183 . Throughout the 16th century, the question was not repeated. Stoglav himself did not mention walking in saltwater at all. But from the beginning of the 17th century it was already mentioned in printed liturgical books and was commanded not only at one, but at several sacred rites. In service books published under the patriarchs: Job (1602), Philaret (1623, 1627, etc.), Joasaph (1635, 1637, etc.) and Joseph (1647, 1651, 1652), also in missals printed under Philaret (1623, 1625, 1633), Joasaph (1636, 1639) and Joseph (1647, 1651), in the wedding rite we read: “and the priest receives them (the couple getting married) by the gums of the hand holding them, turns them in a circle three times with salt, with burning lamps going before them.” In the same breviaries, Patr. Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph - in the rite of consecration of the church it is said: “and they leave the singers in the church..., and they all leave the church, and go with lights around to the north (then in Solon), the same order will follow and the people will follow in the same way, as with the crosses.” In the large charter, issued under Patr. Joasapha, on the 2nd day of February, on the Meeting of the Lord, is supposed to proceed outside the monastery with a litiya, also according to the sun: for it is commanded to proceed from the church on the right hand, and stop with the icons, first against the northern gates of the church, then behind the altar, then against the southern gates of the church, finally in front of the western gates. Where did this rule about walking in saltwater come from in our Moscow first-printed books? It is known that they were printed from Slavic manuscripts, which were verifiable only one by one, and not through comparison with the Greek text 184. It is also known that in the days of John Vasilyevich III, when they deliberately discussed this subject, although they allowed the metropolitan to walk against the sun during the consecration of churches, in the old way, they did not establish the charter, just as it had not been established before in church books. Therefore, it is not surprising if in the 16th century, when our liturgical books were subjected to such damage from copyists, one of them arbitrarily introduced into some rites a remark about walking in Solon, and similar lists later served as the basis for printed church services. In any case, there is no doubt that walking in saltwater, mentioned in our first printed books, is an innovation in our Church that appeared in the 16th or even at the beginning of the 17th century: because by the end of the 15th century, as we have said more than once, nothing was defined about this in our church books, and all our clergy, together with the V. Prince and the people, unanimously decided to perform religious processions around churches in the old way, against the sun, and not in the sun. On the other hand, we cannot help but notice: a) that in the old printed Kiev breviary of 1646, neither the wedding rite, nor the consecration rite, nor any other rite speaks of walking in saltwater 185 - on the contrary, in the rite for the foundation of the church we read: “after singing (the clergyman) burns incense throughout the whole ditch, or the designated place where the foundation to be, began from the first wall of the altar, walking against the sun around the sun, until it arrives, starting from nowhere" 186: b) that in none of the service books and missals, even the Moscow edition, is it not necessary in the rite of baptism to make a procession around the font in the salty way, as the schismatics now want: and in all of them it is only said: “for this reason the priest goes around the holy font, standing in the middle of the church, three times, following this and the recipient with the newly baptized,” - next. schismatics are now acting without permission 187; c) finally, that in the same old printed books, respected by schismatics, certain other moves during sacred rites are prescribed to be performed against the sun, and not in the direction of salt. For example, during the Liturgy, the small exit with the Gospel, the priest and deacon should, according to these books, begin on the right side of the throne, and, walking around it (next directly against the sun), continue through the northern doors of the altar and end, facing the east and entering through the royal doors (next again directly against the sun) to the throne. Likewise, the great exit from St. the gifts must begin from the altar, continue through the northern doors of the altar and end through the royal ones, going directly against the sun to the throne to place the saint on it. gifts 188. During the ordination of someone to the priesthood, it is necessary to lead the ordained person through the royal doors to the throne and then, starting from the south side of the throne, circle around it three times, following. against the sun 189. We ask every reflective Old Believer: on what basis are some moves, for example, during the celebration of the sacrament of marriage or baptism, must certainly be performed with salting, while others, for example, during the celebration of the most important of the sacraments - the Eucharist and the sacrament of the priesthood, can and even should be performed against the sun? Isn't there an obvious inconsistency here? 5. The opinion that in the Creed one must read about the Son of God, “whose kingdom has no end,” and about the Holy Spirit: “and in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord.” We have already noticed that Stoglav (in Chapter 9) strongly did not approve of the last reading (he does not mention the first at all), but ordered that one thing be said: either the Lord, or the true one. Despite, however, this decree of Stoglav, in the great catechism published under Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, in 1627, in the missals published under the same patriarch and under Patriarchs Joasaph and Joseph, in the book of the so-called Kirillova, published in 1644, and in many other liturgical and teaching books published then in Moscow, the symbol faith is already read with the words: “his kingdom has no end,” and even: “and in the Holy Spirit of the true Lord” 190: a clear sign that Stoglav was not respected in our Church at that time, they were not guided by him, and so on. they did not consider it a canonical conciliar statute! These two readings, as found in old printed books, are still retained by schismatics, reproaching us for the fact that, instead of: “there is no,” we say: “there will be no end,” instead of: “the true and life-giving Lord,” we say only: “the life-giving Lord.” Meanwhile, in the same and other old printed books, so respected by schismatics, there are both readings that they reject. For example, in the great catechism, when asked: why is it written in the Symbol - “his kingdom will have no end”, the answer is given twice that it is written “for the sake of the wicked heretics, who said that Christ shall not reign forever,” and that we “believe more than Gabriel, the wonderful archangel, who preaches the good news to the pure Virgin Mary, like the verb: and he will reign in the house Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end.” The question about the eighth member of the Creed is proposed as follows: “What does this eighth addition tell us: I believe in the Holy Spirit of the Lord and the Life-Giving One, who proceeds from the Father”...? And the answer begins: “not only do I say there is the Holy Spirit, and I believe in him, as in the holy one, as in the Lord, as in the life-giving one.”... 191 In the book of Kirill, in the very title of the 1st chapter, it is printed in cinnabar: “the charter for confession and tradition for the knowledge of faith. for Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, and there will be no end to his kingdom.” In chapter 8, in denunciation of the heretics who rejected the eternity of the kingdom of Christ, it is noted among other things: “and in the Gospel he says: And he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end.” In the interpretation of the prayer: Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us, it is printed: “and the holy image (Symbol) of our faith, in Christian speech: and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord and life-giving” 192. In the small catechism published under Patriarch Joseph in 1649, we read: “question: which is the main article of faith? Answer: And in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, the life-giving, who proceeds from the Father.” In the Helmsman, published under Patriarch Joseph in 1650, ch. 48. printed about the Latins: “I have formed my essence from the holy image of faith from the Gospel, and I say this about the Holy Spirit: and in the Holy Spirit of the Lord and the life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, and added the same from the Son, evil and blessed.” Let us not mention the old Church Slavonic books published in Kyiv, Vilna, Ostrog and other places and completely alien to those changes in the Symbol that are allowed by the Old Believers 193. 6. Opinion on unshaven braids and mustaches. This second opinion of Stoglav, which he wanted to elevate to the level of dogma, was included in the old printed books under the Patriarchs Joasaph and Joseph. In the 1639 St. John's consumer book there is a conciliar statement by Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, strongly condemning the barber shaving of the Latins (fol. 443 vol.). In the composition of the Helmsman, published under Patr. Joseph in 1650, included the well-known work of Nikita Stifata on unleavened bread, which, like some handwritten Slavic Helmsmen of the 16th century, included an article against barber shaving 194 . But it must be said that the teaching of these two old printed books about barber shaving is not entirely consistent with the teaching of other books printed in our country at the same time. For example, in the book of the so-called Kirillova, the Greek philosopher Panagiot reproaches the Latinians for the very reason why their popes and churchwomen in general cut their hair (l. 235). and not at all because laymen cut or shave their hair, while in the above-mentioned two books barber-shaving is absolutely forbidden to all Christians, is called abominable before God and is recognized as a great heresy.” Likewise, in the book on faith it is said: “to this end, I will remember this madness of Western imaginary spiritualists about the shaving of mustaches and brads” (l. 257), and this is not blamed on all Christians in general. And this view of the matter, at least, agrees with that which the Greeks have long had. Even in the 11th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius, expounding various innovations of the Latins, pretended that their bishops shaved their beards 195; then, towards the end of the 12th century, the Greeks, when calculating the apostasies of the Roman Church, in a letter to Pope Innocent III, also did not forget to mention that Roman bishops shave their beards 196. And for the laity, shaving and cutting hair from ancient times was allowed by the Greeks according to military law: therefore, they could not reproach the laity of the Western Church for this. 7. Opinion about the special alleluia. The opinion about the special alleluia, as is known, in its origin is one of the most ancient schismatic opinions and belongs to those that the compiler of Stoglav tried to confirm with such insistence and threats; but when included in early printed books, this opinion is one of the latest. Not only in the subsequent Psalter of 1577, printed in Moscow under Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, not only in the subsequent Psalter of 1603, printed there under Patr. Job, but also in all the missals (which can rightly be called missals together, although incomplete; because they contain many rites and for different needs), - in all the missals published under the patriarchs Job, Philaret, and Joasaph, in all the missals, the subsequent Psalters and charters published under the same patriarchs, there is not once the instruction: hallelujah twice, and not once printed: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, and everywhere: alleluia three times; or: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia; or simply: hallelujah 197. Even in the following Psalter, published under Patriarch Joseph in 1646, not once is it printed: alleluia twice, or: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, but the three-bladed alleluia 198 is commanded. And this is not only in those places where the alleluia is read or sung without the addition: Glory to Thee, God, but also in those where it is used with the addition, and where in service books and books of hours published under the patriarch. Joseph (1648–1652), indeed, they began to print: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. Let us take, for example, the rites for the dead. According to the service books and missals of Patriarchs Job, Philaret and Joasaph, also according to the following Psalter and missal (1647) of Patr. Joseph is supposed to be in this rite after the psalm: “living in help” ... read: alleluia three times, and then after “the blameless” sing: alleluia three times 199: and in the service books of Patr. Joseph is printed in the first case: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, twice, and in the last, i.e. after “blameless”: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, three times 200. So, that’s when, already in the days of Patriarch Joseph, and, moreover, towards the end of his life (1648–1652), therefore, almost a century after the hundred-domed Council, the alleluia entered the printed Moscow books and took the place where the three-headed alleluia stood in the previous printed books! Why do supposed zealots of antiquity prefer less old books to older ones? Or, if they don’t prefer, don’t they see that the latter contradict the former regarding alleluia, suggesting that it should be destroyed in those very cases when the former order it to be aggravated? It is obvious that if the schismatics began to conduct services according to the books themselves, which were printed under our patriarchs before Joseph: in this case, in the schismatic services no special alleluia would be heard at all. Finally, we cannot help but notice that not only in the books published under our first four patriarchs, but also in those printed under patriarchs. Joseph, it is very often commanded: alleluia three times, or printed: alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, although without the addition: glory to Thee, O God 201. Do the schismatics really believe that here they are only ordered to double, and not triple, to amplify, and not to destroy, the alleluia? 8. Opinion about the dignity and authenticity of Stoglav. It is undeniable that the book of Stoglav, from the time of its unknown origin, remained little known for a long time and did not have the force of law in our Church at all, as the very history of our first printed church books shows. Stoglav, for example, commands that the priest and deacon, before the start of the liturgy, read the entrance prayers on the porch in front of the church doors, then enter the church, and lists the prayers themselves (chapter 9). And in all our early printed service books, even Joseph’s, it is necessary to read the entrance prayers to the church in front of the royal doors, and although among these prayers there are those indicated by Stoglav, there are also many others that are not indicated. Stoglav resolutely commands, when baptizing children, “not to pour water over them, but to immerse them in three immersions” (chapter 17). And in our first printed service book, published during the reign of St. Job in 1602, and in the second - in 1616, it was commanded to baptize sick children through pouring, placing them in a font up to their necks. Stoglav determines to read one thing about St. in the Creed. Spirit: either the Lord, or the true one, and forbade reading: the true Lord. And in books published under Patr. Filaret and his two successors, these forbidden words are printed everywhere in the Symbol. Stoglav makes special efforts to ensure that in churches only the strict alleluia is used with the addition: glory to Thee, God (chapter 42). And in all the service books, missals, psalters and charters printed under our first patriarchs before Joseph, there is no trace of this alleluia. With the same force, Stoglav set forth his decree on two fingers for the sign of the cross (chapter 31). Meanwhile, previously, in printed books, the doctrine of three-fingered appeared in our country, and the idea of ​​two-fingered, although later introduced under Patr. Philaret in the great catechism, but somehow still timidly and indecisively; when even during the days of Patr. Joseph, they began to preach it decisively in books, but they never pointed to the decree of Stoglav to confirm it. We must, however, on the other hand, admit that the more time passed from the appearance of the book of Stoglav, the more and more they forgot about its unknown origin, and the more imperceptibly they got used to the idea, given the lack of education and credulity that existed at that time, that this book really belonged to the Stoglav Council, as its canonical code. The first time Stoglav is mentioned is in the conciliar presentation of the patriarchs. Philaret, who was in 1620 and printed under the Joasaph breviary of 1639, and is mentioned as follows: “and Metropolitan Macarius in the Stoglavnik about the same testimony, do not pour it on” (chapter 5). Then in the same consumer book there is a chapter (43): “from the Stoglavnik of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich with the council of Metropolitan Macarius about the tafyas of the godless Moamed.” In Kirillova’s book (fol. 3 vol.), Stoglav is listed among the books that “befit honor for Orthodox Christians.” Finally, in service books and missals printed under Patr. Joseph in 1651 and 1652, Stoglav is already clearly called the conciliar code, adopted specifically by the council of 1551, which was in Moscow under Tsar John Vasilyevich IV and under Metropolitan Macarius, and is even accepted as a guide for various church corrections 202. From that time on, the idea of ​​​​the authenticity of Stoglav, as a cathedral code, became generally accepted and, without any new verification, passed on to subsequent generations. We do not mention here some other opinions, less important, which the schismatics also subsequently began to base on old printed books. We also do not mention one of the opinions highly respected by schismatics, namely regarding the eight-pointed and four-pointed cross, that the first one alone is the true cross of the Lord, worthy of our veneration, and therefore it is the only one that should print prosphoras, and the last one is not the cross of the Lord, but the Latin roof, and therefore should not be revered by the Orthodox, nor used for printing prosphoras: such a teaching is absolutely not in the old printed books. On the contrary, in the conciliar presentation of Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, published in 1639, where the errors of the Latins are calculated in particular detail, they are not at all blamed for honoring the four-pointed cross, and even this very cross, this Latin roof, is called an honest cross, the Lord's 203. Judging also from some images of the cross found in old printed books, we can conclude that at that time crosses were equally revered and used - the four-pointed 204, the six-pointed 205, and the eight-pointed 206. II. Let us now turn to the old printed books themselves, which seemed to sanctify and finally confirm all the main schismatic opinions, and therefore became the root basis of the Russian schism. And in order to form a fair understanding of the merits of these books, as well as the introduction of schismatic opinions into them, let us resolve the following questions. 1) Who and how published the old printed, church, liturgical and teaching books respected by our Old Believers? In this regard, Church Slavonic early printed books can be divided into three classes: the first class includes books published outside of Russia - in Krakow, Venice, Montenegro, Ugrovlahia, Serbia, to which schismatics rarely or almost never refer 207; to the second - books published within our southwestern metropolis - in Vilna, Ostrog, Lvov, Kyiv, etc., to which schismatics refer quite often and generally look with much greater respect 208: finally to the third - books of the Moscow edition proper, which appeared especially under our first five patriarchs, which are almost exclusively used by schismatics and are recognized as completely faithful, holy, divinely inspired, not requiring any correction 209. As for the books of the first kind - the oldest books printed in Church Slavonic Cyrillic letters: their printing, as the afterwords show, was only the work of private individuals, who, naturally, each acted at their own discretion and means, and, perhaps, printed the first lists they came across. Thus, in Krakow, in 1491, the six-day book, the book of hours, the following psalter, the octoechos, the Lenten triodion and the colored book were printed by a certain “Cracow tradesman Schwanpolt Feol (Feol) from the German, German family of Frank - under the power of the great King of Poland Casimir” 210. In Venice, a book of hours was published in 1493 by a certain master Andrei Toresansky; then in 1519 a service book and in 1520 a psalter and book of hours by Hieromonk Pachomius, by order and support of the governor Bozhidar Vukovich, who moved from his fatherland - Macedonia to Italy; even later, by order of the same Bozhidar, they were printed: in 1537 by the octoiches - hieromonks Theodosius and Gennady, in 1538 by the cathedral - by hierodeacon Moses, in 1546 the following psalter - by the son of Bozhidar, called Vincenzo, in 1554 service book - hieromon. Pachomius 211. In Montenegro, the Osmoglasnik (1494) and the psalter followed (1495) were published by Hieromonk Macarius, at the behest of the Montenegrin governor Georgiy Chernoevich, under the Zeta Metropolitan of Kur-Vavil 212. The Gospel was printed in Ugrovlahia (1512) by the same hieromonk Macarius, by order of the Ugrovlahia ruler John Bessarab. In Belgrade Serbia there is also a Gospel (1552) by Hierom. Mardarius, invoice of the princes Radim Dmitrovich and Trajan Gundulovich 213. And it is not visible from anywhere that, when printing these books, they were first either verified with Greek originals, or compared with ancient Slavic copies, or reviewed and approved by the highest church authority. Books printed within our southwestern metropolis must be divided into separate sections. Some of them were printed in the same way as in the above-mentioned foreign printing houses, by private individuals, without any participation of church authorities, and it is unknown whether they were or were not previously corrected according to Greek or Ancient Slavic copies. These are the ones published in Vilna: the psalters of 1586 and 1592 and the Gospel of 1600 - “through the providence, paths, labors and diligence of the treasured master Lukash Ivanovich Mamonich and his brother Kozma, the mayor of Vilna”; Gospel 1574 and the psalter of 1576 - by Pyotr Timofeev Mstislavtsev “by the intention and providence of the treasured sir Ivan Semenovich Zaretsky and his brother, sir Zenov”; October 1582 - through the works of a certain Vasily Mikhailovich Garaburda: service book of 1617 - “the cost and burden of the Lithuanian Chancellor Lev Sapieha” 214. The same are printed: in Zabludov - the Teaching Gospel of 1568 - by John Feodorov and Peter Timofeev, on the orders and at the expense of the Lithuanian hetman Gregory Al. Khodkevich; in Lviv - Apostle 1573 – Ioann Feodorov, dependent on the children of Khodkevich; in Ostrog - the psalter and the New Testament of 1580 and Margaret of 1596 “with the cost, industry and all the expenses of Prince Konstantin of Ostrog”; in Kyiv - Apostle 1630 “with the cost and burden of Pan Bogdan Stetkevich” 215. Other books were published, although also by private individuals, at least with the blessing and trace. with the knowledge of church authorities. For example, in Vilna, the service book of 1583 was printed, with the blessing of Metropolitan Onesiphorus of Kyiv, and the Apostle of 1591, with the blessing of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and Metropolitan Michael Ragoza of Kyiv; in Lvov - Apostle 1639, for the blessing of the most holy patriarchs and Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mohyla; in Kyiv - the psalter of 1624 with the blessing of the Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite Elisey Pletenetsky and others 216. The third books were translated again from Greek and published, although also by private individuals, but with some participation of church authorities. This is how the missal of 1606 was translated and printed in Stryatin by a certain Theodore K..., with the blessing of Lviv Bishop Gideon Boloban; in Lviv - St. John Chrysostom about the priesthood in 1614, with the blessing of the Lviv bishop Jeremiah Tisarovsky; in Evju (near Vilna) - St. Callista Teaching Gospel 1616 through the works of the monks of the Vilna Holy Spirit Monastery; in Vilna itself - St. Macarius of the Egyptian conversation in 1627 through the efforts of the monks of the same monastery; in Kyiv - St. John Chrysostom's discourse on the epistles of St. ap. Paul 1623, conversations on the Acts of St. Apostles 1624, St. Andrew of Caesarea interpretation of the Apocalypse of 1625, - through the works of the monks of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra - Pamva Berynda, Lavrenty Zizaniy and others, with the blessing of the Lavra's archimandrites Elisha Pletenetsky and Zechariah Kopystensky 217. Finally, some other books published in our southwestern metropolis were printed only after they had been corrected from the Greek original, or compared not only with Greek, but also Slavic copies, sometimes even with printed editions, and mostly with the blessing of church authorities. It is enough to point out the complete Bible of the Ostroh edition of 1581, the service book of the Stryatyn edition of 1604, with the blessing of the Lvov bishop Gideon Boloban, the octoechos of 1630 and 1639, the colored triodion of 1642 and the anthologion of 1643 - the Lvov edition, with the blessing of the Constantinople patriarch, then the Kyiv metropolitan; on the service books of 1629 and 1639, the colored triode of 1631 and the missal of 1646 - Kyiv edition, with the blessing or even the labors of Metropolitan Peter Mogila 218. Books published in Moscow can also be divided into almost the same sections that we noticed between books published in our southwestern printing houses. The very first of them, printed under the Moscow metropolitans Macarius, Athanasius and Kirill, were published by private individuals only by order of Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, namely: the Apostle of 1564 and the Book of Hours of 1565 - by Deacon Gostupsky Ivan Fedorov and Peter Timofeev Mstislavtsev; psalter of 1568 - by Nikifor Tarasiev and Timofey Ignorant, psalter of 1577 - in Sloboda - Andronik Timofeev Ignorant. And it is not clear from anywhere that these books, before printing, were corrected according to any Greek or Slavic lists, or were printed with the blessing and under the supervision of the metropolitans themselves 219. Under our first patriarchs, Job and Hermogenes, books were sometimes printed also without the blessing of the high priests by private individuals, such as, for example, the charter of 1610, published by the monk Login, a kryloshan of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery 220. But much more often they were published, at least with the blessing and knowledge of the high priests, albeit by private individuals: thus, with the blessing of Job, the Apostle of 1596, the general menaion of 1600, the service book of 1602, the psalter of 1603 were published by Andronik Timofeev Ignoramus, the colored triodion of 1604 by Ivan Andronikov Nevezhin, Gospel of 1606 by Onisim Mikhailov Radishchevsky and others 221 About some books printed at that time, it is known that they were testified during printing by our hierarchs, or at least by someone chosen by them, namely: about the colored triodion of 1591, testified under Patriarch Job 222, about the general menea, testified at the same time 223, and about the service life for the first three months and a half, testified by Patriarch Hermogenes 224. But what this evidence consisted of - whether it was the comparison of printed books with Greek text, or only with Slavic ancient copies, or even just the observation of the agreement of the printed text with the selected handwritten original, is unknown 225. After the death of P. Hermogenes, during the inter-patriarchal period, we decided to start correcting printed books not only according to the Slavic copies, but also according to the Greek ones. And this work, by a letter from Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich dated November 8, 1617, was entrusted to the famous archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Dionysius, together with the elders of his monastery - Arseny Glukhim, who knew the Greek language well, Anthony Krylov, the black deacon Zacchaeus, the priest of the village of Klementyev - Ivan Nasedka and others. First of all, they were entrusted with correcting the service book or missal, which they then wanted to print again. For comparison, the correctors had, in addition to the previously published Moscow service book, up to twelve Slavic lists, charatean and paper, and five Greek. For a year and a half, with the greatest diligence, they were engaged in comparing these lists and found in the later ones, especially in the printed ones, many errors - additions and distortions. Between the additions, which they believed to exclude, there was a well-known word and fire, in the prayer for the consecration of water on the day of Epiphany: “You yourself and now, O Master who loves mankind, sanctify this water with Your Holy Spirit and fire.” This word was not found in all the Greek lists, nor in the ancient Slavic ones, but it appeared only in print and in two handwritten Slavic, less ancient ones, and moreover, in such a way that in one it was written in the margin, in the other above the line. Among the distortions that found it necessary to correct, the most important were that many prayers addressed to the person of either one God the Father, or one God the Son, ended with general exclamations to the Most Holy One. To the Trinity: “We send glory to you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”..., obviously, merging the Divine hypostases. At the same time, the correctors began revising other liturgical books and found many errors in the octoechus, the colored triodion, in the general and monthly menaions, in the canon and psalter. But as soon as Archimandrite Dionysius appeared in Moscow with the corrected service book to present it to the then locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Job of Sarsk and Podonsk, secret envy and ignorance managed to denounce the inspectors as heretics. Metropolitan Jonah, with some spiritual authorities who were in Moscow, mainly at the slander of the most rude and ignorant accusers - the registrant of the Sergius Monastery Philaret, the sacristan Deacon Markell and the headmaster Longinus, condemned (July 18, 1618) Archimandrite Dionysius for the fact that he “ordered to defile the name of the Holy Trinity in the books (i.e. ordered to correct the exclamations), and the Spirit He does not confess the saint, for there is fire.” Despite all the fair and reasonable excuses of Rev. Dionysius and his comrades were subjected to torture and desecration, especially the first, they were put in chains and almost all of them were sent to prison in monasteries. The suffering of the convicts continued for a whole year, until Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem, who arrived in Moscow, convinced the newly installed Moscow Patriarch Filaret to consider the case of the sufferers at the council and they were declared innocent. Patriarch Filaret did not, however, decide to exclude the word “and by fire” from the missal, as he had already received (in 1625) from all the Greek patriarchs a certificate that this word was not in the ancient Greek originals 226. Thus, the attempt to correct our liturgical books according to the ancient Slavic and together with Greek copies failed. But numerous errors in previously printed books, pointed out by Rev. Dionysius and his collaborators, and the unrest caused by their correction, taught P. Philaret to be extremely careful in this matter for the future. On his advice and blessing, by order of the great Sovereign Mikhail Feodorovich, “with all good care and laborious deeds, the book of the Service Book for the consent of dispersed translations” 227 was published several times, although it is not known what exactly this care and deeds consisted of. On his advice and blessing, by order of the same Sovereign, “charate books of good translations” 228 were collected from different cities of Russia and the book Trebnik 229 was corrected from them, which was also published several times, although it is not known by whom and how it was corrected. Many books were personally certified by the Patriarch during printing, although this testimony was limited, it seems, to one observation of the accuracy of the printed text with a selected list 230, and only protected the books from any new distortions on the part of the printers. Thus, the monthly menaions (starting from December), hexadays, octoechos, altar and teaching gospels, and church charter 231 were published, certified by the Patriarch. Only some books he blessed to be printed without his personal testimony, such as the Lenten Triodion published in 1621 by priest Nikon 232, and some others he trusted to review and correct to other persons, as he entrusted, for example. consider the great catechism of the Zizaniev to the Epiphany abbot Elijah and the reference Grigory Onisimov. With Patr. Joasaph I continued printing books with less attention. He only blessed the publication of books, but it is not visible from anywhere that he himself personally testified to any of them, like his predecessor Philaret. So, with the blessing of Patr. Joasaph, printed Gospel, six-day, Lenten and colored triodion, service book, missal, Apostle (“through the acquisition and works of Vasily Burtsov”), general menaion, and others 233. Some (for example, the service book of 1635, 1637, the missal of 1634, 1636) he only allowed to reprint in the form in which they were published under Patr. Filarete; others (the Octoechos of 1639, the charter of 1641, especially the breviary of 1639) ordered to be corrected first, which is why there was a great difference in them with those previously printed, although, as the reference workers assure in the afterword of the breviary, they used in publishing it the same charate books of good ancient translations, collected from different cities of Russia, which the publishers of the breviary used when publishing it. Filarete 234. Finally, in the days of Patriarch Joseph, a very zealous shepherd, but elderly and weak, the publication of books was subjected to even greater arbitrariness of the reference workers, on whom he completely relied. These were deliberately selected persons from the white clergy, partly from Moscow, partly from other cities, namely: Stefan Bonifatiev - the archpriest of the court and the royal confessor, John Neronov - the sacristan of the Assumption Cathedral, then the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow, Theodore - the deacon of the Annunciation Moscow Cathedral, and from other cities: Avvakum - the archpriest of Yuryevets Povolsky, Lazar - priest Romanovsky, Nikita (nicknamed the empty saint) - priest of Suzdal, Loggin - archpriest of Murom, Daniil - archpriest of Kostroma and some others. Enjoying the absolute trust of the patriarch and respect at court and among the people, protected by the strong patronage of the boyar butler, Prince Lvov, the head of the printing house and his like-minded person, these inspectors 235 allowed themselves too much in the performance of the work entrusted to them. They corrected all the books they published, but they corrected them as they wanted, not according to Greek copies, but only according to Slavic printed and handwritten copies 236; they made countless changes in words, figures of speech, additions, decreases, etc. in the books. That is why printed under Patr. Joseph's books, according to the consciousness of the Old Believers themselves, differ from those previously published by the greatest differences, 237 and in one they are similar to the Iovlev editions, in another with Philaret's, in the third with Joasaph's, in the fourth they disagree with all. But the main evil that the mentioned investigators committed was that they, themselves belonging to the number of followers of Stoglav, finally decided to introduce into the church books and, as we have seen, they actually introduced the doctrine of the special alleluia and the double-finger formation - the two most important dogmas of the Russian schism. From our sketch of the printing of church, liturgical and teaching Slavic books before Patriarch Nikon, we can draw the following two conclusions, unfavorable for our schismatics. First: it is impossible to attribute the same dignity to these early printed books, and in particular to the Moscow ones, just because they are old printed ones. Books published by private individuals, on the basis of any one list, without any comparison with the Greek and ancient Slavic lists and even without the blessing of church authorities, are, of course, inferior in the eyes of the Orthodox to the same books, but published, at least, with the blessing and knowledge of church authorities. Books of the second kind are lower than those published not only with the blessing, but also with the testimony of church authority, although on the basis of any one list. Books of the third kind are lower than those published not only with the knowledge and under the supervision of church authorities, but also after comparison with many ancient Slavic copies. And these latest books are, without a doubt, inferior to those published by church authorities, based on comparison not only with ancient Slavic, but also Greek copies. Moreover, the dignity of different publications could very much depend on the persons themselves who were engaged in this work and, without a doubt, were different from each other in intelligence, and in the degree of education and in other properties. Second: one cannot in any way attribute to old printed books, especially Moscow ones, published before Patr. Nikon, such correctness and infallibility that it was as if they subsequently did not require correction at all. The majority of these books, even all of them from Moscow, were published on the basis of only Slavic lists, sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes several, and the Slavic lists of liturgical books, according to the indisputable evidence of the 16th and 17th centuries 238 and according to the numerous monuments that have survived to this day, 239 were very different from each other and often extremely faulty. Track. No matter how diligently and diligently the publishers of these books tried to correct them according to the Slavic lists alone, they could not achieve complete success: the Slavic lists themselves had to be first verified according to the ancient Greek ones. If, on the other hand, some books printed in Kyiv, Ostrog, Lvov were corrected according to Greek copies, we must remember that the correction was carried out only by private individuals, who were always not free from errors, or by hierarchs, whose power did not extend to the entire Russian Church. A completely reliable and obligatory for the entire Church correction of our liturgical books according to Greek copies could be one that would either be accomplished or, at least, witnessed by a council of Orthodox hierarchs... But so that the conclusions we have expressed about the merits of the old printed books, respected by schismatics, do not seem unfair to anyone, let us resolve another question: 2) How did their publishers themselves and, in general, the contemporaries of their publication view these books? The publishers of the old printed Slavic books themselves did not at all attribute to them perfect correctness and infallibility; on the contrary, they usually asked for an apology for their errors and a lenient correction of them. Countless evidence could be presented to prove this; but it is enough to limit ourselves to a few. Let's start with the most ancient Slavic books, printed in foreign printing houses. Thus, in the afterword to the following psalter, printed in Cetinje (in Montenegro) by the holy monk Macarius, in 1495, it says: “the same old man as a father, grown-up like brothers, young men as a child who honors, or sings, or prescribes, touches the molus and the knee, if not with a hand, not with a tongue, love for the sake of Christ to correct and bless us who have worked diligently for this.” In the preface to the Octoechos, published in Venice in 1537, we read: “I pray to everyone, father and brethren, who honor, or sing, or prescribe: if anything is sinned in these books, correct for the love of Christ and me, the sinner Bozhidar, who labored about this, diligently bless.” In the afterword to the collection, published there in 1538, we read: “I pray you, fathers and brethren, and touch your knee, if not with your hand, not with your tongue, if there is a sin, sing, for the love of Christ, correct us and bless us who have worked diligently for this, and do not slander us.” The same is repeated in the afterwords to the following psalter of 1546, the missal of 1554 and other books of the Venetian edition 240. Let's move on to books printed within our southern metropolis. In the afterword to the Apostle of 1573, the Lvov edition says: “for us, indecent, daring undertakings, let us ask for forgiveness and sin, and you yourself will be honored with the same blessing and sin: and if anything is sinned, for God’s sake correct it, bless, and do not slander; “For now, the Holy Spirit is not the hand of the Holy Spirit, nor the angel, but the hand is sinful and frail, like others who are not punished.” In the afterword to the 1643 anthologion of the Lvov edition, about which the publishers themselves noted: “this book, inspired by God and dedicated to the holy fathers, was printed quickly, thirdly, thoroughly studied, disseminated and corrected, with the Hellenic true editions,” we read: “we pray with tenderness, if anyone is unskillful in words and disreputable or a certain kind of sin will be found in this book, without judgment or reproach, for those who labor for love, through the weakness of feeble-mindedness, sin happens for the sake of those obsessed. Because, having surpassed all others, the very source of the wisdom of God, the most essential, this perfection is without stumbling; but it is impossible for human clay to be eaten by mud that does not exist powerfully.” In the afterword to the 1582 Octoechos of the Vilna edition: “I pray you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Isa. Christ: if anyone happens to read or copy this soul-helping book, if someone sins in some way, due to my negligence or lack of skill in my mind, be merciful and innocent, I pray to you, honor, and do not curse; for now the Holy Spirit is not a writer, nor an angel, but a sinful and frail hand.” In the afterword to the following psalter from the 1598 edition of the Ostrog edition: “with the same diligence I pray to every lover of Christ who reads this book, to ask for forgiveness for my many sins..., if any sin is revealed somewhere (not an angel of writing, but a frail and sinful hand), you are lovers of Christ, correct with the spirit of meekness, not slander, I pray.” In the afterword to the service book of 1604. Stryatinsky edition: “In the same way, if the corrector of this sacred book, or the printer, has sinned in any way, we pray, grant forgiveness, brethren: usually something bad happens in such things, especially in the beginning, for those who did not consider this, as it should be.” In the afterword to the Teaching Gospel of 1606, published in Krilos (near Galich): “we pray to everyone who honors or ascribes to this book: if you find something in it that is out of place and undesirable, you, who correct us with the spirit of meekness, have labored in this typical art, will forgive, bless, and not slander.” Let us finally turn to books printed in Moscow. Here is what, for example, is said in the afterwords: a) to the Lenten triodion of 1589, published under St. Job: “if anyone remembers anything indecent in it, then for God’s sake, correct it yourself with the advice of the consecrated council, as soon as the holy Paraclete will instruct you from above: and for God’s sake bless us, and do not curse us. A person who is more industrious is sinful, and the hand of writing is perishable, just like other people who are not punished”; b) to the Gospel of 1606, published under St. Hermogenes: “to everyone everywhere... I slavishly worship the face of the earth with tenderness, with the zeal of my soul I diligently pray: as if you want to read this holy book or write it down, if some sin happens, be merciful to us and do not blind our minds to weakness and bewilderment; But you yourself, having received great spiritual gifts from the Rich Giver, correct them”; c) to the menaia for the month of January, published under p. Philaret in 1622 (also for February): “fathers and brothers, as if you want to speak or prescribe this holy book, we kindly pray to you, be merciful to us and do not be rude to our minds of rudeness and foolishness, if for the weakness of our sins and bewilderment we shrink away, or adhere to, or cancel, correct them yourself, with good will and action Holy Spirit"; d) to the breviary of 1639, published under Saint Joasaph: “We pray for the Christ-naming of every rank, fathers and brethren, who always sing and glorify Christ our God according to these books, and His Most Pure Mother, and all the saints, if you see in them, by our oblivion or ignorance, something simply uncorrected, or sinned from unreasonableness, then forgive us sinners who have worked for these things, and do not slander us or humiliate us; “Forgetfulness and foolishness boast over everyone”; e) in Kirillova’s book of 1644, published under p. Joseph: “O God-gathered couple of Orthodoxy, we pray that you who have labored at this book, if, having delved into it, you will find in it for the bewilderment of the coarseness of our mind, sinned, bless, and do not curse, as oblivion and foolishness boast of us all, for this we ask forgiveness; f) to the teachings of St. Ephraim the Syrian and Abba Dorotheus, 1652, published with the blessing of the same patriarch: “with the same all Orthodox councils, highly sanctified, and solely from the monks, and solely from the worldly, for the poverty of the coarseness of our minds who worked in this matter, our conscience does not force us, O God-gathered couple of Orthodoxy, mercy and forgiveness with prayer and by bending the knees of our ignorance, ask, moreover, to bow down your filthy face at the feet of your reverence, so that you do not fail to honor us, the bad ones, who are unyielding to you in our prayer, forgiveness of taxes, if, having delved into this book, you find that something is faulty, or sinned, but having accepted the good in your conscience, correct it, and do not slander, for you too are subject to human servility.” But not only did the publishers of early printed books themselves, either out of modesty or for some other reason, call their publications free of errors; There were examples when other contemporary persons recognized these publications as faulty. Thus, in 1630, the Lvov brotherhood, with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, published the Octoechos for the first time. In the preface to it, the publishers say that when we decided to publish this book, we “found a great difference: through negligence, and even through lack of skill, many of us scribes are far removed from the Greek antigraphs and reason itself, and in many tropars and sayings I do not agree.” Therefore, we decided to fix it first. When correcting, printed copies of the Octoechos of the Moscow edition of 1594 and the Derman edition of 1604, and handwritten copies were accepted as the basis: ancient Slavic, sent from the Nyametsky Moldavian monastery from the ruler Miron of Bernavsky, and Greek, sent from the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lukar 241. So what? Nine years later (in 1639), when the brethren of the same Lvov brotherhood decided to publish the octo again, they published it in a corrected form and called the previous edition faulty: “let each one test and be warned, the new publishers said, that the great need of this church was present, the vice of many bears, about the non-correction of the previous edition. For this reason, with the utmost diligence, the notorious ktitors, in the God-saved city of Lvov, dangerously with the Hellenic principles (these times) were reasoned and corrected, according to the order of the church, the essence was published a second time.” Another case: the Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mogila, in the preface to the service book he published in 1639, clearly condemns the books then printed by private people in Lvov printing houses as books filled with errors, and testifies that he therefore forbade his spiritual children to use the service books of the Lvov edition 242. Third case; the same Metropolitan Peter Mogila in the preface of his breviary of 1646, responding to opponents of the Orthodox Church who pointed out the disagreement and errors of our breviaries published in Lvov, Stryatin, Ostrog and Vilna, although he says that these errors are not important, because they relate not to the essence of the sacraments, but only to ritualism, however, he does not at all deny the reality of the errors themselves 243. Similar cases occurred with Moscow publications. During the inter-patriarchal period, after the death of Patr. Hermogenes, our missal printed under Patr. Job - that’s why they entrusted him with the task of correcting him to selected persons. who actually found many errors both in the service book and in other printed books: let this attempt, due to unfortunate circumstances, not be crowned with success; but there is no doubt that it was undertaken with the blessing of the spiritual authorities (who subsequently felt the need to correct the previous missal), and that some of the errors now indicated were subsequently corrected 244. In 1633, Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, by a district letter, ordered that copies of the charter issued in 1610 be taken from all places in Russia and sent to Moscow for burning. - to the patriarchate of Hermogenes: “for the reason that, as it is said in the letter, those charters were printed by a thief, a hawk moth, the Kryloshanite of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, the monk Login, without the blessing of his holy brother Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', and of all that is sacred to the cathedral, and many of the articles in those charters were printed not according to the apostolic and not the paternal tradition, by one’s self-will” 245. In addition, about Patriarch Philaret in the afterword of his breviaries it is said: “Hearing the most pious shepherds, they, the King crowned by God and his father, His Holiness the Patriarch, there is a lot of certain and preposterous discrepancy in the divine scriptures, a hedgehog to the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ, incredible poetry, and this is reasonable heeding, no small fault in being pious, and thinking about what and where it comes from. the guilt of such a discord in the divine scriptures, church unity, and much more probingly, and from the divine scriptures I was informed, as if nothing else in everyday things, the truth of being in the foretold guilt, namely, for neglect and laziness, and ignorance of the divine scriptures, all disagreement and discord occurred in the church unity. And thus the right path was covered with thorns of negligence. Moreover, having seen such an honest and fair double in piety and truth and shrines, who are lovers of all grace-filled wisdom, and the ancient holy wise kings and bishops, they are very zealous, desiring in the holy great apostles of the Church, who do not agree in the divine scriptures by agreement to correct, as if the union of the peace of the church is firmly in the spirit of meekness is preserved so that there will be no disagreement for the sake of discord in the church body. For this reason, having been enveloped from above by the light of the divine Paraclete, commanded from the cities of the charatean books to collect the good translations of the ancients, and to give prudent advice to the testimony of the divine scriptures, and from those ancient charatean books of the divine scriptures to correct the prosody, even if the non-correction from the prescriptive and long-standing customs was sinned. This is all corrected and in unanimity, all the needs and ranks of the church hierarchy are combined.” During the days of Patr. Joasaph first reprinted Philaret's missal without change; but then, without a doubt, they recognized it as not entirely correct when they decided to correct it again according to the ancient Slavic copies and publish it in a modified form, as well as other books. With Patr. Joseph, without a doubt, also recognized that the breviaries and other books published under all the previous patriarchs were not entirely correct, when they did not want to print these books in their previous form, but more or less changed everything and through this they thought to improve and correct. 3) What really is the merit of early printed books published before Nikon, if we consider them by content and compare them with each other? The schismatics themselves admit that there is “certain discrepancy” in the books they respect; but they assert that these differences are not important, allowed, which cannot be called “disagreement, strife, enmity,” and that our first patriarchs “did not set aside the Old Orthodox church statutes, did not compile new rites, but even printed them in books, printing them from the Old Orthodox books” 246 . And we, for our part, will say that in the old printed books there is not only a certain variety, but a countless number of them, which some of these differences in all fairness should be called disagreement and discord, and that there are ranks or parts of ranks that were or were not printed in books under one patriarch, but were then postponed or added under another. We will not show the countless differences in old books - differences that are really unimportant, relating to words, figures of speech, etc.: others did this before us 247, and to be convinced of this, one only has to compare two or three copies of any book, according to its different editions under our first patriarchs. But let us dwell on more important differences, which cannot but be called disagreements and contradictions. We have already seen that in some old printed books the venerable name of our Lord is printed ???Is, Jesus, and in others or even in the same ones ???Is, Jesus; in some it is prescribed to perform proskomedia on five prosphoras, in others on six, in others on seven, and the very purpose of the last prosphoras is indicated in some, and in others differently. We also saw that in some books two fingers for the sign of the cross are commanded, while in others or in the same books this two fingers are condemned as not Orthodox, Roman, in others the three fingers are clearly preached; in some, a three-pronged alleluia is prescribed everywhere, in others - a special one; in some it is read in the symbol of faith: “and in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord,” in others, or even in the same ones: and in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord. Are all these differences really unimportant, especially for schismatics, when they undermine the very foundations of the schism? But here are some more similar ones. In Job's service book it is prescribed that sick infants should be baptized in warm water through dousing; in the service books and missals of subsequent patriarchs, dousing is strictly prohibited and everyone is commanded to baptize through threefold immersion. In the service book of Job, in the prayer during consecration on the day of Epiphany, it is read: “You yourself and now, Master, sanctify this water with your holy Spirit and fire”; in Filaret's service books and subsequent ones, the word: and by fire is excluded as entered incorrectly. In Philaret’s breviary (1623, fol. 102 vol.) it is commanded: “if a baby happens to be baptized two or three times, then say special prayers for each baby and all the following of St. baptism and baptism”; and in the breviary of Joasaph (1639, l. 103) it is stated on the contrary: “if two or three baptisms happen and multiply, then the verb of the prayer is general to everyone, and not specifically to everyone, and all the following of St. baptism, we say each one’s own name.” In all the service books and breviaries of the first four patriarchs, it is determined in the rite of baptism that the baptized, when he is turned to the west and renounces Satan, should have his hands raised to the mountain, and when he is turned to the east and is promised to Christ, he should keep his hands down: in the breviary of Joseph (l. 98) this action is completely changed, and is commanded to the baptized when he turns to the west and renounces Satan, keep his hands down, and when he turns to the east and promises to Christ, have his hands stretched out to the mountain. Let us indicate some more ranks or parts of ranks that were either added, or postponed, or changed in early printed books of various editions. In Filaret’s breviary there is a special “rite for priestly burial” (chapter 29); and in the breviary of Joasaph this rite was abolished as heretical 248. Are these differences really permitted and not important? The Joasaph Breviary contains a “decree on the churches on which days the church should be sanctified”... and so on. (on ten sheets); Filaret’s decree does not contain this decree. In the rite of consecration of water on August 1, according to Philaret’s missal, there are two prayers and in the great litany there are 16 petitions; according to Joasaph there are three prayers and 21 petitions. In the rank of St. baptism according to Philaret’s missal contains 13 petitions in the great litany; according to Joasaph - 21. After the anointing of the baptized St. by the world in the breviary of Joasaph it was commanded to lay a cross on the newly enlightened one, then they placed: a robe, an irmos, a prokeimenon, an Apostle, a Gospel and a teaching to the recipient; in Filaretov’s all this is missing. The rite of betrothal according to Philaret’s missal contains one great litany of 11 petitions and two prayers; according to Joasaph, two litanies, a great one of 15 petitions, and three prayers. In the wedding rite according to the first breviary there are two litanies, a great one of 15 petitions; on the second there are three litanies, a great one of 16 petitions; According to the first, there was a decree to give communion to St. Tain; according to the second, this is not allowed; according to the first, at the wedding of both widowers, there are two litanies and one prayer; according to the second there are three litanies and three prayers. In the rite of confession in the Philaret Breviary, “a decree is printed on how the priest should knit and decide his spiritual children,” and in it it is allowed during Great Lent, except for the first and Holy Week, as well as during other fasts throughout the summer, for the laity to eat fish on Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday of each week; in Joasaph’s there is no such decree. In Joseph's breviary the “rules of St. Father, how it is fitting for a Priest to baptize, and about spiritual affinity, and about the second spiritual affinity”; There are no such rules in all previous missals and service books. In Joseph's missal of 1647 and 1651. It is prescribed that the same prayers that the priest pronounces when removing particles from the prosphora: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, are also said by the deacon; This was not allowed in all previous service books. In the same Josephus service book, after removing the particle from the seventh prosphora, eight decrees regarding various actions of the liturgy were laid down or printed; All previous service books do not contain these decrees. Should we talk about various other shortcomings in old printed books, respected by our Old Believers? But there are so many of these shortcomings that listing them would require too much time and space. In some service books we can easily point out the following. In the rite of the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great according to all the old missals, even Joseph’s, at the consecration of St. The most important words of the Gifts are omitted: “transferred by your Holy Spirit,” and, instead of these words, the priest blessing the wallpaper, i.e. St. Paten and St. chalice, says: “poured out for the worldly belly,” and that’s where it ends. Between the prayers “after being born into humanity” there are two special prayers “to the woman who received the baby,” which mention a certain Salome, who supposedly was a “woman” at the birth of the Savior. In the first of these prayers, the following expression was allowed about Salome: “... glorifying your Mother with the holy Nativity of Ty, and blessing Solomia, your woman, who received You at your exodus ... ": the last prayer says even stranger: "... he deigned to be born in a den from the most pure unmarried Mother and lay in a manger, and blessed the woman who came to assure Solomiya of her honest virginity...” (Services. 637, l. 435-436). In holidays for the feasts of the Mother of God, the events themselves are very strangely mentioned. For example, leave for the introduction into the church of St. Theotokos: “Christ our true God, through the prayers of His most pure Mother, Her honorable and glorious introduction and all the saints, will have mercy and save us...” Dismissal for the Annunciation: “Christ... through the prayers of His Most Pure Mother, Her honorable and glorious Annunciation and all the saints...” Dismissal for the Nativity of the Theotokos: “Christ... through the prayers of His Most Pure Mother, Honest and glorious Nativity of Her and all the saints...” Among the five prayers that the priest says before the start of the proskomedia is the prayer “over the wine that wants to serve.” But here are some errors regarding the language and meaning of speech, especially in the service books of the four first patriarchs. The great litany says: “about the welfare of St. God's churches "... “About our patriarch, named, honorable presbytery, about Christ, the deaconry and all the clergy, and about the people...” In the litany according to the Gospel: “about the blessed and God-protected prince, named, about the power and the victory of peace, health, salvation and remission of his sins.” In prayer, after the exclamation: we thank the Lord: “for all of these we give thanks to You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit.” In the prayer after the exclamation: take, eat...: “remembering for Thy passion and all those who were for us, the cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection, the ascension into heaven”... In the prayer before the exclamation: a fair amount about the Most Holy...: “we also bring... about the hedgehog who died in the faith, the forefather, the father, the patriarchs, the prophet, the Apostle, the preachers, the evangelists ... and about every soul who has passed away.” In the next prayer: “we also pray... for all the presbytery, including the diaconate for Christ, and for all the priestly ranks.” This also includes the endings of prayers and exclamations: ... “and forever and ever”: distortions of words: instead of “orar” - ular, instead of “incense” - incense, etc. It is also impossible not to mention the difference in translation of the same songs in the same service book. Thus, the troparion of Easter in the service book of 1637 (and in others) on fol. 366 reads as follows: “Christ is risen from the dead, come upon death by death, and give life to those in the tombs” (delivered fol. 336 vol.); on the back of the same sheet: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death”, on the back of 362 sheets the end: “... and free life to the grave”, while on the folio. 357 this same end separately: “and to them that are in the tombs free life.” 4) How can we generally judge the shortcomings of old printed books and the inclusion of major schismatic opinions in these books? The disagreements and other shortcomings of early printed books, as we have seen, are indeed quite numerous and often very important: but let us not reproach them to our ancestors who were engaged in printing books. They worked for a good purpose and did everything. what they could according to their time and means, but demanding more from anyone else is unfair. “And this, Sovereign,” wrote Elder Arseny Glukhoy, a colleague of the Rev. Dionysius, to Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich regarding errors in previous editions - and this, Sovereign, I will tell you the descriptions in these printed sacred books, without blaspheming the workers and the testimony of these saints. books, taxing those below with heresy - don’t be that.... Having labored under the compulsion of the royal power, just like we, how much intelligence has become of them, and how much God has instructed, they have only labored, and for their labor may the Lord give them a heavenly reward” 249 . By printing liturgical books, we had in mind, if possible, to correct in them the countless errors that had crept into the manuscripts due to the oversight and ignorance of copyists, to prevent the further spread of such errors and to introduce harmony and uniformity in the administration of church services 250: and everyone will agree that through printed books this goal was achieved much more conveniently and more than through their constant copying. If, despite all the commendable zeal, the publishers of printed books themselves did not avoid disagreements and errors in them, then this partly depended on the fact that the books were printed by different people, in different places, under different conditions and circumstances: even more so, on the fact that the books were corrected and published primarily on the basis of some Slavic lists, although most of them were ancient and relatively correct, but also disagreed with each other and were not alien errors: finally, from the fact that the reference books and publishers of the books themselves, although for the most part they were deliberately chosen for this work, as they were more familiar with book wisdom than others, were nevertheless not sufficiently educated for the proper execution of it 251 and could not rise above the concepts and superstitions of their age: everyone worked to the best of their understanding, correcting the books as best they could and as they found necessary; but they themselves felt the weakness of their strength and the malfunction of their publications, they themselves asked for forgiveness of the errors made in the books and for their correction. While thus excusing the reference books and publishers of early printed books, we nevertheless cannot excuse the very shortcomings of these books, or recognize the shortcomings as perfections. No, the errors and disagreements found in our old printed books, we repeat, are so numerous and often so great that it was necessary to correct these books again, correct not only according to the Slavic lists, but also according to the Greek originals, correct and consider the corrections at the Council, and then, with the approval of the highest church authority, publish the newly corrected books for a completely uniform and unanimous administration of church services throughout Russia: such only correction of the books could be reliable and worthy of the Orthodox Church, and in such and such a correction, although vaguely, the collectors of church books themselves felt the need under Patriarch Joseph, when in the afterword to the Apostle in 1648. They said: “But you, O God-gathered couple of Orthodoxy, father and brethren, sanctified and honored, more than the simple and all those who excel in piety, and those who adhere to the divine scriptures of dogma, we are rude, not a word of skill, all of you have labored, crouching, and touching the dust of the earth with your face bent at the knees.” We earnestly, and earnestly pray, asking for forgiveness, and may we not be unworthy of your reverence, if, having delved into this book, you will find sins for our lack of reasonable progress, as if, on the advice of the conciliar apostolic church, correct what was unfinished or sinned in reason.” As for, in particular, the introduction of the main schismatic opinions and misconceptions into the old printed books: some of them, in all likelihood, were not included in the books intentionally, but only because they were in the manuscripts from which the books were printed. This includes the inscription of the saving name of our Lord - ??? Is or Isus, the addition of a word in the Creed - true, etc. All this is actually found in some of our handwritten books of the 16th and 17th centuries - and it is not surprising if, without any verification and without any intention on the part of the publishers, it was included in printed books. But other schismatic opinions, undoubtedly, were deliberately included in the old printed books, such as: the opinion about a special alleluia and the opinion about two fingers for blessing and the sign of the cross. We noticed that in the very places where, according to the service books and missals of the first four patriarchs, it was written: alleluia three times, the reference books under Patriarch Joseph began to print: alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God, twice. A clear sign that the deed was done with consciousness and intention! They also noticed that the same reference books began to print in the subsequent and educational psalters a detailed instruction on the double finger for the sign of the cross - which did not happen in the previous psalters, and even damaged a well-known place regarding the formation of the finger in the Kiev Small Catechism and in the Kyiv book on faith when they were re-edited in Moscow. Is intentionality not obvious here too?... However, whether without intention, or even with intention, some schismatic opinions were included in our old printed books, we will not condemn the perpetrators of this matter too harshly. Some of them, who included opinions of this kind into old printed books without any intent, although, of course, they were mistaken, they were not aware of their mistakes and acted out of ignorance - and sins of ignorance are excusable. Others, namely book collectors under Patr. Joseph, who deliberately included certain opinions in the books, are undoubtedly guilty of abusing the patriarch’s trust in them, acting arbitrarily and daring to add into the liturgical books something that was not in them before - but, in all likelihood, at first they also did not realize their error; on the contrary, they were convinced that they were zealous for the truth. They finally became guilty when, having been convicted of error, they did not want to leave it. Let us also not imagine that our ancestors, using from the very beginning old printed books containing schismatic opinions, were already schismatics or non-Orthodox. In the proper sense, schismatic opinions were not yet schismatic until they were exposed and rejected by the church authorities and until people were found who, contrary to its voice, retained these opinions and cut themselves off from the Church: then these opinions really became schismatic: and before their denunciation by the Church, they, like sins of ignorance, were excusable, especially since they did not touch the essence of dogmas at all, and our ancestors believed the Orthodox faith itself kept very clean. There was a time when in our liturgical books, still handwritten, there were, according to the testimony of Maximus the Greek, even Arian and Macedonian errors 252 - however, those who celebrated church services using these books were neither Arians nor Macedonians, because they, out of simplicity or ignorance, were not aware of the indicated errors that had crept into the books. So it is precisely now, using old printed books that contain errors that were later learned by the schismatics, but not yet realizing that these were really errors, our ancestors could not at all be called by the name of the schismatics. But when, in the days of Patriarch Nikon, our liturgical books were corrected in the most careful manner both according to ancient Slavic and Greek manuscripts and approved by the highest church authorities; when schismatic opinions, which, out of ignorance, crept into previous printed books, were exposed and collectively rejected by the same authority; when the obedient children of the Orthodox Church, obeying the voice of their shepherds, renounced these opinions as the sins of their ignorance, and instead of the previous books began to use newly corrected ones: then the people who decided to stubbornly defend these already exposed opinions, and with them the old printed books, dared to rebel even against the Church itself and its shepherds for the newly corrected books, and finally openly separate from it and call it lost, non-Orthodox, truly, they were schismatics in the proper sense of the word and not in the least excusable. By the end of the first half of the 17th century, schismatic opinions had reached their highest degree of success. Having been included in printed liturgical and teaching books, which our ancestors generally called inspired or divine Scripture, and having spread in thousands of copies of printed books throughout all parts of Russia, these opinions were now published everywhere and were accepted by believers with respect, like saints. Particularly striking was the success of the opinion about double-fingeredness, the most important of the schismatic opinions, which the book collectors under St. Joseph most zealously tried to spread. They included instructions on double-fingered, as we have seen, in five different books, the most commonly used or important ones (the following psalter, the educational psalter, the small catechism, the book on faith and the book of Kirillov), of which each was published in the number of one thousand two hundred copies 253 - and barely a few years passed before double-fingered became dominant throughout all of Russia. All the young people who learned to read and write and the law of God from the indicated books, all the bookish people who loved to read them, and the shepherds of the Church, who were guided by them in the administration of sacred rites and in their instructions to the people, began to cross themselves with two fingers. Patriarch Joseph himself was baptized with two fingers 254. Nikon himself, first the Metropolitan of Novgorod and then the All-Russian Patriarch, was baptized in exactly the same way, and to justify himself he referred precisely to printed books published not long before him 255. Only the elderly and many of the simple and illiterate people did not want to accept the innovations and firmly adhered to the ancient custom of marking themselves with three fingers 256. What could be done in such circumstances? Should we leave schismatic opinions in printed books and thereby give them the opportunity to take root forever in the Russian Church, or should we correct printed books and exclude these opinions from them? Without any doubt, the latter should have been chosen. Let schismatic opinions not concern the very essence of the Orthodox faith, but relate only to the appearance of the church, with the exception of the pretext to the symbol: true, and so on. Even with them, the Russian Church could have remained Orthodox, as it was before. But still, this is the essence of novelty and deviations from the ancient pious rites or customs bequeathed to us by Orthodox Greece, and novelties and deviations even in church rituals are always dangerous: because some novelties usually lead to others, and from ritual deviations, according to history, especially for simple and poorly educated people, the transition to dogmatic deviations is very close. On the other hand, we must remember that many schismatic opinions were included in printed books not as ritual decrees, but as dogmas, which is primarily the opinion about double-fingeredness, and that our ancestors in general, according to the degree of their education, attributed the greatest importance to these opinions, so that because of them many were ready, as experience has shown, to completely fall away from the Church. Track. to leave printed liturgical books uncorrected and thus give the opportunity for schismatic opinions to take root forever in the Russian Church would mean leaving together the possibility for the entire Russian Church, sooner or later, to separate from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which did not know and did not accept these innovations. Who in Russia could decide to correct printed books and cleanse them of various innovations, when it seemed that everyone, even the supreme shepherds, was carried away by them? God's providence found the means for this. In 1649, Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem arrived in Moscow. He easily noticed various innovations that had appeared in the Russian Church, especially the new arrangement of fingers for the sign of the cross, and then he said, among other things, to Nikon, who was ordained by him to the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod (March 11, 1649), and, without a doubt, to Patriarch Joseph and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, that all of these were deviations from the ranks and customs of the Eastern Orthodox Church 257. The Tsar and Patriarch, amazed by the words of the High Hierarch, immediately sent Trinity cellarer Arseny Sukhanov to the east (in 1649) so that he could inspect the church ranks there and provide information about them. Meanwhile, in 1651, another saint, Gabriel, Metropolitan of Nazareth, arrived from the east to Russia, and was a new denouncer of Moscow innovations. In 1652, the third high priest, His Holiness Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (the same one who died on the return journey in Lubny, where he rests incorruptibly), arrived from there - and added his accusatory voice against Moscow innovations 258. In the same year, sad news came from Athos: the Athonite fathers wrote to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich that in 1649 one Serbian hieromonk Damascus appeared to them with Moscow printed books containing the doctrine of the two-fingered sign of the cross, and that on this occasion, with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius, they immediately compiled a council at which Damascus was solemnly denounced, the books he had brought were burned, and those who would baptize with two fingers rather than three according to the ancient custom were anathematized. All this greatly worried our elderly Patriarch Joseph, to the point that he began to fear that he would be deprived of the throne 260, perhaps for his careless entrustment to persons who had spoiled printed church liturgical books - and he, in bitter anguish, died on April 15, 1652 261. The following year, 1653, Elder Arseny Sukhanov returned to Moscow and (July 26) presented his report to the sovereign and the new Patriarch Nikon. The notes of Arsenius, which he called Proskinitary 262, show that he looked with prejudice at all Greek rites and rites, dissimilar from ours, and instead of describing the statutes of the Eastern Church, as they were set out in its liturgical books, he described only how they were fulfilled and often violated in reality, forgetting that Eastern Christians, under the heavy yoke of infidels, did not They also had the opportunity to fully observe all the rituals of their faith. However, Arseny did not hide the fact that the Greeks actually cross themselves with three, and not two, fingers, use a three-lipped, and not a special alleluia, perform religious processions against the sun, and not in the salty manner 263. Meanwhile, there were also people in Moscow who understood the malfunction of newly printed books published only according to Slavic copies, and wanted the best editions based on Greek originals: a certain boyar Rtishchev, back in 1648, opened a hermitage near Moscow, to which he soon summoned learned monks from Kyiv and other Little Russian monasteries with the goal that they would translate from Greek and publish various useful for Churches, books. At the head of this learned brotherhood, which actually published quite a few such books, was Hieromonk Epiphanius Slavenitsky, who was famous more than all others for his learning, who boldly spoke to Patriarch Nikon himself about the faulty nature of previous editions, pointing in particular to the service book 264. But Nikon, without a doubt, understanding the importance of the matter and all the consequences that could arise from it, still did not dare to correct the liturgical books, and allowed them to be printed almost in the same form as they were printed under Patriarch Joseph - which is why many books published under Nikon are still respected by our schismatics 265. Finally, one circumstance, apparently accidental, had a decisive influence on the course of the event. Nikon decided to revise his patriarchal book depository and did this for many days. Here he came across a Greek document on the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, written in 1589, and another Greek document or book sent from the Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, which was held on the same occasion in Constantinople in 1593. Reading the latter, Nikon especially focused on the words of the patriarchs: “it is righteous for us to consume all the new things of the church; those who see new things are always guilty of church confusion and separation, but to follow the charter of the holy fathers and what was taught is unharmed, without the application of which any and taking away, accepting..., and as if in everything the great Orthodox Russia agrees with the ecumenical patriarchs there will be." These words struck our high priest to the depths of his soul, and he began to fear whether any deviations from the Greek Orthodox Church had really been allowed in Russia. First of all, he paid attention to the Creed and saw that two Greek copies of it, one, inscribed in the conciliar act of 1593, sent by the Eastern patriarchs, the other, embroidered on the bishop's sakkos, which was brought to Moscow by Metropolitan Photius (1408 - 1431), did not contain the words: “true” in the member of St. Spirit, while the Slavic symbols printed in our books all had this word. Then the patriarch reviewed our printed service book and found in it, in comparison with the Greek, “something has been added, something has been taken away and transformed.” I began to look at other books, and also saw many discrepancies 266. Then, without any hesitation, our high priest decided on the great and difficult feat of correcting and reprinting church liturgical books. Hence, a new period begins in the history of the Russian schism: the schism actually separates and is cut off from the Orthodox Church, as a certain society that has adopted certain opinions that were revealed before: it openly enters into a struggle with the Church and the state, spreads across different countries of Russia, fragments into numerous sects and finally reaches the state in which it is now. Chapter I. Correction of church books and the beginning of the schism I. Patriarch Nikon began to correct the church books with all caution and prudence. First of all, he revealed his intention to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and asked to convene the pastors of the Russian Church to discuss this important subject. The council was held in 1664 in the royal chambers 267. Presided over by the sovereign and patriarch himself, it was attended by five metropolitans, four archbishops, one bishop, eleven archimandrites and abbots, thirteen archpriests and the royal synclite 268 . Nikon gave a speech in which he said that there is nothing more pleasing to God and more beneficial for the Church and the state than to keep the commandments of God, the rules of St. Apostle, St. Ecumenical and local councils and St. Father, and that therefore it is necessary in church affairs to consume all sorts of new things, which are always the cause of turmoil and divisions in the Church, on the contrary, to observe, without any additions or subtractions, everything that was decreed by the ancient councils and the priests. the cathedral that was in Constantinople in the days of the pious Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, on the occasion of the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Following this, the Acts of this last council, especially important for the Russians, were read in full - and all those present heard how the Creed was read in the Acts without adding the word: true, they also heard the formidable words of the council, which frightened Nikon so much that the Russian Church must agree in everything with the Greek and with the four ecumenical patriarchs, must consume all sorts of new things that usually produce confusion and division among believers. Then Nikon continued: “So, I am obliged to announce to you the newly introduced church rites in our liturgical books,” and, pointing for example to two, more well-known, innovations in the printed Moscow service books 269, which are not found either in the ancient written Slavic or in the Greek, concluded: “And about this I ask for a decision whether to follow our new printed service book, or the Greek and our old one, which together show the same rank and regulations.” Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the metropolitans, archbishops and the entire consecrated council unanimously answered: “it is worthwhile and righteous to correct against the old Haratean and Greek ones.” Nikon pointed out several more innovations that had appeared in the Russian Church 270 and asked what should be done - and each time he heard the answer of the council: “it is good to correct against the old and Greek books,” or: “good according to the statute of St. father to be." But when, finally, the sovereign and patriarch ordered that this entire conciliar Act be written “for the sake of perfect strengthening, so that henceforth there would be a correction in the printed embossing of the divine books against the ancient charatean and Greek books, statutes, consumer books, service books and books of hours,” and invited those present to seal the written Act with signatures: then it was revealed that not everyone had hitherto sincerely expressed their consent to the definitions cathedral At least, we don’t see the names between the signatures: one bishop - Paul of Kolomna, two archimandrites, one abbot and two archpriests who were present at the council 271. And if you believe the legends of the schismatics, then Paul of Kolomna, instead of signing his name, allegedly even inscribed the words: “if anyone from the usual traditions of St. will take away from the Catholic Church, or add to them, or otherwise corrupt, let him be anathema,” thinking thereby to wound Nikon’s heart 272 . Be that as it may, however, only the king and the patriarch did not stop in their enterprise. In order for the council’s definition to be fulfilled, they ordered the most ancient Slavic books, translated from Greek and written five hundred years or more ago, to be sent to Moscow from different places in Russia - and immediately such books were sent from the monasteries of Trinity-Sergius, Yuryev, Khutyn, Iosifov-Volokolamsky and other ancient Russian book depositories. Not content with this and wishing, “not only their will is united, but also the advice of the ecumenical patriarchs of these books will be on the correction,” the king and our patriarch in the same year (1654) sent Manuel the Greek to Constantinople with their letters, in which they proposed to the ecumenical patriarch Paisius up to 26 questions regarding the rites of the church and the errors that had crept into our newly printed liturgical books 273. Paisius immediately convened a council, which, under his chairmanship, was attended by 24 metropolitans, 1 archbishop, 3 bishops and other noble Constantinople clergy. The Council examined in detail everything written in the letters, and the next year (1655) sent its Act itself to Moscow instead of an answer. This Act, presented in the form of a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople to ours, is very remarkable. First, having thanked the Lord, who raised up such a zealous archpastor in Russia, and wishing that God’s grace would preserve him for many years and that he would shepherd his spiritual sheep to the end in a godly manner, as he began, Paisius begs our high priest: “may we always be united, as in the same faith and in the same baptism, so let us also be in the same confession, the same thing, always speaking with one mouth and one heart, without any difference between each other in any thing.” And directly, however, he continues: “Your Beatitude strongly complains about the disagreement of some ranks, noticed in some churches, and you believe that these various ranks are corrupting our faith. We praise the thought: for whoever fears small crimes protects himself from great ones. But let us correct the intention: for the heretics, whom the Apostle commands us to flee after the first and second punishment, are a different matter: and a different matter are the schismatics, who, although apparently agree on the main dogmas of Orthodoxy, nevertheless have their own teachings, alien to the Catholic Church; but if it happens that any church differs from another in some unimportant and insignificant ranks, i.e. not relating to the members and dogmas of the faith - such as, for example, the time of the liturgy, etc. - this does not make any division, as long as the same faith is immutably preserved. The Church did not from the beginning accept all the rites that it contains now, but gradually, and in different churches some rites were introduced at different times, and before the saints - Damascus, Cosmas and other hymn-makers, we did not sing either troparia, or canons, or kontakions: all this, however, did not produce divisions between the churches, when the same faith was invariably observed, and they were not considered either heretical or schismatic. So even now we should not think that our Orthodox faith is corrupted if one follows his own, not much different from another - in unimportant things, i.e. not concerning members of the faith." A wise rule, which would have been very useful for us under the circumstances of that time, if everyone had firmly remembered it! Following this, the high priest of Constantinople goes through in order all the questions sent from us and gives his answers to them, among which the most important at that time are the first, seventh, eighth, ninth, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth. In the first, most extensive, answer, Paisius briefly reveals the composition and mysterious signification of that order of the divine liturgy, which was then maintained throughout the east, and which he offers us as a model. In the seventh he says to our patriarch: you write about the strife occurring among you regarding the rite of divine secrecy. We pray in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that your blessedness may satisfy them with your mind: for it is not fitting for the servant of the Lord to be selfish (2 Tim.), especially in things that are not essential and do not relate to the dogmas of faith. Exhort everyone to accept the order that is contained in the entire Eastern Church and has come down to us according to tradition from the beginning without the slightest change. If your ranks turn out to disagree with ours on things that are necessary, and not on those that the statute leaves to the will of the abbot: write to us, and we will judge about them together.” The eighth and ninth were devoted to the case of Bishop Paul of Kolomna and Archpriest John Neronov, about whom, consequently, our tsar and patriarch complained in their letters: “about Bishop Paul of Kolomna,” writes Paisiy, “and about Archpriest John Neronov, you say that they do not agree with you, they contain their own special books, their own liturgy, their sign of the cross, that they even blame our Patriarchal prayers and liturgy and try to bring us their own novelties and secret prayers, as if correction, - we answer: these are all signs of heresy and discord, and whoever speaks and believes is alien to our Orthodox faith. So, either they will accept unhypocritically, as our Orthodox Church holds and dogmatizes, or according to the first and second punishment, having remained uncorrected, reject them and separate them by casting them out from the sheep of Christ, so that they do not feed on the pasture of death: and you will have both us and the whole council about us, who are wise in this.” In the 24th answer, the question of the sign of the cross is resolved and the patriarch writes: “We all imams have an ancient custom of worshiping, having the first three fingers together, in the image of the Holy Trinity, even through enlightenment the mystery of embodied viewing was revealed to us, and we learned to glorify the one God in three parts, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and be crucified along with the cross of our Lord Jesus, the Son of God.” Finally, 25, the answer resolves the question: “with which fingers a bishop or priest should use the blessing that he gives,” and consists of the following: “since God promised Abraham with an oath that all the nations of the earth would be blessed because of his seed, which is Jesus Christ - ???Is xg - then the Church blesses everyone, inscribing with the priestly hand the name of the Messiah: ???Is xs. No matter what fingers one uses to depict these four letters, there will be no difference: as long as both the one blessing and the one being blessed have in mind that the blessing descends from Jesus Christ by a priestly hand. However, it is more appropriate to form the fingers in the form in which Christ himself is depicted blessing, i.e. fold the second and third fingers so that they form ???Is, and the first, fourth and fifth so that they represent ???Xc.” In conclusion of all his answers, Patr. Paisius says, among other things: “The Lord of peace and consolation, who unites those who are separated into one and the same union of faith, may he give grace to remain in this unity of mind of our churches even until the end of the age, indestructible, and may the Lord forgive us, the least of his slaves, for our sins; for correction, may He grant prosperity and growth to the best.” 274 In addition to this message or the conciliar Act, signed by all those present at the cathedral, Paisius also sent his private letter to Nikon. Here, having again thanked the Lord and praised Nikon for his zeal for the Orthodox faith, Paisiy informs him that he is sending a conciliar response to him, that inconvenient things in our liturgical books may be cleansed and corrected, and asks that this conciliar act be handed over to all the sacred persons, “that they may perform succession and all sacred acts according to the order of the great Church, and that imams may not be the only difference, as the true children of one and the same mother, the Eastern Apostolic Councils of the great Church of Christ, and let not a single guilt be acquired by the vile heretical lips, speak to us about some kind of difference.” “However,” adds the Ecumenical Patriarch, I heard that in your church rites there are some other things that do not agree with the rite of the great Church, and I am surprised that you do not ask about them. And first of all, you seem to have made an addition to the very symbol of faith, which we do not have... We wish with all our hearts that this will be corrected.” For this purpose, the Patriarch also attached to his letter a Greek symbol, literally copied from the one compiled by the Fathers of the first and second Ecumenical Councils 275. Having received such an answer from the ecumenical high priest and having read the conciliar Act, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon were moved by an even greater desire to correct the church books; but, considering that the ancient books, Greek and Slavic, located in Russia, were still insufficient for this purpose, they sent Elder Arseny Sukhanov with rich alms to Athos and other places, so that he, without sparing any costs, would try to acquire Greek manuscripts there. Soon, up to 500 Greek handwritten books were sent to Moscow from the Athonite monasteries, among which one Gospel was then considered 1050 years old, and another 650, one psalter 600, a service book 600, another service book 455, there were other books written 400, 500 and 700 years earlier. At the same time, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Serbia, many eastern metropolitans and archbishops, as a result of letters of petition from Moscow, sent no less than 200 different ancient books to it. Then the sovereign and patriarch. Nikon decided to form a new council in Moscow, which was all the more remarkable because, in addition to our high priest with the metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and other noble clergy, two more third-party patriarchs were present at it - Macarius of Antioch and Michael of Serbia. This council took place in 1655 and, judging by its activities, lasted for quite some time. Its sessions opened with readings from the Gospel and from the rules of St. Apostles and St. Ecumenical councils. Then the Acts of the Councils were read: the Moscow Council of 1654, which determined to correct the newly printed Moscow books, and the Constantinople Council, assembled by the Patriarchs. Paisiy and who approved the same definition. The new council fully approved of both Acts, and immediately began to examine the books themselves, Greek and Slavic. collected in such huge numbers from all sides of the Orthodox Church; The Patriarch of Antioch, who was present at the council, immediately added his own missal and some others to the books. What did the fathers of the cathedral see? They “found the ancient Greek with the old Slavic books to be consistent in everything: in the new Moscow printed books, with the Greek and Slavic ancient books, there are many disagreements and errors.” When the disagreements and sins were read publicly and discussed, the council unanimously decided: to be as decided at the councils of Moscow in 1654 and the Council of Constantinople that followed. And in order to begin the great work, the fathers of the cathedral themselves immediately began to correct the service book and, “correcting this holy book in everything and creating it in accordance with the ancient Greek and Slavic,” ordered it to be printed in Moscow in the same 1655. Not wanting to limit itself to correcting this one book, the council legalized that other saints. books in which errors were found were also corrected according to ancient Greek and Slavic copies, and closed its meetings 276. Who was entrusted with such an assignment? Instead of the previous information officers who were under Patr. Joseph, poorly educated and who did not know the Greek language at all, such as: archpriests - Ivan Neronov and Avvakum, priests - Lazarus and Nikita, Deacon Fyodor Ivanov and others, now learned people were elected who knew not only the Slavic language, but Greek and even Latin, namely: the hieromonks summoned from Kyiv earlier - Epiphanius Slavenitsky, Arseny, Damascene and others 277 ; summoned from the Solovetsky monastery - hieromonk Arseny the Greek and “the black priest Jacob, nicknamed the philosopher” 278; arrived from St. Mount Athos, Archimandrite Dionysius “from his minion,” and was almost the head of the inspectors, because he was engaged in witnessing and verifying books translated from Greek by Epiphanius of Slavenitsky himself 279 . The new reference workers eagerly set about translating and correcting the books, at the direction of Patriarch Nikon. Meanwhile, the patriarch himself turned all his attention to the most important delusion of the schismatics, which was not only included in recently published books, but deeply penetrated into the life of the people. Having already received a conciliar answer from the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius that the sign of the cross must be made with the first three fingers of the right hand, Nikon now wanted to take advantage of the presence in Moscow of other Orthodox hierarchs - Macarius the Patriarch of Antioch, Gabriel the Patriarch of Serbia, Gregory Metropolitan of Nicea, Gideon Metropolitan of Moldova, and to hear their opinion about the same subject. For this purpose, he, firstly, wrote a message to them, in which, having spoken about his extremely responsible duty to shepherd the spiritual sheep entrusted to him, and notifying that between them “nets raise prues” regarding the folding of their fingers for the sign of the cross, and some are baptized with three fingers of the right hand (“they are also imaginary, the patriarch notes, doing good”), and others with two, Nikon begs the said hierarchs to announce to him, on which side is the truth. The saints unanimously answered: “It has been a tradition from the beginning of the faith from the holy Apostles, and the holy fathers, and the holy seven councils, to create the sign of the venerable cross with the first three fingers of the right hand, and whoever does not do the cross from Orthodox Christians, according to the tradition of the Eastern Church, holding it from the beginning of the faith even to this day, is a heretic and an imitator of the Armenians. And for this reason his imams were excommunicated from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and cursed.” And all four signed this answer, each with his own hand. Then, when on the day of memory of St. Meletius (February 12) of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Tsar happened to be with his entire synclite and a multitude of people at the Chudov Monastery for matins, and the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius was there with other bishops: then, while reading from the prologue the legend about St. Meletia, how he first showed the people three fingers, and there was no sign, then he folded two and bent one to them, and fire came from his hand - Nikon solemnly asked Macarius what this legend meant. And Macarius answered: “Men of all Orthodoxy, hear: I, the successor and heir of this holy Meletius to the throne, you know that this holy Meletius’s first three fingers were separated from each other, and from them there was no sign. You are three packs and united, and the image is a sign of display. And if anyone does not depict the image of a cross on his face with these three fingers, but has to create, connecting the last two with the great finger, and having the two great middle ones extended, and thereby depicting the image of the cross, such an Armen imitator exists, because Armen’s people imagine a cross on themselves.” That's not enough. The week of Orthodoxy has arrived; For the high celebration, the Tsar himself with his entire synclite, all the bishops who were in Moscow, many clergy and countless people gathered in the Assumption Cathedral. The rite of Orthodoxy began, and while St. The Church proclaimed eternal memory to all who fought for Christ, and anathema to those who resisted. Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, standing before the Tsar and his synclitate and before the entire consecrated cathedral and, showing the first three fingers of his right hand, folded together, exclaimed: “With these first three great fingers, every Orthodox Christian should depict on his face the image of the cross. And whoever works according to Theodorite’s scripture and false tradition is cursed.” The same curse was repeated by Gabriel, Patriarch of Serbia and Gregory, Metropolitan of Nicaea 280. Finally, on the 23rd day of April 1656, Nikon, with the permission of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, ordered all Russian bishops to gather in Moscow. He opened the council with an extensive speech. “More than once,” the patriarch began, “the eastern saints who came to the reigning city of Moscow: Athanasius of Constantinople, Paisius of Jerusalem, Gabriel of Nazareth and others, looked at our humility, and many condemned me for not correcting the priests. books and for other church faults, among which is the fact that we put on ourselves the sign of the cross with two fingers, according to Theodorite’s writings, while it was included in printed and handwritten books only by information, and not by the command of any king or patriarch, and not by any council of bishops. And before, we all were baptized with the first three fingers into the image of St. Trinity, as now one can still see many who do not know the Theodorite Scripture, simple husbands and wives who adhere to the ancient custom. Therefore, we, Patriarch Nikon, wanting not only benefit for ourselves, but also the salvation of our spiritual children, and seeing that now we really have a lot, partly in the sacred. books, partly in church ranks, in disagreement with what was ancient under our predecessors, they decided to find out the truth on the basis of divine Scripture.” Having then mentioned the collection of countless manuscripts, Slavic and Greek, to Moscow to correct newly printed books, and that such correction was already being carried out, Nikon again turned in particular to the teaching of the imaginary Theodoret and Maximus the Greek about the sign of the cross and expressed his judgment, his opinion about this teaching. “It commands,” said the high priest, “to have three equal fingers together, the great one and the last two – small ones, in the image of St. Trinity; the remaining two fingers - the index finger and the middle one - folded together and extended, the middle one moreover slightly inclined, in the image of the two natures in I. Christ. But such a tradition cannot be accepted by the Church: because it incorrectly expresses both sacraments - and with three fingers, the great and two small, the sacrament of St. is incorrectly confessed. Trinity, and with two fingers, the index and the middle, the mystery of the incarnation of God the Word is not accurately proclaimed. The three indicated fingers obviously show the inequality between the Persons of St. Trinity: if anyone begins to take the great finger for the image of the Father and the two small ones for the images of the Son and St. Spirit, then it will be necessary to confess the Father as greater than the Son and the Holy. Spirit, and so on. will be a follower of the heretic Arius, who belittled the Son before the Father. The other two fingers, the index and middle, of which one is extended and the other is slightly inclined, do not at all express that two natures in Christ are hypostatically united in a single person: on the contrary, showing that two natures are united in Christ, they show together that there are two persons in Him, as the heretic Nestorius taught, who was actually helped for some time by Theodoret (if only the tradition in question about finger-type)". After this, Nikon outlined how back in 1654 he asked the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius, among other things, about the sign of the cross and received from him a conciliar answer that one must be baptized with the first three fingers of the right hand: as he asked in 1656. other Orthodox hierarchs who arrived in Moscow - Macarius of Antioch, Gabriel of Serbia, Gregory of Nicea and Gideon of Moldova and received from them the same written answer: as later in the Miracle Monastery, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch in memory of St. Melechia of Antioch explained to the people the well-known legend about him and commanded them to be baptized with three fingers: how finally the same Macarius, together with the Serbian and Nicene saints, solemnly confirmed the doctrine of triplicity on the week of Orthodoxy in the main Moscow church. The fathers of the council, having listened to the speech of Patriarch Nikon and carefully examined what he presented - the answer of Patriarch Paisius about the sign of the cross, the same answer of Patriarch Macarius and others with him, and also an extract from the word of the subdeacon of Damascus about the cross, pronounced the following rule: “if anyone who knows now does not obey to make the image of the cross on his face, as the holy Eastern Church of old accepted, and just as now the four universes of the Patriarchs, with all the Christians existing under them, found everywhere in the universe, have, and as they previously contained Orthodoxy here, before the printing of the word of Theodorite in the Psalms with the follow-up of the Moscow seal, depict the first three great fingers of the gums of the hand, in the image of the holy and consubstantial, and indivisible, and equally worshiped Trinity, but to do this unpleasant to the Church, by connecting the two small fingers with the great finger, in which the inequality of the Holy Trinity is announced, and the two great-middle ones, stretched out in existence, in them to enclose two Sons and two compositions, according to the Nestorian heresy, or otherwise depict a cross: of this imams, subsequent saints, the father of the seven ecumenical councils and others local rule and saints of the Eastern Church by the four ecumenical patriarchs, excommunicated from the Church in every possible way, together with the writings of Theodorite, just as on the fifth we cursed its false attribution to Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria and to the right faith, existing according to the Nestorian heresy.” At the same council, Patriarch Nikon proposed for consideration the book of the Tablet, which had just been translated from Greek and printed, at his command, which had been sent to him back in 1653 by Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem. The fathers read the book “congregately for many days, judging every thing and every word with caution,” and found it not only “immaculate,” but also worthy of all praise and great surprise. To confirm their thought, they sealed the Tablet and everything contained in it, as well as the aforementioned rule about the sign of the cross, each with their own signature 281. The publication of this book, compiled by the Greek hieromonk John Nathanael 282, was especially important for the Russians due to modern circumstances: because it presented an explanation of the liturgy and other church mysteries in the form as they were then contained and understood by the Orthodox Church in the East, with which the Russian Church had to agree, and because the Acts of the Moscow Council were printed in the appendices to the Tablet 1654, which determined to correct printed Moscow books and church ranks; Acts of the Council of Constantinople, which confirmed the same definition; the answer of the Patriarchs of Antioch Macarius and Serbian Gabriel about the sign of the cross; a word about the cross of subdeacon Peter of Damascus; another interrogative and admonishing word, directed directly against the zealots of double-fingering: Archpriest Nicholas Malax about folding the fingers for blessing; Rev. Maxim the Greek and his disciple Zinovy ​​about the inviolability of the symbol of faith and the prohibition of making changes and additions to it, what is the word of the true about St. Spirit; testimonies of ancient councils and fathers on the same subject and so on. Thus, Patriarch Nikon published the second book after the service book not on his own, but with the approval of all Russian bishops and the entire holy council! These two books, to which, due to their importance, Nikon paid special attention, served as the most solid basis for the further correction of various errors and innovations that have crept into our church rites and customs. Who, after all this, will not see and agree that Patriarch Nikon decided to correct the books of the church not somehow arbitrarily, or unnecessarily, or with the evil intention of spoiling the faith, but as a true shepherd, zealous for the observance of faith and rituals in all their purity and integrity? He was reproached by the high priests of the East, who came to us, for various new things that appeared in the Russian Church; he heard the accusatory voice of the Athonite monks who burned some of our books for the teaching of double-fingeredness; Finally, he himself was personally convinced from the monuments of antiquity that even in the symbol of faith and in the celebration of the divine liturgy, we had important changes and innovations... Could he not have started what he started? Could he, as the chief shepherd, allow the Church entrusted to him to remain a subject of controversy and temptation for all Eastern Christians? Could he not have protected her from the danger of going further along the path of innovation and completely falling away from the Orthodox Catholic Church? And how did he start his great work? Not otherwise than with the consent of the most pious sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich and the conciliar determination of the Russian hierarchs; no other than with the blessing and approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch together with the Council of Constantinople, and with the complicity of other patriarchs and eastern hierarchs: no other than having first collected countless ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts necessary for the purpose, and choosing the most reliable and skillful references: no other than subjecting the newly corrected books to conciliar examination and correction... II. Unfortunately, there were people who decided to oppose St. Nikon in his holy enterprise and, at the same time, as he began to correct the church books, they laid the foundation for the Russian schism, known under the name of the Old Believers. Even at the Moscow Council of 1654, which recognized the need to correct church rites and books, some, as we have seen, did not sign. Then, in the preface to the Tablet, published in 1656, there is a clear mention of “certain unskillful and self-wise, and even more so, superstitious zealots of outrages”, to whom the work undertaken by Nikon seemed “hateful”, and who “maliciously” dared to grumble against the patriarch 283. Who were these people? At the head of all was the Bishop of Kolomna Pavel, whom the schismatics call the chief of their good army 284, and with him the Archpriest of the Kazan Church in Moscow John Neronov: they so boldly rebelled against Nikon and the Moscow Council, which determined to correct the books, so stubbornly defended the previous books and the innovations that crept into them, spoke so disrespectfully about the Greek books and in general about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church that Nikon considered it necessary to notify the Ecumenical Patriarch Paisius about all this, asking for his permission, and Paisius, together with the Council of Constantinople - as we have seen - determined: if such do not correct themselves and do not accept everything that the Orthodox Eastern Church contains, they will be cut off from the Church and cast out. They were soon joined by: Avvakum - archpriest of Yuryevets of Povolsky 285, Daniil - archpriest of Kostroma, Loggin - archpriest of Murom and others who were book collectors under Patriarch Joseph. What did they do, what did they complain about, what did they demand? First of all, they gathered together, wrote and submitted to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich “a general petition against the multi-rebellious Nikon,” accusing him of two crimes: that he, allegedly contrary to the ancient ranks, prohibited in St. On the Fourth Day of 1654, prostrations were made in the church, and he ordered bows to be made from the waist, except for the four great ones, and in that he introduced the three-fingered formation in the sign of the cross, instead of the two-fingered one. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as he understood Nikon's case and sympathized with him, left this request without attention 286. Then they began to cry out against the two-part or four-pointed cross, with which Nikon ordered the printing of prosphoras, and against the three-pronged alleluia, which he commanded to be used instead of the august one. Archpriest John Neronov deliberately went to the cathedral church every day and did not allow anyone to make hallelujahs there, and sometimes appeared to the patriarch himself and entered into heated debates with him. Но главная мысль, которую отстаивали, которую распространяли в народе и дерзко защищали пред Никоном, была та, что прежние наши печатные книги и чины церковные совершенно исправны и православны, что их всячески должно удерживать и соблюдать; книги же и чины, исправленные Никоном по греческим, неправославны, исполнены новинами и заблуждениями, и потому должны быть отвергаемы. А так как, – что всем было известно, – Никон действовал не сам собою, но с согласия и при живом участии греческих патриархов и вообще старался согласоваться с Церковью восточною: то присовокупляли, что сами греческие патриархи уже более не православны, что Церковь восточная, находясь под игом неверных, уже потеряла или исказила истинную веру во Христа, что греческие церковные книги повреждены Латинами, в областях которых и are printed, - next. they are not to be followed or agreed upon 287 . This is what we got to the first time and what those who rebelled against Nikon wanted! Let us not even mention how they reviled Nikon himself in order to humiliate the work he had begun, what slander they invented against their high priest and spread everywhere, how they called him not a shepherd, but a wolf, a heretic, an apostate, the forerunner of the Antichrist, etc. 288. Why did these people rebel? They were the first to rebel and they rebelled with such insolence, anger, and bitterness? Is it really out of zeal for Orthodoxy, let’s say, that is blind and ignorant? No, there is only one reason and not the main one - but the main one was their personal relationship with Patriarch Nikon. Kolomna Bishop Pavel was a close relative of Anania, in monasticism Anthony, hieromonk of the Yungen Kosmodemyansky Monastery (in the present Kazan province), who, after the death of Patriarch Joseph, was given a lot from among three candidates to be his successor, but who had to refuse this enviable lot to please Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who wanted to see a metropolitan on the patriarchal throne Novgorod Nikon. The son of Anania Hilarion, Metropolitan of Suzdal, in the world Ivan Ananyin, was married to the sister of Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna. Paul, due to the proximity of his diocese to Moscow and due to his relationship with Ananias-Antony, could hope for greater importance under his patriarchate than under Nikon. Because both Hilarion of Suzdal and Pavel of Kolomna harbored deep hostility against Nikon 289. Archpriests John Neronov, Avvakum, Daniel, Loggin and their comrades were inflamed with hatred of Nikon because he dishonorably removed all of them from the position of inspectors, which brought them so much honor, recognized the books they printed as faulty and began to eradicate the very opinions that they were the first to introduce into printed books and hoped to root in the Russian Church. We will not deny that these people, as well as Pavel Kolomna, may have been convinced, out of pitiful ignorance, of the correctness of their opinions and of the perfect correctness of the church books, which Nikon decided to correct; but personal hatred of Nikon inflamed their blind zeal for faith to religious fanaticism and guided all their actions. So, hatred and ignorance are the two most initial sources of the Russian schism, according to the judgment of even reasonable contemporaries 290! What did Nikon do with his fierce enemies, who, in order to more successfully counteract the work he had begun, knew no limits in their slander and abuse of Nikon himself, and the Eastern patriarchs, and the entire Eastern Church? At first, he wanted to convince the lost of their error and bring them to their senses, he called them to himself, and entered into competitions with them 291. But then, when I saw that they remained stubborn to the point of becoming bitter, trying to drag the people along with them and create a schism in the Russian Church, and openly calling the Eastern Orthodox Church heretical, he decided to use measures of just severity against them. Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, the most stubborn of all, was deprived of his rank and then, allegedly, was even subjected to corporal punishment and exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery 292; Archpriest John Neronov was deprived of his skufia and was first kept in the Moscow Simonov Monastery, then exiled to Spaso-Kamenny Vologda and from there to Kola, finally repented and took on the monastic image with the name Gregory 293; Archpriest Daniel was deprived of the priesthood and, according to the city court, was exiled to Astrakhan prison, where he died; Archpriest Loggin was also deprived of the priesthood and by the same city court was exiled to imprisonment in Murom, where he soon died from a pestilence; Archpriest Avvakum, although allegedly, at the intercession of the Tsar (if you believe the legend of the schismatics themselves), was not deprived of his dignity, but was exiled in 1656 with his entire family to the depths of Siberia, to the country of Dauria, scattering the seeds of schism along his entire path 294 . And we must remember that Nikon did this to the guilty, i.e. subjected them to well-deserved church execution, not arbitrarily, but in accordance with the determination of the Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch Paisius, already known to us; - acted when both the other Orthodox patriarchs who were in Moscow and the Moscow Council of 1655 solemnly pronounced an anathema on all stubborn followers and defenders of double-fingering. It must be said that the work started by Nikon met with resistance not only in Moscow, but also in various other places in Russia. Simple, uneducated, barely literate people, such as not only the laity, but also almost all the clergy among us at that time, could not understand either the need or the essence of Nikonov’s corrections. They only saw that the previous liturgical books, to which they were accustomed and which they considered to be inspired by God, were being taken away everywhere as faulty books, and in their place newly printed ones were being sent out; some of the previous rites and church customs were being prohibited, and others were being prescribed in their place. And they imagined that Nikon wanted to eradicate the old faith and old rituals, but was introducing new things, a new faith that was not Orthodox, heretical... In many places, strong murmurs were heard against the patriarch; some priests did not agree to voluntarily give up the old books and accept new ones, and did not agree to serve using the new books. It was necessary to use strict measures, although nothing can prove that they were the same as those depicted by the schismatics 295. It is difficult to decide whether Nikon acted well or not entirely carefully when he ordered the old books to be taken away at once and new ones introduced in their place, but did not allow this time, did not do it gradually. Now he met resistance; But wouldn’t he have encountered even more resistance if the previous books had remained in the hands of the people for another year, two, three, and the people had more time to get used to them? Moreover, Nikon knew that one of his predecessors, Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, in the same way ordered that the Church Charter, printed in 1610, be taken away everywhere at once, and even burned - and this measure was a complete success, although it was met, in all likelihood, not without some resistance: didn’t Nikon hope to achieve the same consequences when he decided to pluck out the root of the disease at once, so that it would not become worse over time? old and incurable? And, perhaps, the hope of the zealous archpastor would have been fully realized: perhaps he would have managed to prevent the schism in the Russian Church, which was already arising, by strong and energetic measures, with the living assistance of the sovereign, whose favor he enjoyed... Unfortunately, a change followed in the fate of Nikon himself. Hardly three or four years had passed from the beginning of his great undertaking, barely five or six books he had time to correct and send out to churches 296, when he had the misfortune of losing the favor of his good monarch, left the patriarchal throne in Moscow and retired to his Resurrection New Jerusalem monastery (1658). Nikon's enemies, and especially the zealots of the imaginary church antiquity, triumphed: in his fall they thought to see the fall of the work he had begun. The Russian bishops, headed by Pitirim of Krutitsky, who was personally hostile to Nikon, although they continued to correct and print books 297, could no longer act with such power or with such jealousy as Nikon himself acted. Little by little, some in Moscow began to openly speak against Nikon and the newly printed books. They managed to convince Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to pardon Archpriest Avvakum, who was exiled to Siberia under Nikon, and Avvakum, after a six-year exile, returned to Moscow. Here he found great sympathy even among the nobles and those close to the Court and acquired the most zealous followers, ready for all sacrifices and suffering, such as: Isaiah, the butler and favorite of the boyar Saltykov, the noblewoman Feodosia Morozova - one of the closest to the queen and possessing enormous wealth, her sister Princess Evdokia Urusova, another noble wife Maria Danilova, and together with them, as a constant their mentor, nun Justina 298. Habakkuk spread his false teaching both by word and through messages. He wrote against the correction of the creed, against the three-fingered sign of the cross, against the correction of books and church singing; slandered the Moscow priests who served according to the newly corrected books, as if they did not believe in Christ made man, did not confess His resurrection, did not call Him the perfect King in heaven together with the Father, did not confess the Holy Spirit as true, and forbade these priests to receive Holy Communion. Mysteries of Christ 299. But most of all he took up arms against Nikon himself, calling him the Antichrist, son of Gehenna, a friend of Satan, the worst of all heretics who have ever been; finally, through his faithful, he submitted a petition to the tsar, “to remove Nikon from the patriarchate and establish ancient piety” 300. Avvakum's actions were so impudent and outraged the people that, despite his patrons, the schismatic teacher was twice expelled from Moscow for imprisonment, at the insistence of the spiritual authorities, first - to the Pomeranian borders on Mezen, where he remained for a year and a half, then, another time, to the Borovsk Paphnutian Monastery, where he was kept in prison for a year 301. Together with Avvakum, the same false teaching was spread in Moscow by another of the former investigators under the patriarch. Joseph, deacon of the Assumption Cathedral Theodore. He ardently defended the old books printed with them, and condemned the new ones: he condemned the three-fingered sign of the cross, the three-fingered alleluia, the correction of the symbol; he condemned not only all Russian bishops, but also the Eastern patriarchs, as having deviated from Orthodoxy, and although, after repeated admonitions, he was imprisoned in the Intercession Monastery, he continued his work there, wrote “a denunciation of Nikon’s innovations” and a petition to the Monarch, “in order to command Nikonov to put aside the traditions, while the ancient fatherly invariably maintain piety” 302. The main accomplices of Avvakum and Theodore in Moscow were: Archimandrite of the Intercession Monastery Spiridon Potemkin, who wrote a book about the right faith, abbots: Theoktist (Chrysostom Monastery), a disciple of John Nero and also wrote in defense of superstition, Kapiton and Dositheus (Tikvin St. Nicholas Monastery), monks: Joseph Istomin, Abraham, Isaiah, Cornelius, former assistant to Patriarch Nikon - Theodore and others. Some of them, for example, Dositheus and Cornelius, traveled to the Don to the Cossacks, to the Olonets region and other places, scattering their false teachings everywhere, and the monk Joseph Istomin, having been exiled to Siberia in 1660, following Avvakum, became the main instigator of the schism there 303. Other book collectors dismissed by Nikon did not remain silent either: priest Nikita in Suzdal and priest Lazar in Romanov freely convinced residents not to accept new books and keep the old ones. Not content with this, both of them compiled and submitted petitions to the king, Nikita in 30, and Lazarus in 70 points, in which they tried to show the imaginary innovations and heresies of Nikon’s books (especially the Tablets), slandered Nikon himself, as if he had “completely abandoned the Christian faith, but accepted the evil of the Jews and the heresy of Ariev, Nestorius, Macedonian, Dioskorov, Apolinariev, Marcionitsky, Markelov, and completely love the god-absorbed Roman heresy”; they blasphemed the Greek patriarchs, bishops and priests and the entire people as not having the Holy Spirit. baptism, and Greek books, as full of heresies and corruptions 304. Dissenters also appeared in other places, having assimilated the thoughts of Avvakum, Theodore, Nikita and Lazar: within the Kostroma region - the monk Kapiton, a native of the palace village of Danilovsky, who, not having anything to eat, retired to one nearby deserted place (Kolesnikovo) and with his outward fasting so captivated the common people that he soon became their teacher, although he himself could not read, nor write, and openly preached to be baptized with two fingers, not to venerate new icons, not to venerate priests 305; in Murom - Archimandrite Anthony of the Spassky Monastery, who wrote in defense of old books against newly printed ones; in the Cyril Monastery, Elder Joasaph, who, having left his monastery, wandered through the deserts and scattered false teaching everywhere; within the limits of Vladimir - someone Fr. John, who was a typesetter at the printing house under Patr. Joseph and now moving from place to place to stir up everyone against the newly printed books: within the Nizhny Novgorod region - a monk of the Bizyukovsky monastery - monk Ephraim Potemkin, who lived in the desert and with his suggestions against the newly corrected books attracted many from the Church; a monk of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery - Elder Abraham, who deliberately came to Moscow and submitted a petition to the sovereign against Nikon 306; in the Solovetsky monastery - Hieromonk Theoktist, who lived there in exile and wrote the word “0 Antichrist and about his secret kingdom” 307; Elder Gerasim Firsov, who wrote a message to his brother about folding his fingers for the sign of the cross 308; Elder Epiphanius, who, having left his monastery, wandered through various deserts in order to arouse opposition to the church authorities everywhere, and, having reached Moscow, here submitted to the sovereign a petition and a book of complaint against the imaginary innovators 309. Moreover: even one of the Russian bishops, namely Alexander of Vyatka, although he himself was present and signed at the Moscow Council of 1656, which approved the book of the Tablet and everything in it, however, in 1663 he sent to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich a letter of complaint against Nikon, condemning in it the correction of the symbol and in general liturgical books and the improvement of church ranks 310. Thus, over the course of eight years, while Nikon was away from church affairs and another patriarch was not elected in his place, the schism managed to spread throughout Russia, 311 and although apparently he was not cut off from the Church by spiritual authority, he was internally already completely separated from it. The most accurate picture of the state of schism in our country at that time was drawn by modern Russian archpastors in the following words: “for the sake of our sin, by God’s allowance, the co-conspirator of our Christian Orthodox family and the hater of the devil by the fight of many ignorant people, not just from the simple, but also from the saints and monks, has been corrupted by the great ignorance of the divine scriptures and the mind, Ovi, and in the form of reverence and an imaginary virtuous life, which appears to be fasting and virtue, is full of all nonsense and self-important wisdom, which, imagining itself to be a wise fool, is imagining itself out of jealousy and such possessing jealousy, but not according to reason, having disturbed many souls of the unconfirmed, oh orally, visually and in writing, speaking and writing, as Satan whispered to them: for the printed books of the Naritsa, newly corrected and newly translated under Nikon, the former Patriarch, were heretical and corrupt, and the rites of the church, even corrected from the Greek and ancient Russian books, slandered, the blasphemous names of the Naritsa are false, and humiliating the entire rank and dignity of the bishop, and disturbing the people with his rioting, and saying that the churches were not churches, bishops were not bishops, priests were not priests, and their other such whoredoms. And for this reason, for the sake of their tares of the devil, the priests neglected all church decorum and care, about which the word will be given on the day of God’s terrible justice, and the books newly translated and newly corrected printed under Nikon, the former patriarch, and after his departure, began to disdain and according to them I do not fulfill the divine words, and prosphoras, on which a life-giving four-pointed cross is depicted, according to the tradition of the eastern saints of the Church, in the divine priestly service I did not receive the priest, but out of complete ignorance I received the priest with just a prosphora, on which is depicted a life-giving cross with a foot and head Adamley and with the inscription in blue: “Behold, the lamb of God, take away the sins of the whole world”; not knowing that the lamb is not the image of the cross, and not every prosphora before the action and after the action will be called the Lamb of God, but the withdrawn part of a single prosphora in remembrance of the Lord, this exact part will be called the Lamb of God. And for the sake of much priestly ignorance and negligence about the flock of Christ entrusted to them, and lack of diligence and lack of concern for all church deanery, and their disorderly life for the sake of life, many Christians were absent from church entry and prayer, and for their sins they repented and confessed, and were deprived of receiving the most pure body and blood of Christ; those who were able in their houses began to keep widowed priests without the blessing and without the testimony of the bishop, and some of those priests, many of them under prohibition and expelled from their bishops, served in the house and pleased the rebellious saints of the Eastern Church, who did not want to listen to the singing in the churches, where it is performed according to the corrected printed books according to custom saints of the Eastern Church; Many people have previously expressed the opinion that the churches, rites, sacraments, and successions of the church have been defiled by many heresies and the filth of Antichrist; I was tempted about the correction of the holy symbol, and about the three-pronged alleluia, about the sign of the honorable and life-giving cross, about the folding of the first three fingers, and about the Jesus Prayer and others 312. When it came to this, when Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich began to receive petitions from all sides against Nikon and the newly printed books, when he saw that, despite neither the private convictions on the part of the archpastors who ruled the Church, nor the private imprisonments and other punishments of the schismatic teachers 313 , in some places open uprisings began to appear against the authorities of the church and civil 314 : then he decided to convene a council of Russian archpastors in the reigning city of Moscow “against the newly emerged schismatics and rebels of the holy Orthodox-Catholic Church.” The council began in February 1666 and had eleven sessions 315. At the first meeting, which was attended only by the assembled saints in the Patriarchal Chamber of the Cross 316, they agreed not to begin judgments about schism and rebellion, but to first decide whether they themselves agreed on the main grounds for judgments on this subject. And therefore, first of all, the Nice-Tsargrad Creed was read in its newly corrected form. When it turned out that everyone was in agreement and unanimous in the adoption of this symbol, then three questions were proposed for discussion. First: how to think about the most holy patriarchs of Greece, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem - are they Orthodox, living under the rule of the great persecutor of the Christian name? Second: how to look at the Greek books, printed and ancient manuscripts, used by the patriarchs and all priests in worship - are they righteous and reliable? Third: how to recognize the council that took place in Moscow under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon in 1654 (which determined to begin correcting books and church rites) - is it a righteous council? Everyone answered these questions unanimously, and each of those present wrote and signed with his own hands that he recognizes the Greek patriarchs, the Greek books they used, and the Moscow Council of 1654 as Orthodox. At the end of the scroll, thus sealed, the fathers inscribed the very creed read at the beginning of the meeting. At the second meeting, which took place already on the 29th day of April in the dining room of the royal chamber, in the presence of the sovereign himself and his synclite, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich first made a speech in which, mentioning the newly emerged schism and its successes, he asked the fathers to turn all their attention to this important matter, and then, reading publicly as “an excellent and advantageous tool for eradicating schisms, the book Chryzobul,” sent by four ecumenical patriarchs to Tsar Theodore Ioannovich on the occasion of the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, asked those present: do they contain the symbol and other dogmas as written in the book they read? Pitirim, Metropolitan of Novgorod, answered on behalf of everyone: we believe and maintain everything as the most holy Eastern Patriarchs wrote in it and confirmed it with their seals, and we have neither to add anything to it, nor to take away, nor to change. In subsequent meetings, which all took place in the Patriarchal Chamber of the Cross and at which the Tsar himself was not present, the council was exclusively concerned with the schism and the teachers of schism. At the third meeting, Bishop Alexander of Vyatka appeared before the council, confessed that he really wrote against the newly printed books, asked for admonition and, having seen the truth, brought repentance and “to those who prevail not in the rebels, but in the truth.” Archpriest Avvakum appeared at the fourth meeting: this, despite all the convictions of the fathers, not only did not want to submit, but boldly “reproached the entire sacred cathedral, calling everyone unorthodox,” - therefore he was anathematized, deprived of the priesthood (on the 13th day of May) and, after new vain exhortations to convert, the city court exiled him to imprisonment in the Pustoyezersky prison. At the fifth meeting, Nikita’s petition was read, he himself was convinced by the bishops and finally, as stubborn and bitter, he was anathematized, deprived of his dignity and exiled to the Ugreshsky-Nikolaevsky Monastery, from where, however, he soon sent a letter of repentance to the council and was accepted into church communion. Deacon Theodore appeared at the sixth meeting, was also persuaded in vain, was anathematized, defrocked and exiled to the Ugreshsky-Nikolaevsky monastery, from where, following the example of Nikita, he sent the “penitential scripture” 317, but soon again turned to the schism and, after new admonitions, was deprived of blasphemous language by the city court and exiled to the Pustoyezersky prison. At the seventh meeting, monk Ephraim Potemkin brought sincere repentance of his previous errors and received permission from the fathers. At the eighth meeting, Hieromonk Sergius and Elder Serapion, the former Smolensk archpriest, also repented and received permission. At the ninth meeting, Lazarus’s petition was read; he himself was persuaded for a long time to turn to the truth, and then he was given several months to think. In the tenth, they brought repentance - Hieromonk Gregory (in the world John Neronov), abbot of the Chrysostom Monastery Feoktist, Solovetsky elder Gerasim Firsov, archimandrite of the Spassky Murom Monastery Anthony, hieromonk Abraham from the Nizhny Novgorod region and abbot of the Bizyukovsky Monastery Sergius Saltykov. At the last, eleventh meeting, the fathers of the cathedral wrote and signed (July 2, 1666) a general instruction to the clergy on the occasion of the schism, which was sent throughout Russia. Here they first of all convinced the spiritual to submit in everything without any doubt to St. Eastern Church and use newly corrected books during worship with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Nikon and after him with the blessing of the consecrated cathedral; further they taught private rules regarding the printing of prosphoras with a four-pointed cross, regarding the sacraments of baptism, anointing, the Eucharist, regarding the folding of fingers for the sign of the cross and a name blessing, the Jesus Prayer, the three-pronged alleluia, etc. In addition, this same council of Russian saints reviewed and printed (May 7, 1666)* against the schismatics the book “The Rod of Government, Confirmation, Punishment, Execution,” compiled by Simeon of Polotsk, in which the two most important petitions of schismatic teachers, priest Nikita and priest Lazarus, were exposed point by point, and issued** a limit or definition regarding newly printed books, which, among other things, says: “We, the Great Russian state, all the bishops, metropolitans, archbishops, and from other spiritual ranks, especially men, archimandriti and abbess and archpriest, having gathered in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber, tested in detail, over a long period of time, newly corrected and newly translated printed books and old charatenic Slavic Russian handwritten, and nothing is obstinate or corrupted, or contrary to our Orthodox faith in the newly corrected, newly translated printed books found, but everything is in accordance with the old Slavic-Russian charatean books: in them we see the holy symbol without a pretext (true), as in the newly printed ones it was corrected and printed, and alleluia is written in a row three times, “alleluia Alleluia Alleluia,” also “glory to Thee, God,” and about the sign of the honorable cross (that is, about the folding of the first three fingers of the right hand), and about the Jesus Prayer, and about the rite of the holy liturgy, and so on, everything is according to the old Slavic-Russian charate books found in the same way as in the corrected printed books. Zane Nikon, the former patriarch, ordered the books to be corrected and translated not by himself, but by the command of our most pious sovereign, the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Great, Little and White Russia, with the blessing and advice and will of the most holy ecumenical patriarchs, and the consent of the bishops of the entire Russian state and the entire consecrated council, from the Greek and ancient Slavic-Russian charatean books, the council decided to correct which ancient Slavic-Russian charatean books and we ourselves have now tested and examined in detail, under the most pious, quiet, great sovereign, our Tsar and Grand Duke Alexy Mikhailovich, autocrat of all great and small and white Russia, and under with all his royal bright sigklit, in his royal highest plates, who offered and what and testified: of which some and all the priests of the reigning city of Moscow conciliarly showed in the patriarchal cross plate, in which is written the holy symbol without a pretext (true), alleluia in a row three times, the same “glory to Thee God,” and all the rest, as well as in corrected printed books" 318. Thus, the judgment of the Russian Church regarding the newly printed books and the newly emerged schism was pronounced clearly and decisively by the council of its archpastors and shepherds: Providence wanted this judgment to be further confirmed by the voice of the eastern archpastors and become, as it were, a general verdict of the Orthodox-Catholic Church. A few months later (November 2, 1667), Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch, who had authority from the other two patriarchs - Constantinople and Jerusalem, arrived in Moscow. They, together with a council of Russian and Greek saints, tried and condemned (December 1–12) Patriarch Nikon, charged him with many crimes, for which he was deprived of his rank; but no one accused Nikon that he had spoiled church liturgical books when printing them, damaged the old faith and old rituals, although this guilt alone would have been sufficient to condemn him. Moreover: after a few years the Moscow Cathedral of 1666 presented to the Eastern patriarchs all his definitions about the schism and newly printed books - and the patriarchs fully approved of these definitions and said: “the newly translated and corrected printed books are right and agree with our Greek books.” A new patriarch, Joasaph, was elected (Feb. 10) for Moscow: the same definitions were presented to him, and he, for his part, blessed them and approved them. Then the council of all the patriarchs who were in Moscow, metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, Greek and Russian, and other clergy issued a general conciliar command and testament, which commanded Russian Orthodox Christians: a) to submit in everything, without any doubt or controversy, to St. Eastern and Apostolic Church of Christ; b) accept and use during divine services books printed under Nikon, the former patriarch, and after his departure, with the blessing of the consecrated council: “they have been rightly corrected”; c) use St. symbol without preposition: “true”; d) pronounce the alleluia three times in certain places, with the addition: glory to Thee, O God; e) make the sign of the cross with the first three fingers of the right hand: “for this is what all the peoples of Christianity have, who are in Orthodoxy from East to West”; f) say the Jesus Prayer in church singing and in a general meeting like this: “Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us,” and in private, as anyone wishes; g) print prosphora with a four-pointed cross; h) maintain church and monastery rites according to the legend of St. Apostles and St. Fathers; i) pastors to bless Christians with a name-based blessing. “We commend this conciliar command and testament to all the above-mentioned Orthodox rites,” it is said in conclusion, and we command everyone to invariably preserve and repent of the saints of the Eastern Church. If someone does not listen to those commanded from us and does not submit to the holy eastern Church and this consecrated cathedral, or begins to contradict and resist us: and we, by the authority given to us by the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, will cast out and expose him to all sacred rites and to grace and curse; If we are from the worldly rank, we are excommunicated and alienated from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and we are cursed and anathematized, as a heretic and rebellious, and we are cut off from the Orthodox community and flock and from the Church of God, as it is rotten and indecent, until it comes to its senses and returns to the truth by repentance.” This is when the final verdict was pronounced on the Russian schism and its complete cutting off from the Church was carried out by the highest church authority! This was in the summer from the creation of the world 7175, from the incarnation of God the Word 1667, indict 5, the month of May on the 13th day. The conciliar act, then signed by all those present, was placed in the Moscow Cathedral “for eternal confirmation and eternal memory” 319. Not limiting themselves to the general command and testament, the fathers of the council also paid attention to the specifics of the matter. Since the schismatics based their teaching on double-fingeredness and on the special alleluia mainly on the book - Stoglavnik, which the general opinion then adopted at the council that was under Metropolitan Macarius, and on the life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov: then the fathers of the present council, having no reason to enter into the investigation of the authenticity or non-authenticity of the said book, determined only: “the council that took place under the pious great sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilyevich, autocrat of all Russia, from Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, and what was written about the sign of the honorable of the cross, that is, about the folding of two fingers, and about the special alleluia and so on, which was written unreasonably in simplicity and ignorance in the book of Stoglav, and the oath that we unrighteously laid without reasoning, we are the Orthodox patriarch... and the entire consecrated council resolve that unrighteous and reckless oath of Makariev and that council and we destroy, and that cathedral is not a cathedral and we take an oath of nothing, as if it never existed... Moreover, we command: and about the hedgehog that was written in the life of the Monk Euphrosynus from the writer’s sleepy dream of a special alleluia, but no one believes it, because all that lying writing is from a flattering and deceitful writer, written for delusion by pious people.” To further establish these definitions and to enlighten those who were in error, the council issued an answer in which many examples from church history showed that subsequent councils often exposed and corrected the imperfect rules of the previous ones, and that the following. One should not be tempted if even now some of the decrees of the hundred-domed council have been exposed and corrected, especially since this council took place, contrary to the custom of the Orthodox Church, without the knowledge and without any participation of the eastern high priests and was not witnessed by them. And Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius, for their part, published an interpretation about alleluia, about making the sign of the cross and other things, where they revealed in detail the foundations of the Orthodox teaching on these subjects and refuted the schismatic foundations, and in particular showed the absurdities of the life of Euphrosinov and the falsity of the evidence assimilated by the schismatics to Meletius, Theodoret and Maximus the Greek 320 . In addition to this, the same patriarchs issued several more rules and commands, in which, among other things, they commanded to perform religious processions against the sun, and not in the salt way (right 12), again prohibited, as a forgery, the writing about double-fingered, printed with the following psalter and other books during the days of the patriarchs. Joseph (-22), and approved for use the service book, corrected under Patr. Nikon and now again attested and partly corrected by the entire consecrated cathedral and printed in 1668 321, Tablet, published by Patr. Nikon, the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius, printed in the Tablet, and the book - The Rod of Government, published against the schismatics (rights 24–27). As for the schism teachers themselves, who were tried and condemned by the Moscow Council of 1666, such as Archpriest Avvakum and Deacon Theodore: then the most holy patriarchs, together with the new council, confirmed their condemnation with their consent (right 27); and priests Nikita and Lazar, about whom the matter was not yet completed, now one (Nikita) was accepted into church communion as having brought repentance, the other was defrocked and anathematized (July 17, 1666), as unrepentant, and then by the city court he was stripped of his blasphemous language and imprisoned in the Pustozersky prison 322. We think that anyone who thinks without prejudice will agree, based on what we have said, to accept the following two indisputable conclusions. First: the separation of the Russian schism from the Orthodox Church occurred and was accomplished jointly and inseparably with the correction of church liturgical books, begun under Patr. Nikon. The first voice of the schism was heard in Moscow in 1654 at a council, which recognized the need for the correction of books and blessed its beginning. A more open and extensive revelation of the schism not only in Moscow, but also in different countries of Russia followed as soon as the first newly corrected printed books were sent out: the service book, the Tablet and others (1655–1665). The solemn condemnation of the schism of the Russian Church itself was pronounced in 1666 at a council, which also pronounced solemn approval of newly printed books. The final cutting off of the schism from the Orthodox Church was accomplished in 1667 by a general council of Eastern and Russian archpastors, which finally approved the newly printed books. Conclusion two: the correction of the books and the condemnation of the schism occurred and was accomplished in the most legal, best way. This was not the work of a private individual or a hierarch, but of entire councils, and not only Russian councils, but also Greek ones - a matter that was finally considered and approved by such a council, at which representatives of the entire Orthodox-Catholic Church were present. What did the schismatics themselves say and say against such correction of books and condemnation of the schism? 1. First of all, they blasphemed and blasphemed Patriarch Nikon, claiming that he, an apostate from Orthodoxy, an enemy of Christ, the forerunner of the Antichrist, deliberately tried with his disciples and like-minded people to spoil the old fatherly faith and, under the pretext of correcting books, introduced into them various Latin and other heretical novelties for the destruction of human souls 323. But all these blasphemies are completely unfair: a) Nikon, as we have seen, began to correct the books out of the purest motives, with the best intentions, and began the work in the most legal way; b) the continuers of what Nikon began, as soon as he left Moscow, were not any of his students or like-minded people devoted to him, but for the most part his ill-wishers and enemies (at the head of all Pitirim Krutitsky), who openly rebelled against him, wanted to deprive him of his dignity, but could not help but sympathize with the book correction he began: c) Nikon, as a person, could and did have various shortcomings, for which he was condemned by the council; but none of his enemies even accused him of deviating from Orthodoxy, of spoiling the old faith and old books; on the contrary, the same council that condemned Nikon approved all the newly corrected books; d) Nikon proved in word and deed that he did not sympathize with Latinism or Armenianism and the like; on the contrary, he strictly armed himself against everything that bore even the shadow of Latinism and non-Orthodoxy in general 324; e) Nikon cared only about destroying in our liturgical books various novelties that had crept into them out of ignorance, and generally agreeing these books in everything with Greek and Orthodox books, and not about introducing Latin or any other novelties into them. Nikon is reproached for the fact that, when correcting the books, he chose as his assistant and translator Arseny the Greek, a man allegedly extremely depraved and who apostatized from Orthodoxy three times 325. But - a) no matter how Greek Arseny is in faith and morality, what is required of the translator is that he be able to translate well and correctly - and Arseny knew both the Greek and Slavic languages ​​perfectly; b) Arseny could not maliciously spoil anything in the books and introduce into them anything heretical from himself: because the book he translated under Nikon - the Tablet - was examined with all the attention by the whole council and approved; c) Arseny was not the only one elected as a reference and translator of books, but along with him, Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, Damascene and others, truly Orthodox and pious men, were also called; d) translated or corrected under Patr. Nikon's books are important and accepted by the Church not because they were translated and corrected by Arsenius the Greek or anyone else, pious or impious, but because they were examined and approved by the councils. In order to further humiliate Nikon and make him out to be some kind of monster, they repeat various fables about him that do not deserve the slightest trust. They say, for example, that once, when Nikon, who was still a hieromonk at the Anzer monastery, was performing the liturgy, the Rev. Eleazar of Anzersky saw a snake entwined around his neck and exclaimed: “Oh, what kind of troublemaker and rebel does Russia harbor within itself?” 326, - while in the life of Eleazar himself it is said on the contrary that he then saw not a snake, but an omophorion around Nikon’s neck, and predicted his appointment to the priesthood. They also say that the Novgorod Metropolitan Affony, who lived in retirement in the Khutyn Monastery, disliked his successor Nikon so much, seeing in him a future apostate, that “even after his repose, Nikon did not order his body to be buried, but the Pskov archbishop, on his orders, buried his body” 327. Meanwhile, it is reliably known from a letter from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself that Nikon was not in Novgorod when Affonius died, having been sent to the Solovetsky Monastery for the relics of St. Philip, and that the tsar ordered the Pskov Archbishop Macarius to bury Affonius only because it would have been a long time to wait for Nikon 328. They also say that Nikon so disrespected the eight-pointed cross that he trampled it with his feet and ordered an image of it to be made on the soles of his velvet shoes 329 . Meanwhile, look at Nikon’s own letters: you will often see at the beginning or at the end of them equally eight-pointed and four-pointed crosses 330. Look at Nikon’s patriarchal seal, which he imprinted twice in his very Tablet, so hated by the schismatics: here too you will see an eight-pointed cross. Finally, who doesn’t know that to this day, in the Cross Monastery created by Nikon near the White Sea, there is a large cypress cross with many relics, which Nikon built when he was already patriarch in 1656? And this cross is eight-pointed! And on it, Nikon inscribed, among other things, the following prayer words: “Christ God! Have mercy and save my soul by the power of your honorable and life-giving cross” 331. 2. They have blasphemed and blasphemed the Eastern high priests and the Eastern Church in general, claiming that they, being under the yoke of infidels, have lost the Orthodox faith. But it is remarkable that the first to spread this blasphemy were the former reference books under St. Joseph - Avvakum, Nikita, Theodore and others - and they began precisely when they saw that in the Eastern Church the innovations that they introduced into the printed Moscow books were not at all recognized, and the Eastern high priests directly rejected these innovations and completely sympathized with Nikon in his book corrections. And before, these same references said something completely different about the Eastern Church, and in a book about the faith they published in 1648, they published the following about it: “Just as in ancient times, so now the Jerusalem Church is the source of Christian teaching and the mother of all churches... If anyone says resist, as if it was so from the beginning, but now I will conquer all that holy place of filth, and everything has already been trampled upon bysha. To these words with the prophet Isaiah I make an answer: for my anger I struck you, and for the sake of mercy I loved you... According to these words of the contrary, after the ascension of the Lord, even before the great Constantine, after 300 years, the true church in Jerusalem and below in Rome did not gain possession for the sake of the tormentors of the kings. But this is contrary to all Holy Scripture: because for the sake of worldly power, the Church and the holy place were not destroyed... For this reason, everyone who knows about this, who is not now part of the Zionist confession and does not have relatives in Jerusalem in the faith, will not be like having heavenly things” (chapter 1, l. 12 and 14 vol.). And further: “the holy eastern Church found in Gretsekh, by the right royal path, even if it is narrow, but in both cases, from Jesus Christ our God and Savior and His true heirs, neither to the right nor to the left, without turning aside from the path, it forwards its sons to the heavenly Jerusalem, in the patience of the cross given by the Lord God; and in none of the establishments of his Savior, and His blessed disciple, and the saints of the Father of tradition, and the seven ecumenical councils gathered by the Holy Spirit, does not violate the statute, nor cancels, and does not retreat in the slightest part, neither adding nor subtracting anything, but like the sun, with a single ray of truth, always, even while in captivity, shines with right faith. And so that it is better, an Orthodox Christian, to the extent that they can have knowledge, like a flock of God's sheep living in Greece, even if they are physically sensitive, they endure bondage from the physical and sensory enemy, but they preserve the true faith and their pure and undefiled conscience to the King of all kings and to God: it is wrong for the Turks to take away from faith and from church ranks, just tribute They accept a penny from the Greeks, but they care nothing less about spiritual matters and reverence and do not enter into that. And just as the people of God, when they were in Egyptian work, did not lose their faith, and the first Christians, who were in grave captivity for three hundred years, did not destroy their faith: in the same way, at the present time, in Turkish captivity, Christians observe the Orthodox faith in their work. And whoever would like to understand this better, I enclose here the words from the epistle of the holy memory of Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria, written to our borders in the summer of 1597, which, regarding the decree of the present Church of God, in future Greece, these words testify to the truth: or do not you be surprised at this, for in the east, even if the kingdom Is it refuted, but the Orthodox faith stands and remains indestructible by the will of God? We believe that the merciful God never abandons his servants, that Christian piety shines most brightly and clearly, and that especially in temptation without a kingdom it spreads, if the grace of God reigns perfectly, in the midst of godless tormentors, and that the king flourishes among thorns, receiving power not with human wisdom, as if by cunning They say that it is neither riches nor strengthened by force, but protected by the very hand of God. Or is this great thing that you see unworthy of surprise? Here are the words of Meletius the Patriarch” (chapter 2, l. 27 vol.–29). Here is the best answer to all schismatics, ancient and new, who dare to condemn the Eastern Church! On the other hand, the schismatics themselves claim that the patriarchs - Jeremiah of Constantinople, who installed (in 1589) our first patriarch Job, and Theophanes of Jerusalem, who installed (in 1619) our third patriarch Philaret, were completely Orthodox 332. But, after all, these patriarchs, together with the churches subordinate to them, suffered under the yoke of the same infidels, and, moreover, one came to us only 64 years before Nikon, the other only 33. How could Jeremiah and Theophan remain in Orthodoxy, although the Eastern Church had been under the yoke of Mohammedanism for about a century and a half, and their closest successors, and in such a short period of time, managed to become non-Orthodox from the same yoke? Finally, the schismatics themselves admit that the Patriarch of Constantinople Athanasius, who came to Moscow even under Nikon, was completely Orthodox, that he denounced Nikon’s innovations, and not like his successor, Patriarch Paisius, who sympathized with Nikon, and not like the Patriarchs of Antioch and Serbia, who completely shared his thoughts. From what is it clear that he denounced? From this, they answer that Nikon did not invite Athanasius to his councils, where he was supposed to preside, as he should have, although he was still in Moscow in 1655, but invited only like-minded patriarchs of Antioch and Serbia 333. So, therefore, the schismatics feel the need for at least one Eastern high priest to be on their side! But, alas, they are wrong here too. Nikon did not invite Athanasius to his councils, which took place in 1655 and 1656, but invited only the Patriarchs of Antioch and Serbia for the simplest reason - because the former was no longer in Moscow at that time, and the latter were: from the modern Palace record it is clear that the Tsargrad Patriarch Athanasius, who later died in Lubny, was with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on vacation on the 13th day of December 7162 (1653–4) 334. Moreover, we must remember that St. Athanasius, when he came to Russia, no longer occupied the throne of Constantinople and another patriarch, Paisius, sat in his place; track. inviting Athanasius to preside at councils would be contrary to church canons and insulting to the actual Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius, to whom Nikon turned as the legitimate high priest of the Eastern Church after the Moscow Council of 1654. 3. They blasphemed and blasphemed the very Greek books, according to which our Russians were consulted under Nikon, claiming that the ancient Greek books, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, were taken to Rome and burned by the Latins, and the later ones, since they were printed in Venice and other Roman cities, were damaged and filled with Latin errors 335. But if indeed (which, however, cannot be proven) any Greek books, even many, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, were burned in Rome: still it cannot be allowed that then all the books that before the invasion of the Turks were used for worship throughout the entire Greek Church could be deliberately collected, so that millions of Greeks who remained under the yoke of infidels would not retain numerous lists of these books, without which it would be impossible for them to send their worship services. Patr. Nikon actually testified that in his days the Greeks still had quite a lot of ancient manuscripts, when, through Arseny Sukhanov and other means, he managed to collect more than 700 Greek books on Mount Athos and in different countries of the East, some of which dated back 500, 600 and even 1000 years. If, finally, the printed Greek books, and moreover, all of them (which also cannot be proven) were actually damaged by the Latins during printing, no harmful influence on the correction of our Slavic books could come from this. Nikon corrected them not according to printed Greek, but according to ancient handwritten ones, which he collected in such quantities, and together with ancient handwritten Slavic ones, which could not be damaged by the Latins. 4. The schismatics have maintained and continue to maintain that on their side in the days of Nikon, besides Paul of Kolomna, there were three more hierarchs: Macarius, Metropolitan of Novgorod, Markell, Archbishop of Vologda, and Alexander, Bishop of Vyatka 336. But Macarius signed not only the acts of the council of 1654, which recognized the need to correct the books, but also the definitions of the council of 1656, which approved the book of the Tablet and all the articles printed in it against the schismatics, in particular - the anathema to the zealots of the double-fingered sign of the cross; Markell signed the definitions of the same council of 1656 337 - and both the first and the last were in church communion with Nikon, received from him patriarchal letters, in which he called them his sons and fellow servants about St. Dus and taught them his blessing 338. “They,” they say, “signed to the acts of the conciliar only out of fear, and then secretly in their dioceses patronized the followers of the old faith and rituals” 339. But how can we prove all this? No evidence is provided. And what are these zealots of the old faith who were afraid to speak openly for it and deceived both one and the other?... Alexander, Bishop of Vyatka, as we have seen, actually at first even wrote against Nikon and the correction of books, but then, when he was admonished at the council of 1666, he repented sincerely, began to fight for the truth and signed up to the definitions of the council of 1667, which finally condemned the schism and approved the newly corrected books 340. 5. They praised and continue to praise their first teachers: Habakkuk, Lazarus, Loggin, Theodore and others, calling them wise mentors, wondrous zealots of the ancient faith, great sufferers who innocently tasted cruel torment and death from the Nikonians 341. But if, without any prejudice, we judge these persons on the basis of some of the writings and reliable historical news that have survived from them, we must admit that they were pitiful, semi-literate ignoramuses who had the most confused or completely false concepts about the truths of faith and other subjects 342, and yet imagined themselves to be great sages 343; that in their blindness they were jealous not for the ancient faith, but only for their favorite, recently arisen opinions, which they did not know how to distinguish from dogmas and were included in printed books; Moreover, they were jealous not so much out of attachment to opinions, but out of hatred for P. Nikon, who dismissed them from the post of inspectors and blasphemed the books they printed. – It must be admitted that these were extremely daring and stubborn people, who insulted their patriarch in the most brazen way, openly reviled all the Eastern and Russian high priests as heretics and disciples of the Antichrist, did not obey any instructions, convictions, commands, neither conciliar nor royal 344, allowed themselves to shamelessly insult the shrine 345, indignant the people against the power of the church both civil and for all this they suffered well-deserved punishments. They complained and are complaining unfairly about the severity of executions: we must remember the importance of the crimes, the tenacity and unrepentance of the criminals, and on the other hand, the spirit of the time, the rudeness of the then morals and the city laws in force at that time, according to which the trial of these unfortunates was actually carried out, after their excommunication by the Church. And such and such people, who remained blinded and stubborn to the end, will be followed by the so-called Old Believers! But they do not want to follow other, more worthy of their first teachers, who at first were jealous no less than Habakkuk or Lazarus according to imaginary antiquity, but then, admonished by the council of shepherds, sincerely repented and died their days in communion with the Orthodox Church, which were: Archpriest John Nero, in monasticism Hieromonk Gregory, Archimandrite of the Spassky Murom Monastery Anthony, abbot of the Bizyukovsky monastery Sergius Saltykov, abbot of the Chrysostom monastery Feoktist, elder of the Solovetsky monastery Gerasim Firsov and many others 346. Oh, God would grant that, following the example of these people, the current followers of Habakkuk would come to their senses! Chapter II. An open uprising of schism against ecclesiastical and civil authorities: the Solovetsky and Streletsky revolts A schism, by its very essence, is already resistance to church power, and sometimes together to civil power, acting in concert with the church. And our schismatics, as soon as they appeared, and even before they were condemned by the councils, were already opposing church and civil authorities: because they did not want to accept the newly corrected books, which were published by church authority and sent out under royal decrees. But at first the leaders of the schism imagined that they were actually rebelling against one patriarch. Nikon, who was considered an apostate who planned to distort the old faith, and not at all against the authority of the church or civil: therefore, they sent their petitions directly to Nikon and submitted them to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in the hope that he, with other hierarchs, would condemn Nikon as a corrupter of the old faith, and abolish the new books. Now, when it turned out that the Council of Russian Hierarchs in 1666, convened by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to consider the schism and his petitions, condemned the most petitioners and schism teachers, on the contrary, they fully approved the newly corrected books; when they saw that the great council of 1667, consisting of not only Russian but also Greek hierarchs, confirmed the same definition and finally condemned the schism with its followers: the schismatics dared to openly rebel against the authority of the church and the tsar and act by force. Such uprisings were found mainly in two places: in the north of Russia - in the Solovetsky Monastery and then in Moscow itself. I. The beginning of the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery dates back to 1656, when, by royal decree, the first newly corrected liturgical books were sent to the monastery 347. Carried away by the false rumors that Avvakum's accomplices were then spreading everywhere about the depravity of these books, the Solovetsky monks resolutely did not want to accept them, and then, although they accepted them on the conviction of their abbot, Archimandrite Elijah, they sealed them in chests and placed them in the monastery armory, while they themselves continued to perform services using the old books 348 . So about ten years passed, and this first spark of schism, perhaps little by little, would have extinguished by itself in the Solovetsky Monastery, as it extinguished in some other places, if special circumstances had not favored it here. At that time, up to 150 people were exiled here, partly as punishment, partly for admonition, who opposed various civil reforms of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the correction of church books 349: among those exiled were Prince Lvov, who was the head of the printing house at the village. Joseph, the main like-minded person of Habakkuk and his brethren, and Elder Theoktist, who even wrote here, in favor of the schism, a book about the Antichrist and his kingdom 350. Some other disciples of Avvakum and Lazarus also flocked here of their own accord, as to a more distant and safe refuge, such as Archimandrite Savvina Monastery Nikanor, who came to the Solovetsky monastery to retire, and meanwhile became one of the most zealous participants in its indignation 351. Here, our own monks appeared, who not only sympathized with the thoughts of schism, but even wrote in their defense, such as the elders already known to us - Gerasim Firsov and Epiphanius 352. Finally, many Cossacks from the gang of the villain Stenka Razin came running here from Astrakhan, hiding from persecution by the law. These latter, as soon as they entered the monastery, took away all power from the brotherhood, monks and Beltsy; They appointed themselves as chiefs Thaddeus the Tanner Borodin and Ivan Sarafanov and, having met among the inhabitants of the monastery many who were dissatisfied with the Tsar and imbued with thoughts of schism, “they began to be in everything contrary to not only the Holy Church with blasphemies, but also did not want to have the pious Tsar as their Sovereign. Jealous, apparently, of the old fatherly faith, they flatteringly said to others: “Stand by, brothers, for the true faith and do not be baptized with three fingers”; and they themselves were only waiting for an opportunity to kill the entire brethren of the monastery, take possession of its ancient, rich treasures and run away wherever they could 353. These are the people who stole all the power over the Solovetsky monastery and were the first and main culprits of the Solovetsky rebellion. Of the monks, only a few stuck to them; and the others were deprived of any opportunity to resist them. Hearing about such unrest in the Solovetsky monastery, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich demanded (in 1666) its rector, Archimandrite Bartholomew, to Moscow, where a council against schismatics was then taking place 354: the brethren, or more precisely, the Cossacks, who managed everything in the monastery, sent Archimandrite Nikanor along with Bartholomew, hoping that he, like the former the confessor of the kings, will tame the just anger of the Monarch against the monastery and ask its residents for permission to stick to the old church books and not accept new ones. Bartholomew in Moscow was appointed to be transferred to another monastery (the Sviyazhskaya Mother of God), and in his place they appointed the builder Joseph, who lived in Moscow at the Solovetsky courtyard, as archimandrite from the Solovetsky tonsures. At first, indeed, Nikanor supposedly interceded with the tsar on behalf of the Solovyans and for permission for them not to accept the newly corrected books; but soon, having been demanded to attend the council of patriarchs and bishops that was then taking place in the reigning city, he himself repented of his error before them and promised to fight in the future in the truth. When Bartholomew and Joseph were then sent to Solovki, one to surrender the monastery, and the other to accept it: Nikanor begged him to be sent there too, “to exhort the Solovetsky fathers to subjugate the patriarch and accept newly printed books.” What happened? As soon as three archimandrites arrived in Solovki (they set off from Moscow on June 10, 1667), and the local residents learned that the new abbot was ordered to serve according to the new missals: they immediately expelled Archimandrites Bartholomew and Joseph from the monastery, and Nikanor, instead of exhorting the disobedient to accept the newly printed books, as he himself had promised, went over to the side of the schism and became the head rebels. The rejected archimandrites had to return to Moscow; the tsar demanded by decree that Archimandrite Nikanor also go to Moscow: he did not want to go, and the Solovyans did not hand him over to the tsar’s envoy 355. At the same time, Archimandrite Sergius of the Spassky Yaroslavl Monastery 356 and with him the priest of the Moscow Cathedral Vasily Fedorov and some others, clergy and secular persons, came to the Solovetsky Monastery, by order of the sovereign and on behalf of the sacred cathedral, to persuade the residents to accept the newly corrected books; The Solovetsky troublemakers did not listen to the new exhorters either, as a result of which the famous Prince Mikhailo Lvov and “in the sovereign’s business” the cellarer Avraamy Abryutin, who were probably considered in Moscow the main culprits of the Solovetsky indignation, were taken from the monastery by the head of the Streltsy Ivan Lopatin, who were specially sent to Moscow. From now on, in the words of the local chronicler, “the turmoil in Solovki began to be greater than before.” Having refused to obey not only the ecclesiastical, but also the royal authorities, the rebels arbitrarily appointed the monk Azarius, who had until then been a simple alarm clock, and the treasurer of the hieromonk Gerontius, as cellarer in Abryutin’s place, and decided to lock himself in the monastery 357. The newly elected cellarer and treasurer, with their like-minded people, hastened to write, as if on behalf of the entire brethren of the monastery, a petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in which they tried to show imaginary deviations from the true faith in newly printed books; they begged him not to send new teachers and new books to them, and threatened to resist him even to death if their desire was not fulfilled: this petition, which was compiled by the treasurer Gerontius himself and read in parts in a meeting of his accomplices, who called him the second Chrysostom for it, and other brethren who were present in captivity 358, was sent to Moscow on the 22nd day of September or October 1668 with the cathedral elder Kirill and two servants 359. Having read the petition and upset to the core by the stubbornness of the rebels, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent the following letter to Solovki: “From the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, the autocrat of all great and small and white Russia, to the Solovetsky monastery, by the cathedral and ordinary elders, who are not opposed to the holy cathedral and apostolic Church and to us the great Obey the sovereign. Known to us by the great Sovereign, it happened that the newly elected Solovetsky Monastery of the Solovetsky Monastery, without our great Sovereign by decree, the cellarer Azarius and the treasurer and their like-minded people of our great Sovereign, by decree and in spirit, our father, shining in Orthodoxy, the holiest of the ecumenical, the cyrus Paiseus, the pope and patriarch of Alexandria and the universal judge, and the cyrus Macarius, Patriarch of God of the city of Antioch and the whole East, and Cyrus Joasaph, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, did not listen to their blessings and expositions and the entire consecrated council, they acted contrary to the holy conciliar and apostolic Church, and Archimandrite Joseph, to whom, according to our great Sovereign decree and with the blessing of them, the most holy ecumenical patriarchs, was sent from The Moscow people in that monastery, having accepted him as the archimandrite in that monastery, did not allow him to be and sent the cathedral elder Kiril and two servants to Moscow with a handwritten petition. And we, the great Sovereign, pointed out: for the reluctance of the newly elected cellarer and treasurer and their like-minded people to the holy cathedral and apostolic Church, and for disobedience to us the great Sovereign and to the most holy ecumenical patriarch, of that Solovetsky monastery the patrimonial villages and villages, and all sorts of salt trades, and in Moscow and in the cities courtyards, with all sorts of factories and with supplies, and salt, the great Sovereign was to assign to us, and from those villages and from villages and from all kinds of money, and grain and all kinds of supplies, and salt, and all kinds of purchases, from Moscow and from the cities they were not ordered to enter that monastery until our great Sovereign decree. Yes, according to our great Sovereign's decree, the centurion of the Moscow archers Vasily Chaduev was sent to the Solovetsky monastery, to Archimandrite Joseph with his brothers, with our great Sovereign and the most holy ecumenical patriarchs with letters about the conversion of the same opponents, and with him the cathedral elder Kirilo and the servants two people who were sent to Moscow were released from Moscow from the Solovetsky monastery hand-written petition. And how they will come to the Solovetsky monastery from our great Sovereign and the most holy ecumenical patriarchs with letters, and you, remembering your monastic promise, will tell the cellarer and the treasurer and their like-minded person to the cellarer and the treasurer and their like-minded people to be in obedience to the archimandrite; and if they do not give up on their rebellion and become disobedient to our great Sovereign’s decree, and you would not listen to them in anything, and our great Sovereign’s decree, for their disobedience and rebellion, will soon be an opponent and disobedient cellarer and treasurer and their like-minded person. Written in Moscow, summer 7176 December on the 27th day" 360. The rebels did not accept Archimandrite Joseph this time either; did not listen to any admonitions; made up a fairy tale about why they did not accept newly printed books, and sent with the centurion Vasily Chaduev a short reply to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in which they informed that they did not accept the archimandrite because he was ordered to serve according to the new service books: they asked to leave them with the old faith and added: “Are you, our great Sovereign, anointed of God, in the former saints of the fathers in the faithful You do not deign to have faith, and you deign to change the books, we ask you for mercy from the Sovereign, have mercy on us, do not order, Sovereign, to send teachers to us in vain, since we will not at all change our previous Orthodox faith and the apostolic tradition and the rank of the venerable father Zosima and Savatius, but ordered, Sovereign, to send your royal sword to us and from transfer us from this rebellious life to that serene and eternal life” 361. Many more exhortations were sent to Solovki from the tsar and especially from the Novgorod Metropolitan Pitirim, who invited even the treasurer Gerontius himself, promising to show him reliable evidence from the ancient charatean books about the cross and other subjects of dispute: but Gerontius was not released from the monastery, and in general all the admonitions remained vain 362 (“*). Then the solicitor Ignatius Volokhov was sent from Moscow with some initial people, so that, taking with him a detachment of one hundred Dvina archers, at least, by fear of weapons, he would persuade the Solovetsky rebels to submit to the will of the Tsar and Patriarch and accept the lawful abbot, Archimandrite Joseph, into the monastery. The rebels drew up a general council, at which they decided that the weak and fearful should leave the monastery in advance (as a result of which some left); and they themselves declared to Volokhov that they would never agree to submit to his demands, and, relying on their large population, on the strong walls of the monastery, on the great food supplies, on the abundance of gunpowder and 90 cannons located in the monastery, they finally locked themselves in it (in 1668 or 1669), and opened fire on the tsar’s army. The instigators of the riot were cellarer Azarius, Archimandrite Nikanor and servant Thaddeus Tanner Borodin and his comrades 363 . It should be noted that no one took part in this riot, except for many, as we will see, who were in the monastery, all the monks and novices who lived in the monastery estates - and there were such people then - in the Sumy prison: the cathedral clerk elder, a cellarer, and six servants; in the Kemsky town and in 22 Usolye: 26 elders, 16 cellars, 181,364 servants and servants. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, having heard about the open Solovetsky indignation, ordered that Archimandrite Joseph of Solovetsky, who temporarily lived (by decree of March 20, 1668) in Vologda at the Solovetsky courtyard, moved to the Sumsky fort and was in charge of all the estates of the Solovetsky monastery: the Sumsky fort, the Kemsky town, 22 fields and all sorts of industries in them 365. He also ordered by decrees to the governors on the Dvina, in the Kola fort and in Vologda and in the name of Archimandrite Joseph, that no one from the monastery estates, or from other surrounding places, should go to the Solovetsky Monastery, even under the guise of a pilgrimage, and should not deliver fish, salt, grain, or any other supplies to the rebels. And Volokhov was ordered (dated September 1, 1669): “and you, with half-heads and archers, hunted down the disobedients, depending on the local case, by all sorts of measures from Zaetsky Island (distanced from the Solovetsky Monastery five miles) and if it were decent, you would move from that island completely to Solovetsky Island; and which elders and lay people from the Solovetsky monastery will teach you to come to you, and you would receive them according to our great Sovereign’s decree and ask who are the names in that monastery now of the disobedient disobedients and their advisers, and who do not want to be with them in the council, and how many of them there are on both sides, and what is the discord between them, and whether they have grain and other food supplies, and how many and How much will they have, and why should they expect poverty and how soon? And having learned this clearly from them, order the monastery to convert and reassure them with all sorts of measures, so that they will renounce disobedience and opposition, and will not be contrary to the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and will be obedient to us, the great Sovereign.”366 Meanwhile, sad events took place in the monastery itself. Even at the beginning of the siege, some, fearing to be disobedient to the powers that be, openly rebelled against the rebels who decided to close the monastery and shoot at the royal army; even the treasurer Gerontius, who once wrote the Solovetsky petition, now wrote “a sentence not to fight against the sovereign’s military men and not to lock up the monastery”: Gerontius and those like him were imprisoned and tortured 367 . Others, “priests and elders and ministers,” not wanting to join the rebellion, asked to be released from the monastery: the rebels did not let them out 368. Some tried to escape secretly: they were caught and kept in captivity 369. Cellarer Azarius and servant Thaddeus Borodin and his comrades, having collected many printed books: gospels, apostles, psalters, books of hours, missals and other Moscow and Kyiv publications, also Greek gospels, apostles, missals and other books - more than two hundred in number, they tore it all to pieces, drowned it in the sea and partly burned it 370. In the remaining, old-written and printed books, with the exception of a few, they made various additions in their schismatic spirit and damages, which were seen and witnessed by contemporaries and can still be seen in some monuments of the Solovetsky library 371. The servant Thaddeus Tanner and his like-minded people for some reason armed themselves against the ancient crosses that had a “proper title” or inscription on them, and cut and burned as many of them as they could find on Solovetsky Island. The monks and elders who dared to expose such outrages were imprisoned in chains and prisons 372. Volokhov spent either in the Sumy fort, 120 versts from the Solovetsky Monastery, or on Zayatsky Island, where he usually came with the archers for three summer months, about four years, and almost without any success; but he still did not approach the monastery itself, either due to the small number of his squad and the lack of large weapons, or due to carelessness and negligence 373. Only in December 1669 did eleven Chernetsy and nine Beltsy people, who had fled from the Solovetsky Monastery, arrive in the Sumy prison; in July of the same year, twelve people were expelled from the monastery to the Sumsky fort by the rebels themselves 374, and in October 1670, two of the main rebels were caught at sea and imprisoned in the Sumsky fort - the cellarer Azariy and the servant Thaddeus Kozhevnik, with thirteen other monks and 23 Belians, who dared to sail from the harbor in armed boats for fishing 375. Volokhov, for his failure to fulfill the assignment, for various willfulness and abuse of the monastery treasury, especially for injustice and cruelty against Archimandrite Joseph, at the end of 1672. was summoned to Moscow 376. Thus ended the first attempt to pacify the Solovetsky rebels! The second one was no less unsuccessful. At the end of 1672, the head of the Moscow archers, Klementy Iovlev, was sent to replace Volokhov. He was given 600 Dvina archers, and he, adding another 125 Sumy and Kem archers, then went to the Solovetsky Monastery. Before the opening of hostilities, he wanted to test the measures of persuasion. For this purpose, he sent the Streltsy centurion Nikifor Poroshin to the rebels with a letter, assuring them that if they submit to the sovereign and the saint. Eastern Church, begin to perform services using the newly corrected printed books and bring repentance to the sovereign and the entire consecrated cathedral, then all their guilt will be forgiven. The rebels did not believe and stood stubbornly, saying that to verify this they would like a letter from the sovereign himself. Iovlev ordered shooting to begin: but soon his service men ran out of gunpowder and lead, and he withdrew with the army from the monastery to the Sumsky fort, where he then usually lived throughout the fall and winter, releasing 500 Dvina archers to their homeland until spring. From the prison, Joblev hastened to inform (from September 19. 1673) of the sovereign about the desire and demand of the rebels; and he wrote about himself that in the spring he was not able to go to the monastery with all the military men: because “there are no guns and gunpowder, and lead, and wick, and for the criminal work of a grenade maker, and there are no grenades” 377 (5v). The Tsar (dated May 12, 1673) sent his letter to the unworthy rebels, in which he solemnly certified that he would forgive all their guilt if only they submitted to him and the consecrated council 378. Meanwhile, Joblev (from the same date) was given a decree: if the rebels do not convert and begin to stand as before, stubbornly, to fix any crowding for them, to build the strongest outposts around the monastery, so that no one from the monastery with anything, and also to the monastery, secretly and openly does not go; however, do not shoot from cannons at the fence and do not do any military work over the monastery; destroy only every building and industry from which the besieged benefit. In the same decree, the king wrote to Joblev that guns and grenades, lead and gunpowder would be delivered to him soon 379 (379). The rebels did not even listen to the royal letter, and Joblev destroyed all their property that was outside the monastery fence: draft animals with a barnyard, buildings in which the monastery servants were housed, and fishermen’s huts with all fishing gear 380 . Soon, Iovlev’s willful intervention in monastic affairs, the management of which, after the transfer of Archimandrite Joseph (in 1673) to the Kazan Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, was entrusted by royal decree to the cathedral elder Joel, who lived in the Sumy prison, as well as the severe scurvy disease to which Iovlev suffered, served as the reason for the fact that by the end of 1673 this chief was recalled to Moscow 381. In September of the following year, a third commander, the governor Prince Ivan Meshcherinov, was appointed for the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, who was ordered to remain at the Solovetsky Monastery relentlessly in order to “eradicate the rebellion soon.” Meshcherinov, as soon as he arrived on the island, having at his disposal about 700 archers and battering guns, immediately got down to business. He dug in his army with trenches, set up several towns or batteries and opened fire from them against the monastery. But with the onset of 1675 (not before October, however), he voluntarily lifted the siege; He himself destroyed the trenches and towns and retired to the Sumy fort, to the extreme chagrin of the sovereign. New and most strict decrees were sent to Meshcherinov so that he would remain at the Solovetsky Monastery relentlessly 382. Meanwhile, in the monastery things went on as usual. There, besides Archimandrite Nikanor, the main leaders of the rebellion were now the new cellarer Nathanael Tugin and the centurions Isachko Voronin and Kemlyanin Samko and their comrades. Archim. Nikanor constantly walked along the monastery towers, censing the cannons and sprinkling water on them, saying: “My mother galanochki, our hope is in you, you will defend us.” Others fired at the royal army, made forays and often destroyed his various enterprises against the monastery. Not content with this, the rebels decided to express their opposition to the Monarch in another way: on December 28, 1674, they drew up a council at which they decided not to pray for the Tsar with his last name in the future, and in general “they spoke such words about the great Sovereign that it is scary not only to write, but even to think.” Treasurer Gerontius, Hieromonk Pavel and others directly opposed this and said that they would not stop praying for the Emperor both in church and in their cells: they were tortured, called heretics, and starved in prison. Less than a year later (Sept. 16. 1675), the rebels again formed a cathedral, at which centurions Isachko and Samko and their comrades announced to cellarer Nathanael, placing their guns on the wall, that they would no longer serve the monastery: because “they did not order the priest to pray to God for the great Sovereign, and the priests do not listen to them and pray to God for the great Sovereign” (this means that none of the clergy of the monastery, even during the its siege, I did not forget my duty to pray for my king!). Nathanael had difficulty persuading the rebels to continue their service, promising to fulfill their will. As a result of this, two hieromonks Mitrofan and Ambrose, who did not want to betray their duty to the sovereign, left the monastery that same night, with the Beltsy Yudka Roguev, and came to Meshcherinov; two other hieromonks, completely faithful to the same duty, namely the treasurer Gerontius and Paul, with their comrades Varlaam, Dionysius and Manasios, were expelled from the monastery the next day (Sept. 17) by the rebels themselves; finally, two more hieromonks Leonty and Sylvester, who only remained in the monastery (so, therefore, there were few clergy in the monastery at that time!), decisively refused church service, so as not to carry out the will of the rebels. Archimandrite Nikanor consoled his fellow conspirators with the words: “We can live without priests, but we don’t need priests.” And indeed, according to eyewitnesses, the worthy companions of the centurions Isachka and Samki did not go to church at all, did not address the clergy, cursed all the priests, calling them heretics and apostates, confessed among themselves in Balti, lived like Sodom, died without repentance and communion, and were buried without a priestly funeral service. Archimandrite Nikanor himself, for five years now, has never been to St. Communion. Christ's mysteries. A deadly scurvy outbreak broke out in the monastery, from which about thirty people died; The rebels, however, did not come to their senses. Two parties formed between the besieged: a strong party, consisting mainly of Balti (there were 300 people in the monastery at that time), who fought against the royal army, demanded that no one pray for the king, and threatened to kill anyone who disagreed with us - and a weak party, consisting mainly of monks (there were still up to 200 of them), who did not want to fight against the royal army, nor stop their prayers for the sovereign, and they were only waiting for the opportunity to kill their opponents and free themselves from their power. Having learned about all this from those who left the monastery in September 1675. 383, Meshcherinov, as soon as the spring of the same year arrived, set off (on the 31st day of May), with 185 archers who were with him, from the Sumsky fort to the Solovetsky Island, and began siege work. In August, about 800 more archers from Dvina and Kholmogory 384 came to him, and he spent the whole autumn and early winter working with them at the monastery. Finally, when everything was prepared, Meshcherinov decided on the 23rd day of December 1676 to make a general attack against the monastery - unfortunately, it was not successful. However, two days later, a monk named Theoktist, from the party of those who did not want to resist the sovereign, appeared to the governor from the monastery, and announced that one could enter the monastery through a secret passage that was in the wall and was now only easily blocked with stones. Quiet and bright nights for a long time prevented the soldiers from taking advantage of this instruction; Finally, on the night of January 22, when a strong storm and blizzard occurred, several soldiers, together with a guide, broke down the stones blocking the passage in the wall, and entered one after another into the monastery fence, shortly before dawn, when the rebels, after the night watch, all went to their cells to rest, leaving only one person on the towers. Immediately the locks on the gates were broken, the gates were unlocked, and the governor Meshcherinov himself and his warriors entered the monastery. Awakened by the noise, the rebels rushed with weapons in their hands to the monastery gates; but many of them were immediately chopped down. Others later, the most important and persistent culprits of the indignation, such as the centurion Samko and Archimandrite Nikanor. were executed by death; the third, less guilty, were sent to the Kola and Pustozersky prisons. And all those who with repentance submitted to the authority of the sovereign and the decrees of St. Orthodox Church, forgiven and left to live in Solovki 385. Thus ended the siege of the Solovetsky monastery, which actually lasted not ten years, but the last two years, because until then there had been no direct siege at all - and the indignation in which not so much the Solovetsky monks participated, but the various inhabitants of the monastery - the Beltsy, was tamed, not so much out of blind attachment to the imaginary old faith, but out of personal passions and stubborn resistance to the tsarist power. The government, on its part, has exhausted all measures of meekness, admonition, and persuasion; waited for whole years for the rebels to repent, and used force against them even when there was no other means left. Therefore, the more guilty the rebels were in their resistance, and the more justly they suffered their well-deserved executions. This is not how our schismatics view this event. They read and re-read with complete confidence the work of one of their main leaders, Simeon Denisov, under the title: “The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky, like those for piety and St. church laws and traditions generously suffered,” although this story, full of lies and historical inaccuracies in general, does not deserve any faith. 1. Wanting, for example, to praise the zeal for the faith of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery, Denisov says that when the newly printed books were sent out by P. Nikon to all cities and towns, to all monasteries and churches, then “no one was found standing in opposition, no one objecting to these innovations, not a single one from the great monasteries and cities stood little, fear of the royal decree all hesitant..., but all the newly printed books were reluctantly accepted, and the services for them were carried out in a new way... Only the Solovetsky fathers, who created all the advice, did not want these to be accepted at all (l. 19). Meanwhile - a) in the life of Elder Cornelius, which was compiled by a schismatic, it is narrated that in the Nilova Hermitage for a long time they did not accept newly printed books and things even reached the point of indignation 386: b) from official acts it is known that in some villages priests for a long time did not agree to perform services using newly printed books, but performed according to old ones 387; c) Denisov himself in another of his works “Russian Grapes” says: “I don’t want to accept new books everywhere, but I forbid keeping old printed ones by frequent decrees and orders: but the ordinary people and the priesthood were very jealous and courageous in ancient church piety: even if not very consistently, I still hold the ancient church laws: many from the sacred rank and clearly resisting Nikon in new changes, not only not accepting, but also denouncing his law-breaking and insolence, as if predestined, Bishop Paul with others, like the fathers of Solovetsia, like the great elders of the desert, and many others who firmly hold on to piety not inferior to unyielding, and in standing firmly I stand strong” 388. What should we believe after this? 2. Denisov further writes that when Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich demanded the Solovetsky Archimandrite Bartholomew, at that very time, i.e. in 1666, the Solovetsky fathers sent their petition to the tsar through the cathedral elder Alexander Stukalov (l. 21–24). Meanwhile - a) in the very title of this petition, as it appears in manuscripts, it is said that it was sent to the great sovereign “in 176 (i.e., in 1668) September on the 22nd day with the cathedral elder Cyril,” or, as in printed copies, “in 176 in the month of October” 389 ; b) Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, in his letter to the Solovetsky Monastery, testifies that the Solovetsky rebels sent a petition to him after they did not accept the one sent to them from Moscow, in the place of Bartholomew, the new Archimandrite Joseph, and they sent it with Elder Kirill 390. Another historical untruth of Denisov! 3. The third is even much more important: he writes that, having not accepted Archimandrite Joseph, the Solovetsky fathers sent Elder Gerasim Firsov, a man very skilled in writing, to Moscow, so that he would beg the Autocrat to leave them to live in their former faith; but “the power of spirituality did not allow him (Firsov) to reach the Autocrat; and on the way, as they say, you will strangle” (l. 27). Meanwhile, in the authentic act of the Moscow cathedral of 1666, the following is said about Gerasim Firsov: “more precisely, the Solovetsky Monastery happened to the elder Gerasim Firsov: this mountaineer, having wept about his previous blasphemies about the rebellions, presented himself to the right reverend cathedral in the summer of the 7174th month of July on the 12th day, begged with tears forgiveness and sent instructions for the sake of the monastery of Joseph, where he fell asleep in peace and rested in the Lord" 391. How could the Solovetsky fathers send Firsov to Moscow in 1668, when he had been living in the Joseph Monastery since July 1666? And isn’t it a vile slander that he was strangled? 4. Denisov claims that the number of monks and Beltsy locked in the Solovetsky Monastery “rose to a thousand and five hundred” (l. 30), - that later, when a great plague from scurvy occurred in the monastery, then of them “as if up to seven hundred died” (l. 39 vol.), and that, finally, after the capture of the monastery by Meshcherinov, the number of “victims” from it with various executions more than three hundred and approaching four hundred, or up to five hundred, as the verb says, it has arrived” (fol. 65 vol.). But the people who themselves then lived in the Solovetsky Monastery for several years in a row and, having freed themselves from it, had no motivation to either increase or decrease the number of the besieged, testified: “the brothers said there were two hundred people in the monastery, and three hundred people in Balti; and during the siege, thirty-three people died from scurvy in the Solovetsky Monastery and on the towers and throughout the city from cannon and musket fire” 392. Next, even after the capture of the monastery by Meshcherinov, there was no way that up to 500 people could have suffered from it, when, according to the same eyewitnesses, there were many there who did not participate in the rebellion, did not want to resist the sovereign and therefore naturally were spared by Meshcherinov, and when Denisov himself in his history more than once mentions the fathers who remained alive or surrendered to Meshcherinov (fol. 65 vol. and 68). It is remarkable that in the schismatic synodics only up to 33 “Solovetsky sufferers” are mentioned by name, and among them, except for one archimandrite (Nikanor), not a single hieromonk or priest. not a single hierodeacon, but only 16 simple monks and 16 Beltsy 393. Such were the defenders of the imaginary old faith! 5. Speaking about the chief of the archers, Iovlev, who only did evil to the Solovetsky monastery by destroying its various property around it and then suffering from a serious scurvy disease, Denisov deliberately notes that it was God who punished Iovlev for his cruelty (l. 37). And further narrating how up to 700 people allegedly died from the same terrible disease in the monastery itself, he does not add that it was God who punished the rebels for their opposition to St. Church and the legitimate sovereign and to excite them to repentance (l. 39). Where is the justice here? 6. He claims that during the siege of the monastery by the Meshcherinovs, those who were in it did nothing but pray to God in the church day and night with tears, serve prayer services (l. 38), and then extols with all sorts of praise the holiness and piety of these imaginary sufferers (l. 87–99). But, according to eyewitnesses, as we have already mentioned, the rebels, led by the centurions Samka and Isachka, did not go to church at all, did not want to know their spiritual fathers, generally called the priests heretics and apostates, lived like Sodom, robbed the monastery treasury and property, tortured, imprisoned, starved those who did not agree with them and contradicted them, died without repentance and communion of St. Mysteries of Christ 394. And this is the sanctity of life? And such and such people as Centurion Samko and others like him, these rebels who were rightly executed by death, should be called martyrs for the faith? 7. He assures that the Solovetsky Monastery was taken by Meshcherinov on January 29 in the first hour of Meat Saturday, and at the eighth hour of the same day Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich died, as if as punishment for the monastery (l. 72–73). But, according to the testimony of contemporaries, former monks of Solovetsky, the monastery was taken by Meshcherinov on January 22, 395, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as his son and successor Tsar Feodor Alekseevich announced in his district charter, died “in the year 184 (1676) of the genvar against the 30th at four o’clock in the morning” 396. 8. It is presented as a miracle that the bodies of those executed by Meshcherinov remained on the ice in the lip in front of the monastery “from the Sabbath of Meat, throughout the entire period of Pentecost, Pentecost and the last part of St. Lent. Apostles,” and that not only the bodies were preserved during all this time, but the very ice under them did not melt until they were buried (l. 76–80). Even if this were true: there is nothing wonderful here. Peter's fast in 1676 began on May 21; and the Belomorsky lips usually begin to open up from ice only at the end of May or early June, and according to the testimony of a local resident: “The Belomorsky mouth, for the most part, until the end of June, and sometimes until the beginning of July, is blocked by strip ice, from which the blowing winds bring cold and scum to the entire country.” That is why sometimes a killed bear there remains intact until July 397. We do not mention the various revelations, miracles, prophecies with which Denisov filled his story about the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky, and which, as they are not based on anything, do not deserve refutation. III. The fall of the Solovetsky Monastery and the just executions that befell the rebels greatly affected the followers of the schism, who had great hopes for the uprising of this monastery, which lasted for several years, and expected good consequences from it for themselves. However, the superstitions did not lose heart; on the contrary, with even greater malice and bitterness they waited only for an opportunity to again rebel against the government and defend the so-called Old Believers. The execution of the schism teachers themselves: Avvakum, Lazarus, Theodore and Epiphanius, who, although they were kept in the Pustozersky prison, did not cease from there to support the schism with their letters and boldly insult the Tsar's Majesty, which followed on April 1, 1681, further inflamed the passions of superstitions 398 . The opportunity for an uprising soon presented itself to them. In Moscow, after the death of Tsar Theodore Alekseevich (1682), as soon as the youth Peter was named heir to the throne, the archers rebelled: for several days in a row (May 15-21) they destroyed the boyars, robbed, went on a rampage, until they declared both young princes Peter and John as Tsars, and Princess Sophia as their co-ruler. Under these circumstances, when everyone was still in fear from the riot of the rebels, when all the military strength was in their hands, and at their head was the temporary worker Prince Khovansky, a stubborn follower of the schism, they decided to demand the restoration of the supposedly old faith. The course of event 399 was as follows. Three days after the indignation, in the Titus Streltsy Order there was a thought about how to restore the old faith that existed before Nikon in the reigning city of Moscow: and they began to look for people in their regiment who would be able to write a petition and give an answer to the spiritual authorities in defense of this faith; but none were found. A sign that the blind were planning to defend what they themselves did not understand! Then they invited one Chernoslobod resident from Goncharnaya Sloboda, named Semyon Kalashnikov, to join the order, and asked him if they had such skilled people in the settlement. He answered that there was, and announced the intention of the archers to his brethren: Nikita Borisov, Ivan Kurbatov and Savva Romanov, who had previously been a cell attendant at the Archimandrite Makaryevsky Zheltovodsk Monastery, and subsequently described the present event. These, probably not relying only on their own wisdom, chose as their leader the monk Sergius, who wandered in Moscow, whom Savva calls the new Elijah for his zeal according to fatherly traditions, and together with him in the house of Borisov, with their combined forces, they compiled a petition “on behalf of all the regiments and Chernoslobodtsy,” although the archers of only one Titov regiment actually bothered about the petition, and not all regiments, and only three Chernoslobod residents took part in compiling it! As soon as the petition was written, Kalashnikov notified the five hundred Titov regiment, named Ivan, who, with two other archers, hurried to his house. Here they listened to the petition, which Savva read on the orders of Sergius, and said with surprise: “In our days we have not heard such a style and such a degree of description of heresies in new books,” and, taking the petition with them, they went to their order. The archers of Titov's regiment were immediately assembled and many townspeople came after them. They ordered the petition to be read first to their regimental commander, and then, due to his illiteracy, to the same Savva, and after listening, they unanimously cried out: “It is necessary, brothers, it is best to stand up for the old Orthodox Christian faith and shed your blood for Christ.” The petition was taken into the order and, having been written off, was returned to the compilers. The archers reported everything that had happened to their boss, the boyar Prince Ivan Andreevich Khovansky. He was extremely happy and asked: do you have anyone to give an answer against the authorities? Scientists are needed for this. They pointed him to the monk Sergius and the townspeople who took part in drawing up the petition. The boyar ordered them to be brought to him, and when they appeared, he said: “I myself, a sinner, very much wish that everything in the churches would be as it was before: I invariably maintain the old piety, I read from old books. I make the sign of the cross with two fingers,” and read the symbol of faith with the addition: true. Sergius invited the prince to listen to the petition. He listened and, having learned that the compiler of it was Sergius himself and his brethren, he remarked to him: “I see that you are a humble and taciturn monk, and you will not undertake such a great task; It is necessary for a learned person to hold an answer against them.” Sergius decided to defend himself by attaching to himself the promise of the Savior to the Apostles: do not worry about how or what you say: for it will be given to you in the hour that you say: for you will not be the one who speaks, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (Matthew 10, 19, 20). But the others who were there considered it necessary to remind the prince about the priest Nikita of Suzdal. Then the prince exclaimed with joy: “I know that priest well; They have nothing to say against him; he will stop his mouth, and before none of them could resist him. I, brothers, am glad to help you, but this is not my business. And don’t think that they will still execute you, hang you, and burn you in the chimneys: I represent God as your witness in this, that I am glad to stand for this.” Sergius and the elected Streltsy began to ask the prince to arrange for them on the place of execution in front of all the people, or in the Kremlin at the red porch, a cathedral, which would be attended by the tsar-sovereigns, Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna and the patriarch with the bishops, and that this cathedral would take place exactly on the next Friday. In vain the boyar argued that there could not be a cathedral on Friday, because the coronation of the sovereigns was scheduled on Sunday - they answered him: “That’s what we want, so that the Tsars and Sovereigns would be crowned with royal crowns in the true Orthodox faith, and not in their Latin-Roman faith,” and that this matter could be postponed until another Sunday. In vain did the boyar explain that the coronations could not be postponed, that everything had been prepared, everything had already been announced, and he guaranteed that the tsars would be married in the old way and the service would be performed in the old way - they told him: “it is not a stately thing for the patriarch to crown the kings in the old way and serve the liturgy according to the old service books, and not according to the new ones”... The boyar had to give in and appointed the council to take place on Friday. On the appointed day, at seven o’clock in the morning, according to Khovansky’s order, the imaginary zealots of the old faith, after listening to a prayer service, appeared at the red porch, accompanied by a multitude of people: the defrocked priest Nikita Pustosvyat 400 with a cross in his hands, the monk Sergius with the Gospel, and the Volokolamsk monk Savvaty, who had recently joined them, with the icon of the Last Judgment. Khovansky ordered them to enter the response chamber and, a little later, appearing there himself with many clerks and clerks, feignedly asked: “Why have you come, honest fathers?” Nikita answered: “We came here to bash the great Sovereigns about the old Orthodox faith, so that they would command the patriarch and the authorities to serve according to the old books, on seven prosphyra, and not on five, and to use a three-part cross on the prosphyra, and not a two-part cross. If the patriarch does not deign to serve according to the old books, then we would order him to give us a righteous examination from the Divine Scriptures, why he does not agree to this and why he curses and executes people who adhere to the old faith, as he recently executed the Solovetsky Monastery. Khovansky said: “I myself want to know the truth, and I read and sing and believe from old books.” Then he asked: “Do you have a petition? The sovereign kings ordered it to be presented to them and read.” They answered him: “there are two”; but they did not want to give them away, fearing that he would not return them, and then there would be nothing to give at the council. The boyar assured with an oath that the petition would be returned; received it: he took it up to the Sovereigns and after a while he actually returned it, saying: “There will be cases against this petition for three weeks...; but the patriarch begged the sovereigns to postpone the matter until Wednesday; on Wednesday after mass, come here again.” Thus, the schismatics’ persistent demand that the council be held on Friday ended in nothing, and Khovansky apparently only tried to deceive them. Here Nikita Pustosvyat wanted to achieve at least one thing, so that the coronation of the sovereigns on the coming Sunday would take place according to the old books. Khovansky replied: “I already told you that the Tsars will be crowned in the old way...; order to bake prosphora with the image of the old cross: I myself will present them to the patriarch and order them to serve in the old way; and you, Father Nikita, be right there.” The superstitions left, not suspecting that a new trick was hidden in the boyar’s words: because when on Sunday Nikita, taking with him seven prosphoras, which he had deliberately ordered for a certain skillful widow, went to the cathedral, then, due to the extraordinary crowd of people and the crowded conditions, he not only did not make it to the boyar, but also to the cathedral church, and returned with shame to his own people. Until now we have spoken only in the words of the schismatic Savva: because he was one of his contemporaries who described the beginning of the event. And they spoke with complete confidence: because he himself participated in the event and did not yet have any incentive to distort the truth. Now we must take into account the legends of other contemporaries depicting the further course of the same event, and we cannot trust Savva in everything: because, as soon as real relations and competitions between schismatics and Orthodox began, he apparently tilts everything in favor of the schismatics; he is silent about one thing, which served to their dishonor; about something else, which he himself did not see, he conveys only fables and slander, which were then spread by rebels among the people against the patriarch and the spiritual authorities in general. From the day of the coronation of the sovereigns, i.e. from June 25, the disturbers of the schism went on a rampage in Moscow for several days in a row. They walked the streets, market places and other places, and boldly preached: “Stand by, Orthodox, for the true faith; Now there is no true church on earth, neither in Greece, nor in Russia, nor in other countries; only we still maintain the true faith... Don’t go to churches: they are all defiled; do not worship newly painted icons; do not honor the four-pointed cross: this is the seal of the Antichrist... and so on.” And carrying with them old icons, old books and various notebooks, which said that the end of the world was already coming, they carried away crowds of people with them. The leaders were the disrobed priest Nikita Pustosvyat and five vagabond monks: Sergius, Savvaty, already known to us, and those who also joined them (June 24) from the Volokolamsk hermitage: Dorofey, another Savvaty and Gabriel 401. And under their leadership, not only people who were somewhat literate, but also complete ignoramuses, men and women, gathered in groups in the squares, talked about the old faith and discussed how to establish it. If any of the priests, hieromonks and other zealots of true Orthodoxy tried to reason with them and instruct them: they rushed at him with fury, beat him mercilessly and left him barely alive - so that fear and trembling seized everyone in Moscow and everyone expected with bewilderment that something would happen 402. Meanwhile, the archers of Titov's regiment, who started the whole matter and seeing that the other regiments, according to the convictions of the patriarch, did not quite agree with them, held a council among themselves, and, having elected four old archers, sent them with a petition according to all orders to collect signatures, and Savva with them, so that he would read the petition to the illiterate. On the first day four orders were signed, on the next three, then two more; but the gunners who drew up the tenth order did not show such agreement, and a great discord arose between them: some wanted to lay hands, others did not want to, saying: “Why put hands when we do not know how to answer for a petition against the patriarch and the authorities? And will the elders themselves be able to respond against such a council? Perhaps, having embarrassed us, they will leave on their own. It’s not all our business, but the patriarch’s. We are present here without assault and stand for the Orthodox faith - to see where the truth is.” Everyone accepted the latter opinion: and it was decided to put the petition, already signed by many, under seal in Tito’s order, and to submit another large petition on behalf of all Orthodox Christians, which was written on 20 columns 403 (403). On July 3, Monday 404, Khovansky, dissatisfied with the “confusion and inconstancy” of the archers, having gathered all their elected representatives into the response chamber, asked them three times, as if on behalf of the sovereigns: “Do you all agree to stand up for the Orthodox Christian faith?” and, having received a threefold affirmative answer, he went up as if to report this to the sovereigns. Then, returning, he went along with the archers and many townspeople, also as if by order of the sovereigns 405, to the patriarch to demand from him the restoration of the old piety and an answer to the petition. When everyone entered the patriarchal cross 406, Patriarch Joachim met them with the authorities, and, having heard the insolent demands of the rebels, began to meekly convince them that they, as laymen, do not have the right to judge their bishops, and, as unskilled in the faith, they themselves should not be wise about the faith, but are obliged to obey their lawful shepherds and teachers - that p. Nikon is not a heretic, he did not spoil the faith and books, on the contrary, he corrected them according to the Greek and Slavic charatean manuscripts, and that these books were later approved by the Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. The electors, since this time neither the priest Nikita Pustosvyat was with them, nor their other fathers, put three Sloboda residents to answer before the patriarch: Pavel Danilovets, Pavel Zakharyev and Savva Romanov. who spoke the most daring speeches one after another. They condemned to their face the behavior of their archpastors, their cruelty and wrongness in the faith: they claimed that Nikon and the heretic Arseny ruined all the books, that some Greek books were burned in Rome, others were spoiled, that the Greek patriarchs themselves were not Orthodox, etc. 407 In general, according to one contemporary, the schismatics, relying on Prince Khovansky, “as a strong helper for them, began to make noise fearlessly in the cross, and to talk about the Holy Church, and about the Patriarch, and about the whole sacred order of words is absurd, and it is not appropriate to write them.” 408 It ended with the Patriarch, to calm the troubled ones, appointing a council to take place every other day on the following Wednesday, and they left. During this short period of time, various rumors were spread between the schismatics. They said, for example, that Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna herself, whose brother had been brutally murdered by the archers, now took their side and sent them three times to say that they demanded a cathedral without fail on the place of execution or on the square between the cathedral churches in the presence of the sovereigns, and she was invited, and they would never go to the cathedral church or the faceted chamber: because there is an evil against them intent. They also said that the patriarch, afraid to go to the cathedral, offered the boyar Khovansky this remedy: “if it pleases the archers, let them bring their old books - the gospel and the service book, and we will bring our new ones, and put both of them in the shrine of St. Petra. We will seal the Church with the royal seals and the patriarchal and elected ones; Let us appoint a general fast and pray that St. miracle workers, which books are right and which are wrong.” The Sagittarius and their leaders completely agreed to this: but again, as if “a rebuke came from above,” i.e. from the palace, so that when the patriarch begins to put books in the shrine of St. Peter, they sealed the very shrine of the Wonderworker, and not the church doors, and put a hundred people a day on guard around the church: because here too there is a hidden plan - they want to enter the church through secret doors and throw out the old books from the shrine. Having learned about this, the patriarch allegedly postponed his intention 409. When Wednesday, July 5th arrived: the leaders of the schism at six o'clock in the morning, having served a prayer service, without any permission or knowledge of the authorities, but only with the blessing of the defrocked priest Nikita (who, therefore, had no right to bless), taking with them the cross, the gospel, the icon of the Last Judgment, the icon of the Mother of God and old books, with lighted candles they set off from beyond the Yauza to the Kremlin, accompanied by countless numbers of archers and people. Many in this crowd were already drunk and had stones in their bosoms. Having entered the Kremlin, everyone approached the Archangel Cathedral and placed lecterns in sight of the royal chambers: they placed a cross and a gospel on them, and lit candles in front of them. Priest Nikita Pustosvyat and his comrades, standing on benches, began reading their notebooks to the people; They convinced everyone to stand up for the old faith and incited them against the patriarch and the spiritual authorities. It was eight o'clock in the morning. At this time, the patriarch with the bishops, archimandrites and all the clergy of the capital, with a large gathering of the faithful, served a prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral: and the fear from the rebels who had entered the Kremlin was so great that all those who served cried; Screams were heard in the very chambers of the king, and everyone was seized with horror 410. At the end of the prayer service, the patriarch sent Archpriest Vasily from the Church of Spassky to read to the people the teaching printed that night on behalf of him, the patriarch, in which he exhorted the Orthodox to obey their lawful shepherds and not to obey the seducers: vagabond monks and defrocked Nikita Pustosvyat, who had already brought repentance three times in the schism and again turned to the same thing 411. But as soon as the archpriest began to read, the archers snatched the notebook from him, seized him, presented him to their fathers and wanted to put him to death: only the monk Sergius with difficulty saved him and gave him the opportunity to return to church 412. Two hours have already passed, and the noise in the square not only did not decrease, but became more and more intensified; The crowds of people continually increased and finally filled the entire Kremlin. After the prayer service, the Patriarch served the liturgy and, together with the bishops and other clergy, retired to his chamber of the cross. Then Khovansky several times in a row sent to the patriarch, as if on behalf of the sovereigns, so that he would go to the square for a competition about faith; but the patriarch, knowing the true will of the sovereigns, did not agree, saying: let the schismatics come to the faceted chamber for this, because the sovereign princesses also want to be present at the council and listen to the petition; and it is indecent for them to be in the square among the people. Khovansky decided on another trick: he decided to persuade the sovereigns and Princess Sofia so that they and the patriarch would not go to the council, declaring as a secret that the people, having killed the patriarch, would deprive them of their lives. Sofia, having called upon her the elected Streltsy, whom Khovansky did not favor, learned from them that the Streltsy did not have such a plan. Khovansky already openly began to say before all the boyars that the sovereigns and princesses should not go to the faceted chamber with the patriarch and the authorities; and if they go, they will not be left alive from the people. Sophia answered: “If so, I will go, God’s will be done; but I will not leave St. The Church and its Shepherd." Khovansky turned to the boyars with the words: “beg her royal mercy not to go to the faceted chamber with the patriarch, otherwise, under the Tsars, they will beat us all, as they recently beat our brothers.” The boyars, horrified, in vain begged the princess to abandon her intention. She remained adamant and sent Khovansky himself to inform the patriarch that he should go upstairs to the sovereigns along the vestment stairs. Khovansky, conveying this command, told the patriarch on the contrary that he was ordered to go precisely through the red porch, where many frenzied schismatics had then gathered, who were ready to kill the high priest and all the bishops 413. But His Holiness Joachim, penetrating evil intent, acted differently: he ordered to take many ancient handwritten books, Greek and Slavic 414, and to go with these books to the red porch of Archbishop Afanasy of Kholmogory, and Bishops of Tambov Leonty and Voronezh Mitrofan (saint), as well as archimandrites, abbots and priests of all Moscow churches, so that the people, seeing many ancient books, would understand that they were ready to show them the truth, and although they were somewhat tamed: the patriarch himself with the other authorities went up the stairs of the vestment. When the books were brought and the patriarch came to the royal chambers: Khovansky again began to speak with impudence to the patriarch in the presence of the sovereigns: “the people are shouting loudly and asking you to immediately go to him in the square or in the faceted chamber for a competition about faith; and the Sovereigns, due to their youth, are not allowed to be there with you.” And, addressing all those present, he said: “if the patriarch and the authorities do not go to the people soon, the people want, as happened before, to invade the royal chambers with weapons to kill the patriarch and the entire consecrated rank: and then there will be a danger, so that the Sovereigns themselves and all the boyars will not be beaten.” His Holiness Joachim, without sovereigns, did not agree to go to the people. Seeing the general horror and trembling, Princess Sofia decided to go with the patriarch to the faceted chamber: and with her went Queen Natalia Kirillovna and princesses Tatyana Mikhailovna and Maria Alekseevna 415. Having arrived in the chamber, the royal persons sat down, Sofia Alekseevna and Tatyana Mikhailovna in two state seats, others around them in armchairs; the patriarch immediately took his place in the chairs, and then eight metropolitans, five archbishops and two bishops sat down according to their degrees. The archimandrites, abbots and the entire consecrated cathedral, as well as the entire royal synclite, boyars, okolnichy, duma people, stewards, solicitors, residents, nobles and elected representatives of all regiments stood. Khovansky had difficulty persuading the schismatic teachers to agree to go to the cathedral in the faceted chamber: they did not want to part with the square, where they felt stronger in the midst of the riotous mob. Finally, taking the cross, the gospel, icons, books with lecterns, benches and lighted candles, they went to the red porch 417 and, entering the faceted chamber with great disorder, shouting and rioting, they arbitrarily set up their lecterns and benches, put icons and books on them, holding lighted candles. Such insolence and impudence amazed everyone, and the co-ruler of the sovereigns, Princess Sophia, asked the rebels: “Why did they so impolitely and unusually enter the chamber of the royal majesties, as if they were Gentiles and those who did not know God, without respecting either the sovereign’s or the bishop’s honor, and committed an outrage that no one had dared to commit before?” They answered: “We came to confirm the old faith; we have now adopted a new faith; you are all in a new faith in which you cannot be saved; I need the old one." “What is faith? and which is old and which is new? – the princess asked again. They did not answer anything and submitted their petition. The Duma clerk, at the order of the princess, began to read the petition loudly and clearly. During this reading, priest Nikita Pustosvyat, whom the princess had previously forbidden to speak and ordered to stand aside, having gotten drunk, began to scream like a demoniac and insult the patriarch and the entire consecrated cathedral with words. Kholmogory Archbishop Afanasy wanted to prohibit defrocking; and he, in the presence of everyone, rushed to beat and torment the archbishop 418. The elected representatives had difficulty defending the saint. Princess Sophia repeated several times to the rebels to remain silent and hit them with their foreheads, as befits: the screams did not stop. Then the patriarch, taking the gospel, written by the hand of Alexei, Metropolitan of Moscow, and the conciliar act of the Constantinople Patriarch Jeremiah on the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, began with tears and tenderness to admonish the people present that they were in vain to rebel against St. Church, and showed them numerous evidence from old books regarding controversial subjects. Not knowing what to answer, the ashamed schismatics, Nikita Pustosvyat and others behind him, folded their fingers according to their custom for the sign of the cross and, raising their hands up, shouted for a long time and frantically: “like this, like this!” Hearing such disorderly cries of stupid men, which horrified everyone, Princess Sophia and with her other royal persons with tears in their eyes stood up from their places and wanted to leave, saying that they would rather leave the kingdom than betray their royal majesty and piety to be trampled upon by insane ignoramuses. The Patriarch and the boyars and the elected representatives of all the regiments barely begged them to return and listen to the end of the petition. At the end of the petition, when the day was already approaching evening and everyone was extremely tired, nothing was said to the schismatics from the Tsar’s Majesty: it was only announced that the decree would be given to them on another day 419. Coming out of the royal chamber, the cleavers with their mad host, guarded by a hundred archers, whom Khovansky gave them, shouted in the Kremlin: “victor, victorious,” and, raising their hands up, they said to everyone: “thus form your fingers.” Having reached the place of execution, they set up lecterns and benches, placed icons on them and began to teach the common people, as if by royal command, their schismatic nonsense, exclaiming: “Believe this way, - we are the greatest and the shame of all bishops, - do this.” Nikita and his worthy comrades screamed and raged so much that in exhaustion they fell to the ground, as if dead, and made foam out of themselves 420. Continuing their journey from the place of execution to Yauza with their monks, accompanied by countless people, the Mother of God and other priests sang loudly. songs. Beyond the Yauza they entered the Church of the All-Merciful Savior, located near Titov Prikaz; They served a prayer service to the Mother of God, and, ordering all the bells to be rung for three whole hours, everyone went home. 421 Princess Sophia, understanding the fierce stubbornness of the dissenters and fearing a mutiny of the archers, that same night 422 demanded the elected representatives of all regiments and in every possible way persuaded them not to support the split, not to exchange the entire Russian state for six vagabonds. All the elected officials, except those elected by Titus’ order, the main instigators of the confusion, answered: “We, Empress Princess, do not care enough to stand for the old faith; “It is not our business, but that of His Holiness the Patriarch and the entire consecrated cathedral.” The princess ordered the chosen ones to be generously rewarded and treated. When they returned to their regiments, the rank and file rebelled against them as traitors, bandaged many and put them in prison, saying: “now you issued Titus’ order with your own hands without our knowledge, and then you will issue others too.” Despite this, on the evening of the next day, the electors, who were not concluded, held a council in the Stremyany Prikaz and decided: to deny everything to the elders-monks and townspeople. And immediately, going to the princess, they informed her that, although they themselves had firmly decided to remain faithful to this promise, the rank and file had rebelled against them, imprisoned many, could kill everyone and were plotting to cause a general rebellion. The princess was found in this case too. She ordered a summons to be sent out to all orders, so that from each regiment one hundred people should go on dangerous guard duty at Trinity, which is on the ditch. When everyone had gathered and were discussing among themselves how to kill the elected officials for their lies, and still go to the patriarch with drums, some messenger appeared and said: “The kings-sovereigns grant you a cellar, for ten people a tub of beer and honey.” The archers, abandoning all their reasoning, rushed every ten to the cellar for their tub, saying: what else do we need? Why did the great Sovereigns not favor us? And, completely drunk, Savva continues, “take and beat the faithful, our brethren: you are rebels and have disturbed the whole kingdom,” so that these supposedly faithful all fled wherever they could. The next day, one hundred people from each regiment were given too much to drink, and on the third day, the same, until all the privates had been taken over. Then the archers unanimously confessed with their hands that they had nothing to do with competitions about the old faith and henceforth they would not interfere in this; Yes, they sent a hundred people to seize their former fathers and brought them to the Lykov yard behind the guard. The most guilty of them, Nikita Pustosvyat, was executed on Tuesday (July 21) by cutting off the head; the rest of the monks were given over to the bishops under strict orders, separately, so that they would learn not to blaspheme the saint. Churches, and were sent away - Sergius to the Yaroslavl monastery, and the others to other monasteries. This is how jealous the archers were about the supposedly old faith and for what an insignificant price they sold it! This whole story shows that here the actual zealots and adherents of the schism were, together with Nikita the Empty Saint, five vagabond monks and several townspeople, and all the others were only temporarily carried away out of ignorance and frivolity. Chapter III. The spread of the schism, its division into sects and the history of the priestless sect I. Not only in the Solovetsky monastery and in Moscow there was a schism at that time when the Solovetsky and Streletsky riots took place, and he found himself in such unworthy deeds. No, it already existed and then spread even more in many other places in Russia, even outside Russia, and showed itself everywhere in similar matters. Condemned by church and state laws and not daring to openly confess their teachings and seduce others, the schismatics scattered wherever they thought they could find a safe refuge for themselves: they settled in the deserts of Pomerania, Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod and remote Siberia; they founded their monasteries in the forests of Bryn, Vyaznikov, Starodub and many others; fled abroad - to Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Austria, to the Crimea to the Tatars, to the Caucasus in the neighborhood of the Highlanders. But it should be noted that the schism, almost from its very origin, was already divided into schools of thought, and while in some places one school of thought spread and was established, in others another was established and flourished. Therefore, in order to more conveniently trace the history of the spread and existence of our schism, we consider it necessary to first lay down both the general or basic thoughts of the schism, and the rumors into which it was divided from the very beginning and which undoubtedly had an influence on its affairs and fate in different places. II. The main thoughts of the schism, for which he was condemned, are set out in detail in the petitions of Lazar, Nikita Pustosvyat and Solovetskaya. They can be briefly expressed as follows: “one must believe and serve God according to the old books, and not according to the new ones: because the old books contain the true, Orthodox faith, the same one that St. Vladimir, by which all Russian miracle workers were saved and which alone can lead everyone to salvation; and new books published by Patriarch Nikon and after him are filled with countless errors and contain a corrupt, new, heretical faith, which can only lead to eternal destruction. In particular, one must, in accordance with the old books and contrary to the new ones, pronounce the saving name of the Lord Jesus, and not Jesus, be baptized with two fingers, and not three, use a special alleluia, and not a three-pointed one, an eight-pointed cross, and not a four-pointed one, perform the liturgy on seven prosphoras, and not on five, perform religious processions in the salty way, and not against the sun, read in the symbol about St. Spirit: true and so on. Therefore, the true Orthodox Church today in the whole world consists only of them - the schismatics, and the Russian Church, which since the time of Nikon has rejected the old books and contains new ones, is a heretical, Nikonian Church; its teaching is harmful to the soul, its services are not services to God, its sacraments are not sacraments, its shepherds are not shepherds, but wolves, all its members are not Orthodox, but heretics; should not go to them in church, should not have communication with them either in prayer or in food; and so on." 423. Subsequently, schismatics attributed to the imaginary deviations of the Russian Church from the faith, to imaginary heresies, all the new customs that entered Russia, previously unknown to us, although they do not relate to the faith at all, such as: smoking and snuffing tobacco, celebrating the New Year on the 1st day of January, drinking tea, German dress, Italian singing and painting, cutting or shaving the braids and mustaches, dissection and embalming of dead bodies and much more 424. With such a general view of the Orthodox Church, the schismatics soon began to look differently at their attitude towards it and were divided into two main sects. It is known that the first spreaders of the schism were, except for one bishop, Paul of Kolomna, only some priests and hieromonks, and for the most part simple monks and laymen. But Paul of Kolomna, who alone could have ordained shepherds for his followers, died back in 1656, just as the schism began 425; priests and hieromonks, although they considered themselves to have the right to teach and perform services, could not help but realize that, in the event of their death, there was no one to appoint successors to them in the pastorate 426; finally, ordinary monks and laity had to understand that they themselves had no right to teach others or perform the sacraments. It was necessary to decide on one of two things: either to remain completely without priests (priests) and give the right to teach and officiate to uninitiated persons, or to accept priests who were ordained bishops in the Russian Church and then went into schism. This is exactly what happened. Many laymen and monks who did not have priests. san, even at the first spread of the schism, they allowed themselves to teach others the faith, to perform the sacraments of baptism, repentance and church services in general; and in some places even the clergy themselves, who led the schism, bequeathed, at the time of their death, to the laity to carry out all these requirements from now on, 427 and thus marked the beginning of the sect without priests or without priests. Others, after some time, when their priests, ordained before Patriarch Nikon, died, decided to accept fugitive priests coming to them from the Russian Church, and thus founded the priestly sect or priesthood. 428 Following this fundamental difference between the two sects, others inevitably followed. The priesthood, accepting fugitive priests ordained in the Orthodox Church - Russian, although at the same time anoints them with oil and forces them to renounce Nikonian heresies, but obviously recognizes the power of the ordination of the Orthodox Church; track. is in some, albeit illegal, connection with it, feels some dependence on it, and therefore, although he usually calls the Russian Church heretical, Nikonian, he generally does not look at it as hostile as priestlessness, does not rebaptize those who fall into schism from Orthodoxy, and prays for the Orthodox sovereigns, defenders and patrons of the Church. On the contrary, the non-priestly sect, having broken off all connection with the Russian Church, directly calls it the Church of the Antichrist, claiming that since 1666, having fallen away from Christ, the Savior of the world, it began to believe in the Antichrist, worship the Antichrist, serve the Antichrist, that all its sacraments are filthy, its children are the children of the devil, its very head is the Antichrist, reigning on earth since 1666 mentally, spiritually, which, like the spirit of godless apostasy, the spirit of eternal destruction, lives and acts mainly in government officials (power holders) 429 - as a result of which this sect rebaptizes those who convert to it from Orthodoxy and has not prayed for a long time, and in some of its denominations still does not pray for Orthodox sovereigns. In the priestly sect, in addition to the priesthood, all the sacraments are performed, although they are performed illegally - by fugitive priests and for the most part defrocked; in particular, the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, why married life is supported and respected. In the non-priestly sect, apart from baptism and confession performed by laymen, often even women, all other sacraments are not performed at all, which is why some, realizing, for example, the need for the Eucharist, thought to replace it for themselves with their own, self-invented communion: others - the majority of the non-priestly ones, completely rejecting marriage as if due to the cessation of the Orthodox priesthood, demand from all their co-religionists, husbands and wives, life celibate, and yet they allow them to indulge in vile debauchery and even often call this criminal love of husbands and wives holy love, brotherly, Christian. Finally, another remarkable feature in the teachings of the Bezpopovites. Convinced that the Antichrist has already come and reigns in the Russian Church, and that the end of the world is near, they, especially at the beginning of the schism, strongly commanded their followers to self-immolate in order to thereby save themselves from the persecution of the Antichrist and his minions, calling this self-immolation a baptism of fire that cleanses all sins, or to starve themselves, to fast in order to quickly pass into the kingdom of heaven - and all such suicides were and are called St. martyrs 430. III. Having outlined the main principles and differences of the two main schismatic sects, we note that each of them little by little fragmented into small sects, which, while maintaining the general principles of their sect, also had their own characteristics, and let us turn to the very history of these sects, first without the priesthood, as previously formed, then - with the priesthood. 1. The first beginnings of the priestless sect were laid within the Kostroma and Vyaznikovsky (Vladimir province) by the monk Kapiton, after whom all our schismatics were long called Kapitons 431. He was a native of the palace village of Danilovsky, Kostroma district. Due to extreme poverty, not having anything to eat, he withdrew from his native village, took tonsure from, it is unknown from whom, and began to live in the Kolesnikova desert in the image of the desert dwellers. Rumor of his exploits soon brought other villagers to him, who, gathering around him to live together, chose him as their mentor, despite the fact that he was completely illiterate. This happened during the life of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich. At first, Kapiton was most concerned about fasting - to the point that even on the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Easter he did not want to allow cheese, butter and fish, but with his disciples he ate only bread, berries and other fruits, and on Easter Day, instead of red eggs, he distributed red onions to the brethren. Then pride overwhelmed him. Having imagined himself as a great ascetic and teacher, he began to despise the spiritual order, instilled in his disciples to shun the shepherds of the Church, not to accept blessings from them, and through this to shun unity with the Church, not to venerate the new saints. icons, and some old ones, and since at that time the books of the Joseph edition with various inserts about the addition of two fingers for the sign of the cross had barely just come out, he became the most ardent preacher of two fingers, attracted many with him, especially young people, and stubbornly opposed the efforts of the spiritual authorities who were concerned about correcting this error and others like them 432 . From the Kolesnikova desert, Kapiton, probably for greater safety, moved to the nearby Vyaznikov forests, which were then filled with fleeing schismatics, and here he acquired even more students. In vain were decrees and even soldiers sent after him to take him and present him to Moscow: he constantly took refuge and died quietly in the Vyaznikov desert, where the seeds of schism that he had sown remained for a long time. One of Kapiton’s followers, the villager Podreshetnikov, clearly revealed the thoughts of his teacher, founding a special schismatic society not far from Kostroma, within the Kineshma and Reshma regions. He commanded not to go to church, not to have spiritual fathers, and not to take blessings from priests. His followers, called by his name Podreshetnikami, not having holy orders, themselves performed church services in their homes, baptized infants, confessed, and, not daring to perform the sacraments of the body and Blood of the Lord, decided to replace it for themselves with another sacrament. For this purpose, a girl was chosen who dressed up in a colored dress and hid in the underground of the hut: after a while, when the hut was filled with many gathered husbands, wives and children, the girl came out of the underground, carrying on her head a sieve filled with raisins and covered with a clean cloth, and saying three times, in the likeness of a priest, the words: “May the Lord God remember you all in his kingdom always, now and ever and unto ages of ages.” Having received a threefold answer from those present: “Amen,” she began to give them communion, distributing berries to them. The pitiful superstitions probably considered such communion as a farewell to self-imposed death: because many of them, immediately after communion, burned themselves or killed themselves in another way - a sign that this sect already knew the doctrine of self-immolation and suicide in general and considered it a godly deed 434 . 2. Siberia served as another, even more extensive, field for the spread of the priestless sect. Here, after Archpriest Avvakum, who, however, did not have time to found a special sect, five schism teachers were active almost at the same time. The first is the false black Oska (Joseph) Astomen or Istomin. He came from Kazan, was an Armenian by birth, and during the reign of Mikhail Feodorovich, together with his parents, he turned to Orthodoxy; in the world he was called Ivan, then he became a monk with the name Joseph. When church books with the teaching on the double-fingered fold for the sign of the cross came out of print, Joseph became the most ardent zealot of the double-fingered sign, which he was accustomed to using even in Armenianism, and for his stubbornness and resistance to the authorities, deprived of his monkhood, he was exiled in 1660 to imprisonment in Yeniseisk. Traveling there from Kazan through the Siberian cities of Verkhoturye, Turinsk and Tyumen, the false monk preached his favorite teaching everywhere and captivated many ordinary people everywhere, showing this teaching in printed church books, which were then looked upon as divinely inspired, and saying that whoever crosses himself with three fingers seals himself with the seal of the Antichrist. In Yeniseisk, for twenty-four years, Joseph did not cease to sow the seeds of schism through oral instructions and through writings. Having been summoned to Tobolsk in 1684 by Metropolitan Pavel of Siberia, although he repented before him and received permission from him to wear monastic robes, the repentance was only feigned: because, and living in the Znamensky Tobolsk Monastery under supervision, he continued for another nine years to secretly teach the common people the schism, until finally in 1693, according to the convictions of the new Metropolitan of Siberia Ignatius, did not sincerely repent of his error 435. Among those deceived by Joseph in Tyumen was priest Dometian. Having left his flock, he fled to the mountains and forests, met here some monk Ivanishch (Ivan), also a schismatic, took tonsure from him with the name Daniel and began to preach to the villagers that everyone should leave churches and their homes and run to him in the desert: because the kingdom of the Antichrist had already arrived and the second coming of Christ would soon be. Hundreds of simpletons flocked to the schism teacher 436. Soon he found an assistant, some Jewish Hungarian false monk Avramko (Abraham), about whom almost nothing else is known 437 . The combined instructions of all these three false teachers - Joseph, Dometian and Abraham - formed the fourth preacher of the schism, Yakushka (Yakov) Lepekhin, who had previously served as chieftain in Verkhoturye. He also wanted to have disciples, called himself a priest and began to conduct priestly services, despite the fact that he was a bigamist and the murderer of his first wife; baptized infants, confessed those who came, gave them, unknown what, communion, which he allegedly received from somewhere far away, tonsured those who wished into monasticism, performed the sacrament of anointing over the sick, buried the dead and read a prayer of permission over them. Being an icon painter himself, he depicted a church on a sheet of paper and the devil entwined around it in the form of a serpent, spewing his poison on St. The mysteries of Christ: he sent out such sheets in large quantities to the surrounding villagers in order to arouse in them disgust from the Orthodox Church and from the most holy sacrament taught by it 438. Finally, the fifth schism teacher in Siberia was a certain Vaska (Vasily) Shaposhnik: he preached to the residents of Tomsk not to go to church, saying: “Whoever goes to today’s churches will be defiled and will become a slave to the Antichrist,” etc. This Vasca was one of the students of Dometian of Tyumen 439. Thus, all five Siberian schism teachers were in communication with each other and preached the same teaching. According to a contemporary, they generally said that the Antichrist had already come and reigned in the Russian Church, and therefore it was necessary to flee from it, one should neither get married, nor confess, nor receive communion from its shepherds; they themselves promised to fulfill all church requirements for their followers; They also commanded to be baptized with two fingers and to voluntarily surrender oneself to fiery burning. However, there were also disagreements between them: the Jewish Abraham of Hungary did not approve of self-immolation - supposedly for the sake of faith, and, while Lepekhin argued that the Antichrist appeared mentally or spiritually, he taught, on the contrary, that the Antichrist would come sensually. As a result of the last discrepancy, Lepekhin’s students called themselves true believers, and the students of the Hungarian Jew called themselves sensualists 440. The deeds of the Siberian schismatics were also consistent with the teaching. Not respecting church marriage, they did not know marriage, lived fornication without shame and indulged in all kinds of debauchery. Thinking of being martyrs, they went into the deserts and forests, built themselves huts and burned themselves with them 441. Two cases in particular are striking. Tyumen priest Dometian, in monasticism Daniel, having carried away up to 1,700 people with him, wrote to the monk Ivanishch, who tonsured him: “virtuous men and wives, virgins and youths have gathered to me in the desert, and everyone is asking for a second incorruptible baptism by fire; “What will your shrine command?” Ivanishche answered: “I made porridge, so eat it as you want.” Then Dometian began to prepare for the burning of himself and his students, and ordered various combustible substances to be applied to the huts: resin, birch bark, flax, sulfur and gunpowder. In vain did Metropolitan Pavel of Siberia (1678–1692), hearing about this, write an admonishing letter and send priests and other intelligent men to instruct the lost; in vain did parents and children, relatives and friends come to many of them and convince them not to destroy themselves: nothing worked. Responding to all convictions only with various blasphemies against the Church, the tsar and the bishops, the unfortunate ones, at the voice of their mentor, lit the prepared combustible materials in their homes, and everyone, including 1,700 people, died in the flames. Vaska Shaposhnik did the same in the Tomsk district. Having retired with his disciples to an empty and forested place, he ordered three large wooden buildings to be erected and lined with flammable substances, and nearby he built an underground passage so that, when he had burned others, he could escape with their precious belongings. The priests and soldiers sent by Metropolitan Pavel of Siberia and voivode Prince Stefan Putyatin of Tobolsk to prevent the atrocity could do nothing here either. Vaska, having climbed to the top of the church, shouted to them: “We are burning with this fire, and you are still burning with eternal fire - move away: otherwise, when we set fire to the buildings, gunpowder and saltpeter will mark the logs and kill all of you.” The warriors and priests were really afraid and retreated, and Vaska, going into the church, locked it and said to his people: “I will get out of here through the window and when I light the prepared substance, I will come here again.” But the disciples, guessing that he only wanted to destroy them and run away, forcibly restrained him, released a little girl through the window so that she would set fire to the prepared materials, and died together with their seducer 442. 3. The third place where the schism of the priestless sect most spread and established itself was Pomorie within the Olonets 443 . There were many dissenters in these countries. At the head of all is Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna. Having been defrocked and exiled in 1655 to the Paleostrovsky monastery (on Lake Onega), for about a year (d. 1656) he taught the surrounding residents to remain firm in the supposedly ancient traditions of the fathers and, among other things, allegedly commanded not to accept from the Russian Church any sacraments and sacred rites that come from it to rebaptize the newly baptized, not to accept newly appointed priests in it, claiming that not only the holy monks who were still among them (i.e., the schismatics), but also monks and simple pious men could perform mysteries and satisfy others’ spiritual needs—a thought purely non-priestly 444 . Second after Paul is called Dosifei, the former abbot of the Nikolsky Besedovsky Monastery near Tikhvin. Having left his monastery, he wandered to different places preaching about the schism and most often liked to instill in the Kurzhensky monastery near Povenets, where the inhabitants of the Obonezh country flocked to him and learned the imaginary old piety 445. The third was the monk Cornelius. He was born in Totma from a farmer, took monastic vows in the Vologda Cornelius Monastery, held the position of sexton in the Moscow Simonov Monastery, housekeeper or keymaster under Patriarch Philaret, baker under Patriarch Joasaph and Novgorod Archbishop Affonia, overseer of clergy prisoners under Patriarch Joseph. Then, having joined in the schism, he retired with the former abbot of Tikhvin, Dosifei, to the Don. Upon his return, he corrected the sexton service in the Nilova Hermitage and, having become the culprit of the open indignation of the monks here against the authorities, 446 fled to the Olonets borders, to the city of Pudogu, where there were already many followers of the schism. At their direction, having chosen a safe desert for himself, he settled in it and lived for two years with the famous Solovetsky monk Epiphanius, about a year and a half with the monk Philip, who was sent to him from the Pustozersk prison by Avvakum and Lazarus; then he moved several times from place to place, from desert to desert, took in husbands and wives who came to live with him, rebaptized him and tonsured him into monasticism, although he did not have holy orders, until he finally established himself on the Vygu River and became the first planter of the Vygorets desert, so famous in the history of the schism 447. But most of all, the Solovetsky immigrants contributed to the spread of the schism in the Pomeranian countries. Some of them left the monastery at the beginning of its siege, others at the end of the siege 448. Scattered throughout the seaside, they spread everywhere that the Nikonians were trying to destroy the old faith and introduce a new, soul-destroying one, that they were torturing the faithful with all sorts of languor, bonds, wounds, imprisonment, cutting out tongues, burning in log houses and under. They divulged, on the other hand, about the extraordinary firmness in faith, courage and suffering of the schism teachers - Avvakum, Lazarus, Theodore, Epiphanius and others, about various miracles that God performed in them and through them to the shame of heretics, also about the suffering of the Solovetsky fathers, about their supposed martyrdom, about the incorruption of their bodies, about the miracles and prophecies that took place during the siege of the monastery and so on. 449. With such stories, superstitions easily seduced simple-minded villagers, many were carried away into the desert, they started monasteries and indulged in various excesses. Thus, the most famous of these wandering monks, Deacon Ignatius, having settled in the desert near Kargopol, soon gathered around him many husbands, wives and girls and, outwardly maintaining the appearance of a strict ascetic, secretly commanded them to live fornication without any remorse, saying that this was not a sin, but love, as long as they did not marry each other and did not receive church blessings for marriage. In order to more successfully acquire followers, he decided to resort to stupid and inhuman sorcery: he ordered to slaughter one illegitimate baby, take out his heart, dry him up, grind him down, and then, scattering what he had crushed into pieces of paper, he called some of his novices and told them: “Take these pieces of paper with the shrine and go to cities and towns, preaching that the Orthodox will not They didn’t go to church, they didn’t receive blessings from the current priests, they didn’t confess to them and they didn’t partake of any shrine from the church, they put the cross on themselves with two fingers, not three, because the three-fingered finger is the seal of the Antichrist. Whether they listen to you or not, you secretly throw particles of the powder given to you into the food and drink of people; As soon as they taste such food and drink, they will certainly turn to us.” When one Kargopolet, who also came to the desert to seek salvation for his soul, and whom Ignatius, for the sake of a preliminary test in the feat of fasting, imprisoned in one of the dark cells next to his own, saw with horror all this atrocity through the wells of the hut and found the opportunity to tell about it to merchants who happened to be passing nearby: then the schism teacher, fearing that the news would not reach his superiors, hastily burned out his entire desert and fled with his followers to Palyu Island, on Lake Onega. They were soon joined by another similar gang under the leadership of the schismatic teacher Emelyan Ivanov from Povenets, and together in September 1687 they took possession of the Paleostrovsky monastery and established themselves in it. In vain were exhorters and soldiers sent from Novgorod to admonish the lost and prevent new atrocities - the schismatics (March 4, 1687) set fire to the monastery buildings, and Ignatius allegedly burned with 2,700 people in the flames, and Emelyan Ivanov, having robbed the monastery treasury, managed to escape 450. Another Solovetsky monk, Herman, who was twice imprisoned in prison, also gathered numerous followers, who, uniting with the same married Emelyan Ivanov, again (September 23, 1689) invaded the Paleostrovsky monastery with guns, arquebuses, reeds and similar weapons, seized the abbot with ten monks and three servants, imprisoned them in a cellar, and they themselves took possession of the monastery. This time too, a warning was sent - from Olonets, the archpriest and soldiers, in order to somehow capture the leaders of the rebellion without bloodshed; but they couldn't do anything. Nine weeks after taking possession of the monastery, the villains set it on fire and almost 500 people burned in it, inspired by the monk Herman, and killed the abbot with ten monks and three servants 451. The third Solovetsky monk, the tramp Joseph, with a crowd of armed peasants, his disciples, made (on the 21st day of July 1693) an attack on the church of the Pudozh churchyard. First of all, they struck the bells to gather the people, then they broke into the church itself, kicked out the priests from it, reconsecrated it in their own way, washed icons and crosses with water, baptized many simpletons again and swore an oath to each other in front of the church, so that they could all stand for one thing. In the following days they served Vespers and Matins in the church, made a procession of the cross around it, and on August 1 went out to bless the water. Finally, on August 12, having robbed the church, taking the Gospel and books from it, they retired to the village of Strokino and locked themselves in four large huts and courtyards. When the centurion appeared with the archers and with the witnesses and began to persuade the superstitious people to come to their senses and repent, they, spewing blasphemy against St. Church and the four-pointed cross, they began to shoot from the huts at the archers and witnesses. These rushed to cut down the huts; but the fanatics themselves caught fire in them, having all flammable substances ready, and all of them, 800 people, died 452. With the blessing and with the assistance of such and such holy fathers (!!!), whom we named, especially Cornelius and Ignatius, the notorious Pomeranian Vygoretsky cenobitic monastery or Vygovskaya hermitage was founded and established among the schismatics. The main persons to whom this monastery owed most of its structure and prosperity were, as the Pomeranians put it, “God’s chosen men: Daniel - the golden rule of Christ’s meekness! Peter is the cheerful eye of the church charter, Andrey is a valuable treasure of wisdom, and Simeon is the sweet-talking gusset and the silent mouth of theology, a quaternity united with God and equal in number to the four Evangelists, teachers of piety and pillars of church traditions of inflexibility” 453 . Daniil Vikulich or Vikulov was formerly a church sexton of the Shumsky churchyard, then he became a student of the Tikhvin abbot Dosifei, a schismatic teacher, and, on his instructions, chose the Solovetsky monk Ignatius as his leader. Shortly before Ignatius and after him German, the Solovetskys, died in the Paleostrovsky monastery, Daniel moved away from them to the north, wandered with several brothers from desert to desert for five years, until he arrived at the Vyg River, where there were already several other inhabitants with entire families. Here he found a new leader for himself, Elder Cornelius, and, using his instructions, founded the Vygov monastery in 7203 (1695), where he was the abbot or kinoviarch for about 40 years (d. 1734), and which was called Danilov after his name 454. Peter Prokopiev, seduced into schism by Ignatius of Solovetsky in his earliest youth, came to Daniil Vikulich from Povenets even before the founding of the monastery in 1692, being nineteen years old; then, after the founding of the monastery, as skilled in church reading and singing and an expert in church rules, he was made the first ecclesiarch of the monastery, established a strict order in it in the administration of church services and the celebration of holidays, and for more than thirty years (d. 1727) he was generally Daniel’s most active collaborator in the dispensation of the desert 455. Two brothers Andrei and Simeon Dionisievich, relatives of Peter Prokopiev, came from the family of the Myshetsky princes, former Novgorod landowners, lived with their parents in Povenets, where in their youth both were seduced into schism by Ignatius of Solovetsky. The elder brother Andrei was so inflamed by the suggestions of the tramp that, leaving the world (at the age of 17), with only his friend John, he disappeared into the desert (in 1692), and then abducted his own sister Solomonia there, to the extreme chagrin of his parent. Soon Andrei became friends with Daniil Vikulich and together with him founded the Vygov monastery, together with him he remained its abbot for 35 years (d. 1730). During his abbotship, Andrei more than once traveled to different cities of Russia under the guise of a merchant, in Kyiv and Moscow he studied “grammatical and rhetorical intelligence” and, with his rich abilities, from frequent relations with people acquired a lot of worldly experience, cunning, resourcefulness, which he used for the benefit of his society. Simeon moved to the Vygov desert together with his parent Dionysius and third brother John in 1697, when he was only fourteen years old. Not inferior to his brother Andrei in natural talents, Simeon also traveled with him throughout Russia, and during those wanderings, “having quite studied grammar, rhetoric, literature and part of philosophy,” he did not stop studying books in the monastery itself. Having been Andrei's closest assistant during his long abbotship, Simeon, after the death of his brother, was unanimously elected as his successor and for another ten years devoted his abilities to maintaining the Vygov monastery and spreading the schism (d. 1740) 456. In general, we can say that no one did as much for the schism and the Vygov monastery as the two brothers Andrei and Simeon Denisov - the Myshetskys. How did this monastery get organized under such leaders? How did she rise and what fate did she have during their time and after? At the very foundation of the Vygov desert in 1695, there were only up to forty people, male and female, in it. They built two or three cells from wood, a bread room and a dining room; in the latter they gathered for pilgrimage, the brothers stood on one side, and the sisters on the other, separated from each other by a curtain. Then they began to accept whole families into the monastery, husbands, wives and children of all ages, and soon the number of inhabitants increased to more than one hundred and fifty. New cells, dining rooms and a chapel with a meal were built, which was already divided by a wooden partition into two halves, so that men would be present in one during the pilgrimage, and women in the other. At first, especially families, everyone lived together, husbands and wives and children, in the same cells, which were sometimes only separated by a partition for males and females. But when the number of brothers increased, a wall was built along the very middle of the monastery, which was already surrounded by a fence, so that the brothers were assigned to live on one side, the sisters on the other, and for the necessary visits a cell and a window were made in the wall. When this, as was naturally expected, could not prevent the increase in debauchery, despite all the admonitions of the elders: then they decided (in 1706) to build a women’s monastery separately, at a distance of twenty ranks from the men’s, depending on it, however, - and two monasteries appeared: the men’s monastery - Epiphany on the Vygu River and the women’s Cross on the Lexa River, where the abbess of about thirty children was the sister of Andrei and Simeon Denisov - Solomonia († 1735). In addition, especially since 1703, when the cunning schism teachers managed to obtain for themselves a decree to freely conduct their worship, many private monasteries were founded in the Vygov desert, along the Vygu River and other rivers and lakes, where some settled alone, others with entire families, and chapels were set up for prayer. The main church requirements in the monastery were first carried out by Elder Cornelius: he baptized or rebaptized, confessed, tonsured monks and nuns. Then the Solovetsky elder Paphnutius, elders Pavel, Varlaam and others did the same, as well as the abbots themselves: Daniel, Andrei and Simeon 457. In both monasteries they tried to organize everything according to the monastic order: they installed an ecclesiarch, gave him assistants, singers, psalm-readers, canonarchs: they established cellars, under-cellars, elders, overseers, etc. In chapels or prayer churches they celebrated vespers, matins, hours, sometimes all-night vigils, sang prayers, listened to readings of edifying books, and abbots Andrei and Simeon Denisov, as well as others, more literate, often spoke their own teachings to the brethren 458. In the dining rooms, during lunches and dinners, books were read, to which all those present were obliged to silently listen. To maintain both monasteries and monasteries, forests were cut down, arable land was cultivated, numerous livestock were raised, a mill was built, and fisheries were maintained. More than once there was a crop failure in this region, so that many, leaving the Vygov hermitage, fled to Nizhny Novgorod: then Andrei and Simeon Denisov themselves went to Moscow and Nizhny, and sent others, some to Novgorod, some to Pskov and to the lower cities, so that everywhere among their like-minded people they could collect alms in money, bread and, where more similar, buy provisions for delivery to their monastery. In 1710, they managed to farm out, for a very insignificant price, a huge arable land, stretching 16 miles in all directions, in the Kargopol district along the Chazhenga River, built several cells there, and developed a significant amount of arable farming and cattle breeding. At the same time, they began to engage in trade: they bought grain in the lower cities and delivered it to St. Petersburg on numerous ships, which is why the monastery soon became very rich 459. One native of Solovetsky (some call him Abraham, others call him differently) also came up with a special, sacrilegious means for enriching the monastery: he announced that he had brought ancient reserve gifts of the Eucharist with him from Solovki, and since there were few of them, he dissolved them in a kneading bowl, baked new bread, the crumbs of which began to be sold to the rich, often for huge sums, as parting words for the hour of death 460 . But the main service that the Denisovs rendered to the Vygov desert and to the schism in general was that they, wandering around Russia, collected from various libraries and sacristies, partly for money, partly by cunning and deception, many ancient books, so important and necessary for the schism - books, often precious, signed by ancient pious princes and archpastors, many ancient gospels, crosses, icons and all sorts of rich church utensils 461 ; - that, being quite educated, they, together with their relative Peter Prokopiev, wrote to establish the schism such historical, dogmatic and moral works, which he did not have before, and which are still considered the best among the schismatics 462; - that they formed in the Vygov desert a school of skilled scribes for copying and distributing schismatic books, a school of singers for supplying schismatic chapels and prayer houses, a school of icon painters for preparing icons in a schismatic spirit 463; - that, knowing themselves the art of rhetoric and grammar and having studied the schism to the last foundations, they taught the same to many of their brothers 464, who then, following the example of their mentors, became pillars and disseminators of it through their writings 465 and travels, and planted their sect in many cities of Russia and, by the way, in Moscow itself and St. Petersburg. In this way, the Vygov hermitage established itself and flourished, which by the end of the last century included up to 2,000 males and more than 1,000 females 466 . There were also accidents for her, from which, however, her abbots knew how to extricate themselves very skillfully. So in 1715, Semyon Denisov, having gone to Novgorod on monastic affairs, was betrayed by two of his former like-minded people to the Novgorod Metropolitan Job and, as a stubborn dissenter, was kept in prison for four years: but, after Job’s death, having bribed the guards, he safely fled home. Before Simeon had time to arrive in the desert, one of the Vygov brothers made a denunciation to the government about their various indecencies, and, according to the royal decree, Danilo Vikulich himself with several others was taken to Peter’s factories and put into custody to carry out a search. But the schismatics managed to win over the head of the factories, Geining, in their favor so that he sent the Emperor a very favorable review about them - and Daniil and his people were released, and the search was stopped 467. In 1739, during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, another highlander named Krugly made a new denunciation against his desert cohabitants, in which, among other things, he showed that they did not pray for the Empress and the reigning House in general. Semyon Denisov and other literate people with him, as soon as they heard about this, at the council they immediately decided that henceforth, “as wherever it is printed in books, Her Imperial Majesty should be remembered everywhere according to the current custom, although the first fathers had this simply, there was no need for this until now, and no one was asked about it,” and according to the general advice they even wrote a troparion: Lord save your people... and placed in all chapels in case of inspection 468. Meanwhile, a commission chaired by the official Samarin arrived from St. Petersburg in the desert, and the abbot Semyon Denisov with many brethren was taken into custody for interrogation in the city of Shungu. But the cunning schismatics managed to persuade the informer Krugly to renounce his first testimony during interrogation, and he refused, claiming that he had slandered good people only out of revenge; They also managed to send their lawyer and petitions to St. Petersburg and arrange everything so that Denisov and his comrades were released to their hermitage, and it remained in its previous position 469. There were also fires in the Vygov desert: in 1727, the Leksinskaya monastery with all the buildings belonging to it completely burned out, and in 1785, the Epiphany monastery, for men, suffered a lot from fire. But, with the rich funds that the Vygovites owned, this only served as a reason for the construction of new and better prayer churches and other buildings 470. The Vygovskaya Hermitage also has this important significance in the schism that the very first of the hitherto existing sects of the non-priest sect was formed here - the Pomeranian or Pomeranian sect, otherwise Danilovshchina, named Daniil Vikulich. The essence of this sense, in addition to the general provisions of the schism, contains the following thoughts: 1) the Antichrist has already come and mentally reigns in the Russian Church from the years of Patriarch Nikon, destroyed all the sacraments and priesthood in it. Therefore, the Pomeranians, knowing from books that the Antichrist would not reign for long, more than once began to calculate the time, determined the very day and hour when Christ was to come to earth to judge the living and the dead, dug their own graves, prepared coffins, and lay down in them in anticipation of the coming of Christ. But the time passed, and the foolish returned to their business in shame. 2) Those coming from the Russian Church must be rebaptized - and uninitiated people, even women, can baptize, confess, as well as perform some other Christian services, since the abolition of the Orthodox priesthood. 3) Since marriage could only be performed by priests, and the priesthood has been abolished: the marital state must be rejected, everyone must live virginally, and those married in the Russian Church, upon rebaptism, must be divorced. Over time, however, the Pomeranians became more lenient in this regard. 4) Monks coming from the Russian Church, after their rebaptism, are recognized as monks; they, even if they did not have the priesthood, can tonsure others into monasticism and, preferably, have the right to be mentors and performers of church services. 5) Do not pray to God for the sovereigns, as they belong to the Russian, non-Orthodox Church. However, since the time of Samarin’s commission, the Vygovites began to pray for sovereigns, calling them only kings, and not emperors, 6) The titles should not be made on crosses: I. N. Ts. I. (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews): because this is supposedly a “Latin heresy, newly introduced by Nikon: it is appropriate to inscribe: King of Glory Is X the Son of God. - as they did during piety in Russia before Nikon.” 7) Food purchased at a market should not be considered contaminated. 8) Must be ready to self-immolate for the true faith 471. And the Vygovites, back in 1702, when Emperor Peter the Great was passing from Arkhangelsk with an army across the Vyg River, fearing that a denunciation would be made against them, prepared everything in their chapel to burn themselves in it. Likewise, when a commission under the command of Samarin arrived to them, they began to prepare for self-immolation and were persuaded with difficulty by their elders, and several people in the Shuya churchyard actually burned themselves in one hut 472. What the life and deeds of the Vygovites were like, to show this, it is enough to cite the testimony of one of their abbots, who wrote in 1744: “and among us, he says, in the Vygov desert, sins and iniquities and all sorts of untruths have multiplied, and it is impossible to write them down for shame’s sake” 473. Both from its very beginning, and now, the Pomeranian agreement was and is mainly maintained in the Olonets province; but it has its followers in the capitals and, spreading across the eastern provinces, moves into Siberia. Two ancient monasteries of this agreement, the Vygovskaya men's monastery with a women's department and the Leksinskaya women's monastery, still exist, although far from being in their previous form and renamed into villages 474. 4. At the same time, as the schism spread in the Pomeranian countries, it spread within the Novgorod, Pskov and neighboring Swedish and Polish countries. And here, as in Pomorie, the schismatics at first did not form any specific denomination, but adhered to the general opinions of the schism; but little by little a special sect of the priestless sect, known under the name Feodosiev, was formed here and became dominant. The very first fathers, teachers and imaginary sufferers for ancient piety are recognized in the countries of Novgorod and Pskov: Elder Varlaam, who was formerly the archpriest of the Pskov cathedral, then took monastic vows in the Pskov Pechersky Monastery and, finally, when a schism opened, he wandered preaching about the schism in different places of the Novgorod region; John Dementyev, a disciple of Varlaam, whom he called Karp upon rebaptism, Velikolutsk merchant; Vasily Lisitsyn, another student of Varlaam, a villager from Yam Krestetsky; Gregory, former treasurer of the Antoniev Novgorod Monastery; Sampson Popovich, son of the Krestetsky priest Elijah, and some others 475. Preaching schism, these false teachers also commanded suicide to their followers, supposedly for the sake of faith, so that many of them in the Novgorod region, according to an eyewitness, were buried alive in graves and died, while others, gathering several people together, were burned in barns 476. The first of the schism teachers to come to the Swedish border, as far as we know, was a certain Timoshka with fifty or more peasants, whom he baptized and carried away with entire families with him: then in 1684–5 many other peasants and nobles from various Novgorod volosts and churchyards fled there, carried away by the schism 477 . Having retired abroad, they nevertheless did not interrupt relations with their Novgorod brethren and supported each other. Therefore, when, around 1692, a certain Ivan Kolomensky, from among the schismatics who settled near Narva on Soldina or Black Manor, converted himself and convinced many others to turn to the Orthodox Church, foreign teachers hastened to notify the Novgorodians about this, and the Novgorodians sent the spiritual man Theodosius Vasilyev and his comrades to denounce the apostates, and when Theodosius returned, it was decided at the general gathering that took place on June 3, 1694, “with those who have fallen away, neither drink nor eat, nor stand in prayer and have no communication in anything.” It cannot be ignored that in the same resolution, the Novgorod schismatics themselves showed the weak side of their life, defining: “in cells in solitude with shameful persons and with spiritual daughters, with maidens and wives, do not live and do not indulge in the same life of the Orthodox, as before we had an oversight weakly allowed, so that we would not be cursed like Sodomites. But it is appropriate for us to choose the oldest wives of middle life for our service, and not to keep young wives and girls as cooks and not to regard them as cell attendants... And whoever people, young men or men, after this verdict of ours, will take wives to live with them for cohabitation and living alone, and if they have children with those virgins and wives, those clear single-cell people are all of us breed, and do not accept any of us, and do not allow them to pray or eat, and do not indulge them in this. And who, before that fraternal council of spiritual people, were accepted for repentance, husbands and wives, but were married in ignorance, or before our Christian baptism, and those people were appointed to have repentance, and to correct penances”... and so on. 478 Soon, Theodosius Vasiliev, whom the Novgorod schismatics sent to those who had fled beyond the Swedish border, retired with his brother and his entire family to Poland, where he became the founder of a special branch of the populist sect, which was named after him. This Theodosius came from the family of boyars Urusov, was the sexton of the Krestetsky pit, and upon rebaptism into the schism he was named Dionysius. Dissenters from different countries of Russia quickly came running to him, and he established two monasteries, one for men and one for women 479 . Preaching to his disciples the general teaching of priestlessness, in agreement with the Pomeranians, about the coming of the Antichrist and his reign in the Russian Church, about the non-acceptance of priests from her, about the need for rebaptism for those who come from her into schism, etc., Theodosius taught together and in disagreement with the Pomorians; a) on the cross of the Savior make the inscription: I. N. Ts. I.; b) the marriage of two persons, concluded in the Russian Church before they turned to schism, is recognized as a legal marriage and not dissolved (this article, as we will see, was subsequently changed by the Feodosievites); c) disgusting. what is bought at the auction is considered defiled and therefore purified with prayers and bows, which the Pomeranians do not observe; d) monks tonsured in the Russian Church should not be left, after they have gone into schism, in the same senile image and not allowed to fulfill spiritual needs, as the Pomeranians leave and allow, but recognize them as Balti 480 . In addition, to the temptation of the Pomorians, Theodosius, being only a sexton, put on priestly vestments when he baptized someone; read priestly prayers at the birth of a baby, at confession and burial; He called the schismatic abbots bishops: he recognized the imaginary sufferers of Paleostrovsky, Ignatius of Solovetsky and those who were with him, as unlawful victims. However, this did not prevent Theodosius from visiting the Vygov hermitage, then just founded, and the Vygov fathers receiving him with due honor. They talked for a long time about subjects of mutual disagreement; Theodosius promised not to use priestly orders in advance and parted in peace. But when Theodosius returned to Poland and told his disciples how the Pomeranians had reproached him, hostility towards them was immediately revealed. Envy was added to this; some Pomeranian teacher, Leonty Fedoseevich, supposedly very wise, preaching a schism in Novgorod, repeatedly denounced and shamed teachers of the Theodosian persuasion there and attracted to his side the very people to whom Theodosius and his disciples had previously gone. Then Theodosius wrote to the abbot of the Pomorians, Andrei Denisov, “a proposal on dogma and title,” in which he indicated thirteen deviations of the Pomor sense 481. But, not content with this, he decided another time with six of his elders to go to the Vygov hermitage (in 1706) and, after new debates with the Pomeranian fathers, moving away from their monastery, he shook off the dust from his feet and said: “Do not let us have communication with you either in this century or in the future.” From there, open hostility began between the two factions. Misfortune then befell Theodosius. One day, suddenly, Polish soldiers (zholners), looking for prey, attacked his monastery and wounded some of the brothers, even killed others - and this began to repeat itself often. To escape from violence, Theodosius, after a nine-year stay in Poland, returned with his accomplices to Russia, and here he also founded two hostels for them in the Velikiye Lutsk district, in the Vyazovskaya volost: but a deadly ulcer opened in the hostels and destroyed almost all the male and female inhabitants. Theodosius wanted to move to a new place with the remaining brothers, to the Ryapina manor, in the district of Yuri Livonsky, and for this purpose he went to Novgorod; but then he was captured, put in prison and died there in 1711. However, the Räpina manor was given to the followers of Theodosius for settlement; They built two monasteries on it, one for men and one for women, enjoyed all the amenities of life and very quickly increased in number. Andrei Denisov wrote a message to them (in 1716), in which he exhorted them to make peace with the Pomeranians; wrote about the same thing to the son of Theodosius Evstrat Feodosievich 482; but was not successful. At Ryapina Manor, internal disagreements and discords were revealed: “having settled there, let’s say in the words of a Pomeranian, they began to live a life with many gaps; drunkenness and all sorts of excesses multiplied in hosts, and all sorts of uncleanness, suppressing a completely clean field,” so that many retired to other places to live, some went over to the Pomeranians, and the abbot himself, named Konstantin Fedorov, and his comrades turned to Orthodoxy (in 1718), and, having been made an archpriest in Yamburg, attracted many others from the previous ones to Orthodoxy their roommates. Räpina Manor was deserted (in 1719). The Feodosievites then tried to establish their own communities in Starodubshchina and Poland, but not for long - and they established themselves in various Russian cities: Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Staraya Russa, Pskov, Riga and others, also abroad: in Austria, Prussia, Poland. There were many new attempts to reconcile the Feodosians with the Pomeranians, but with almost no success: they reconciled for several years, and then diverged again 483. And when the Pomeranians, as a result of Samarin’s commission, began to pray for the sovereign, the Feodosievites hated them even more, called them heretics and Samaritans named Samarin, to whom they submitted 484. 5. Finally, the Feodosievites managed to establish their own community in Moscow, now known as the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, which became the main focus and hotbed of Feodosievism 485. The founder and first head of this community for 38 years was the Moscow merchant Ilya Alekseevich Kovylin, who traded in bricks and grape wines - a man, despite his insignificant education, was extremely cunning and dexterous, who very skillfully knew how to use all circumstances for his own purpose and did as much for the Theodosian sect as the Denisov brothers did for the Vygoretskaya, and more than Theodosius himself Vasiliev. The beginning of the Moscow Feodosia community or Preobrazhenskoe cemetery dates back to 1771. It was a terrible year for Moscow: plague and famine combined to strike the inhabitants of the ancient capital, and the poor, since the supply of food supplies had completely stopped, fled in droves to neighboring cities and villages. When all the state quarantine houses were filled with infected people, then Kovylin, together with another Moscow merchant and like-minded person Zenkov, came up with the idea, as if out of zeal for the fatherland and love for one’s neighbor, to appeal to the government with a request that they be allowed at their own expense to arrange a quarantine on one of the Moscow roads to inspect everyone leaving the capital and during the quarantine to establish a cemetery for burying those who died from plague Permission was given: and the petitioners, having hired from the peasants of the village of Cherkizova, at the very border Moscow earthen rampart at the Khapilovka River, the land through which the road ran, set up an outpost and huts to detain in them all those leaving the capital. Here everything was used to seduce the hungry, sick and dying into the Feodosian schism. Kovylin, assisted by Zenkov and all the Feodosievites, of whom there were up to 20 households in Moscow at that time, exhausted all efforts to feed some, calm others, console others - and the rumor about this, spreading throughout Moscow, attracted new crowds of unfortunates to him. Realizing how precious the consolations of faith are for such people, in a special hut in front of ancient icons he celebrated prayers, vespers, and all-night vigils free of charge, and at the same time did not cease to inspire everyone that the terrible disasters of Moscow from plagues and hunger are God’s punishments for the Nikonian heresy, that one must repent, one must turn to the Orthodox faith, i.e. to a split. The dead, if they really accepted the schism, were admonished by confession, had a funeral service and were buried with decency. The gullible, exhausted by hunger and ulcers, blindly obeyed the voice of the false teacher: vats and tubs were constantly filled with water for their baptism. Many were so weak that they died during the rebaptism itself. The dying and sick, according to the conviction of the false teachers, sacrificed all their property to them, and Kovylin’s hundred horses, which he kept for transporting bricks, were now used to transport all the property from the houses of the donors to the storerooms of Kovylin and Zenkov. When the pestilence had passed and some of the Perekrestivans wanted to return to their homes, Kovylin found a way to keep them. To some he said: “You were married in Russian churches by heretics, your marriages are fornication before God, which will be punished by eternal fire, and therefore, if you return to the world and enter into marriage, you are lost; just breaking them and consecrating yourself to God can save you.” This is how Kovylin began to teach for his own purpose - perhaps not the first, but after the former Feodosievites - contrary to the founder of his sect, Theodosius Vasiliev, who, as we have seen, disagreeing with the Pomeranians, argued that the marriages of rebaptizers, concluded by them even before rebaptism, should be recognized as legal and should not be dissolved. To others who, during an illness, donated all their property to the community, Kovylin explained: “what was once sacrificed to God cannot be returned: it was accepted by God and, as it were, burned out, as, for example, a candle burned out of zeal before His icon.” Then Kovylin immediately began to organize the community, agreeing to be its rector at the request of the noblest Feodosievo residents. He converted countless property taken from the houses of donors into money or bars of gold and silver; instead of poor huts, he built huts, freely using the abandoned buildings of empty Moscow for this purpose; built refectories and chapels, first for men, then for women, decorating, especially the first, with ancient icons, partly found in the houses of donors, and mostly acquired by deception from the former church of St. Anastasia, on Neglina. Wanting to give his community the appearance of a monastic monastery, he called it a monastery and ordered all his followers to call it that way: he established that only fast food should be consumed in it, he appointed a special kind of clothing for men and women, although not monastic, and established a certain order in meals and prayer rooms; he himself went to the Vygoretsky monastery to borrow from there the rules of community life for his monastery, although at the same time he did not want to have communication with the Pomeranians either in prayer or in food: then (in 1798) he replaced these rules with others, which he borrowed from the hermits of the Theodosian persuasion who lived on Vetka. He placed men and women in two special courtyards, but in such a way that they were separated only by a low plank fence, which did not in the least impede the mutual relations of the inhabitants, which is why a new generation of so-called pupils of Ilya Alekseevich soon appeared in the monastery, who subsequently, having been brought up in the concepts of their own sense, became his main mentors and protectors. The seduction of debauchery, the safety of the refuge and the various conveniences of life that the newly established hostel presented attracted many hunters there; and the various benefits that the monastery provided from its treasures to the followers of its sect gained it many parishioners in Moscow, especially among the merchants. By the end of the last century, the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery accommodated 500 people of both sexes in its shelters and had 3,000 parishioners in Moscow who visited its chapels; and at the beginning of the present, the number of the former increased to 1500, the latter to ten thousand, of which the more prosperous had chapels in their homes; In addition, there were 200 children in the cemetery’s children’s ward. In order to better ensure the existence of the monastery for the future, Kovylin asked, to help himself, comrades under the name of its trustees, who were elected from among the richest parishioners of Moscow and were supposed to take care of its needs. The rumor about the wealth and visible improvement of this monastery, about the merits and many very successful actions of Kovylin in favor of the Theodosian sect, about his connections with noble and powerful people, elevated Kovylin in the eyes of all out-of-town Feodosian communities - and almost all of them, one after another, hurried to seek his patronage. Little by little, the Feodosievo communities, located in Yaroslavl, Novgorod, Vyshny Volochok, Riga, Tula, Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, on the Don, Kuban, Starodubye and other places, became dependent on the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery. They all received mentors and singers from the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery; there they bought service books and icons for themselves, and everyone sent annual donations to the cemetery. Kovylin knew how to enter into close contact with the Feodosievites of St. Petersburg, small in number, but very rich, and together with them, for the benefit of his sect, he decreed that every three years a general meeting of both communities, St. Petersburg and Moscow, would take place in Moscow, at which wise mentors from nonresident communities would be present, and all perplexities and debates regarding the faith would be resolved by the council. Kovylin died on August 19, 1809, leaving behind all the means for the further existence of the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery. In addition to the features of the Theodosian sect already outlined, its followers also have some others, for example: a) to sanctify food bought at a market, which is considered profaned from them, they make one hundred bows and deliberately make a hole in their ovens, so that during bows the grace of God descends more conveniently on the prepared food, and before dinner they open the same vessels with food and drink for the same purpose; b) they do not pray to foreign icons, but only to those that they purchase from the masters of their consent; they also do not pray to icons in icon cases behind glass: c) going to public commercial baths is considered defilement and heavy penance is imposed on those who go. Some of the Feodosianites, especially the Moscow ones, after long-term disputes with the Pomeranians, finally agreed with them (c. 1780) not to use the titles on the cross of Christ: I. N. Ts. I. But others, namely the Novgorod Theodosians, did not agree to this, called the first apostates and cross-haters, separated from them and formed a special agreement in the Feodosianism: Titlovshchina . 6. The third main trend of the non-priest sect was formed through separation from the Pomeranian and is known as Filippovshchina 486. Its founder was the fugitive Novgorod archer Photius, who first lived as a cell attendant with the Vygov abbot Andrei Denisov, then, having received monastic vows with the name Philip from some Pomeranian hermit David, remained in his service for some time. When the Vygoretsky cinematographer Daniil Vikulich died, Philip decided to appropriate to himself all the former spiritual children of the deceased and became their confessor, to which, according to the testimony of some, Daniil allegedly expressed his consent before his death. But not content with this alone, Philip wanted to take the very position of Daniel in the monastery, demanded the same respect and obedience from everyone and did not submit to the abbot Semyon Denisov, elected by the society. In vain did the latter and all the brethren of the monastery persuade Philip to come to his senses: he did not cease to be willful, called Semyon Denisov pope, as if he had stolen power for himself, both spiritual and civil, and he reviled the entire brotherhood. Then (December 14, 1737) a council of elders was held in the Vygov monastery: Philip solemnly complained about various disobedience to him in the monastery and especially about the insanity that Semyon Denisov committed against him; the latter answered before the council - and all those present acquitted Denisov, and accused Philip, sealing their decision with their own signatures. Philip left the monastery in terrible anger, began to reproach the Vygovites for unorthodoxy and, taking up to 50 people with him, built himself a special monastery several miles from the Vygov monastery. Denisov deliberately went with some of the brethren to Philip in order to reconcile with him; but was met only with persistent anger and curses. At this time, Samarin’s commission was sent to the Pomeranians, and the Vygovites, as a result of it, decided to pray for the sovereign: Philip, for such a concession, rebelled against them with even greater bitterness, as apostates. The commission, while touring the Pomeranian monasteries, accidentally attacked the Filippov monastery; but the Filippovites, having completely locked themselves up, did not let her in, spewed out various blasphemies against the Orthodox Church and said that they would rather die for the faith than accept such an innovation as the Vygovites accepted. Samarin ordered the gate to the yard to be broken down; but they barely broke it out when they saw that the whole hut was in flames, and on top of it there were up to 38 men who had doomed themselves to death. They rushed to the well to put out the fire: but the well was filled with firewood; They knocked down the door to the hut, but met another wall, in which the doors were blocked from the inside with logs. The fanatics prepared everything to perish in the flames, and they died (in 1742). After the death of Philip, his tonsure Terenty and Elder Matthew remained preachers of his kind. They hated the Vygovians so much that at first they accepted them into their agreement in no other way than through rebaptism; then they softened and began to accept it through a forty-day fast. There were many followers of this idea - and they, spreading across different provinces, established themselves especially in Arkhangelsk and Finland. Filippovtsy, containing the general teaching of non-priesthood, - a) honor the eight-pointed cross without a title; b) they do not worship icons other than their own; c) they don’t pray for sovereigns; d) the husband and wife of the rebaptized are bred to live a pure life, calling them brothers and sisters; e) self-immolation and starvation are considered martyrdom for the faith and in this they surpass all other non-priestly agreements. In 1765, a crowd of Filippovites broke into the Zelenetsky monastery in the Novgorod province, drove the monks out of it and burned themselves in it. In 1781, one resident of the Zlynki settlement of the Kyiv province, a Filippovets, having baptized his pregnant wife and three children, killed them that same night - sleepy, so that they would quickly enter heaven, and in the morning he himself announced to his superiors about his crime, hoping to taste death in order to achieve the heavenly kingdom. There were examples that the Filippovites, having persuaded newcomers to them to fast for forty days, did not release the unfortunate ones from prison, despite all their cries, and forced them to die a terrible death of starvation. That is why these sectarians were previously known under the name of burners and sears. 487 7. In addition to the three main interpretations or agreements, Pomeranian, Feodosievsky and Filippovsky, the priestless movement was divided into some other, smaller agreements. These are: Pastukhovo or Adamantov agreement. Its founder was some shepherd from the Vygoretsky monastery under Andrei Denisov, unknown by name. He taught: a) one should not pick up current Russian money and passports, because they depict a double-headed eagle with a rider slaying a serpent - and this is the seal of the Antichrist who now reigns in the Russian Church; b) one should not walk on the stone pavement, because it was invented already in the time of Antichrist; c) rejected self-immolation and suicide in general, so respected by Filippovites; d) did not allow the dissolution of a marriage, no matter where it was concluded, in spite of the Pomeranians, Feodosievites and Filippovites; e) generally condemned those imaginary Old Believers who enrolled in the double schismatic salary imposed on them by decree of Emperor Peter the Great, and thereby themselves recognized themselves as schismatics and allegedly became apostates from the Orthodox faith 488. Spassovo consent, otherwise Netovshchina or Kuzminovshchina. This agreement was called Kuzminovshchina after the name of its founder Kuzma, an illiterate peasant. It is still called Netovshchina because it has been and continues to be taught: “There is now in the world neither the Orthodox priesthood, nor the sacraments, nor grace.” Savior’s consent - because he states: “since there is no shrine on earth now, those who want to maintain the old faith can only resort to the Savior, who himself knows how to save us, the poor.” The followers of non-Tovism do not rebaptize those who come to them, sometimes they do not even baptize their own children in that hope. that the Savior can save even without baptism, they have monks, and marriage, no matter where it was performed, is considered indissoluble. Spasovo consent now predominantly occupies the Danilovsky district of the Yaroslavl province, and, moving to the Kostroma province, retains its dominance in the Nizhny Novgorod 489. Newlyweds. The prohibition to lead a married life, which is preached by the Pomeranians, Feodosievites and Filippovites, and on the other hand, the vile debauchery that they inevitably indulge in in their communities, has become unbearable for some non-priests. And so one of them of the Feodosian consent, a certain Ivan Alekseev, began to prove publicly that marriage is necessary for a person, and virgin life is left only to the will of those who are able to bear it - why one should marry to avoid carnal impurity 490. Many of all the non-priest talk responded to Alekseev’s voice; They only disagreed about the manner of marriage. Some said that, in the absence of the Orthodox priesthood, one can get married in the Russian Church only in order to repent before one’s congregation and bear penance after being married to heretics: this is what they did 491. And others argued that the power of the sacrament of marriage does not lie in the actual church wedding from the priest; but that just as God himself, the father of the first people, sanctified and approved their marriage with his blessing, so the blessing of earthly parents for the marital cohabitation of their children, with the mutual consent of the latter, can have the same power for the marriage union: and they followed this rule 492. For a long time, the newlyweds were held in contempt by all non-priest accords, especially by the Feodosievites. The latter, back in 1751, laid down at a common gathering: not to live in the same house with newlyweds, not to drink or eat together, and not to baptize their children; if the newlyweds repent, then separate them from their wives to different villages and rebaptize them again 493. The Pomeranians established similar rules against newlyweds in five articles, to which refutations were sent from Moscow to the Vygov hermitage in 1794 494 . Until 1765 the newlyweds could not get a single mentor; but from that time on, in Moscow, the Feodosian resident Gavrilo Artamonov finally agreed to correct their church services, baptize, enter into marriages, confess and perform funeral services: after his name, the newlyweds were called Artamonovshchina 495. Nowadays, the mentors of non-priestly concords, especially the Pomeranians, do not disdain newlyweds, and although they do not allow them into their chapels to attend public services, they nevertheless allow them to pray at this time in separate corridors located at the chapels. Many newlyweds, having reached old age, usually separate from their wives and enter either into the previous agreement in which they were before marriage, or into some other one, according to inclination or according to suggestions from mentors 496 . Wanderers or Wanderers. The founder of the sect of wanderers is recognized as a certain elder Euthymius. According to some, he was one of the peasants of the landowner Motovilov of the Pereyaslav district of the Vladimir province, and according to others, he was a Pereyaslav tradesman. Having left his city without permission, Euthymius hid in Moscow with the elders of the Philippian Concord, accepted their teaching, was baptized and named Eustathius. When he was caught in Moscow and sent to the city of Pereyaslavl, the bourgeois society gave him up as a soldier. Having fled from military service, Euthymius again hid with the Filippovites in Moscow, took monastic vows from them and was sent by the elders to a Pomeranian monastery, where he took with him a runaway peasant woman from the Tver province of the Kashin district, Irina Fedorova, a follower of the same Filippovian persuasion. Having quarreled with the abbot in the monastery, he returned, together with his companion, to Moscow, complaining about him to the elders; but, not receiving satisfaction, he decided to separate from them and, having moved to the city of Yaroslavl, sent a message to them from there, exposing various shortcomings of their kind. From Yaroslavl, Evfimy moved with Irina Fedorova to the village of Malyshevo (in the Yaroslavl district near the village of Sopelok) to the peasant Pyotr Fedorov, and here around 1784 he laid the foundation for a new sect of wanderers, first baptizing himself into pilgrimage, and then his companion Irina and five more people. After this, Euthymy and his newly baptized followers retired to the Galich forests and began to live in a cell. Two years later he returned with his companion to Yaroslavl, and here in the Korovnitskaya settlement around 1792 he died and was buried in the Yamsky forest 497. After the death of Evfimy, Irina Fedorova went to live in the village of Sopelki with the peasant Pyotr Semyonov Krainey, baptized him in her consent and named him Sevastyan. Many other residents of the village of Sopelok were also baptized after him, and from that time on, this village became the main hangout of the sect of wanderers, from where it began to spread in all directions, which is why the wanderers are called among the common people Sopelok, and their sect Sopelkovskaya. Wanderers, accepting all the principles of priestlessness, look at the Russian Church as apostate, heretical, and believe that the Antichrist has already come and reigns on earth. But while other non-priests admit that the Antichrist, who came to earth, reigns invisibly and his seal is the three-fingered sign of the cross used by the Orthodox, wanderers preach that the Antichrist reigns visibly on earth, and the seal of the Antichrist recognizes obedience to the sovereign Power. Therefore, these sectarians consider the only path to salvation not only complete alienation from the Russian Church, but at the same time complete non-recognition of royal and all earthly power over themselves and, if it is impossible to fight it, flight from Antichrist’s dominion, removal from the family, from subordination to any civil laws and wandering in forests and deserts; That's why they are called wanderers. The sect of wanderers consists of two kinds of members: actual wanderers and so-called resident Christians or strangers. Real wanderers are those who, having already broken all family and social ties, wander from place to place, live in forests, deserts, and often in cities or villages, only secretly, and consider such wandering the only condition for salvation in the present ill-fated time of Antichrist’s rule. From those who wish to enter into the consent of the wanderers, it is required: a) first of all, that he flee from the society to which he belonged; b) then, to destroy your passport or document of rank, which is considered an invention of the Antichrist; c) finally, to receive a new baptism. Wanderers consider their rank to be a monastic rank, and therefore everyone, men and women, undertakes to lead a celibate and chaste life, eat only Lenten food and generally act according to the ancient rules of the Solovetsky Monastery. Strangers completely reject marriage and recognize it as a greater sin than fornication, saying that they will not condemn communication with a lawful wife, therefore it is easier to sin with her, but they condemn fornication, and thus partly atones for the sin. However, there is penance for fornication. consisting, in addition to strict fasting, of many prostrations at the fraternal meal. Male wanderers are usually called among themselves brothers and elders, and women - sisters and elders. These sectarians, constantly hiding, do not announce their title even during a simple meeting with someone, following the rule: “if anyone asks where from, answer: I do not have the city, but I am seeking the one to come.” If one of the wanderers dies, he is dressed in a clean shroud, wrapped in new matting and buried in the forest or field, and often in home sheds, performing the burial ritual mostly at night. Living Christians or hosts and lovers of Christ are those who, having not yet entered into pilgrimage, are only preparing for it, live in peace and receive strangers, sharing their beliefs. As still in the power of the Antichrist, the strangers can pretend to be recorded in the revision books as schismatics of different sects or even Orthodox; they are most often recorded as Orthodox, in order to more conveniently hide from the observations of their superiors; bear public duties and outwardly obey all government regulations. They do not leave their homes or families and do not reject marital cohabitation. To shelter wanderers, they arrange secret rooms in their houses, underground cells with hidden entrances. Among the hosts of strangers, wanderers lay down all their property that they seized when escaping from society; Various alms flow here, often made on a large scale by rich people to support wanderers. At the end of their lives, the hosts themselves go on a journey; in the event of a serious illness, they are taken out of their homes somewhere into the forest or desert in order only to count them as being on the run and to give them the opportunity to die in the rank of wanderers, even if they died at the closest distance from their own home. The sect of wanderers, as one of the sects without priests, does not recognize the church hierarchy and does not have any priests. But these sectarians choose mentors and mentors from among themselves. The former are obliged to visit and tour their flock, interpret St. Scripture and all the beliefs of the sect, worship in chapels, baptize, confess, bury and conduct judgment. The latter, i.e. mentors conduct services only in small congregations, in the absence of mentors and by their appointment. The wanderers look at schismatics of all other consents as heretics because they obey the ruling power, enroll in the revision, carry out public duties, pray for the sovereign, use passports, enter military service, and in general for all the actions in which they expressed and are expressing their submission to civil authority and rapprochement with the Russian Church. The most infected with the false teaching of wanderers are: a) the Yaroslavl province - the Yaroslavl district, especially the environs of the village of Sopelok; Romanoborisoglebsk district, mainly the side called Shakhoty; the forest side of the Poshekhonsky district and part of the Danilovsky district; b) Tver province, districts: Korchevsky and Kolyazinsky; c) Vologda province - Vologda district; d) Vladimir province - Shuisky district; e) Kostroma province - Nerekhotsky, Kostroma and Kineshma districts; e) Olonets province - places lying near Ton-lake near the city of Kem. There are also followers of the wandering sect in Siberia and other places 498 . 8. There were, and to some extent still remain, other, even smaller, agreements in non-priesthood. For example: a) self-baptizers, who, not content not only with the baptism of the Orthodox Church, but also with the rebaptism of all non-priestly talk, as unclean, decided to be baptized themselves in rivers or springs; b) Stephanism, founded by Deacon Stefan, who taught to abhor marriage, to live in outward virginity and consider fornication to be love - and if children are born, to throw them in the forest to be eaten by animals and birds: c) Osipovism, which originated from the monk Osip, who commanded to confess to uninitiated elders, to tonsure women for nuns and for all give the dead a priestly burial; d) Onisimism - from the peasant Onisim, or the consent of the gapes, who, having gathered for prayer on the day of the establishment of the Eucharist, on Maundy Thursday, stand with their mouths open, waiting for angels to give them communion; e) Akulinism - an agreement founded by a simple woman Akulina, in which men and women, upon entry, exchange crosses and kiss icons, priests and monks take off their hair and then everyone, indiscriminately and shamefully, lives fornication 499, and so on. But almost no reliable information has been preserved about all these and other similar small sects without priesthood, about their beginnings and fate. IV. Concluding here the historical review of non-priestly talk, we cannot help but make some general comments about non-priestlyism, to which its history leads 1. A priestless state cannot be called the Church, much less the true Church of Christ, as it loves to call itself. For priestlessness does not have the most important condition necessary in the Church - the priesthood, hierarchy, it does not have those shepherds and teachers whom God himself gave for the perfection of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ, i.e. Church, and who must act in it until we achieve everything in the union of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13); track. will not cease until the very end of the world in the grace-filled kingdom of Christ. Priestlessism does not have the sacrament of the Eucharist, which also will not cease in the Church until the end of the world (1 Cor. 11:26) and is absolutely necessary for salvation (John 6:53); It also does not have other sacraments: confirmation, marriage, consecration of oil, established by God in the Church to impart various gifts of grace to believers. If, however, the two sacraments, baptism, confession and public services are performed without priesthood: vespers, matins, hours, prayer services, funeral services: then all this is performed arbitrarily and arbitrarily by uninitiated people, not called by God, and often even by women, contrary to the clear teaching of the word of God (1 Cor. 12:28-29; Heb. 5:4; Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 2:11–12). Finally, the true Church of Christ must be one, as a single title of a single Head - the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 12:12, 20, 27; Eph. 1:22), - united in the unity of faith, hierarchy and sacraments (Eph. 4:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:12). But priestlessness has fragmented into so many different senses, and these senses are so hostile to one another that they do not represent not only internal, but also external unity among themselves. 2. The fragmentation of priestlessism into many interpretations is natural and inevitable: it has rejected the divinely established hierarchy, does not have shepherds and teachers who received the power of teaching from Christ the Savior Himself and were given by Him to the Church precisely for this purpose, so that we may not become infants, blowing and wandering with every wind of teaching, in the lies of men, in the deceit of the wiles of flattery (Eph. 4:11, 14). Without these legal mentors, to whom believers are obliged to obey and submit (Heb. 13:17), in the absence of priests, naturally everyone considers himself to have the right to be a teacher: and so some semi-literate sexton, and a vagabond monk, and a runaway soldier, and an illiterate peasant or shepherd, and even Baba Akulina invent their pathetic rumors and base their agreements. The simplicity and extreme ignorance of the majority of the followers of the schism are extremely favorable to the fact that every sense finds sympathy for itself and captivates many. 3. Bezpopovshchina (and especially the sect of wanderers), in its spirit, is extremely hostile in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and to the state itself: because one of the main dogmas of bezpopovshchina is that the Russian Church believes in the Antichrist, as if he has already come and mentally or visibly reigns in it, acting primarily through the “power holders” spiritual and civil, who thus seem to be his guns. As a result of this, the priestless people not only do not pray for the Orthodox hierarchs, but, with the exception of the Pomeranians, they do not pray for the sovereigns either, and while some, at least outwardly, obey existing authorities and laws and perform civil duties, others, namely wanderers, consider disobedience to existing authorities and laws to be their first duty, and therefore, breaking social and family ties, indulge in wanderings or, more precisely, vagrancy. The priestless people look at all Orthodox Russians as children of the devil, with whom they should have no communication either in prayer, or in food, or in drinking. 4. Non-priesthood is extremely unfavorable to family and social life. In its most important sense, it dissolves and prohibits marriage - the first condition for family happiness and social improvement; demands that all her followers, men and women, live celibately, thinking of having a whole world of hermits. And at the same time, it allows both those living in the world and those working in communities or monasteries to commit fornication, to the general temptation of fellow citizens and the extreme misfortune of illegitimate children. In addition, with the many rumors that exist in non-priesthood, it often happens that members of the same family, entering into different agreements, not only do not pray, drink or eat together, but also look at each other with disgust, consider each other heretics, unclean. What a soul-shattering spectacle!.. Chapter IV. History of the priestly sect I. The history of the clerical sects presents an equally gloomy picture. This sect did not form suddenly, or more precisely, it did not suddenly adopt for itself the rule that it adheres to today and which constitutes its main difference from priestlessness. At first, the priests accepted priests who were ordained only before Patriarch Nikon, and the subsequent ordination of the Russian Church, like all other sacraments performed in it, was rejected, like the non-priests. The whole difference between one and the other was revealed only in the fact that the priests granted the right to perform church services mainly to initiated persons, with very few particular exceptions, while the non-priests granted this right mostly to uninitiated persons, although they did not reject the priests who came to them. But when all the priests of the old ordination died one after another, and the non-priests were left completely without any priesthood, the priestly sect decided to accept fugitive Russian priests, ordained after p. Nikon, and thus received its real appearance. II. The first seeds of priesthood were sown in several places at once. But we will begin the history of this sect from the borders of Nizhny Novgorod, where the oldest of the private priestly rumors was formed, when other rumors did not yet exist. 1. The instigators of the schism in the Nizhny Novgorod region, as far as is known, were: Hieromonk Abraham, monk Ephraim Potemkin and Elder Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod. All of them were active during the days of the Patras. Nikon, as soon as a schism arose, and although the first two, Abraham and Ephraim, brought repentance before the Moscow Council of 1666, the disciples they left had already managed to multiply and establish themselves in the Nizhny Novgorod deserts, especially in the Chernoramensky forests (Balakhnovsky district), which provided all the conveniences for harboring superstitions 500 . Here, little by little, several priestly monasteries, the so-called Kerzhensky monasteries, were established, and among them the most famous (around 1690) became the monastery of Elder Onuphrius, the founder of Avvakumism or Onufrievschina. This elder accidentally received from another elder Sergius some of Avvakumov’s dogmatic letters. Re-reading them with all his brotherhood, Onuphry became carried away by the thoughts of the notorious schismatic teacher, which were completely heretical: a) about the Most Holy One. The Trinity, as if it were triessential, is divided into three equal natures, the Father, the Son and the Holy. Each one has a special gray-haired spirit, like the three kings of heaven; b) about the incarnation, as if “God poured out the Word into the womb of the Virgin, not himself, but the natural power of his being,” and was incarnate from Her only by his grace, and not by hypostasis; c) about Christ the Savior, as if He “sits on the throne, co-reigning with St. Trinity" as a special God; d) about His descent into hell, as if “Christ’s soul went from the cross to heaven to the Father, but having risen from the tomb, Christ descended into hell with his body after the resurrection from the dead,” and so on. 501. Onuphry and his brothers not only adopted these reckless thoughts themselves, but also tried to spread them and defend them. Residents of other Kerzhen monasteries repeatedly admonished Onufry, but he remained adamant. Then they decided to hold gatherings or assemblies in order to convict the heretic in a conciliar manner. The first such gathering took place in 1693, in the presence of a certain boyar Feodor Tokmachev 502, but it remained fruitless; the second - soon after, under Elder Euphrosynus, also unsuccessful; the third - in 1698: this time Onuphry agreed to refuse the letters of Avvakum only conditionally, saying: “if they are found to be contrary to the Church, then we will not accept them.” A fourth, even more crowded meeting soon followed for the same purpose under Elder Nicodemus; but all in vain. Finally, seeing the futility of attempts to reason with the heretic, the elders and Beltsy of all the monasteries gathered together and, having examined the letters of Habakkuk, which he wrote against the deacon Theodore, O Rev. The Trinity, about the incarnation of God the Word, about His descent into hell, etc., unanimously recognized them as contrary to the word of God and wrote a general definition: “We reject them and forbid anyone to keep them under a church oath.” The determination took place on November 28, 1699 503. But Avvakumism had already spread its branches widely: at the beginning of the 18th century, it dominated not only in Kerzhenets, but also in the forests of Bryn (Kaluga province) and in many cities of the Rostov diocese 504. The strongest blow to this heretical interpretation was dealt by the inhabitants of Onuphrius's monastery themselves, after the death of their mentor in 1717, when, having gathered together with the inhabitants of other monasteries, they solemnly rejected Habakkuk's letters as unorthodox, asked for forgiveness for their previous error and stubbornness, and decided to excommunicate from the church anyone who would read those letters and philosophize and teach from them. The name of Avvakumism and Onufrievism began to gradually disappear, although the very traces of false teaching among schismatics remained for a long time 505. All Kerzhen monasteries initially received priests who were only appointed to the patria. Nikon, and rebaptized those who came to them from the Russian Church; but from the first years of the 18th century, following the example, as we will see, of their other co-religionists, they began to accept fugitive priests ordained after Nikon, and little by little they abolished rebaptism. In particular, the inhabitants of the Onuphrius monastery and their followers were also distinguished by the fact that they revered the schism teacher Avvakum as a saint, venerated his icon, performed services for him and, following his teaching on self-immolation, loved to indulge in unauthorized death and all such suicides were called St. martyrs. That is why in the Nizhny Novgorod and other neighboring regions, where Avvakumism spread, many thousands of people were burned in barns and huts, while others died in mortuaries by starvation, being locked up by their false teachers 506. 2. Clericalism also appeared very early on the Don, Kuban and other surrounding places, where it was introduced by the two elders Job and Dositheus. Job was born in Lithuania from noble parents and taken to Russia by the Rostov Metropolitan Filaret Nikitich when the latter returned from Lithuanian captivity. For some time, Filaret, already a patriarch, kept Job with him as a cell attendant, then tonsured him as a monk, ordained him a priest, and sent him away to live in the desert. Job, having settled in the Tver district, founded two monasteries here one after another: Rakov and Nikolsky. During the days of Patr. Nikon, having become one of the most ardent schism teachers and fearing persecution for this, retired to Rylsk district (Kursk province), where in 1669 he founded a third monastery, named Lgov. Not considering himself safe in the new place, Job soon fled to the Don: here, too, many followers gathered to the schism teacher, and he built a fourth monastery near the Chira River, erected a church in it, but did not have time to consecrate it after his death, having died a hundred years ago. After Job, the Tikhvin abbot Dosifei, already known to us, arrived here, who contributed so much to the spread of the schism in the Pomeranian countries around the Kurzhensky monastery. and then (c. 1683) he disappeared from the searches of his superiors. At the request of Job’s disciples, he consecrated the church for them, together with Deacon Gerasim, and served in it for five years: this was the first schismatic church proper, and therefore the news about it quickly spread throughout the surrounding countries among schismatics. Fearing to be discovered, Dosifei (in 1688) fled with two other priests, Paphnutius and Theodosius, and with some of his followers beyond Astrakhan into the deep steppe, where he settled on the Kuma River near the Circassians, and the church and monastery he abandoned on Chir were destroyed. Others of his followers then established themselves on the Medveditsa River, and many (more than 500 people) near Tambov and Kozlov in fortresses, from where they carried out robberies. When Dosifei died, the disciples who remained after him went from the Kuma River to the Kuban, taking with them the body of their teacher and pouring a lot of silver under it; but the predatory Tatars, attacking them along the way, took away the silver, as well as other belongings, and cut the body into pieces and scattered it across the field for the consumption of animals 507. We do not know who the successors of Job and Dositheus were: but it is known that the schism they sowed never ceased in those places - that in 1692 the schismatics lived along the rivers Kuma, Sudak, Kuban and Agrakhan, from where some tried to escape to the Crimea; from 1693 to 97, uniting at times with the Crimeans, they carried out robberies along the Volga and around the Caspian Sea, even attacking cities; in 1698, many settled beyond the Terek in the ridges, i.e. in the mountains and gorges of Big and Small Kabarda, from where after a while they moved to this side of the Terek and founded five villages 508. It is known that in 1705, when the number of schismatics on the Don increased from many archers exiled there from the capital for rebellion and from fugitive people, they rioted in Astrakhan itself, thinking to fight for the old faith and a beard that they did not want to cut; and in 1708 - a new rebellion, after which the main rebel Ignatius Nekrasov, having robbed Saratov, Tsaritsyn, Dmitrevsk, fled with his family and many followers beyond the Kuban, surrendered to the Crimean Khan and founded a society of the so-called Nekrasovites, who remained under the Khan’s citizenship until 1777, then moved to Turkey and recently returned to the bowels of the fatherland 509. It is known that Pugachev (1771–1774) belonged to the Don schismatics and used them a lot in his robberies 510. Finally, there is no doubt that the Don and Kuban schismatics, as we will now see, were in constant relations with their co-religionists who settled in Starodubye and especially on Vetka 511, and, as belonging to the same agreement with them, in all likelihood, following their example, from the beginning of the 18th century. received fugitive Russian priests to perform church services. 3. In Starodubye (Chernigov province), a schism was brought about by the former Moscow priest at the Church of All Saints, in Kulishki, Kosma, who, not wanting to submit to the definitions of the Moscow Council of 1667, fled with twenty parishioners to his friend, Starodub Colonel Gabriel Ivanov. The colonel received the fugitives graciously and ordered the Kurkuv ataman Lamaka to take them to the town of Ponurovka for residence, where in 1669 they settled near the Revna River. Many followers of the schism quickly came running to them from Russia, and they settled four settlements in the Starodub forests and deserts: White Well, Blue Well, Zameshevo and Shelomu. Among others, another priest of the old order came here from Belev, Stefan with his son Dimitri, who founded the settlement of Mitkovka. Both priests performed all services for their flock, except for the liturgy - due to the lack of a church; those coming from the Russian Church were rebaptized and newly appointed priests were not accepted. This continued until the death of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich (1682). With the accession of John and Peter Alekseevich, a decree was sent from their co-ruler Sophia to the Chernigov bishop and Starodub colonel Simeon, so that the fugitive people living in the Starodub settlements could be returned to the place of their homeland and converted to Orthodoxy: the schismatics fled, and, although after some time they returned to Starodubye, many together with their priests Kosma and Stefan withdrew to Poland for greater safety. Here they settled on the island of Vetka (extending in a circumference of no more than two miles) in the possessions of Pan Khaletsky. The first fugitives were followed by many others from different countries of Russia and several miles away near Vetka they settled in large settlements: Kosetskaya, Romanovo, Leontievo. Priests Kosma and Stefan conducted their services here and received visitors in the same way as they did in Starodubye. But they soon disagreed with each other: Kosma took out the bells and began to call them to the service by ringing, and Stefan called it vanity and said that the ringing could only quickly open their refuge, which is why he retired from Vetka to Loev - to the settlement of Karpovka, where he died, commanding his spiritual children to beware of new things in general and not to accept new ordination. In the ninth summer, according to the population of Vetka, the schismatic settlement of Bylev was founded another twenty miles away. A year later, Hieromonk Joasaph, who was the cell attendant of Elder Job, who died on the Don, came here from the Lgov monastery and settled five miles from the settlement. The people did not respect the stranger and called him Asap, instead of Joasaph, because he only had an old baptism and a new ordination, although Joasaph himself assured that the Tver bishop, at the request of Job, ordained him according to the old books, according to the ancient rite. The rejected one went to the Don to the Tikhvin abbot Dosifei and asked him what to do. Dositheus cast lots, which allegedly ordered Joasaph to perform the priesthood. Then Joasaph again came to Bylev and the residents themselves asked him to settle near the settlement and conduct services for them. At this time, priest Kosmas died on Vetka, and the Vetka people, on the occasion of Easter, begged Joasaph to come to them and perform a solemn service. Joasaph agreed, and after that, at the request of the Vetkovites, he moved to them completely. Seeing that the reserve gifts of the Eucharist brought by the previous priests were exhausted, Joasaph convinced his parishioners to build a church, but did not have time to consecrate it, dying five years after moving to Vetka. Joasaph's successor was Hieromonk Theodosius from the city of Rylsk, the last priest of the old baptism and ordination, allegedly ordained by Patriarch Joseph himself. Holding on to the schism, Theodosius fled from the Rylsky St. Nicholas Monastery into the desert on the Donets; having been captured by the messengers of the Belogorod bishop, he was sent to Moscow; from there, deprived of dignity and monasticism, he was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery for imprisonment; here, after seven years, he turned to Orthodoxy, but feignedly: because he soon fled to the seaside, then to the Kerzhen monasteries, where he performed church services for some time; Finally he arrived in Kaluga, and in one empty church, on Maundy Thursday, he performed a liturgy at night to prepare spare gifts. As soon as the Vetkovites heard about Feodosiya, they immediately invited him to their place. Theodosius willingly came to the call and ordered them to expand the church built by Joasaph in length and width, took out from Kaluga an old iconostasis with royal doors supposedly from the time of Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, and, calling his brother Alexander from Rylsk, a priest of the new ordination (i.e. after Patriarch Nikon), and from Moscow the same priest Gregory, consecrated together with them the Vetkovo church (in 1695) in the name of the Intercession of the Most Holy. The Mother of God on an old antimension, which was stolen from a certain church by Elder Melania Belevskaya, and at the same time signed by the charterer of the monastery based on Vetka, Athanasius 512. From this time on, a new era begins in the history of Vetka and in the history of the entire priesthood. The branch began to quickly rise and became, as it were, the head of the priesthood. Superstitions hurried here in droves from all over Russia, attracted by stories about the safety of the refuge and the various comforts of life, and even more by the news of the newly built church, which was the only one the priests had at that time: up to fourteen settlements were populated around Vetka, in which the number of inhabitants, in the second quarter of the last century, ranged from thirty to forty thousand 513 . From here, with the blessing of Abbot Theodosius and his successors, fugitive priests, monks, nuns carried spare gifts to all other priestly monasteries in Nizhny Novgorod, Don and to the most remote cities and villages of Russia, and made sacrilegious sales to enrich Vetka. Only on the instructions or with the approval of the Vetkovo rector were priests accepted into all other monasteries and shelters for the administration of church services 514. And what is most important, only from the time of Theodosius, who was the first to call to his aid the newly ordained priests, his brother Alexander, who soon became a monk, and then Boris from Kaluga, did the priests begin the custom of accepting such priests, and the priesthood was formed in the real sense of the word, sharply separated from the non-priesthood 515. But, on the other hand, from that same time various disputes began to arise in the priesthood, and, in addition to the opinion of Avvakumov or Onufriev, which still existed, three new agreements appeared one after another. Vetkovsky consent. The Vetkovo agreement has two main differences. First: the Vetkovites use their own myrrh, which their abbot Theodosius brewed for them, due to the impoverishment of the ancient world, combining for this purpose dewy incense, mastic, cinnamon, cloves and other fragrant things 516. With this world they anoint baptized infants and adults who come to them from the Russian Church. The second difference lies in the manner in which priests and others who come from the Russian Church are received. At first, up to and including Theodosius, the Vetkovites baptized everyone who came and once even baptized a fugitive priest, and so that he would not lose his priesthood, they immersed him in water in full priestly vestments. Then they began to make crossings only for show, and not in fact. Namely, the incoming priest, after preliminary preparation by fasting and repentance, appeared at the church or chapel in full priestly vestments: there was already a font with water, a godfather and godfather, and a schismatic priest. The latter performed the entire rite of baptism over the first in order from beginning to end, not only did not immerse the person being baptized in water, he led him around the font in salted water, anointed his members with his imaginary world, for this purpose turning away and lifting the vestments on him, but not removing them at all, so that the priesthood itself would not be removed, and thus completed the acceptance. The laity were received in the same way, with the only difference that they were usually rebaptized without immersion and anointed with chrism several at a time, placing in front of each, instead of a font, a special pot of water 517 . Even later, they began to accept, in places, the laity through one anointing, and fugitive priests even without anointing, forcing them only to curse the imaginary heresies of the Russian Church 518. In addition, it is worthy of note that the Vetkovites - a) reject self-immolation: at least, their abbot Theodosius rejected 519; b) accept icons painted by artists who are not of the same faith; c) communicate in food and drink with the Orthodox, without being subjected to penance for this, and do not consider it a sin to go to the baths with them 520; d) their priests, during their absence from the parish, elect simple men, who are given the power to receive those coming from the Russian Church, to confess the dying and order the sins of the latter, set out on paper, to be sent to them for resolution; e) weddings take place in huts and cages; f) reserve gifts are given to elders and elders and simple husbands, wives and maidens, who not only commune themselves with these gifts, but also commune others 521. This agreement was held not only by everyone who lived on Vetka itself, with its surrounding settlements, but also by many in Kerzhenets, on the Don, in Starodubye and in other places. Diaconal consent or diaconalism. The founder of the diaconate was Deacon Alexander, who lived in one of the Kerzhen monasteries. On the one hand, he rebelled against the Vetkovites, saying that they - a) unfairly use the illegal myrrh that Abbot Theodosius brewed for them, and b) incorrectly perform three incense during the service, twice straight, and the third time across, whereas according to the charter it is supposed to be incense crosswise, i.e. once straight, then across, like a cross we protect ourselves with our hands. On the other hand, contrary to all schismatics, he began to teach, in agreement with the Orthodox, that - c) the four-pointed cross should be revered as the eight-pointed one, and d) one can use the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us,” as well as the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” With these thoughts, which were still known to very few, the deacon in 1706, on the very day of the Baptism of the Lord, with a large crowd of people, when a procession of the cross was taking place on the water, decided to burn incense in the shape of a cross: the people, noticing this, became agitated and almost took the life of the new censer; but Alexander escaped, winning over to his side the priest of his monastery, Demetrius, and many other followers, without any communication with Vetka 522. Heated debates began between the Kerzhen hermitages: some defended the deacon’s thoughts and even wrote books in defense of them 523, others refuted and called the new teaching heretical 524. Theodosius himself wrote a letter to the Kerzhenians (before 1717), in which he urged that priests Gerasim, Tikhon, Dimitri and Deacon Alexander stop censing in the shape of a cross, and would cense “according to ancient church custom for the sake of pacifying and uniting the church,” threatening them, in case of disobedience, with excommunication 525; but it was already too late. The diaconate was established not only in one of the Kerzhen monasteries, but also in Starodubye and in many cities and villages. Rejecting the myrrh prepared on Vetka, the deacons - a) said that they had ancient myrrh, consecrated by the bishops who were before Patriarch Nikon, and that to this world they “add oil for impoverishment according to the rule of St. Matthew of Jerusalem" 526; b) the laity coming from the Russian Church were accepted into their consent through the anointing of this world; c) sometimes fugitive priests were also accepted; however, they did not adhere to a certain rank in accepting priests and deacons; d) St. they accepted gifts from the Vetkovo church, despite their disagreement with the Vetkovo church; e) little by little they weakened their respect for the four-pointed cross, saying that “a calico cross cannot be similar to the entire original cross of Christ” 527. The deacons, according to their main difference, are also known as novokadilnikov. Epiphanius's consent or epiphanievshchina, so named after the false bishop Epiphanius Yakovlev 528. This Epiphanius was at first a simple monk of the Kozelsky monastery of the Kyiv diocese. Having been convicted of an unclean life, having taken quite a bit of the monastery treasury and distributing the monastery property to his relatives, he asked for a passport from the Kyiv chancellery, as if to travel to Tripoli to his home estate, but, having passed the guard, he fled across the Dnieper abroad. Beyond the Dnieper, in the city of Soroka, Epiphanius composed two forged letters: one on behalf of the Kyiv ruler to the Iasi Metropolitan with a request that the latter consecrate him - Epiphanius as a bishop for Chigirin; the letter was signed with the name of the Kyiv bishop and sealed with the Kiev-Sophia seal, carved by Epiphanius himself; another - from the residents of Chigirin, who expressed a desire to have Epiphanius as their bishop. With these letters, which were filled with slander against St. Synod, as if on behalf of the entire Ukrainian clergy, Epiphanius appeared in Iasi. The Metropolitan believed the letters, and on July 22, 1724. ordained a deceiver as a bishop in Ukraine in the city of Chigirin. The newly installed one then wrote letters to the Uniate bishops of Lvov and Volodymyr, asking them for protection and permission to live in their dioceses to produce clergy. Arriving in Ukraine, Epiphanius ordained more than fourteen schismatics as hierodeacons and priests; but he was soon captured and sent to St. Petersburg, where, on the occasion of the death of Empress Catherine I (May 6, 1727), it was decided to release the culprit from search and corporal punishment, not even to deprive him of his monastic name and robes, but to exile him only to the Solovetsky Monastery for life, so that there he would be employed for work for which he turns out to be fit. In 1729, Epiphanius managed to escape from the Solovetsky Monastery and, making his way abroad to Poland, had already reached Kyiv under the name of Hieromonk Anthony of the Sophia See, but at the Kiev outpost he was accidentally recognized by the governor of the Zolotonosha Monastery, captured and imprisoned in the Kiev-Mikhailovsky Monastery. He fled from here too; but he was again caught in the patrimony of a Kyiv monastery, where he called himself a bishop, and in November 1731 he was transferred to Moscow. Here, before the decree, he was kept at the synodal office, boldly allowing himself to bless those who came and send watches to their stoles. In January 1733, a decree followed: monk Epiphanius, after corporal punishment, should be sent under a strong guard to the Solovetsky Monastery and there constantly kept in chains; Soon, however, this decree was replaced by another: Epiphanius should be deprived of monasticism and, according to a secular court, exiled to the Siberian mountain factories for eternal work. But as soon as the exile was sent on the road, he was recaptured from the soldiers and coachmen sent with him in the Kolomna forest by thieves from Vetka. The following year, the Right Reverend Raphael of Kyiv reported to St. Synod that Epiphanius, deprived of monasticism, is indeed among the schismatics on Vetka and conducts services as a bishop, wearing a sakkos and an omophorion. Finally, in 1735 The false bishop was caught on Vetka, brought to the Kyiv fortress, here he fell seriously ill and, at his request, was confessed by an Orthodox confessor, and communion with St. Mysteries, unction with oil and, upon death, was buried as a layman at the church of St. Feodosia in the Kyiv fortress. When the whole story of Epiphanius was made public, many schismatics recognized him as a deceiver and renounced him and the clergy he had ordained. Others, on the contrary, stubbornly continued to recognize Epiphanius as a real bishop, the priests and deacons ordained by him as legitimate and Orthodox, allowed them to carry out all their needs and thus formed a special consensus in the priesthood. This agreement is no different from Vetkov’s, except for the strange attachment of their followers to Epiphanius: they pray for him in their chapels, as for a true bishop, remember him not only as a bishop, but even as a sufferer, go to his grave in Kyiv to worship, despite all the ridicule for this from other schismatics. The followers of Epiphanius, although they were not numerous, managed to establish themselves in various places, on Vetka itself and in the Starodub settlements, where even by the end of the last century they had their own churches and monastery 529. The story of Epiphanius did a lot of harm to the Vetkovites. For a long time, the Russian government was dissatisfied with Vetka, which served as a den for fugitive Russian priests, soldiers, peasants, and criminals: the Epiphanius case drew even more attention to it. Empress Anna Ioannovna in 1733, with her highest manifesto, invited the Vetkovites to return to Russia to their homes, promising to forgive all those responsible: the Vetkovites did not agree. The following year the invitation was repeated several times, and also remained unanswered. Then (in 1735) an order was given to Colonel Sytin to surround Vetka with troops and return the fugitives to their fatherland under guard. Sytin, having suddenly attacked Vetka with five regiments, found in it up to forty thousand people of all sorts of rabble. It was determined: a) all Vetka monks and nuns should be sent to Russian monasteries for repentance - why, for example, Hieromonk Job, who had been in charge at Vetka for many years, after Theodosius, his brother Alexander and Anthony, was exiled to the Iversky Valdai Monastery, and another Hieromonk Barsanuphius to the Spasopreobrazhensky Pereyaslavl Monastery; b) the laity, who show themselves where they fled from, should be returned to their former places of residence; c) and those who claimed not to know where and how they came to Vetka should be sent to settle in Ingermanland under the supervision of their superiors 530. Sytin spent a whole year implementing this decree: The branch was empty; her dwellings and hermitages were burned. The Vetkovites only begged the colonel to be allowed to move their Church of the Intercession to Starodubye. Having dismantled it, they made rafts from the logs and sent them along the Sozha River to the Svyatskaya settlement, and the iconostasis and other small parts were sent there by land. But the storm broke the rafts so that the entire oak tree died in the river, and the small parts that had already been brought to the place were burned by lightning; All that remained were the royal doors, side doors and four icons. The Vetkovites also spoke about the relics of their former abbots: Joasaph, Theodosius, Alexander and Anthony: Sytin ordered all four coffins to be dug up, sealed them and released them with the Vetkovites, notifying the government about it. Near Novgorod Seversk, the Highest command was received to open the coffins in front of everyone: then the pitiful superstitions saw in the coffins, instead of incorruptible relics, only bones, realized their deception and stopped boasting about imaginary saints. The coffins were burned. This, however, did not end the existence of Vetka. Less than two years had passed before it was again populated by fugitives, and after five years it had reached almost its previous state. From all sides, various alms and alms fell to the Vetkovites from the followers of the schism, as to imaginary sufferers for the faith. First, they built themselves a large chapel, which they richly decorated with icons like a church: then twenty years later (in 1758) they built a new church near the chapel, also in the name of the Intercession of the Most Holy. Mother of God, only even more beautiful than before. The fugitive priests-rectors appeared: priest Dionysius, who had been in charge for ten years, followed by priest Ivan Feodorov, priest Lazar (in monasticism and schema Lavrenty), the schema-monk Gregory, hieromonk Valerian, and finally the most remarkable priest Mikhailo, a Kalmyk native. Around the church there were two monasteries: a men's monastery, in which there were up to 1200 monks, in addition to unshorn monks and servants, and across the road from the men's at a distance of twenty steps, a women's monastery, which contained, in addition to numerous monasteries, up to a hundred tonsured nuns: relations between the inhabitants of one and the other monastery were daily, constant, and were carried out without any supervision or restraint. Again, simple monks and nuns began to travel to different Russian cities and villages and carried spare gifts of the Eucharist, bread, blessed bread, blessed water from the Vetka church: to the places where they had to, they themselves baptized, confessed, gave communion - and returned to Vetka with rich spoils. In its surroundings, numerous hermitages sprang up in the forests and bushes, sheltering various fugitives and villains, who carried out robberies and robberies along the Russian border at night and even during the day, so that the path became impassable. Wanting to stop such unrest, Empress Elisaveta Petrovna in 1760 issued a manifesto in which she invited the Vetkovo fugitives to return to their fatherland, promising them complete forgiveness; but without success. The same was repeated by Emperor Peter III upon his accession to the throne and Empress Catherine II twice - in 1762 and 1763. In the latest decrees, not only were the fugitives forgiven of all their guilt, without any torture, but they were also given permission not to shave their beards and wear their own clothes; return at will to the former landowners, or enroll as merchants and state peasants; settle anywhere, in entire settlements, not only in Siberia and other remote places, but also in the provinces: Kursk, Voronezh and Kazan; In addition, benefits were given for six years, exempting from all taxes and recruitment. But these conditions did not affect the Vetkovites. Then the Highest order was given to Major General Maslov, so that he, taking a military command, entered Poland, took all the Russian fugitives there and returned them to their fatherland. Maslov in 1764 with two regiments he suddenly surrounded Vetka, like Sytin, found in it up to 20,000 people of both sexes, and two months later sent everyone, at the direction of his superiors, mostly to Siberia to settle. This is how the second, final fall of Vetka took place, which for about seventy years served as the main nest and support of the priesthood 531! 4. Vetka’s place was temporarily taken by Starodubye, which was eighty miles away from it, where the rector of Vetka, priest Mikhailo Kalmyk, and some others moved at the same time, and, what is much more important, Vetka’s Church of the Intercession was transported. But before we depict this last event and the subsequent rise of the Starodub settlements, we will touch upon their previous state, when they, as if covered by a Branch, remained in the shadows. Since the removal of the first priests Kosma and Stefan from Starodubye to Vetka (c. 1682), along with many followers, the Starodub region was not empty, on the contrary, it began to be even more filled with countless fugitives from Russia, especially in the first years of the reign of John and Peter Alekseevich. The impenetrable forests throughout Starodubshchina greatly contributed to the hiding of fugitive schismatics, who boldly settled in them and soon founded up to seventeen settlements or posads 532. At the beginning of the 18th century (in 1708), when Charles XII, taking advantage of Mazepa’s betrayal, entered Little Russia and reached the Starodub region, the local villagers showed an example of loyalty to the Sovereign. Armed with whatever they could, they attacked the enemies in different places, beat several hundred of them, and took others prisoner and presented them to the Monarch himself, who was in Starodub. Sovereign Peter I was so pleased with this that he forgave all the Starodub fugitives, gave them the lands on which they had settled without permission into hereditary possession and granted them various benefits. But in relation to faith, the Starodub schismatics for a long time were in extreme ignorance and the most pitiful state. They had no prayer house or chapel, no permanent shepherds. From time to time, some priest from Vetka or a monk would just come and perform Christian services with them, but usually the old people would do it somehow. So, in the best of the settlements, named Zybkovskaya, one poor old man decided to hold services in his hut according to the Book of Hours and the Psalter - for which he hung a board near the hut, which he struck on holidays, inviting people to prayer. Little by little, the Sloboda residents became so accustomed to the old man’s services that they wished to have him as their confessor, and, when confessing to him, they also asked for communion. The old man refused at first; then, as he himself said, he allegedly found some ancient crumbs of the Eucharist, baked them into new flat cakes of dough, and thus gave communion to the people for many years. When some of the Slobozhans got hold of a fugitive priest somewhere, the old man was heavily armed. “What kind of priests are these days,” he said, and where can I get them? “I am your spiritual father”..., and I kept many weak-minded people behind me. In another settlement, Zlynka, the old people were also accustomed to conducting services only according to the Book of Hours and the Psalter, imagining that there were no other books in the world. When one of them, having bought an old printed Octoechos in Moscow, brought it to his settlement and ordered the canon to be read from it, then, as soon as they began the first song: “the chariot of Pharaoh’s chariot”..., a cry arose among those present: “What kind of book is this? why is she here? This is according to the new faith... What kind of wheels and Pharaoh are written in it? Into the oven and burn it.” No one could convince the simpletons that the book was old 533. The first of the priests, known by name, appeared in Starodubshchina (not before 1740, after the first devastation of Vetka) priest Patriciy, a highly cunning, hypocritical, cunning man. He lived in the Zybkovskaya settlement, adhered to the deacon's consent, and throughout the entire diaconate enjoyed such power and glory as no one had had before or after him. He sent out his messages throughout the deacons who were not only in Russia, but also abroad in Austria and Poland: he sent and approved fugitive priests to their communities, and in general all matters in the deaconate for many years depended on his decision. His outward importance and dignity, white hair and beard, reaching almost to his knees, aroused even more respect for him among the people. But Patrick was so proud and self-interested that he did not care at all about the spiritual needs of the people and did not allow another priest to be in the entire Starodubshchyna. And since he himself could not carry out all the Christian services in seventeen settlements alone, he allowed various disturbances to occur. Old men and women, with his knowledge, confessed the sick and gave communion, and for this, the remnants of the spare gifts were often dissolved in a new kneading bowl, baked bread and stocked up on new communion. On the other hand, no matter how cunning Patricy was, he once fell into a deception, from which he extricated himself with difficulty. Hierodeacon of the New Jerusalem monastery Ambrose, a still young man, but dexterous and ambitious, fearing punishment for his various guilts, especially for the theft of church property, fled to the Zybkovskaya settlement under the name of Hieromonk Athenogenes and asked Patricius to accept him into his consent. Patrick received him with joy, fell in love and soon sent him as a priest with great praise to various Draconian monasteries and villages located abroad along the banks of the Dnieper, and then in 1750 to the settlement of Borskaya, within Poland. Stopping in the town of Gomel, Afinogen ordered the construction of a Borskaya church in the settlement, consecrating it in the name of the sign of the Most Holy. Mother of God and began to celebrate the service to the greatest joy of the entire population. Not content with the rank of priesthood, which had been arbitrarily stolen, the deceiver wanted to take advantage of the gullibility and ignorance of the people around him and pass himself off as a bishop. For this purpose, he confessed in confession to his confessor, some fugitive priest, that he, Athenogenes, was a bishop, received a bishopric from the Siberian Metropolitan Anthony (which never happened), did not have a diocese, but was secretly with some very important criminal, and then, having learned the old faith, abandoned his honor and decided for the sake of God to wander secretly. At the same time, Athenogenes arranged an omophorion for himself and placed it in his cell so that those who came could see, and at times, as if having forgotten himself, he blessed the people with both hands. The rumor about the new bishop spread more and more. And when Athenogenes, having arrived in Wallachia, openly called himself a bishop: everyone believed him, the metropolitan himself and the ruler, and the schismatics of all clerical concords turned to him with a request to ordain clergy for them. Athenogenes distributed the priesthood with a generous hand, produced many priests and deacons, and promised the superstitions that he would even appoint another bishop, for which purpose he invited Priest Patricius to come to him. But Patrick, not seduced by this proposal, but more embarrassed by the glory of his student, decided to collect reliable information about him, sent a deliberate person to Moscow and St. Petersburg and learned that the imaginary Bishop Athenogenes was simply a squandered hierodeacon Ambrose. The new ambassador, sent there by the Starodubians, only confirmed the discovery. And the rumor about Athenogenes' imposture began to spread quickly and reached Wallachia. Patrick even wrote to him and demanded an explanation and frank consciousness. But the letter no longer found Athenogenes in Wallachia: having learned that the ruler he had deceived wanted to seize him and put him to death, the impostor hastily fled to Poland, hid for an entire post and on the Great Thursday of 1753 entered the royal service as an official, having shaved his beard and mustache and donned military clothes. The example of one impostor captivated the other. A certain Anfim, a monk from simple men who lived in the priestly monasteries, decided to pretend to be a priest: people who knew him very well did not believe his extravagance. He turned to Athenogenes, who was still a bishop, and directly asked him for the archimandrite. The false bishop accepted the gift brought and, without any trial, made Anthimus an archimandrite. Then everyone believed him, began to ask for his blessing, and the imaginary archimandrite, settling in Poland between Gomel and Vetka near the Sozha River, created a monastery for himself. Soon he also wanted the bishopric: again he turned to Athenogenes, sent him twelve ducats to Wallachia and asked to consecrate him in absentia as a bishop. Athenogenes agreed and appointed the day of Maundy Thursday and even an hour for him, so that when one reads the dedicatory prayers in absentia, the other would put on the bishop’s robes. The appointed day and hour arrived, Anthimus hastened to put on the bishop's vestments, not imagining that on that very day Athenogenes was already a Polish warrior. When the truth was revealed: Anfim did not want to part with the bishopric, and, finding little confidence in himself in his former place, he retired to distant countries and supplied priests and deacons for the priests everywhere. The Nekrasov Cossacks received him with special honor; he consecrated the church with them and ordained several priests. But a little later the Cossacks found out who Anfim was, tied him up without mercy and threw him into the Dniester, where the impostor died. To the amazement, despite the obvious deception of both false bishops, many of the priests they appointed did not want to relinquish their imaginary priesthood and, scattered in different places, deceived ordinary people, passed off Athenogenes and Anthimus to them as true bishops and thus founded, although not for long, two new schools of priesthood: Athenogenovism and Anthimovism. Only some of those ordained by Athenogenes, more conscientious ones, for example, in the Borskaya settlement, left the priesthood and, together with other residents, again resorted to priest Patricius, as “to a father,” with a humiliating request to send them a legitimate shepherd 534 . Patrick continued to reign for a long time in the Starodub settlements, but did not live to see the time when Vetka fell a second time and its Church of the Intercession was transported to Starodubye. The Starodub settlements, after a double census (in 1758 and 1761), were then governed by a volost office located in the settlement of Klimova, under the chairmanship of the chief commander, appointed by the governing Senate, and with the complicity of the mayors, on the part of the schismatic Sloboda residents themselves 535 . One of these mayors, Alexei Khrushchov, dexterous and courageous, using his power, was the main culprit in moving the church from Vetka to Starodubye. He persuaded the leading Sloboda residents to unanimously ask General Maslov, who was ruining Vetka, to do so, and Maslov agreed. The church was transported by land, with great hassle and expense, built in a deep forest between the villages of Mitkovka and Klimova, richly decorated and consecrated on December 18, 1765 by seven priests, four of whom came from Vetka (the main one was Mikhailo Kalmyk) and three from Starodub. From that time on, all the priesthood turned to Staroduby, as before it turned to Vetka. In the last quarter of the last century, there were, in addition to two priestless monasteries - male and female, four priestly monasteries of different concords, up to seventeen churches, monastic and parish, which were mostly consecrated by priest Mikhail the Kalmyk, and sixteen public chapels in settlements and suburbs. The main monastery (Vetka consent), the Pokrovsky monastery, around the church transported from Vetka, contained up to a hundred monks and fifty beltsy; two other monasteries - Ostrovsky (Deacon's consent) and Nikolsky (Epiphaniev's consent) had, in addition to Balti, fifty monastics each; in the Kazan women's monastery, located three miles from the Pokrovsky men's monastery, the number of nuns and whites rose to seven hundred, mainly from Don Cossack women. The two monasteries of Pokrovsky and Kazan were ruled by the same abbot, priest Mikhailo Kalmyk, who was generally recognized as the supreme father in all priesthood. Being extremely self-interested, he did not want to have assistants for himself, he performed all the requirements in both of them, even without a deacon: he tonsured especially women without any trial, so that, according to his own consciousness, during the course of his abbot he tonsured up to six thousand; allowed in both monasteries, especially in the women's, the most unclean, seductive life; tolerated what simple monks and elders confessed and received communion with their communion, although there were many fugitive priests in Starodubye. These latter, however, were in a generally pitiful state here. They were usually hired by Sloboda residents for a certain fee, then they were forced to do everything their own way, and often, if they didn’t like one or another priest, they resold him to other settlements. The people had almost no respect for the unfortunate fugitives, most of whom were banned or cut off for their bad lives, and kept them only out of necessity for church services. That is why almost every priest tried to have spare gifts so that, in case of need, he could receive communion himself and his neighbors, and not turn to the priest 536. In Starodubshchina, as before on Vetka, two new clerical agreements began. Exactly: Consent of the Blackbolts. Its founders were three simple and almost illiterate men: Hilarion, nicknamed Cow's Legs, Nikifor Larionov and Pavel Grigoriev. They moved to Starodubye from Vetka after its last devastation and at first lived with the Slobozhans in common faith for quite a long time. But then, noticing constant strife between them regarding objects of faith, unrest and corruption of morals, they began to say: “in the Starodub settlements, faith has disappeared and it is impossible to be saved, because the Sloboda residents live near heretics, crests and Muscovites, with whom they inconspicuously mixed and communicated.” This kind of thinking found many followers, monks and laymen, who in 1775, leaving Starodubye, retired to Poland to the town of Chernobol, which belonged to Pan Khatkevich, founded their own church and monastery there and became known as the Chernobolites. In addition to hatred of the old-timers, the new sectarians separated from them with some other special opinions. Chernoboltsy - a) reject the oath, saying: Christ forbade swearing other than words - she, her, neither, nor; b) they do not worship an eight-pointed cross if there is no image of the crucified Savior on it; c) firmly believe in the imminent end of the world and claim that they know the very time of this end; d) do not pray for the sovereign and for the entire Imperial family according to the forms issued by St. Synod; e) considering barber-shaving to be the greatest sin, they assert: both the one who gives away another and the one who goes into the sovereign’s service, where barber-shaving is required, are lost; f) they do not accept those who come to them with passports, and as soon as they see where the passport is, they tear it, saying: here is the seal of the Antichrist. The Chernobolites managed to spread this teaching not only in Poland and Wallachia, but also in some places in Russia among the common people 537. Suslov's agreement. Several merchants from Orel and Kolomna settled in the Starodubskaya settlement of Zlynka, joined the deacon's sect and lived in close friendship with each other. Little by little, they began to be seduced by the fact that in the diaconate, as well as in the Starodub priesthood in general, fugitive priests were accepted not only from Great Russia, but also from Little Russia, where watering baptism was then performed in places. Not recognizing such baptism as valid, the merchants, in a general council among themselves, decided to accept only those priests who were appointed not by Little Russian bishops, but by Great Russian ones, and who, moreover, were able to prove that the bishop who ordained them had an ordination that was successively passed on to him in a descending line from the Moscow Patriarchs Philaret and Joseph. With this one opinion, the merchants separated from the diaconate and established their own special agreement, which was named Suslov after one of them, Theodore Suslov. The number of followers of this agreement was always not large 538. 5. While Vetka was heading towards its final fall, and Starodubye was beginning to take its place, priesthood found two more havens for itself, in which it reached a flourishing state: along the Irgiz River in the Saratov province and in Moscow. Soon after the manifesto of 1762, by which the schismatics were invited to return from Poland to their fatherland, several of their families moved to the Saratov province among 120 households. Here they founded three small villages in forest areas: the first - Mechetnoye on the Irgiz River, where the city of Nikolaevsk later arose, the second - on the same river in the Kamenka tract, the third - Balakovo slightly higher than Irgiz on the banks of the Volga. Immediately, according to the custom of their co-religionists, they established small hermitages or dugouts in the surrounding forests, where they began to gather for pilgrimage. Little by little, three main monasteries were formed: the upper one - Nikolsky opposite the village of Mechetnago, the middle one opposite Kamenka and the lower one near the village of Balakova - in Krivoluchye. But initially the condition of the Irgiz monasteries was unenviable: they did not have a single chapel or priest, although they belonged to the priestly sect. Already in 1770 they managed to appoint a fugitive priest from Starodubye, tonsured a monk by the local abbot Mikhail Kalmyk under the name of Jacob, who built them the first chapel in the upper monastery in the name of introducing the Most Holy One into the church. Mother of God. However, even after this, the monasteries improved little, had a very limited number of inhabitants and enjoyed almost no fame until the monk Sergius 539 appeared here. He was the eldest son of the Moscow merchant Pyotr Yurshev, one of the main culprits in the painful death of Moscow Archbishop Ambrose (1771), and was called Simon in the world. Fearing the fate that befell his father, Simon hid in the dense forests that belonged to Lopukhin, where many schismatics and all sorts of rabble were then secretly instilled, and in one of the monasteries he took monastic vows with the name Sergius. When the numerous riots of these hermits attracted the attention of the government: then, among others, the monk Sergius was captured and imprisoned in a Moscow prison. But he managed to leave the prison and fled to Poland. A little later, he wanted to return to his fatherland and, when crossing the border, he showed that he was a Russian native, but did not remember where he was born and who brought him to Poland. Sergius immediately used another trick, which was later very useful to him: he bought in advance and wrapped a lot of canvas on sticks, which he carried with him: when the border guards asked what it was, he answered that it was a linen camp church, and even begged them to mention it in his passport. With such a passport, Sergius went not to his homeland in Moscow, but straight to the Irgiz monasteries, which, no doubt, he had heard of before. There were already five monasteries: Nikolsky, Verkhnenikolsky, Preobrazhensky, Voskresensky and Uspensky not far from the city of Volzhsk, although in all their inhabitants, men and women, there were not even a hundred people. Sergius chose the Assumption monastery to establish his monastery, where after him his mother Marina arrived from Moscow with her youngest son and daughter and took monasticism here with the name Macrina. As a native of Moscow and the son of a father famous among schismatics for his jealousy in the old days, as a literate, well-read, sober and dexterous man, Sergius was not slow in gaining general respect for himself among the rude inhabitants of the monastery. It so happened that soon the head of the Assumption monastery died: then everyone unanimously elected Sergius as their abbot, despite his youth, and the fact that both he and his mother did not agree to this for a long time. Having taken charge of the elders, of whom there were no more than twenty, Sergius took an oath from them that they would obey him in everything and live in a Christian, monastic way; He himself wrote them rules on how to behave and what to do, and arranged a common meal. Word of the merits of the new rector of Uspensky quickly spread among the surrounding schismatics: everyone wanted to see Fr. Sergius, and in a short time there was such a flow of people into the Assumption Skete that its small chapel could no longer accommodate those coming. For some reason, this chapel soon burned down almost to the ground - and Sergius took the opportunity to petition the authorities for permission to supposedly just repair it after the fire, and meanwhile he built a new, vast, magnificent chapel, or more precisely, a church with five domes with a bell tower, and at the same time managed to get a hieromonk and a white priest from somewhere. The surrounding fellow believers, Saratov, Volga and other places, began to respect Father Sergius even more; Even greater numbers began to flock to his monastery on pilgrimage, so that the hieromonk and the priest did not have time to send the services for those coming. The monastery's income increased from visitors; the number of inhabitants in it increased more and more. Sergius finally decided to carry out his long-conceived idea: he came to the local authorities and, on behalf of all the hermitages, asked that they be allowed to erect in their chapel only temporarily the linen church he had - Sergius - and to serve several dinners in it to prepare spare gifts. For success in the enterprise, Sergius presented his passport, with which he came from Poland to Russia and in which it was actually written about the linen church that was with him. Permission was given, and the chapel turned into a church, not temporary, but permanent: a liturgical service was opened in the Assumption Skete. The news of such an extraordinary event spread on the Don, in the Urals, throughout the Volga region, and people began to flock to Father Sergius from everywhere. The abbots of other Irgiz monasteries, following his example, built churches, found priests, and opened public services. The monasteries turned into rich and populous abodes. New schismatic villages and farmsteads were founded along the Irgiz, which were filled mostly with peasants and other criminals who had fled from their masters. The number of fugitive priests multiplied here so much that the Irgiz monasteries began to supply their co-religionists in the Don and Urals with them. Thus, in a very short time, clericalism intensified to the highest degree in Irgiz, mainly through the activities of one person - Sergius, who took the title of builder of the Assumption Monastery 540. 6. There have been followers of the priestly sect in Moscow for a long time; but until 1771 they remained invisible. This year, when the non-priests of the Feodosian consent, taking advantage of the disasters of the capital, managed, under a plausible pretext, to found their hostel in the village of Preobrazhenskoe, called the modest name of a cemetery, the priests of the Vetkovo consent, who lived in Moscow, founded, under the same plausible pretext, in the Rogozhskaya Yamskaya settlement their hostel, called a cemetery. And what the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery subsequently became for the priestless, little by little the Rogozhskoe cemetery became for the priestly. At this cemetery, two chapels were erected: one magnificent in the name of the Intercession of the Most Holy. The Mother of God, in the likeness of the Church of the Intercession, moved from Vetka to Starodubka, was warm for the winter, and extensive buildings for cells were built. The new monastery, with its rich means, was quickly populated by fugitive priests, monks and nuns, and mainly Balti men and women, and had a huge influence on the strengthening of clericalism in Moscow. The number of inhabitants of the Rogozhsky cemetery rose to several hundred, and the number of parishioners in Moscow by the end of the last century was believed to be up to twenty thousand. At first, all the Rogozhites, being in Vetkovo’s agreement, were in agreement with the Starodub Pokrovsky monastery, which they called their mother, and with its abbot Mikhail Kalmyk, whom they recognized as their common father. But six years later, after the foundation of the Rogozhsky cemetery, its fugitive priests laid the foundation for a new sense of clericalism, known as Peremazanovshchina. They began to teach that it is absolutely necessary to smear the priests who are turning from the Russian Church to the imaginary Old Believers, i.e. anoint St. again peace, which was not done in Starodubshchina at that time. And since they did not have any peace, they came up with the idea that, out of need, they themselves, without a bishop, could compose and consecrate their own peace. For this purpose (in 1777) they bought a huge samovar, poured wooden oil into it, put in various fragrant ointments and plants and crushed particles of St. relics, and cooked this mixture from Lazarus Saturday until Maundy Thursday. The main instigator and manager of the whole affair was priest Vasily of Cheboksary, one of the fugitive gentlemen, who knew how to earn the greatest respect from the Rogozhites with his extreme philanthropy and hypocrisy. He himself read the bishop's prayers over the boiling oil, the other priests stood around the samovar, and the former sexton Feodor Mikhailov, although already assigned to the Moscow philistinism, stirred the samovar with a large stirrer in his surplice 541 . When the Irghiz builder Sergius, who happened at the same time, asked Vasily why he omitted one prayer, Vasily answered: because it is very important and befits only bishops. Sergius remarked: after all, all this action befits only bishops, and he heard the following words from Vasily: you, O Sergius, have begun to move away from piety, but before you were more zealous; I ask you to remain silent about this so as not to give ordinary people any reason to be tempted. But the matter soon became public due to the negligence of the Rogozh residents themselves: they sold the samovar in which they cooked myrrh at the market, without bothering to clean the vessel from the remnants of fragrant ointments that had stuck to it - which caused considerable shame to the superstitions 542 . They brewed two pounds and sixteen pounds of the whole world, poured this mixture into two glass bottles; but one of them burst and everything contained in it perished. When the news of the new Rogozhsky world spread through the priesthood, it was not received equally everywhere. The Kerzhen, Irgiz, and Don priests almost all agreed with the Rogozhites; in some cities and villages some agreed, others did not; and the rector of Starodubye, priest Mikhailo the Kalmyk, together with the monk Nikodim, a very well-read and sensible man, openly rebelled against the Muscovites and wrote to them with great severity, urging them to abandon their undertakings. The Muscovites did not want to give in and answered the Kalmyk proudly and courageously, so that he himself, if he wanted to remain in agreement with them, would send to them for the cooked world: otherwise they threatened to break the alliance. Finally, it was decided on both sides to come together and consider the matter in common council. Thus, a council of priests was held in Moscow, described in detail by one of those present at it, the monk Nicodemus 543. There were ten meetings of the council: the first on November 1, 1779, the last on January 7, 1780. The meetings took place alternately in the houses of different Moscow merchants, and for some there were three hundred people, for others - two hundred, a hundred or even less. The main actors at the cathedral were from the Starodubtsy side: priest Mikhail the Kalmyk with several of his monks and especially the monk Nikodim, and from the Muscovite side: priest Vasily with his monks, and some selected merchants. In the first meeting they discussed: how to look at some of the actions of ancestors; can they be accepted as an everlasting rule? For example, the fact that on Vetka priests Kosma and Stefan rebaptized those coming from the Russian Church, in other places they re-married, they received priests without chrismation, and the laity through chrismation and walking around a font with water? To Nicodemus’ question: “Are such actions of our ancestors legal?” - representative of the Moscow society Dimitry Fedorov answered: “not legal.” Then it was supposed: “to reason forward on the basis of Divine Scripture, and not the customs of our ancestors, who disagree with each other.” Nicodemus added: “If anything was done by the fathers in disagreement with the laws of the church, it was done out of ignorance and jealousy: be eternal memory for them, as faithful servants of God. The Rogozhians were very upset with their representative and immediately replaced him: they realized that their new venture could now be justified by nothing. In subsequent meetings there were two main issues of dispute: a) whether or not to smear the priests coming from the Russian Church; b) whether or not to accept the newly brewed myrrh as legal myrrh? The Rogozh residents answered in the affirmative; old-timers negatively. Nicodemus cited ancient church rules and examples showing that priests converting from heresy or schism should not be anointed with chrism again, and if they are anointed with chrism again, then they must be ordained again, and that chrism brewed by simple priests without a bishop is illegal chrism. Representatives of the Moscow side, not having such evidence, read messages from Kerzhenets, brought by the Irgiz builder Sergius, from Dunilov and from Gorodets to Father Mikhail the Kalmyk, urging him to follow the supposedly ancient, paternal custom of smearing priests, and not to listen to Elder Nicodemus and to excommunicate him from the Church. We then read a message from the Starodub settlements of Klimova and Mitkovka, in which Mikhail Kalmyk and Nikodim were denounced as heretics who rebelled against smearing. Finally, they read the story “about the priesthood fleeing to Kerzhenets,” written by the monk Jonah Snubnos, who was at the cathedral, which said that Paul of Kolomna himself commanded that priests from the Russian Church be received through secondary anointing, without repeating ordination on them. The disputes were heated and persistent, very often turning into frantic shouting, cursing, and fighting. The Rogozhites especially attacked Nikodim, whom they were unable to challenge, and sometimes they did not even allow him to attend meetings, sometimes they openly threatened him with beatings. The council ended with irreconcilable hostility between the disputants: both sides decided to remain each with their own opinion and completely broke the connection between themselves. The Rogozhians became known under the name of the Peremazans and found followers in the monasteries of Kerzhensk, Irgiz, and partly even among the Starodubtsy. The priest Mikhail the Kalmyk and the monk Nikodim, returning to Starodubye, were almost killed by their Peremazans, who, not knowing how to respond to their denunciations, only said: “we are the oldest faith, we are Iorzhentsy (on behalf of Colonel Iorgalsky, who carried out a census of the Starodub settlements under Peter the Great); we are the church that sank in the water (during transportation from Vetka to Starodubye); there is nothing older than our faith.” It should be noted, however, that subsequently the Rogozhians themselves were ashamed of their world-making, and part of the world was buried in the ground, and the rest was poured into the river. Since then, some have smeared themselves with simple rotten oil, which is called old only because it is rotten; others take simple oil from the lamp and pour it into a flask, in which, according to legend, there was once an ancient St. myrrh, and they imagine that the oil is sanctified through this; still others directly confess: “we now, out of need, instead of the real world, anoint with simple and unconsecrated oil, and according to our faith, God will impute this instead of the holy one. peace" 544. 7. It is impossible not to mention one more country where the priestly sect has been established for a long time and has spread very widely, namely Siberia, although we have almost no historical information about the state of this sect there. It is only known that some priests fled to Siberia at the very beginning of the schism as whole families, along with their priests, and settled mainly at iron factories and in private and state-owned gold mines. Subsequently, many other priests fled there themselves, while others were exiled by the government as punishment. In 1722, the number of Siberian schismatics increased so much that they found it necessary not to exile any more schismatics to Siberia and to issue “strong decrees so that fugitive schismatics would not be accepted in cities and districts there, and those who settled there would be sent back to their old places with punishment.” In 1735, at the factories of Demidov alone there were 1,250 male and 611 female schismatics, who had their own hermitages and hermitages, monks and nuns in the surrounding forests. At other factories, even the clerks and the industrialists themselves almost all maintained a split. The Siberian priests had their own houses of worship in localities and obtained fugitive priests for themselves, following the example of their co-religionists. Since the appearance of the Irgiz monasteries, such priests were mainly obtained from Irgiz. Yekaterinburg was considered the head and, as it were, the center of the Siberian priesthood, where many merchants and townspeople held this sect. At the beginning of this century, if you believe the testimony of the Siberian priests themselves, there were more than 150 thousand of them in the provinces of Orenburg, Perm and Tobolsk, and they were trying to build themselves a stone church in Yekaterinburg and consecrate it following the example of the churches that existed on Irgiz 545. III. Let us conclude the history of the priestly sect with two or three general remarks about it, just as we previously concluded the history of the priestless sect. 1. The priestly sect cannot be called the true Church of Christ. For, firstly, it does not have bishops, who are absolutely necessary in the Church: because they alone have received from God the right to ordain other shepherds and teachers and to teach them the power to sanctify believers with the teachings of the faith and the Holy Spirit. sacraments (1 Tim. 5, 22; Tit. 1, 5; rules. Apostle 2; Council of Antioch. 9); track. without bishops - the Church is generally without priesthood and without sanctification. The priests themselves are aware of this need for bishops in the Church when, not being able to provide pastors, they try to obtain priests ordained by our Orthodox archpastors. Secondly, the clerical sect does not have legitimate priests either: those fugitive priests that it accepts are usually either banned by their bishop and even deprived of their rank altogether, or at least, without permission, against the will of the archpastor, leaving their flock, moving to another, and in any case, when moving into a schism, they receive permission to serve as priests from the same fugitive priests who had previously turned to the schism. But according to the apostolic and conciliar rules: a) presbyters who are prohibited, or deposed by a bishop, do not have the right to officiate anywhere; b) presbyters who move to live from their own territory to another without the will of their bishop are already for this reason prohibited from performing priesthood, and if they remain in their disorder, they are even deprived of their rank and demoted to the level of laity; c) not only any priest, but even the bishop of another diocese has no right to accept and allow such presbyters, banned or deposed, - otherwise he himself is excommunicated from the Church (right Apostle 15, 16; Antioch. 3, 6; Sard. 13; I ecum. 15, 16; VI ecum. 17, etc.). Thirdly, the sacraments of the Church, which are performed in the priestly sect, are performed illegally: for they are performed by priests who do not have the right to officiate and were received illegally. Finally, in this sect there are not, in the strict sense, two sacraments: the sacrament of priesthood or ordination, because there are no bishops, and the sacrament of anointing, because there is no chrism consecrated by bishops, but simple oil, or illegally consecrated, is used - whereas in the true Church of Christ all seven of Christ’s sacraments must certainly be and be performed, which are equally established by God himself: of which the priests are also convinced. 2. The Popovshchina sect itself pronounced a verdict on itself, if not in word, then in deed, as an erring sect. The first planters and leaders of this sect adhered to two main rules: a) they accepted priests only ordained before St. Nikon, and strictly forbade accepting those ordained after; b) they accepted everyone who came from the Russian Church through rebaptism, as the greatest heretics. Subsequent priests, on the contrary, began to accept priests who were ordained after St. Nikon, and, having abolished rebaptism, they accept those coming from the Russian Church - laity through anointing with oil, and priests through their renunciation of heresies, or also through anointing with oil. Track. according to the judgment of the initial priesthood, the subsequent one obviously deviated from the truth; and the subsequent priesthood directly condemned and exposed the error of the initial one. 3. The same exact sentence was pronounced about the priesthood by its own concords, which have ever existed and still exist: for each of them, considering only itself to be true, recognized and recognizes all others as erroneous or heretical. Not to mention the fact that indeed all these agreements, in addition to those common to them, also have special errors, and some, such as Onufrievism, fell into the greatest heresies. Chapter V. Measures of ecclesiastical and civil authority against schism, the schismatics’ awareness of the need for a bishop and their errors, churches of the same faith The schism in both its types and in all its particular divisions presents us with a sad picture. But it, without a doubt, would have been even more sad if the authorities, spiritual and civil, had not used all measures to suppress this evil, to cure this contagious and deadly disease. The measures began from the very beginning of the schism and continued continuously, although, in the course of circumstances and in the spirit of the schism itself, they more or less changed and diversified, so that their review, for convenience, can be divided into three sections. The first will cover the time from the beginning of the schism to the end of the 17th century or to Emperor Peter the Great (1667–1700); the second - from the beginning of the 18th century to Empress Catherine II (1700–1762); the third is the subsequent time until the beginning of the 19th century. I. The Great Moscow Council of 1667, which finally approved the correction of books begun by Patr. Nikon, who finally condemned the schism, used and indicated the following three general measures against the schism: a) wrote a conciliar command and testament, in which, on the one hand, he urged all Orthodox, especially pastors, to unquestioningly obey St. Eastern Catholic Church and follow the newly corrected books, and on the other hand, he pronounced anathema on anyone who dares not to obey St. Eastern Catholic Church and follow the schism; b) approved for general use in Russia the book “The Rod of Rule, Confirmation, Punishment, Execution,” in which the petitions of the two main schism teachers, priests Lazarus and Nikita, were refuted in detail, or more precisely, the most fundamental principles of the schism were refuted; c) determined, on the basis of ancient examples of the universal Church, that “heretics and schismatics will not only be punished with church punishment, but also with royal punishment, that is, with city law and execution” 546. Accordingly, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of many of the first schismatics, who, after all the instructions and convictions from the clergy, not only did not repent, but boldly continued to blaspheme the St. Church, the life-giving four-pointed cross of the Lord, the most pure mysteries of Christ and other holy things. sacraments, some “to be sent to the ambassador’s homeland and imprisoned in prison, and other blasphemers he commanded to be put on fire for their unbearable, godless blasphemies” 547: since, according to the law in force at that time, whoever dared to utter blasphemy against the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ or against His honorable cross was subject to precisely this execution, i.e. burning 548. The diocesan bishops found it necessary to repeat strict orders so that the priests performed the divine service according to the newly corrected books and on prosphoras with a four-pointed cross, and those guilty of violating this were put on trial, deprived of their places, or ordered to be humbled with cruel humility 549. When the Solovetsky rebellion (1676) ended, which fully revealed the spirit of schism, hostile not only to the Church, but also to the state, and news was received about the multiplication of schismatics in remote Siberia, also in the cities of Putivl, Sevsk, Galich, Kostroma and many others: then Tsar Feodor Alekseevich sent from himself to the Council, which was held in Moscow (in November 1681) under presided over by Patriarch Joachim, written proposals, among other things, regarding measures against schism. And the Council, in accordance with these proposals, asked the pious Monarch: a) that in some places, where it turned out to be necessary, new dioceses were opened for the most convenient observation by archpastors of the state of faith among Christians: b) that schismatics, who “according to many church teachings and punishment” remain unrepentant and opposed to the Holy. Churches were sent, as was the case in the days of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to the city court to consider who was worthy of what; c) that governors and clerks in all cities should be ordered to provide full assistance to the clergy in matters of schism, and that patrimonial owners, landowners and their clerks should closely monitor schismatics and report them to local bishops and governors. At the same time, the Council determined: d) the deserts and chapels, which some schismatic teachers had established in the forests, drawing with them novices from monasteries and many villagers, to be abolished, the monks to be transferred to monasteries, and parish churches to be established for the lay people who settled in those places; e) strictly observe and persecute so that various notebooks, sheets and columns with extracts allegedly from the Divine Scripture are not sold in Moscow, as was hitherto, in order to seduce the common people into schism; f) take books from old editions to the printing yard and instead give out, without money, newly corrected books to anyone who brings the old ones 550. But as soon as these measures began to be carried out 551, a new revolt of schismatics followed in Moscow itself, even more terrible and hostile to the Church and the state than the Solovetsky rebellion, and therefore naturally caused new measures against the rebels. After the rebellion was tamed (July 5, 1682), Patriarch Joachim: a) immediately sent printed notebooks from the conciliar presentation to all churches of the state on the occasion of the execution of the main rebel Nikita Pustosvyat, so that these notebooks would be read weekly in churches to convince Orthodox Christians to obey St. Church and not follow schism 552; b) compiled and published (September 6, 1682), “for the confirmation of pious people, for the assurance and appeal to repentance from the delusion of the schismatics of St. Church,” an entire book: Spiritual Homage, in which, after a brief history of the schism, after touching archpastoral exhortations to the people, he refuted in detail all the articles of the petition Nikita Pustosvyat: the book was also sent out everywhere 553. Then he compiled and printed: c) for the benefit and confirmation of the faithful - “a word of thanksgiving to the Lord God, for His great mercy, as He favored, through His miraculous providence, His holy Church, from the apostates and evil slanderers, in the summer of 7190, the month of Julia on day 5, to deliver” (1683); d) a word of admonition to schismatics about their union with the Orthodox Church (without indicating the year); e) a word against the Suzdal priest Nikita Pustosvyat, condemned and deposed by the council, and against the schismatic Kapitons, with testimony that their faith is wrong, etc. (1684) 554 . Not limiting himself to publishing works against the schism, Patr. Joachim, back in 1682, opened four new dioceses in places where schismatics were most active, two in the north: Kholmogory and Ustyug or Totem, and two in the southeast: Voronezh and Tambov 555, and from time to time he sent deliberate exhorters to admonish the lost. So, in 1687 Archimandrite of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery Ignatius (from the Rimsky-Korsakov family) was sent to the districts of Kostroma and Kineshma, which served as the main hangout of followers of the famous Kapito 556. Other bishops zealously assisted their high priest. Pavel, Metropolitan of Siberia (1678–1692) sent trustworthy priests and hierodeacons throughout his vast diocese to admonish schismatics, and sometimes sent his own archpastoral messages 557. His successor Ignatius Rimsky-Korsakov (1692–1699) wrote three district letters to all Orthodox Christians of his flock, trying to protect them from the seductions of the schism - precious messages also because they contain very important historical information about the beginning of the Russian schism and about the first Siberian schism teachers 558. The same metropolitan publicly, in the cathedral church, denounced and admonished, and finally brought to repentance one of the most stubborn teachers of schism, Joseph Istomin, an Armenian, and after him converted many of his followers to Orthodoxy 559. Kholmogory Archbishop Afanasy (1682–1702), with his actions in the newly established diocese against the Pomeranians, left a memory of himself as the most skillful among his contemporaries and a very zealous denouncer of the schism 560. Kazan Metropolitan Adrian (1686–1690) wrote for his flock: “about the ancient tradition of St. Apostle and St. Father, how is it appropriate for every Orthodox Christian to place his fingers and cue on the sign of the cross, and how to depict it on himself” 561. And when he was already a patriarch, in 1697 he sent out instructions to all the priestly elders, in which, among other things, he outlined the rules on how to act against the schism 562. At the same time, Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich, having confirmed to the bishops - to find schismatics, judge them according to church rules, and, in cases of need, bring them before the city court, and to the governors to provide all assistance to the clergy in this matter 563, published (April 7, 1685), in addition to the previous laws against schism, twelve new articles with the following content: a) schismatics who blaspheme St. Church, create temptation and rebellion among the people and remain stubborn, “after interrogation three times at the execution, if they do not punish, they will burn in the log house”; b) if at the execution they submit to St. Churches, send them to monasteries under strict supervision and, at the end of the test, do not let the young and unmarried out of the monastery for the rest of their lives, so that they do not again get carried away into schism, and release married people on bail, and when it turns out that they have again given themselves over to schism, execute them with the same death; c) fanatics who lured commoners with their wives and children to self-immolation, to burn themselves; d) those who rebaptized adults and children, calling their previous baptism wrong, should be executed by death; e) those who themselves crossed the schismatics with their children, if they repent, be beaten with a whip and sent for correction to the local bishops, and if they remain stubborn, executed by death; f) those who have recently been seduced into schism, if they begin to repent and say that they seduced out of ignorance or under duress and did not seduce others, inflict punishment, depending on their guilt, and send them to the patriarchal court for correction, and then hand them over to the spiritual fathers for guarantee under strict supervision; g) those accused of schism, if they justify themselves and their innocence is attested by their spiritual fathers, shall be placed under the strict supervision of the latter, and if they pretend to be locked up and are convicted, they will be beaten with a whip, even if they repented, and exiled to distant cities; h) those convicted of harboring schismatics, of providing them with food, drink, etc., if they confess, some, judging by their guilt, should only be beaten with a whip, and others exiled to distant cities; i) from those who kept schismatics with a guarantee, not knowing about their schism, take a penalty of five rubles for each person; and whoever held them without bail - take 50 rubles for each person; if someone kept schismatics in his home, although with a guarantee, but knew about their schism and did not notify the authorities, such people should be whipped and exiled, and a fine of 50 rubles for each person should be taken from the guarantors; i) for schismatics exiled to different cities, to have strict supervision by the local authorities, and if they again turn out to be guilty of a schism, to report them to the government, and to put them under guard and judge them according to the articles set out here; j) if those accused of schism begin to lock themselves up, and there is no one to confront them with, then ask neighbors and spiritual fathers about them, and if they are acquitted after a search, release them on bail; if they are convicted, judge them according to the stated articles; k) sell the estate of schismatics and unscrupulous guarantors who will be exiled for the benefit of the treasury: because a lot of the sovereign’s treasury goes to pay them and pay the detectives 564. In addition to these general rules, private laws regarding splits were also issued as circumstances required. Thus, when in 1687–1689 Pomeranian schismatics pillaged the Paleostrovsky monastery, it was ordered “to issue an order to the elders and tselovalniks and the sotskys and all the surrounding peasants so that they would not allow such thieves to spread: and if anyone showed up, they would catch them and take them to the city; if they were numerous, they would report this to the boyar and the governors, under fear of severe punishment for concealment” 565; It was also ordered to “be careful that schismatics do not live in the forests and in the volosts, but where they appear, they themselves should be seized, their shelters destroyed, their property sold and money sent to Moscow” 566 . When in 1688 the Don schismatics began to carry out robberies, it was ordered “to take those thieves, burn and destroy their shelters, and inflict military punishment and execution on them for theft, and send the thieves and factory owners to Moscow 567.” Thus, from the time of the origin of the schism until the end of the 17th century, measures against it, actually civil, were still, although not numerous, but, in comparison with those that followed, the most severe. Schism was resolutely prohibited in Russia, and no one, either in cities or villages, dared to openly adhere to it. Therefore, the schismatics either hid their faith, or fled to the deserts and forests, where they set up shelters for themselves. But even there they were found, their homes were destroyed, and they themselves were brought to the spiritual authorities for conviction, and in case of unrepentance they were brought to the city court and often to death. These measures were caused by necessity. The schism at the beginning, as usually happens, was distinguished by the greatest fanaticism and hatred of the Orthodox Church, so that the instructions and convictions of the clergy had almost no effect on the fanatics of that time, and they allowed themselves to spew out the most daring blasphemies against St. the cross and other shrines of the Orthodox Church - for which, according to the current code, the death penalty was imposed. On the other hand, the schism in the first years of its existence was the greatest evil not only for the Church, from which it stole countless children, but also for the state, in which it produced a continuous series of disturbances, even terrible riots, and destroyed countless unfortunate villagers, leading them to self-immolation and other types of suicide. II. Since the beginning of the 18th century, or, more precisely, since the time when Emperor Peter the Great, after his victory over Charles XII, turned his attention to the internal improvement of Russia, measures against schism have changed significantly, softened and diversified. First of all, the Tsar ordered (in February 1714) to enumerate all male and female schismatics, wherever they lived, and to place a double tax salary on them, so that the schismatics could live openly, like other subjects of the Tsar, in villages and cities without any doubt or fear, as long as they announced themselves in the orders of church affairs and signed up to pay the double salary 568; This decree, as much as it was a relief for the schismatics - because it recognized, at least, their civil existence - was just as valid against the schism, and was confirmed repeatedly and subsequently 569. At the same time, both Peter the Great himself and his successors, the continuers of his actions, until Empress Catherine II, issued very many laws against the schism, of which it is enough to indicate the most remarkable 570. Dissenters who declared themselves and signed up for a double salary were strictly forbidden to convert their household and other people to the schism; and those who were hidden and did not register were brought to trial, a double tax was exacted from them for the past time, or they were sent to hard labor. None of the schismatics were allowed to hold public positions, and certificates from them for the faithful were not accepted 571 . All schismatics had to wear a special dress, by which they were immediately recognized everywhere 572. For the right to wear a beard, which they did not agree to shave, there was a special tax; if someone got married secretly not at the shepherds of the Church, he also paid a special tax 573. Schhismatic mentors and priests were strictly forbidden to perform services and generally support the schism, and those guilty of this were immediately sent to the local bishops or to St. Synod for Exhortations 574 . From time to time, charatean and early printed books were taken away from schismatics and sent to St. Synod 575. For seducing into schism and for spreading it, they were exiled to the galleys, or to hard mountain labor 576. The schismatics were not allowed to build monasteries 577. Their monks and nuns were sometimes sent to monasteries under strict supervision, and sometimes condemned to mining work under a strong guard 578. Orthodox priests were obliged to keep accurate confessional books and lists of schismatics in their parishes without any concealment, and also to perform church services for schismatics according to Orthodox rites 579 . If they were found guilty of concealing schismatics, they were deprived of their place; if they performed sacred rites according to schismatic rites, they were deprived of the priesthood and were brought before a civil court 580. Children from marriages of schismatics with the faithful received baptism in the Orthodox Church; Only Orthodox Christians could be their successors, and at the same time the parents pledged by subscription that they would not seduce their children into schism; schismatics could marry true believers in no other way than by renouncing the schism 581. Those convicted of deliberately and persistently harboring schismatics were punished as opponents of the government 582. Those who converted from the schism to Orthodoxy were freed from the double salary imposed on schismatics and from the collection of arrears; they were not obliged to pay taxes for the right to wear a beard and were not only protected from any insults, but also received all kinds of assistance 583. If anyone fell into schism again, then they were handed over to the city court 584. The civil authorities had, under fear of court, to present schismatics to the spiritual authorities, according to their demands, and to carry out the measures against schism prescribed by law 585. And the diocesan bishops pledged to visit and teach their flocks so that there would be no schism in them, and to take every possible care for the conversion of schismatics 586. Among the Russian archpastors, even during the reign of Emperor Peter I, those who became more famous than others for their zeal against the schism were: locum tenens of the patriarchal throne Stefan Yavorsky, Novgorod Metropolitan Job, Rostov Saint Demetrius and Nizhny Novgorod Bishop Pitirim. Stefan had barely taken over the administration of patriarchal affairs (1702) when he heard that the opinion was secretly spreading in Moscow that the end of the world was near and the Antichrist had come, that Moscow was his kingdom, Babylon, and its inhabitants were the servants of the Antichrist. In refutation of this basic thought of the Bezpopovtsy, which was no longer new, but could become dangerous especially because superstitions, not understanding the transformations of Peter the Great, directed it against the priest. the person of the Sovereign himself, Stefan hastened to write and publish (1703) a book: “signs of the coming of the Antichrist and the end of the age from the Divine Scriptures,” and the main culprit, who tried to spread this thought among the people, was found and exposed before the Tsar and the Synclite. The book was published several times and subsequently 587. Novgorod Metropolitan Job had to arm himself against the same thought. In 1707, a schismatic notebook appeared in Novgorod: “about the birth of the Antichrist,” which passed from hand to hand and confused the people. The archpastor, in refutation of it, immediately drew up an “admonishing answer from the Scriptures,” and sent it out to his diocese in lists, and by order of the Sovereign, this answer was then published in Moscow for general use. In addition, Job argued a lot with the leaders of the schism themselves: Semyon Denisov and Theodosius Vasilyev, although he could not convert them, and, bearing in mind that the schism was supported mainly by the ignorance of the people, he founded up to fourteen schools in his diocese 588. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, arriving (in 1702) at his diocese, found it overwhelmed by various schismatic movements, the spread of which were preachers emerging from the depths of the Bryn forests. Driven by zeal for faith, he decided to study the schism, with which he was previously little familiar, in all its details; He often traveled around his diocese, preached sermons, often directing them against the errors of the schism, and wrote two works against it. The first: “a discussion about the image of God and the likeness in man” was written on the occasion that many superstitious people in the Rostov diocese, as well as in others, did not agree, contrary to the Sovereign’s decree, to shave their beards, thinking that by shaving the braids and mustache the image of God in a person was distorted and he could lose eternal salvation. The saint refuted this crude idea, explaining what the image of God is in us, and in 1705 he sent out his essay throughout the diocese. Another, incomparably extensive work, entitled: “a search for the schismatic Bryn faith,” is generally directed against the errors of the schism and consists of three parts: the first proves that the schismatics’ faith is wrong; in the second, that their teaching is harmful to the soul; in the third, that their deeds are not pleasing to God. The saint compiled this book as a guide to the priests of his diocese and managed to send it to them shortly before his death (in 1709): since previously published books against the schism, he says, namely, “the rod of government” and “spiritual devotion” were almost never found in the Rostov diocese and were destroyed by schismatics. Both works of St. Demetrius were printed many times 589. Pitirim 590, the son of a villager, in his young years was himself drawn into the schism, lived on Vetka and even became a monk there. But soon, with his bright abilities, with his love for reading theological books and studying church antiquities, he clearly saw the errors of the schism, studied the spirit and habits of the schismatics, and, turning to Orthodoxy, was all the more able to influence the pitiful superstitions. The Great Peter, recognizing Pitirim, who was already the builder of the Pereslavl St. Nicholas Monastery, and appreciating his talents and information, instructed him (by decree of 1706) to engage in the conversion of schismatics in the Nizhny Novgorod region. Pitirim zealously took up the holy work, went around their homes and hermitages, penetrated into forests and deserts and everywhere meekly talked with those who were in error, instructing some with words, distributing his accusatory and admonishing notebooks to others. In 1715 He had already reported to the Emperor that, with God’s help, he had managed, with God’s help, to convert more than two thousand souls from the schism in the Yuryev and Balakhnovo districts, although he added that the local civil authorities not only did not assist him, but also hindered him. The Emperor (March 13) strictly confirmed to provide all assistance to Pitirim, threatening death for every obstacle, and Pitirim began to continue his service with even greater zeal. On Kerzhenets itself, near the schismatic monasteries, he founded the Orthodox Assumption Monastery, where he was appointed the first archimandrite, to prepare future leaders against the schism, and in 1716 he wrote and sent 130 questions to the Cherno-Ramensky schismatics of the deacon's consent, which they had to answer. The schismatics agreed, but instead of answers, in August of the same year they sent Pitirim their 240 questions. The following year, Pitirim let it be known that his answers were ready, and demanded that the deacons present theirs to him. The deacons hesitated and sent to him first Elder Barsanuphius, and then Deacon Alexander himself and others with a request to free them from the need to answer, since they felt incapable of doing so. A year has passed; the demand from Pitirim was repeated - and barely in 1719, when Pitirim had already been elevated to the rank of bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, they presented him with their answers, known under the name of deacons, which, however, were not written by any of the deacons, but were secretly compiled, at their request and for money, by the leader of a completely different schismatic persuasion, Andrei Denisov, despite the mutual hostility of both schools 591. Having received these answers, Pitirim invited representatives of all Chernoramen monasteries and many residents of the surrounding volosts to the village of Pafnutyevo, Balakhnovsky district, by October 1. Here, after the solemn liturgy, the archpastor, in full vestments, went out with a procession of the cross to a specially prepared elevated place near the church and publicly, in the presence of Orthodox and schismatics, began a conversation with representatives of the diaconal consent regarding their answers and handed them his answers. Elder Barsanuphius and Deacon Alexander and his comrades submitted a petition to the bishop, which was read publicly, and in which they confessed that, having read his answers, they saw their untruth and considered their answers submitted to him as nothing. Then they threw themselves at the saint’s feet and with tears begged him not to test them any longer, because they were unable to answer. Pitirim turned to the electors of other Chernoramen monasteries - Sofontiev, Onufriev and one Bezpopovsky: they also refused the deacon's answers and begged the bishop to leave them without testing and forgive their irresponsibility. The triumph of Orthodoxy was complete: the schism itself and solemnly confessed its wrongness and powerlessness! Pitirim immediately reported all this to Emperor Peter I, and the Emperor ordered (in 1720) the report of the Right Reverend, together with the Highest Manifesto, to be printed in a special book and sent out everywhere. Soon, the two most important leaders of the diaconate, Elder Barsanuphius and Deacon Alexander, convinced of their errors by Pitirim’s answers, submitted to him (November 27) a petition for their acceptance into the Orthodox Church, to which they were joined by confession and communion of St. Tyne. And by order of the Sovereign, they, together with Pitirim, appeared in St. Petersburg; but here it turned out that the deacon again apostatized from Orthodoxy and began to indignate the people against St. Church and royal decrees, and therefore, as an oathbreaker and an insulter to the authorities, he was executed by death 592. Pitirim's answers to 240 schismatic questions, showing a bright and sound mind, extensive information in the word of God and the writings of St. Fathers and an extraordinary acquaintance with ancient Slavic, handwritten and printed books, were published in 1721 under the name Slings for general use. Reverend Pitirim did not cease after this to work in converting the schismatics; He himself often visited their Kerzhen monasteries, built many Orthodox churches near schismatic villages, and supplied them with trustworthy priests. The zeal of the Right Reverend and successful actions against the schism were so undoubted that some places in other dioceses where the schism was raging were entrusted to his jurisdiction, namely the cities: Yaropolch, Gorokhovets, Arzamas, Yuryevets-Povolsky, Vyaznikovskaya settlement, Galitsky district, etc. 593. In 1732, six years before his death, Rev. Pitirim had the joy of seeing that in the Chernoramen forests there were barely 2,249 hermits of both sexes left, while in 1716 there were up to 8,000 or more, and all registered schismatics in the Nizhny Novgorod province were counted up to 40,000 594 . From its very establishment, the Holy Synod paid full attention to the schismatics. In January (27) 1722, he published a printed appeal in which, on the one hand, he exhorted the Orthodox to pray to God daily, “may He soften and convert stubborn superstitions by His Holy Spirit to willing hearing, bright understanding and compassionate acceptance of sound teaching,” and on the other hand, he urged schismatics to show up with their doubts about St. The Synod without any fear, to receive admonition here 595. A little over two months later (April 3), a new proclamation by St. Synod, addressed specifically to the schism teachers, to whom they were invited to appear in St. Synod for meek discussions on subjects of disagreement, and different dates were appointed for this 596. In the same year, St. The Synod also issued an “announcement with an admonition about those who are daring, recklessly daring to suffer torment,” aimed at convincing those schismatics. who were more willing to endure any punishment. rather than cutting your hair and changing your clothes 597. But since none of the schismatics for oral interviews in St. The Synod did not appear: then, by decree of Emperor Peter the Great, St. The Synod sent Hieromonk Neophytos, one of the disciples of the Nizhny Novgorod Bishop Pitirim, to the Olonets countries for interviews with the schismatics at their place of residence. The civil authorities of Petrozavodsk were informed about this so that they would provide Neophyte with the necessary assistance. And Neophytos himself was given from St. The Synod provided detailed instructions in 17 points, which, among other things, prescribed: a) that he should argue with schismatic teachers in the presence of the local clergy, secular authorities and the common people - Orthodox, schismatics and wavering; b) to act “moderately and prudently”; c) he ordered the more important questions and answers to be written down and then, after sealing them with his signature and the signatures of the schism teachers, he presented them to the St. Synod; d) so that St. would report on difficult issues that he himself would not be able to solve. Synod; e) so that, if during the ranting the dissenters appear impudent and insolent, he would ask the civil authorities to stop them and moderate them 598. Neophyte arrived in Petrozavodsk in the last days of September 1722 and, having written 106 questions, sent them through the office of the head of Peter's factories in early December to the Vygov schism teachers so that by the end of the same month they would come to him with their answers. The neophyte, obviously, had in mind short answers, on the basis of which it would be possible to reason in detail during oral interviews. But the Vygovites understood the matter differently: they replied that they could not write answers in such a short time, but would write them as soon as they had time. December and January of the new year 1723 passed, and the Vygovites did not appear with answers. Then Neophyte demanded that they appear, at least for oral competitions, - and at the beginning of February, two literates were sent from the desert - Manuel Petrov and Ivan Akindinov, who for many days, in the presence of local authorities and people, reasoned with Neophyte about the cross, about seals on prosphora and about other objects, repeating with persistence the very evidence that had long been refuted in the Rod of Government, Spiritual Glory, Search and Sling. From this it was clearly revealed that the Vygovites had no desire at all to hear the voice of admonition and instruction, but decided to stubbornly defend their beliefs. Several more months passed: there were still no answers. From the office of Peter's factories, three decrees were sent to the dissenters, one after another, to speed up the matter: they promised to submit answers by Trinity Day, but did not keep their word. Neophyte reported this to St. Synod (from June 21) 599. Finally, already on the 28th day of June, i.e. seven months later, after the questions were given, ten selected Pomeranians came to Petrozavodsk and presented a whole, huge book of their answers in two copies. Most of the people who worked on this book were Andrei Denisov, his brother Simeon, who included in it his five articles written much earlier than 600, and Trifon Petrov. They tried to put in it everything that only over the course of many years they managed to collect from various books and invent on their own in defense of their beliefs and in reproaching the Russian Church: they were not ashamed to repeat what had already been refuted more than once in previous books published by our archpastors against the schism, and filled their work with verbosity, false reasoning, incorrect references and arbitrary interpretations of the evidence cited. Having received this book of answers, Neophyte saw that now oral interviews alone would not be enough, but that in order to refute it it was necessary to write the same book - which the compilers of the answers themselves asked for in the preface. Therefore, although, having prepared reproaches for some answers. The neophyte had several competitions with the schism teachers in September; but since they constantly referred to their written answers and demanded only their reading, Neophyte considered it best to stop the useless competitions. He wrote only briefly the essence of the arguments that he had with the schismatic teachers, and when this outline was sealed by himself, the local authorities and the schismatic teachers, he released the latter from Petrozavodsk, and he himself returned to St. Synod 601. The Right Reverend Theophylact of Tver and Kashin was immediately instructed to write a denunciation of the Pomeranian answers, and soon a book appeared under the title: “the schismatic untruth, which the Vygotsky empty saints declared on themselves in their wrong answers to the questions submitted to them by the honest hieromonk Neophytos, sent to them to admonish and call to the holy Church from the holy ruler Synod; - briefly denounced by the command of the same St. Synod in the year of the incarnation of God the Word 1723" 602 Rev. Theophylact paid special attention to the 50th answer, as the most important: because here in 28 articles all the imaginary innovations and heresies of the Russian Church are counted, for the sake of which the schismatics withdrew from it. Almost the entire book is devoted to the consideration of these articles. As for the other answers: the author noted in the last chapter that they “show themselves to be wrong; some are asserted with false arguments, others cover up the power of questions with vain verbosity and instrumental speeches; Some wander past the questions, others resort to repeated praises of the Ancient Russian Church and the miracle workers with impudent exclamations.” And all this was confirmed by many examples. Unfortunately, this intelligent and thorough work remained in manuscript for a long time and already in 1745, revised by Yaroslavl Metropolitan Arseniy Malevich, it was published under the title: “exposing the schismatic untruths shown in the answers of Vygotsky’s empty saints” 603. In 1725 St. The Synod also issued an “exhortation to the ignorant,” i.e. to the schismatics, compiled by Rev. Feofan Prokopovich, and together “an exhortation to the Orthodox,” in which, announcing that the schismatics did not want to appear in St. The Synod for oral interviews - which clearly showed their weakness - and continue to indulge in self-immolation, convinced the Orthodox to watch out for the schism teachers, denounce them and announce them to the civil authorities 604. The pastors of the Church did not stop writing essays against the schism, such as the “accusation of schismatics” by Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov, which, unfortunately, remained in the manuscript 605. One of the deacons converted by Rev. Pitirim, Vasily Florov wrote in 1737 a lengthy “accusation of schismatics” 606. At St. To the Synod, an unknown person compiled in 1745 an additional denunciation of the wrong and false verbal responses of the Vygoretskys. 607 It should be noted that during this period the schismatics began to realize the need for a bishop, and this consciousness immediately appeared between the priests and the non-priests. The priests, as soon as they began to accept fugitive priests of the new ordination, felt that they were acting illegally, and came to the conclusion that they could only improve matters by acquiring a special bishop who would supply them with priests according to the old books. With this thought in 1730, the Vetkovsky monastery, together with the deacons, turned to Iasi Metropolitan Anthony, asking him to ordain them from among their bishop, and in 1731, the abbot of the Vetkovo monastery, Vlasiy, on behalf of the entire cathedral, wrote about the same thing to the Iasi Gospodar. At that time, the Constantinople patriarch himself happened to be in Iasi, who, having heard about the petition of the schismatics, said that he did not want to decide anything without consulting with the other patriarchs and promised to immediately send his answer from Constantinople. The answer was indeed soon sent in 12 points, the main content of which was that those who wish to receive the rank of bishop should give a confession to keep the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and to believe and teach others in this way for salvation. When, by order of the Metropolitan, the patriarchal answer was translated into the Slavic language: one of the Vetkovites stole the translation and fled to Vetka. The deacons, not knowing about the translation made, asked the metropolitan. so that he would order the patriarch's response to be translated for them. The Metropolitan, suspecting intent here, angrily sent them away and they returned to their fatherland with nothing 608. It is even more remarkable that the stern Pomeranians in the same 1730 decided among themselves to elect a worthy person from among their followers and send him to the Eastern Patriarchs for installation as a metropolitan: if they refuse, then they will turn to the Serbian Patriarch. Such a man, named Yakov Sidorov, had already been chosen; only he, before setting off to the east, set off with his comrades to wander around Russia in order to collect assistance among his fellow believers for the long journey. The Bezpopovites, seduced by the hope of having their own archpastor, gave donations with a generous hand. But it is unknown whether as a result of the disagreements that arose, or for some other reason, when Sidorov returned to Pomerania with rich booty, he was not sent to the east and the intention of the Pomorians for a bishop remained unfulfilled 609. After this, the Pomeranians, Vetkovtsy and Deaconites, with common consent, sent their elected officials to the east to look for an ancient bishop; but Mikhail Vishatin, sent by the Pomeranians, died abroad, and the rest of those sent returned to their fatherland with nothing. The same sectarians, by common advice, sent hieromonk Varlaam of Kazan from the Spasova settlement to Iasi for installation as a bishop. But when in Iasi they learned about the evil intent of the schismatics and their disagreement with the Orthodox Church, they ordered Varlaam and his comrades to be detained and cut off his hair in reproach. Conscious of the need for a bishop, the schismatics were at times aware of their shortcomings and errors. One of the Starodub deacons wrote in 1745: “Who will raise us up, lying down, or comfort those who sit in the darkness of sorrow? There is no one who exalts, there is no one who consoles, there is no one who guides, there is no one who cares for the common good... Where can we see the beauty of our mother? Where are you who gave birth to us? Where are you who nourished us?.. Many-sorrowful people, constant sorrow, from the beginning there are few good leaders named, but only those guilty of sorrow and stumbling. The drivers who preach the Trinity and polytheism, the drivers who burn themselves out, the drivers who teach suicide by famine, the blasphemers of the cross, those who appear to be priests without the priesthood. With such sorrows, with such confusion, we confuse the many-troubled people, perplexed by the equality of the teaching about the truth, and torn into many parts, internecine warfare rising... The priest present, the simple ones, did the baptism, and the wives did this; others, after their first baptism, already baptized the baptism; and those who do not accept the priesthood, fornication does not exist in marriage, and from this the destruction of children is caused. About sorrow and disaster!... And all this, as we see, has already been achieved even to our times. Moreover, the most sorrowful thing befalls us; the priesthood present abandons us, or, more than that, our negligence of the priesthood and mysteries eliminates us. It is foolish for our people to value the seven sacraments and holiness more than trading and agriculture 611. Another schismatic in 1755 described his priesthood this way: “into great disgrace and absurdity the real priesthood has come! These (original) priests were zealots of worldly piety, they took comfort in their souls, but these in their bellies; They have their trust in God, and these are in gold and are their merchants; They are related to spiritual conversations, but these are worldly conversations; They guard the faith of the law and the dogmas of the truth, and they have immutable faith in these meals. And what about these rivers? They are true priests, and these true priests only contain names, but the right virtues are far away; They were like queen bees, and these hornets sting their ready-made property, and they would hurt, wound, or drive out anyone who was against them. O Priests of this alien and self-willed! He boasts in vain of his fathers, he uses his name in vain... We truly do not know what wants to be in us, as if all zeal for the throne is over, and the rest of the flesh takes over..., and there are no one who corrects about this: for there are imaginaries of spirituality instead of the laws of the church. the cross of Christ was created" 612. III. With the accession of Empress Catherine II, measures against schism became even softer and more lenient. The fugitive schismatics were given full forgiveness if they returned to their fatherland, were allowed to settle in any place, choose the kind of life they wished, were granted various benefits, were allowed to wear beards and wear clothes other than those specified 613. Following this, all schismatics in general were freed from the need to shave their beards and wear a prescribed dress, and it was decided to see them in common public places without any oppression 614. Little by little, schismatics began to be allowed to take an oath and testimony in legal cases, unless they were suspicious people; exempted from double salary, and it was even allowed to choose them for public services 615. If other measures of severity were used: then specifically against secret and stubborn schismatics, and especially against those who enticed others to reckless self-immolation 616. The Church, for its part, began to act against the lost with even greater meekness and love than before. When in 1765 several schismatics, having forcibly taken possession of the Zelenetsky Monastery, expelled the monks from it, burned icons and books in it, and, despite the exhorters sent, burned themselves: then, by the Highest command, St. The Synod instructed Archimandrite Plato, who was then the teacher of law of the Heir to the Throne, to write an exhortation to the schismatics, and this exhortation, published in 1766 on behalf of the Orthodox Catholic Church, breathes the most heartfelt maternal sorrow for the lost children and is filled with the most touching convictions for them. Previous works published against the schism were written for the most part in a stern tone, in a tone of denunciation; by their very vastness and scientific research, they were little accessible to the majority of schismatics. Plato's work, not extensive and imbued with a spirit of meekness and persuasion, found access to the hearts of many who wanted to know the truth 617. Another worthy shepherd, Rev. Nicephorus Theotokius, a Greek by birth, had barely arrived (1779) in his Slavic and Kherson diocese when he considered it his first duty to write a district letter to all the imaginary Old Believers in his diocese and call on them to convert to the bowels of the Church. The message was written with pastoral zeal, meekness and love: it was forwarded to two archpriests, Elisavetgrad and Bakhmut, so that they would read this message in a meeting of schismatics, and had the consequence that in the Elisavetgrad district two settlements, Znamenskaya of the priestly sense and Zlynka of the priestless sense, decided to join the Orthodox Church and actually joined. The schismatics of the Bakhmut district, instead of answering, submitted the Solovetsky petition in 20 chapters to the Eminence, to which he answered in detail with the same spirit of meekness and pastoral conviction 618. Meanwhile, schismatics of the most important denominations continued to look for a bishop with the greatest persistence. In 1765 they decided to ordain him for themselves. The meeting took place in Moscow, in the house of a merchant. Participants in the case were from the Pomeranians Andrei Borisov and his comrades, from the Feodosians and newlyweds Vasily Emelyanov, Ivan Ivanov, Ivan Fedorov Ersh and others, from the Vetkovtsy monk Nikodim and his brethren, already known to us, and some Moscow merchants. The sakkos, omophorion, miter and other vestments were prepared in advance for the future bishop. During the meetings, some voiced that a bishop could be installed as the head of St. John Chrysostom, located in the Assumption Cathedral, as the Metropolitan of Kiev Clement was installed as the head of Clement by the Pope of Rome. Others said that since this mystery is called ordination, i.e. laying on hands, then it is much better to install a bishop by the hand of St. Jonah, Metropolitan of Moscow, or another saint; it is only necessary that when the hand of the saint is laid on the head of the chosen one, the prayers of ordination are read and he is gradually clothed in all the bishop’s vestments. The last opinion was approved by everyone and quickly made public. The schismatics rejoiced that they would finally have an archpastor who would gather them all together and give their society the appearance of a Church. But amidst the general joy, someone, more reasonable, proposed the following two questions: who can guarantee us that the saint, whose hand we lay on the head of the one being ordained, will agree with us and approve of everything that we will do? Which of us will read consecration prayers, which cannot and should not be read by anyone other than the bishop? The questions confused everyone. The Vetkovites insisted that their priest could read the prayers; the Pomeranians wanted their prayers to be read by their old man. Finally, after a contented rant, everyone admitted that such an appointment as a bishop would be inconsistent with either the word of God or the rules of St. Fathers, and therefore left their enterprise 619. The following year, 1766, the Moscow priests turned to the Georgian Archbishop Athanasius, who was in Moscow, to appoint a bishop for them; but Athanasius, without the permission of St. The Synod did not agree to this, but advised them to go to Georgia for this. That is why the Vetkovites sent the monks Nikodim and Joachim and the merchant Ivan Kuznetsov and his comrades there. But having received news on the way that there was confusion in Georgia and there was no way into it, the messengers returned without success. Then the schismatics from Moscow sent a Saratov merchant to the Reverend. Tikhon of Voronezh, who lived in retirement, and invited the saint to their place; but he resolutely refused. The schismatics who lived on the Dnieper sent ambassadors from themselves to the Crimean metropolitan and asked him for a bishop; but the Metropolitan, without the will of the Patriarch of Constantinople, did not give them a bishop, but allegedly produced only one abbot, priest and deacon. The Starodubians of the Vetkovo and Deacon Concords, having heard that the Greek Metropolitan Eusebius lived in Volyn in the town of Nemirov, who allegedly agreed to appoint a bishop for them, sent to him in 1781, on the advice of the monk Nikodim and the first-ranking Sloboda residents, the hieromonk of the Nativity Monastery Joseph for ordination as a bishop. But those sent did not find the Greek metropolitan in Nemirov, who ten days before had left for Greece. The monk of the Starodubsky Intercession Monastery, Joasaph, envious of the wealth and honors of his abbot, priest Mikhail Kalmyk, wanted to obtain for himself the highest rank of bishop. With this thought, he feignedly turned to the same Mikhail Kalmyk and the merchant Ivan Kuznetsov, so that they would send him to Greece, as if to find an ancient bishop. They readily agreed and provided Joasaph with more than one thousand ducats. He and his friend the monk Raphael went first to Constantinople, then to Mount Athos, and in 1781 he was ordained a hieromonk here by Bishop Gerasim. From Athos he moved to Jerusalem, where he received the rank of archimandrite from the Antiochian Patriarch Daniel, who, releasing him to Russia, allegedly said that if he brought a thousand ducats to ransom prisoners from Turkish captivity, he would also receive the rank of bishop. Joasaph returned to Starodubye in November 1782 and secretly lived with his fellow believers, performing church services for them. Finally, in 1782, the Novotorzh schismatics announced that the former Olonets bishop Ioannikiy agreed to go over to them; but in fact it turned out that he did not agree at all 620. When in this way all the attempts of the imaginary Old Believers to get themselves a bishop through illegal means led to nothing: one of the Starodubtsev, more sensible and well-read than the others, namely the monk Nikodim, who had his own monastery (Uspensky) near the Zlynka settlement on the Kamenka River, decided to look for a bishop for his co-religionists from the Orthodox Russian Church and reunite with it. The first idea about this was given to Nicodemus by Count Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky, who was then the governor of Little Russia. One day (in 1781) Nicodemus happened to be with the count in the settlement of Vishenka, together with the abbot of the Intercession Monastery, Mikhail Kalmyk. The count, having previously heard a lot about Nicodemus on the good side, advised him to leave the schism, content with fugitive priests, and ask the Most Merciful Empress and St. Synod of the legal priesthood, which would only perform services for the Old Believers according to their old books, and at the same time promised to intercede for the success of the enterprise before the Empress and St. Synod. Nicodemus happily agreed; but first I wanted to prepare the suburban people for this, violent and stubborn in their delusions. For this purpose, he, pointing to the published St. The Synod “admonition to the schismatics” of M. Plato, where, by the way, it was printed that each of them should fearlessly submit his opinion in writing and verbally to the shepherds of the Church, and that everything they demanded would be arranged according to their desire - he assured his like-minded people that undoubtedly they would be given from St. Synod legal priesthood according to their will and desire. Having heard that the monk of the Nativity Monastery Gerasim Knyazev, who also had the intention of joining the Orthodox Russian Church, was going to his homeland in Moscow and then to St. Petersburg, Nikodim begged Gerasim to appeal directly to the members of St. Synod and asked them for instructions on how they, the Old Believers, should begin to carry out their undertaking. Gerasim, having arrived in Moscow, appeared to the Reverend. Plato, revealed his intention to him and heard praise from the archpastor. Having reached St. Petersburg, he revealed his intention here to Metropolitan Gabriel, Pskov Archbishop Innocent and Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky: everyone approved the desire of the Starodubians and unanimously promised that they would be given the legal priesthood to perform services using old printed books. Touched by the mercies and condescension of the archpastors of the Church, Gerasim returned to Starodubye and, in the presence of all the brethren of the Nikodim monastery and Nikodim himself, told everything that he had seen and heard in both capitals from the bishops and from Prince Potemkin. Nicodemus rejoiced with his like-minded brethren, and began to proclaim this in all the other monasteries and in the settlements of Starodub, and on the other hand, he began to openly denounce the Sloboda residents of the errors of the schism and persuade them to agree to accept the blessed priesthood from the Orthodox Russian Church. When it was discovered that some of the common people became embittered against Nicodemus and his comrades for this and decided to kill them all: then Nicodemus with the monks Gerasim and Arseny and the Belets Yakov Belyaev took an oath to each other so that they would not weaken in anything and stand firm in their intentions. Then Nikodim wrote private letters to Metropolitan Gabriel, Prince Potemkin (in September 1781) and Count Rumyantsov-Zadunaisky (in March 1783), in which he announced the start of his enterprise and asked for their intercession and assistance. He also wrote exhortations to all countries where the Old Believers were located, in which he proved from the word of God and the rules of the councils that the Church could not exist without a hierarchy, and urged them to accept the priesthood from St. Synod. Many of the schismatics followed Nicodemus and, setting out in 12 points the conditions under which they agreed to ask for a bishop from St. Synod, they were submitted along with a petition (April 18, 1783) to Prince Potemkin during his passage through the Dobryanka settlement. In these points, by the way, it was required - a) that the oath previously taken by councils on the two-fingered sign and other rituals preserved by imaginary Old Believers be allowed; b) to be sent to them to the Sloboda Assumption Monastery from St. Synod Choir-bishop, who would be directly under the jurisdiction of St. Governing Synod; c) so that this bishop consecrates churches for them and appoints shepherds according to the ancient order, and both himself and those ordained by him conduct all services according to old printed books; d) so that St. supplied them with peace from St. Synod; e) so that everyone who wants to be under the flock of this bishop is not forced to shave their beards and wear German dress. Seeing the success of Nikodim's undertaking and being satisfied with the conditions set out in 12 points, the schismatics, numbering 1,500 people, gave Nikodim power of attorney to appear in St. The Synod asked for their annexation to the Russian Church in accordance with these 12 points. In October 1783, Nikodim submitted a petition to Count Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky, in which he informed about the power of attorney given to him by his fellow believers, about the number of persons who signed it, and what their rank was, outlined the 12 points and asked the count for assistance in his enterprise. Rumyantsev immediately reported Nicodemus's petition to St. The Synod reported this to the government Senate. The next month, Nikodim went to St. Petersburg and on the way, in Moscow, submitted a petition about his case, along with 12 points, to the Reverend. Plato, and having arrived in St. Petersburg, he submitted the same petition first to Metropolitan Gabriel, then to Prince Potemkin and finally to St. Synod. Everyone caressed Nicodemus in the capital, and especially Prince Potemkin, who repeatedly reported about him to the Empress herself. The Empress deigned to receive Nicodemus personally and talked with him about his case. As a result, on March 11, 1784, the Highest Decree was given to the Novgorod Metropolitan Gabriel, in which the Empress expressed the desire that the Right Reverend inform the Archbishops of Mogilev and Slavic about the granting of priests to the Old Believers according to their request and about allowing them to perform services according to their rites. Soon after this, Prince Potemkin, who himself was going to his Little Russian estates, advised Nikodim to return to Starodubye, promising to visit his monastery on the way. Nicodemus joyfully hurried to his brethren and arrived on the very day of Easter. But either from the haste of the journey, or from long-term labors and troubles, he became dangerously ill and died on May 12, 1784, being only 39 years old. However, the work he started did not remain unfinished. The brethren of his monastery, through their treasurer Vitaly, hastened to notify Prince Potemkin about the death of Nicodemus and, according to the will of the deceased, asked His Serene Highness to accept this monastery under his high patronage (May 20). Slobozhans and monks of other monasteries, for their part, sent, with the permission of the governor of the region, Count Rumyantsev, their attorneys, the monks Joasaph (who received the rank of archimandrite in Greece) and Evdokim and Belets Ivan Kuznetsov to St. Petersburg with petitions on the begun case addressed to Metropolitan Gabriel and Prince Potemkin (Aug. 8). Joasaph, upon arrival in the capital, gave the Rev. Gabriel and from himself a letter in which, explaining that he honors the Greek-Russian Church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and, accepting all its sacraments and traditions, would also like to arouse his other co-religionists, he asked for this purpose to leave him, according to the will of the late elder Nicodemus, as the builder of the Nicodemus hermitage and to allow him to serve as priests in it (November. 12). A few months later, Prince Potemkin announced the Highest Decree - a) that all Old Believers who voluntarily settle on the lands of the Tauride region on the left side of the Dnieper and wish to unite with the Orthodox Church will receive priests from the Tauride bishop and will always use the rites and rites of the church according to their custom; b) that for these settlers it was ordered to build a stone monastery and several parish churches on the said land; c) that, however, for those who will remain in their previous places of residence, if they only wish to resort to the Orthodox Church, the same priests will be given from the same bishop - for which purpose the schismatic settlements lying in the Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk governorships should be assigned to the Tauride diocese (Aug. 27, 1785). With this joyful announcement, the attorneys of the Sloboda residents returned from the capital and presented a copy of it to Count Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky with a letter of gratitude for all his concerns in their case (Jan. 24, 1786). Archimandrite Joasaph, who was commanded “as the firstfruits of the blessed priesthood” to correct spiritual needs for the Old Believers in the Dormition Nicodemus Monastery and was granted St. Miro, having informed Count Rumyantsev about all this, asked for his protection for himself and his like-minded people, so that they would not be oppressed by stubborn schismatics, and the count ordered instructions to be sent to all schismatic town halls so that Joasaph and those following him would not suffer oppression from anyone (October 26, 1786). Thus, little by little, common faith began in the settlements of Starodub 621. The following year, Archimandrite Joasaph was summoned to St. Synod and appointed rector of the Edinoverie monastery in the name of the Korsun Icon of the Mother of God, newly established in the Tauride region near the settlement of Znamenka. Joasaph immediately asked Tauride Archbishop Ambrose for a blessed letter to build a church and cells (December 31, 1787), and when everything was ready, seven monks with five Beltsy moved from the Nikodim Hermitage to a new monastery (May 3, 1788). Meanwhile, the Elisavetgrad Old Believers expressed a desire to join the Orthodox Church on the terms of common faith, and asked their Eminence. Ambrose the priest and permission to build a church, which then, with the blessing of the same archpastor (from May 24, 1788), was consecrated by the cathedral by Archimandrite Joasaph. At this time, malicious schismatics spread a rumor that the Sloboda residents were not moving to the Tauride region, despite all the wishes of the government, because they were being given a blessed priesthood, otherwise they would have all moved long ago. Rev. Ambrose stopped to dedicate a hieromonk to the Nikodim Hermitage for the Sloboda residents, in place of Joasaph, who had moved to the Tauride region, and no matter how much the Sloboda residents insisted on their request, he did not agree to fulfill their wishes. Then they turned with the most touching petition to Metropolitan Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburg (dated November 4, 1787), and the valiant archpastor immediately gave them a helping hand 622. By agreement with the Reverend. Ekaterinoslav Ambrose, he sent him (in 1788) from St. Petersburg the Okhten priest Andrei Ioannov, who himself was once in a schism and knew from experience how to more successfully influence the hearts of schismatics. Arriving in the Starodub settlements, Ioannov first of all converted many merchants and townspeople in the Klimovsky settlement to the same faith, and, with the blessing of the Reverend. Ambrose, consecrating (in 1789) the parish church in the name of the Dormition of the Most Holy. Mother of God, he himself priested there for two years and eight months. Also in 1789 he founded two more Edinoverie churches - in the Zlynsky settlement in the name of the Ascension of the Lord and in the Zybkovsky settlement in the name of the Transfiguration of the Lord, of which the first was consecrated in 1794, and the last in 1795 by Orthodox priests. In 1791, Ioannov consecrated a new church in the name of the life-giving Trinity in the Assumption Nicodemus Hermitage, which from that time began to be called the Holy Trinity Monastery. Rev. Ambrose in 1791 ordained a new priest for the settlement of Klimovsky, chosen by the Slobozhans themselves, Mikhail Ilarionov, and Andrei Ioannov, who had been serving there until then, elevated him to the rank of archpriest for his zealous labors and exploits in converting schismatics, and with honor released him to the northern capital to his flock. It is impossible not to notice that Ioannov, taking advantage of his stay among the schismatics, collected here many of their secret traditions, notes and letters, on the basis of which he compiled “complete historical news about the Old Believers, their teaching, deeds and disagreements,” published for the first time in 1794 and still retaining its value. After Ioannov’s departure from Starodubye, in 1794 and 95, it was consecrated or just founded, with the blessing of the new reverend. Ekaterinoslav Gabriel, six more Edinoverie churches, three in the settlements of Starodub and three in the Tauride region, and Orthodox priests were ordained for all these churches 623. After the famous monk Nicodemus laid the first beginnings of Edinoverie in the Starodub region with his labors, another, no less famous leader of the schism, the Irghiz builder Sergius, wanted to establish Edinoverie in Irgiz. The shameful, seductive life of fugitive priests led him to the idea of ​​asking St. A Synod of legal shepherds who, while conducting services for the Old Believers using old printed books, would be subject to the constant supervision and judgment of the local bishop. Sergius first revealed his intention to his friend, the richest Volsky merchant Vasily Zlobin and the charterer of his monastery, monk Prokhor, whom he managed to win over to his side. It so happened that when Sergius was planning his enterprise, a new archpastor, the scientist Nicephorus Theotokius, arrived in the Astrakhan diocese (in November 1786), who here, as in Tauris, considered it his first duty to send out a district message to the schismatics, filled with zeal and apostolic love for all the lost, and calling on them to return to Orthodox Church. The message had a strong effect on Sergius, and he, having drawn up 15 questions to which he intended to ask the bishop for answers, first read these questions before his brotherhood and before the abbots and charterers of other monasteries. The elders approved the questions and agreed that they should be submitted on behalf of all the reverends. Nikifor, and promised that if they received satisfactory answers, they would certainly follow them. The questions were submitted in 1790 and soon answers were received signed and sealed by the bishop 624. Sergius sent out answers in lists to all Irgiz monasteries and to the societies of his co-religionists located in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, he continued to secretly confer with the merchant Zlobin about measures to implement the planned enterprise. During one of these meetings, the wife of the merchant Zlobin Pelageya overheard a conversation between Sergius and her husband, and imagining that they were planning to completely change the ancient faith by accepting some blessed priesthood, she was inflamed with fanatical hatred against Sergius and decided to destroy him. She revealed this thought to Sergius’s sister Alexandra, the former abbess of a women’s monastery, so that the latter would warn her brother about the danger threatening him if he did not abandon his evil intention. Sergius reassured his sister and assured her. that he does not at all think of changing the old faith. Without wasting time, Sergius went to St. Petersburg, and Zlobin’s wife placed her secret guards along all the roads so that they would capture Sergius on the way and kill him. God did not allow the atrocity to happen, and Sergius arrived safely in the capital, where Zlobin arrived after him. Here, first of all, they appeared to Rev. Metropolitan Gabriel, who listened to them with archpastoral love, and, on his advice, they submitted a petition to St. The Synod stipulated that for the first time two Orthodox hieromonks and a hierodeacon should be given to their monasteries, who would perform services according to old printed books. The Holy Synod decided to take these hieromonks and the hierodeacon from the Tikhvin monastery, and Sergius immediately sent them to Irgiz. Then he expressed gratitude to St. Synod and having received the necessary instructions from him, Sergius joyfully set off through Moscow to his monastery. But in Moscow, completely unexpectedly, he was exposed to the greatest danger. Zlobin’s wife, who had previously failed in her criminal intention, wrote to a Moscow merchant, one of the members of the Rogozhsky cemetery, known to her for his blind adherence to the schism, as if Sergius was planning to destroy the old faith and betray the Irgiz monasteries to the power of heretics, and therefore begged this merchant to destroy Sergius and thereby save the faith. The fanatic willingly agreed to fulfill Zlobina's request. As soon as Sergius arrived in Moscow and stayed in the house of his old benefactor Grigory Yamshchikov, the aforementioned merchant appeared to Sergius, congratulated him on his arrival and most convincingly asked him to come to his house. Sergius did not want to upset the most honorable member of the Rogozhsky cemetery with his refusal and went with him, promising Yamshchikov to return soon. Meanwhile, the evening passed, the night passed, and Sergius did not return. Yamshchikov went to question the merchant, who replied that Fr. Sergius left him at such and such an hour, wanted to go to such and such, but he doesn’t know where he went. A day passed, two and three, and Sergius could not be found anywhere. Already on the evening of the third day, at about ten o’clock, a soldier came to Yamshchikov and gave him a note written in pencil by Sergius’s hand: “I was put in a remote prison and I’ve been sitting for three days without drinking or eating - save me.” Yamshchikov immediately hurried with a note to the chief commander of Moscow, Prince Prozorovsky, and explained the whole matter to him. The prince at that very moment demanded the half-dead prisoner, recognized the perpetrators of the crime and wanted to strictly execute them. But Sergius fell at the prince’s feet and begged him in the name of God to forgive the guilty, as he himself forgives them. By order of the prince, an official was appointed to accompany Fr. Sergius to his very monastery on Irgiz. Arriving at Irgiz, Sergius saw that everyone here had armed themselves against him, even those who had previously expressed consent to his enterprise. The two Orthodox hieromonks and hierodeacon he sent ahead, being not accepted into his Assumption Monastery, lived outside the monastery with Brother Sergiev’s wife without any business. Despite this, Sergius settled, as before, in his abbot's cells; but a day later, at midnight, the cellarer and two more monks violently burst into his room and, calling him a heretic, an apostate, a desecrator of the monastery, began to strangle him. Sergius's nephew rushed to the city of Volsk to the police chief and asked him to hurry to save Sergius from death. The police officer immediately arrived at the monastery and found Sergius imprisoned in a closet, from where he immediately freed him. Having gathered all the monks, the police officer tried to gently persuade them so that they would agree to be accepted as legitimate hieromonks, and so that the guilty would ask for forgiveness from the father of the builder who had offended them; but the brethren were indignant and, with noise and shouting, resolutely refused to obey Father Sergius, in whose place they immediately elected the guide Prokhor. After such difficult trials, Sergius, leaving his Assumption monastery on Irgiz, went with all his relatives to the Starodub settlements, and having accepted the same faith, he and his nephew entered the Nicodemus Monastery, and placed his sister and the wife of his late brother with her daughter in Novozybkovka at the same faith Church of the Transfiguration. After some time, Sergius was ordained hieromonk and made rector of the Edinoverie Dormition Monastery in Belarus 625. By the end of the last century, well-meaning schismatics also appeared in the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, numbering up to 1000 people, who, through their local bishop Paul, asked St. Synod of Blessed Priests and got what they wanted. The same ones appeared in Moscow among the members of the Rogozhskoe cemetery. They wanted to accept Orthodox priests and build a church of the same faith on certain conditions, which they humbly proposed to Metropolitan Plato. The archpastor examined these conditions in detail and, with his opinion, expressed in the “points on unity of faith,” presented them in St. Synod. The Holy Synod fully approved the opinion of its worthy member, and the Sovereign Emperor Paul I His Majesty approved it on the 27th day of October 1800. Henceforth, schismatics who joined the Orthodox Church while maintaining their former rituals began to be constantly called co-religionists, and rules were established for the continued existence and establishment of co-religion 626. To the honor of those who turned to common faith, it must be said that some of them, more powerful in words than others, zealous for the faith and salvation of their neighbors, wrote works both to strengthen their fellow believers and to admonish schismatics. Thus, one of the monks of the Nikodim Trinity Monastery, who was later its rector, Father Vitaly, compiled a book: “about the Church and about the schismatics,” where, having collected evidence of the word of God and St. Fathers about the Church and the need to belong to it for salvation, about the need for a divinely established hierarchy in it and especially bishops, then outlined many historical information about schismatics, about their attempts to find a bishop for themselves, about their sects that disagree with each other, and finally concluded that there is only one holy catholic Church in the whole world, and sects that have separated from it cannot be called by its name 627. Another, a novice of the same monastery, Yakov Belyaev, wrote three books, of which the last, most remarkable, is called: “the true, bright and unflattering path, leading the favorite of ancient rites to the knowledge of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” and collected all “from the holy. Scripture, cathedral rules and St. Father and church teachers in 1789 628. The third, Sergius of Irgiz, upon his conversion to Edinoverie, wrote an essay: “a mirror for the Old Believers who do not repent of the Orthodox Church,” which he himself expressed in the preface: “I write this solely for their (Old Believers’) benefit, wishing that they too would see the true light that shone upon me, and may they turn to the path of truth 629. We are not talking about the subsequent fate of the schism and unity of faith in our fatherland: this subject is so close to us in time that it almost cannot yet be the subject of history. But, turning our final gaze to the past fate of the schism, which we tried to portray, we cannot help but express our most sincere regret for our erring brothers in faith and homeland: the history of their beliefs and deeds is so gloomy that it involuntarily resembles a book scroll shown to one of the Prophets, in which only weeping, pity, and grief are written (Ezek. 2:10). We cannot help but wish with all our hearts that these unfortunates, who have been walking in darkness and the shadow of death for about two centuries, finally see the light of truth, feel their pitiful situation and turn with love to their mother - the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, from which they were once torn away. We cannot help but conclude our words with a heartfelt, fervent prayer to God, that He Himself may give to our erring brethren the spirit of the wisdom of revelation into the knowledge of Him and His saving faith (Eph. 1:17), may He attract them all to Himself with His grace and may He reunite them with us into a single spiritual flock of a single shepherd - our Lord Jesus Christ. About the Kiev Cathedral, which was held by Martin the heretic, see the book. Rev. Ignatius, Archbishop of Voronezh: “The History of Schisms in the Russian Church,” Appendix 1, pp. 217–237. Here we consider it not superfluous to add two remarks: 1) Several years before the parchment copy of the Council Act on Martin the Heretic, printed in 1718, was opened, it was also known to Russia from other lists: thus, excerpts from it are given in the work of the abbot of the Uglitsky Alekseevsky monastery, Andronnko, written in 1713 (Vostokov. Description. handicraft No. 7. 2) More than a century before the opening of this list of the apostate from Orthodoxy to the Union, in her district letter to the Christians of Western Russia, at the end of the Brest Council in 1596, she reproached the Russian Church, among other things, by the fact that the Armenian heretic Martin, condemned in Kyiv to Constantinople, had sowed the seeds of his false teaching in it. (Markevich, History of Little Russia, I, pp. 82–83). Track. the history of this heretic was then generally known in the west of Russia and was not questioned. We read this message of M. Photius in the Rumyants Collection. Museum of the late 15th or early 16th century, No. 358. l. 382 rev. (Vostokov. Description of the manuscript. Rum. Music., pp. 508, 512). We used the list of this life contained in the Collection of Novg. Soph. bib., in a quarter of the 17th century, and containing 1) the communal charter of the Rev. Euphrosyne is not complete (l. 1–32) and 2) his life is complete (l. 39–191). “All the years of his life are 95, as they will tell in his monastery,” says Vasily (Life sheet 136 vol.). Next, Euphrosynus was born in 1386, and in 1425 he was about 40 years old. Zhit. l. 97 rev. 98 and 108 rev. Life of L. 104–108, 110–112. Sent. Gennady, Archbishop Novgorod, from Dmitry the Greek, hand-drawn. Emperor Publ. bib. (according to the Descriptive manuscript by Gr. Tolstov, department I, No. 116, and department II No. 254). The words of Gennady himself are given in the book by Rev. Ignat. Truth of St. Solovetsk. habit., p. 106, St. Petersburg. 1844. St. Gregory. great Liber responsalis sive antiphonarins, in Patrolog. courses. compl. T. LXXVII, p. 726–850, ed. Migne. Here, for example, are the antiphons for the Nativity of Christ - in Evangelio: Antiph. Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, alleluia, alleluia. Ant. Ecce advenit dominator Dominus; et regnum in rnanu eius, et potestas, et imperium, alleluia, alleluia. Ant. Dum medium silentium tenerent omnia, et nox in suo cursu iter ageret, omnipotens sermo tuus, Domine, a regalibus sedibus venit, alleluia. Ant. Virgo verbo concepit. Ant. Nesciens mater Virgo. Ant. Beatus venter, qui te portavit, Christe; et beata ubera, qnae te lactaverunt Dominum et salvatorem mundi, alleluia. Ant. Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, et vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unegeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia (–pag. 735–736). Or here are the antiphons on another day – in Matutinis: Antiph. Quem vidistis, allel., allel., allel., allel.. allel.. allel, allel.. allel., allel., allel, allel., allel. Ant. Puer Iesus profieiebat. allel., allel., allel., allel., allel. Ant. Omnes sitientes, allel., allel., allel., allel., allel. Ant. Germinavit radix lesse, allel., allel.. allel., allel., allel. Ant. Benedicat terra Dominum, et omnia nascentia hymnum dicant, allel.. allel.. allel. Ant. Apcrtis thesavris suis, allel., allel., allel., allel., allel. Ant. In Domino lavdabitur anima mea, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia (p. 747). The severe alleluia in the said collection of psalmody of the Roman Church is actually found most often, and the triangular one is very rare. “It is heard that those who want to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, instead of the great holy myrrh, you anoint with the Latin myrrh.” Act. history I, no. 35, p. 68. See nocl. Metropolitan Cyprian in Pskov in Act. history I, No. 8, pp. 17 et seq. page 69. It is difficult to determine how to understand this mentalization. Isn't it? “When consecrating churches, it is necessary to walk with crosses along the flow of the sun from east to west: because the righteous sun - Christ - flowed to the west, trampled hell and bound death, which are usually represented in the west, in the dark region. For this reason they go out on Easter, i.e. they go out into the church vestibule to the west for litia or to begin matins on Easter Day. They also foreshadow at Matins, i.e. when they perform and at every Matins or All-Night Vigil they go out for litia to the vestibule, to the west. Soph. Time ed. Stroevykh, part II, pp. 202 and 224, Moscow. 1821. For example, in the life of St. Euthymius, Archbishop of Novgorod (1430–1458), who was born and raised in Novgorod, it is said: “as a child grows and has matured in time, he is given to study divine books” (Collection of my Bible, No. 8, Stat. 5). Likewise, in the life of Evfimiev’s successor, St. Jonah (1458–1471), we read: “I was given to a certain deacon to be punished with the sacred books... even when he left the teacher with a multitude of students, the city street passed to his house, and then everyone, like children rejoicing at play, stood away from them in the name of the custom” (Collection of my Bible, No. 14). Act. Histor. I, No. 104, pp. 147–148. Additional to Act. Histor. I, no. 22; Read Moscow Histor. General 1846, No. IV, dept. IV, p. 59. Stoglav, ch. 41 and 44. For an extract from these chapters, about popular superstitions, see Karamzin Histor. State Ross., vol. IX, note. 830. Stoglav, ch. 25: “About proteges who want to be promoted to deacons and priests, but know little about reading and writing, and ordain them as saints, otherwise contrary to the sacred rule, and not appointing them, the holy churches will be without singing... And about this, their saints torture them with a great prohibition, why they know little about reading, and they answer: we learn from our fathers or from our masters, and in some other way we have nowhere to study; As much as our fathers and masters know how, that’s why they teach us. And their fathers and their masters themselves therefore know little and do not know the power in the divine Scripture. And before this, in the Russian kingdom in Moscow and in Veliky Novgorod and in other cities there were many schools that taught literacy and writing and singing and reading.” Some of these books are already named by Stoglav (Karamzin. Ist. Gos. Ross. IX, approx. 830); but dozens of them are listed in an article compiled shortly after the Stoglav Council: about the true books (among which Stoglav is named), false and heretical, and hitherto respected by the schismatics themselves. This article is found in lists of the late 16th and 17th centuries (Collection of our Academic Bibl., No. 129; Collection of Novg. Soph. Bibl., Kirill. Book Collection in Quarters, .No. 452, l. 264–269), and published (in 1644) in the so-called book of Kirillova, especially respected by schismatics (see immediately after preface) and another time according to the list of the 17th century with the book: John, Ekhzarch Bolgar., ed. Kalaydovichsm (pp. 208–212). In the article, in addition to a specific listing of false books, there are also general remarks of this kind: “the essence of the divine writings is false writings, sown from heretics to spoil ignorant priests and deacons, fat Zbornin rural and thin Manokanons, according to the prayer book, false prayers, about shakers, and about non-Jews and non-Jews; There were heretics who distorted church traditions and the Apostolic rule, writing false words.” Cm. also a review from Kurbskago at Vostok. Description hands Room. Muz., No. 193, p. 242. He says: “I resist the liar who transforms himself into devout teachers, and writes a story contrary to the words of the Gospel, and hides their names, so that they will not be convicted and sign them in holy names, so that their writing can be conveniently accepted by the simple and unlearned”... etc. (Manuscript. Libraries. Weather. No. 208). For example: in the Novgorod Collection. Soph. bib. the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century, No. 522, there is: a) the Word of Isaiah the prophet, interpreted by St. John Chrysostom about those who give the second meal to the family and women in labor (l. 87); b) The Word of Saint Gregory the Theologian, invented in his entirety, about how the pagans served the first abomination as an idol and those like them are still creating many (fol. 88 vol.) - both Slavs. or Russian essays. These are the same - in the Collection of our Academician. bib. late 16th or early 17th century, No. 129: a) the word of the holy Apostle and holy Father about the church offering; b) the legend and commandments of the holy Fathers about repentance; teaching; c) several words or teachings, under the names of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom, to the priests; d) from the Apostolic Commandments the rule of St. Father 318, like in Nicaea, about those written (i.e. about the books true and false... see note 24), and friend. See also Vostok. Description hands Room. Muz., No. 181, 182, 358, 406, 434, etc. See Rosenkampf. Review Helmsman books. Index under the letter R. (pages 203 et seq.) and Appendix. No. VII (p. 209). What, for example, is the Tale of the Armenian Heresy, which contains false rumors about the customs of the Armenians and sets out a seductive story about a woman who became a Patriarch (Herm. Rumm. Music No. 233) East. Description hands Room. Music No. 235, p. 309. For example, under the name of the 1st rule of the VII Ecumenical Council the following is read: “if anyone, having violated the divine commandments of the church and mocked the church charter, dares to beat a bishop or a priest or a deacon, or throw him into prison, or weave any guilt, let him be damned.” (Kormch. Rum. Music., No. 235). For example, in the article: “interpretation of the Deities. services" of the Patriarch Herman of Constantinople, arbitrary abbreviations and additions were made from other sources, sometimes even non-Orthodox (in both forms, this article is in Kormch. Rum. Muz. No. 233 l. 188 and 200, in the East opis. p. 299) This is the life of St. Euphrosynus, the Pskov wonderworker, compiled by cleric Vasily in 1547. See Kalaid. John, Ex. Bulgarian. Note 65, p. 107. See the three words of Rev. Maxim the Greek, printed. at the end of Vol. II Russian. Church East. M. Plato. In the afterword of the Apostle, printed. in 1564, it is said that when, by order of Tsar John Vasilyevich IV, they began to buy liturgical books at the marketplaces to supply churches with them, then “little need was found in them, but the rest were all corruptions from those who prescribed, those who were not taught and were unskilled in their minds, who wrote haphazardly and without correction (Stroy. Description of old printed books Tolstova, p. 26). Three words from Rev. Maxim the Greek (in Russian Church. Ist. M. Plato, part II, especially, pp. 291–300, 303–307, 330–335); the debate between Metropolitan Daniel and the monk Maxim the Holy Mountain (in the Reading. Moscow. Ist. Society. 1847, VII, department II, pp. 1–13); about the works of Maxim the Greek (in J.M.H.P. 1834. No. VIII, p. 243); about Maxim the Greek (in Moskvityan. 1842, part VI, pp. 45–96). Debate between Metropolitan Daniel and the monk. Maxim. (indicated. Read., p. 13). So, on the list of Helmsmen is Rum. Myz. XIII century (No. 230, Vostokov. Described pp. 283–284, 289) we read:... “and into the holy Spirit of the Lord and into the life-giving”... In the list of Church Household Novgorod. Soph. bib. (No. 13, l. 99) XIII or early XIY century: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giving” (see Christ. Reading 1853, II, 219–221). In the list of the Followed Psalter of the Olonets Seminary Bible. (No. 419, fol. 59 vol.) XIII or early XIV century: “The Holy Spirit, the Lord, is life-giving.” For example in the Book of Hours, writing. under Metropolitan Photius and on sakkos Photius (1410–1431); in the cell Psalter of the Solovetsky wonderworker Zosima (1478); in the Trebnik, writing. in 1481 (Description of the Synod, manuscript III, 1, 199) (all these books were pointed out by Patriarch Joachim in Uvet Dukhovny, fol. 132 vol. and 133, Moscow 1753); in the “Peaceful Circle” Novgorod. Archbishop Gennady (ruler of the Solovets Monastery No. 479, 515, - from the Most Reverend Ignatius the True Sol. Monastery, p. 115). See also in Uvet Spirit. l. 32 rev. and at Rev. Ignat. page 114. Print in Tablets, ed. Patr. Nikon, Moscow. 1656, ch. 51, l. 830. This is how they explained it back in “The Rod of Government,” ed. against the schismatics in 1666, l. 76–88. In his cell Psalter, see Rev. Philareta Histor. Russian Cer. III, 163. This collection is in the Bible. Moscow Spirit. Academician (Rudnev about heresies and stories in the Russian Church, p. 209, note 187). Here it is: “two fingers and one hand reveal the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, in two natures, and in one cognizable composition.” But which two fingers are we talking about here: those that schismatics hold out, or those that we bend to our hands in commemoration of the two natures in Christ? Obviously, the evidence is indefinite and mutual (Demolished by Rev. Nikifor, answers to the Old Believer, p. 131, M. 1821). In the Metropolitan's Collection. Daniel it reads like this: “Bless your face with your hand and be baptized: having three fingers together is equal; the larger one and the last two, in the image of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are not Three Gods, but one God in the Trinity, the persons are divided, but the Divinity is one. The Father is unbegotten, but the Son is begotten and not created. The Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor created, but originated. Three in one Divinity, one power, one honor, one bow from all creation, from Angels and man. This is a decree with that finger. And have two fingers tilted, but not raised: and thus the decree is taco. They represent the two natures of Christ, Divinity and humanity, God by Divinity and man by incarnation, and in both he is perfect. The upper finger forms the Divinity, and the lower finger forms humanity, since the lower one came down from the highest and saved; The same way he interprets the bend of the finger, bow down to the heavens and come down to earth for our salvation. Yes, this is worthy of baptism and blessing: this is what the holy fathers indicated and legitimized” (See Rudnev, about heresy and dissent in the Russian Church, note 187, pp. 53–54). It is not mentioned in any of the hitherto known catalogs of Greek manuscripts. In this regard, the words of the Greek patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch (in 1667) are worthy of note: “and Theodoret about that (about the sign of the cross) is nothing to write about; The torment about this was already great in the holy Mount Athos, in the summer of 7156 (1648), just as in the reigning great city of Moscow there was strong torment from the Right Reverend Great Russian metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, who gathered in the Holy Spirit in the summer of 7174 (1666), and were not found in Theodorite's book contains such writing; but a lie was lied against him, Theodoret, by certain vain and hidden heretics” (Addition to Act. Ist. V, 502 – 503). See also Rev. Nikephoros Theotokia Rep. old-fashioned, p. 133. See note above. 25 and 26. It reads: “Bless the face and be baptized with your hand: have three equal fingers together in the image of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, are not three who are Bose, but one God in the Trinity, the names are divided, but the deity is one; The Father is not begotten, and the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor created, but proceeding: three in one Godhead, one power, one honor, one worship from all creation, from angels, from man. This is a decree to those three fingers! And having two fingers is inclined, but not spread, and thus the decree is this: then the Divinity and humanity are formed into two natures, God by Divinity, and man by incarnation, and is perfect in both. The upper finger forms the Divinity, and the lower one humanity: He came down from the highest and saved the lower one. That bending will simply explain: bow down to the heavens and descend for our salvation. Thus it was indicated by the saints of the Father, and it was legitimized to Him that glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and in: in: amen” (Manufacturer: Collection of Sol. Bibles No. 858, Ignatus, truth Sol. habit. 87–88). It is wonderful that in the Collection of Met. Daniel, as the oldest manuscript containing Theodorite’s instruction on the sign of the cross, is pointed out by the schismatics themselves (Pomeranian answers, answer 5, testimony 4). These are the lists from the Collections of the Solovetsky Bible. presented at Ave. Ignatius in truth. Solov. Obit. pp. 82–84, 88–93. One, very extensive, list is in hand. Collection our Academician bib. No. 129, ch. 87. See also Stogl. Ch. 31: Greater Katih. l. 5–6; Kiril. book l. 180 rev. Pomor. Answer 5, evidence 49; Ignat, truth Solov, inhabited, p. 88. This is how the words of Panagiota are read in the Collection of Rum. Museum of the late 15th century, No. 358, l. 277; only the word: three, obvious from the meaning of the speech, has been scraped out here and nothing is written in its place. A similar reading is found in Makary’s Cheti-Minea for the month of December on the 13th day: “and the speech of Nicephorus Latina: you have 70 and 2 heresies: and the speech, behold, we are baptized as a prototype of the true cross with 3 fingers, on the head and on the heart, and on the right shoulder and on the left” (Conversation on the old verb, p. 202, ed. 3). So word for word in Novgor. Sofiysk Makar. Cheti-Minea (written before 1544) for June, under the 31st date, on fol. 327 rev. and to Moscow Synodal Makar. Cheti-Minea under the same number on the sheet. 672. It should be noted that the schismatics themselves accept this reading (Kirillov, book. 236 vol.). Signum crucis tribus digitis exprimendum est, ita ut a superiori descendat in inferius et a dextra transeat ad sinistram. And that the pope had in mind the retreat of some is clear from the direct addition made: quidam tamen signim crucis a sinistra producunt in dexteram (De mysteriis missae lib. 11, p. 45). Tablet, ed. n. Nikon, p. 773. In Greek, these words of Damascus are given by Leo Allicius (de cons. oceid. et orient, eccl. III, c. 18, n. 15, p. 1358). See Rev. Theophylactus denunciation. falsehoods Ch. 1, reasoning. 2; Rev. Philareta Conversations. to verb old-fashioned pp. 205–213, 235–240, ed. 3; Rev. Gregory is truly ancient. and truly right. Chr. Church, pp. 133–141. St. Petersburg 1854. The Roman Church, indeed, has the custom of singing alleluia on the Easter holiday in honor of the risen Christ, and Metropolitan Isidore lived in Pskov for up to seven weeks in 1437 (Poln. Collected Russian Let. VI, 210). The metropolitan's decree on the triple alleluia is placed in his Cheti-Minea for August under the 31st day of the month, stored in Moscow. Synod. library. Life of Rev. Euphrosyne in Collection. Novgor. Soph. bib., l. 78, 84. Ibid., l. 79, 105 rev. and 122. As far as is known from Byzantine historians, only emperors were called Kalo-Ioannas: John Komnik (XII century) and John, son of Andronnikov (XIV century). (M. Eugenia Dictionary of spiritual writers, under the name: St. Euphrosynus). Hibbon. His., de décadence et de la chute de l'empire Romaine, traduite par Cantcel. t. XVII, ch. 64, p. 193–219. Paris 1795; Lorenz. Manager to general, historical Part II, Dept. II, pp. 394–415, St. Petersburg. 1846. Life of Rev. Euphrosyne. l. 46 rev. 48, 52–54. Right there. l. 54 rev. and 55. The manuscript says: “to the authority of the great Archbishop of Novagrad and Pskov, Bishop John.” There is a gross mistake here: after 1425, neither in the 15th nor in the 16th century was there an Archbishop John in Novgorod. Ibid., l. 55 rev. 78. “And your mentor is in my place,” the reverend allegedly said. Euphrosynus of his brethren, leaving for Constantinople, my spiritual father Igumen Ignatius; listen to him in everything” (fol. 78 vol.). Life of Rev. Euphrosyne. l. 78. 104 rev. etc. For example, he allegedly asked those sent to him from Pskov: “Are you crying to me: what is power, and what is the hidden depth of the most holy alleluia? What wisdom is it that lies in it, and the image is sealed in secret? They kept silent, not knowing how to answer the saint: as if the depth of their orbit would be exhausted” (l. 109 vol.). And further: “This is neither your wisdom nor mine: since this unwritten thing is authentic from the holy fathers, its secret was revealed below from the prophets, and the narrators did not find it reliable in the reigning city; but only the red measure of being, and the verb: the same is the truth before God, - the most holy alleluia commands me to double. Do not begin to be wise about these things: these things are beyond your measure: but God alone can reveal whatever he wants, through his destinies, to his servant, who worked for him with the truth” (l. 111 vol.–112). Ibid., l. 121 rev. and 128 rpm “Before the departure of your soul, while you were walking, or sitting down, or laying down on handicrafts, or resting, or during the year of prayer and singing and vigil, the same groaning in your heart and whimpering in your soul about the thing you were looking for, and you grieved greatly before God with your intelligent conscience, and sickness added to sickness, from sadness the decrepitude of your old age” (l. 130). Life of Rev. Euphrosyne, l. 121 rev. 122. 128. “Open,” as if he were calling out to the Most Holy One. Virgin, the fortress of the knowledge of your great secret. If You are not pleased to appear, Mother of the Lord, then even before the departure of my soul from my body I will live in lamentation, until I reach the grave with sadness” (fol. 129 vol.). The original will of Rev. Euphrosyne was preserved and printed in Act. Arch. Exp. 1, No. 108, p. 83. It is impossible not to notice that in this reliable act Charalampius is already called the abbot of the monastery and the spiritual father of Euphrosynus himself; and the cleric Vasily writes in his life that even at the death of Euphrosynus, Ignatius was still the abbot and confessor: “and the venerable abbot Ignatius called, and told him, even as he heard the voice,” and further: “and then I entrust the eldership to my father, the spiritual abbot Ignatius” (l. 134. 135). Can such a biography be trusted? Let us indicate, for example, following Patr. Joachim on a Greek colored triodion, written in 1344 and belonging to our Metropolitan Photius, a contemporary of St. Euphrosyne, - in the same place on the ancient Greek Trebnik and Charatean Book of Hours (Uvet Dukhov., l. 117–118). Additional to Act. Ist., V, 486. 500–504 Life of Rev. Euphrosyne, l. 124 rev. 125 Pskov. first Letop., in Complete. Collection Russian Years. , vol. IV, pp. 214–217 Life of Rev. Euphrosyne, l. 83 per rev. Life of Rev. Euphrosyne, l. 148 rev. and 149. Life of Euphros Ave., l. 150–156 Life of Euphros Ave., l. 156 rev. Life of Euphros Ave., l. 156 rev. 157. No one can doubt the reality of this cathedral when its modern monuments became known (see further notes 89 and 92). Rev. Filar. East. Rus. Churches, III, § 3. These are: 1) Conciliar verdict prohibiting the clergy from acquiring patrimony without reporting to the Tsar (Act. Exp. I, No. 227); 2) conciliar verdicts on complaints from Novgorod priests (ibid. No. 229); 3) the district royal order on the duties of priestly elders (–No. 231); 4) conciliar verdict on the establishment and duties of Moscow priestly elders (No. 232). It is likely that other conciliar verdicts were issued separately in the same way, but they have not survived to our time, or still remain unknown. For example, in 1555, the elders of the Sergius Lavra expelled the wise men, buffoons and other harmful people from their volosts according to the cathedral code (Act. Exp. I, p. 267). This means that the decree or code on this subject, mentioned in Stoglav (question 10 from the second), was issued by the cathedral for general use. Stoglav's lists are found in various of our libraries, although not in large numbers. In our academic collection there are two lists, both from the 17th century (one separately for No. 284, the other in Collection No. 277); in my own library there is a list from the 16th century. for No. 38. Historical information about the Stoglavy Council, about which all our chronicles are resolutely silent, is usually borrowed from this book. These are the rules of Stoglav: on the holy court (chap. 53–60), on church deanery (chap. 6, 27, 43), on the spread of education (chap. 26), on the correction of liturgical books (chap. 28), on works of mercy (chap. 71–73), on the eradication of various abuses (chap. 44–48, 51, 52, 64, 75, 84), especially during Divine Services (Ch. 8, 10, 17, 18, 29, 88), about the behavior of the white clergy - in houses (Ch. 24, 29, 36), monastics - in monasteries (Ch. 49, 50), about the behavior of the laity during Divine Services (Ch. 38, 57, 96), and in the hostel (chap. 37, 41 – question 17). Many of these rules are summarized in Karamzin's history (vol. IX, pp. 457–463, ed. 2). This idea was clearly expressed for the first time in the article: A few words about the book Stoglav, posted. in Moskvityanin 1845, part VI, No. 12, dep. I, page 136. Archaeogr. The Expedition and the Commission mention a list contemporary with the cathedral, stored in the library of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius (Act. Arch. Exp. I, p. 219), and a list of the 16th century, stored in the Imperial Hermitage Library (Act. Historical Arch. Com. I, p. 280). Two 16th-century lists, although not complete, are found in Rum. Music Nos. 425 and 427, and a complete list of the same century in my bibliography. No. 38. Thus, for example, cathedral decrees were issued around the time of the Stoglavy Council itself: in 1503 - on not charging bribes for ordination (Act. Exp. I, No. 382), and on widowed priests and deacons (ibid. No. 383); in 1547 - on the celebration of the new Russian Saints (Act. Arch. Exp. I, No. 213); in 1564 - about the white hood (Act. Ist. I, No. 173); in 1571 - about the fourth marriage of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich (Act. Exp. I, No. 284); in 1581 - on the prohibition for the clergy to acquire patrimonies (ibid. No. 308), etc. This is how the conciliar code of Patriarch Filaret Nikitich was later published (see Foreign needs, Moscow 1639). Comp. conciliar verdict prohibiting the clergy from acquiring patrimony (Act. Exp. I, No. 227) - with chapters Stoglav 5 (issue 31) and 75; conciliar verdicts on the complaints of Novgorod priests (ibid. No. 229) - from chapters. 41 (answer to question 14), 44–48; the district royal order on the duties of the priestly elders (- No. 231) and the conciliar verdict on the establishment and duties of the Moscow priestly elders (ibid. 232) - with chapters 6–8, 29 and 68. It turns out, for example, that in the last conciliar verdict: a) widows were ordered to be married for at least 50 years, while in Stoglav - for at least 40 years (chapter 8); b) the great doxology is commanded to be sung, and not spoken, on holidays, whereas in Stoglav, although the question about this is stated (the 33rd of the first), there is no answer, and so on. See note above. 54, 55 and 61. The manuscript is in the Volokolam library. monastery, number 404. Act. Exp. I, 239, p. 252. In one of our academic lists of Stoglav (No. 284), the second chapter begins with these words; and in another (No. 277) the first one ends, also in my own list (No. 38). For example, about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross, due to the fact that the Tsar in one of his questions (chapter 5, question 26) drew the attention of the Fathers to the carelessness with which many of us then put on the sign of the cross; about a special alleluia, because at the council the question was proposed (chapter 41, question 5) how to celebrate St. Euphrosynus the wonderworker of Pskov, in whose life, recently compiled, a special alleluia is praised... See Act. Exp. I, p. 219, publishers' note on act No. 227; Stogl. Room. Music No. 426, in Description. East . p. 656. So in one of our Acad. lists (No. 277), and in the list of my library. (No. 38); only in both of them, to the mentioned conciliar verdict, several more brief rules were added, which in their subject matter are not at all related to the verdict. In our other Acad. list (No. 284), instead of this sentence, two conciliar verdicts on the complainants of Novgorod are placed after the hundredth chapter. priests", ed. June 26 and July 15, 1551 (demolished. Act. Exp. I, No. 229, p. 223). See Act. Exp. I, p. 442, publishers' note on Act No. 360. This rule reads: “if anyone either begins to offend himself, or seeks church courts and justification, or brings by violence a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, or anyone, simply say, of the sacred rank... let him be damned.” A similar, although also spurious, rule is found in the Helmsman of the 16th century, but only under the name not of the fifth, but of the seventh Ecumenical Council (see above note 30). “As righteous Enoch said: do not spare gold and silver for God’s sake; but redeem him, and receive him a hundredfold from God.” The Word of God commands to work six days of the week, and to devote the seventh to the Lord God (Exodus 20:8, 9), and the 29th rule of the Council of Laodicea commands: “It is not fitting for Christians to practice Judaism and celebrate on Saturday, but to do it on this day.” Here's how, for example, in Chapter 68. The hundred chapter is read to Zechariah ch. 5, Art. 1–5: “Zechariah saw a fiery sickle descending from heaven to earth, and asked: what is this sickle, Lord? And the speech: the wrath of God is, it is sent to those who walk in crooked mouths and so on. For example, in chapter 71. Stoglav says: “Rule 67 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council prohibits all Orthodox Christians from strangling and bloody food, that is, sausages.” So, in one of the answers to the first royal questions, Stoglav decided to take out from the prosphora “the Forerunner’s part is the same as the Most Pure One” (chapter 9), and after the second royal questions he decided to take out the “little lesser” part of the Mother of God for the Forerunner (answer to 11 questions from the second). A clear sign that Stoglav’s decrees were not deliberately revised by the council and agreed upon among themselves. For example, we point to: a) the Charter of St. Petersburg. Synodal Library No. 8, written in 1590 (see page 13 below), in particular on pages 29, 34, 50, 1038, 1039; b) on the charter of the same Bible. beginning of the 17th century, No. 12, l. 32, 83, etc.; c) on the charter of the same Bible. beginning of the 17th century, No. 13, l. 26, 28 rev. 36, vol. 43, 50, 63, etc.; d) Followed. Psalter of the same Bible. beginning of the 17th century, No. 18, part II, l. 2, 21, 27, 32, 36, 39, 58, 78, etc. This is what the St. Petersburg Psalter commands. Synodal Bible end of the 16th century (No. 4, l. 492 rev.) concluded with the song: Blessed are you, Lord, teach me... Helmsman Novgor. Soph. bib. XVI century, No. 437, l. 265 rev; Helmsman Room. Muz., No. 231, l. 259. The rite of renunciation of the Armenian heretics and the accusatory word against them are printed in Kotelerius in the 12th note to Chapter XIII. the fifth book of the Apostolic Constitutions (Patr. Apostol. T. I, pp. 317, 318, Amstel. 1724); a more ancient rank is found in Gohar (Eucholog. Graec., p. 894. Venet. 1730). The famous helmsmen of the 13th century do not have this rank. Zubritsk. Narrative Chervon. Russia, p. 156, M. 1845. Together with the Armenians from the Khvalinsky sea, Jews and Jews also settled in Galician Russia (ibid., p. 153), and the rank is precisely entitled: “The rank, if anyone has been in heresy, is baptized, and they will turn to God, either Khvalisin, or Jew...”. So in Kormch. Room. Muz., No. 231, and in Kormch. Novgor. Soph. bib., no. 437. In the Chin it is inserted after the words: “those who eat raw meat during the week of raw meat shall be cursed” - which are also directed against the Latins. In the article about the Fryazekhs and other Latins, found in our handwritten Helmsmen (Rum. Muz., no. 233, l. 248; Novgorod. Soph. bib., 437, l. 222 ver.) and included in the printed one (chap. 47), the 16th retreat of the Latins is depicted as follows: “with five fingers they strangely bless and in the middle with a finger the face is baptized." So in hand. Helmsman of Mr. Yakovlev. And despite such indisputable evidence, the Pomorian mentors were not ashamed to answer with the priest. Neophyte: “And if you ask that Christ was baptized with two fingers: and he deigned to introduce this unnecessary strife, do not consider the meaning of the words written in the Stoglav: it is not written there that Christ would have been baptized with two fingers!!!” (Pomor. hole 44). Theodorite. Church East. book II, ch. 31, p. 192, St. Petersburg. 1852–1853. In the original this passage reads: …???.... Sozomen. Church East. book IV, ch. 28, p. 299, St. Petersburg. 1851. In the original: …??? Niciph. Callist. Eccles. Histor. lib. IX, cap. 48, p. 546. Francof. 1588. According to this edition of the History of Callistus, in one Latin translation the passage we are considering reads: illum avtem (Meletium) manu magis, quam voce fidei sententiam indicasse, tres aperte digitos extendentem, eisque rursum leniter contractis unum lantum directe erigentem. Pogodin. Prologue of the 14th century. in Imperial publ. library. Pogodin. Prologue of the 15th century, No. 300, ibid. Mainly in the prologues of the 16th century. So in the list of our Academy. bib. No. 277, in the list of my library. No. 38 and in three lists of Runes. Music Nos. 425–427. But in another list of our Academician. bib. No. 284, reads: “two copulated, and the third (corrected, instead of three) bent down.” See note above. 48–53 and the very text to which they refer. Rosenkampf. Review Helmsman books page 14, and appendix. No. VII, p. 313. The true eleventh rule of the Trulle Council reads as follows: “None of those belonging to the sacred rank, or of the laity, should at all eat unleavened bread given by the Jews, nor enter into fellowship with them, nor call upon them in illnesses and receive medicine from them, nor bathe with them in baths. If anyone dares to do this, then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated.” See book. 1, ch. 3 to the end, apud Coteler. Patr. Apost. T. I, p. 205. First encountered in Kormch. Room. Music No. 231, l. 234. Tsar John Vasilyevich IV himself speaks about this (Stogl. 5, question 25). Helmsman Room. Music Nos. 231, 233, 234, etc., - in the Description. East, pp. 282, 301, 311. Let us recall the reproach of Tsar John Vasilyevich IV to Anthony Possevin (Karamz. Ist. State. Ross. IX, 362, note 628). And even before that, the Greek philosopher Nikifor Panagiot in the famous “Debate with Azimitus” also asked him with reproach: “why for the sake of your pope, all the churchwomen cut their braids, their heads” (placed in the Novgorod Makar. Cheti-Minea, for June, under the 31st, and in the “book of Kirillova” chapter 26. l. 235). Helmsman Room. Music No. 132. Demolished. letop. Archaeographer classes. Com. III, dept. III, 27, 38. (The author’s own note in the 2nd ed.). Helmsman Room. Music Nos. 133, 135 and Kormch. Novgor. Soph. bib. No. 437. For this rule, see above in the note. 129. Doesn’t the article on barber shaving belong to Stifatus himself? In our handwritten Helmsmen, it is connected with his work by the following turn of phrase: “but about the unleavened workshop, enough for you to tell me how powerful it is. About cutting your hair. What about hair cutting, isn’t it written in the law,” etc. But, in all likelihood, this connection between two completely dissimilar articles was made by the one who included them in the composition of the Helmsman, and the article on barber shaving does not belong to Stifat: because - a) his work is headed in all lists only - about the unleavened workshop...; b) at the very beginning of the essay, he, listing the subjects about which he intends to speak against the Latins, does not mention barber-shaving: “I am speaking about the unleavened shop and about the Sabbath fast and about the heretical brothers, who, during the honest fast, perform from them all the days of the service performed. So to them, the supreme gift of St. Spirit, we create the word, let’s begin.” Rosenkampf. Review Helmsman books, app. No. VII, p. 310. In Scripture we read: let no razor come upon his head, i.e. Nazarene (Part 6, 5); and in the article it is given: “let him not come upon your fence.” A remark from St. Dimitry Rostov. (Rozysk, chapter 10, p. 322, edition 1824). See note above. 60–85 and the text itself. See Acts. Moscow. Sob. 1667 printed. in Additional in the Act. East. Vol. V, No. 102. p. 500. ??? or ??? from ??? praised??? and God. Helmsman Room. Music Nos. 231 and 233. See note above. 13 and 60, as well as the text itself. To eliminate this contradiction, the compilers of the Pomeranian answers came up with the following interpretation: “when (Theodorit) commands to fold two fingers in the image of the two natures of Christ, the same two fingers should be extended slightly obliquely, or say, inclined to have them in prostration” (answer 45). But, alas, the imaginary Theodoret clearly commands to have two fingers, only inclined, and not extended: why distort his thought? For example, in Filaret's Potrebnik (ed. 1633) on fol. 1 rev. 32, vol. 74 and others repeat: “hallelujah three times.” In Joseph’s service book (ed. 1652), after the song: “Come, let us worship and fall down”... it is written: “Alleluia three times” (l. 128 vol.), and in the “Sequence for the Dead,” the deacon, after the first litany, exclaims: “Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia” (l. 309). See also l. 28, 423 rev. and friend. This, without any hesitation, was affirmed (in 1682) before the schismatics by Patriarch Joachim (Uvet Dukh., l. 94, Moscow 1753). The same Patriarch Joachim argued before the schismatics: “Many ancient churches still have four-pointed crosses, just as we see here in the reigning city of Moscow. And in the great Novgorod, and in the city of Kyiv. in the most honorable and great Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Anthony and Theodosius, and in Pskov, are found everywhere. What is clearer than that evidence, or what could be truer?” (ibid. l. 93 rev.). Everyone can see the evidence in the original Gospel of the half of the 11th century, recently published with literal accuracy, and in numerous extracts from manuscripts of the 11th–14th centuries, presented in “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” (conversations 1 and 4). And photographs from ancient Greek manuscripts can be seen in the paleography of Monookon and Herbert (De cantatu et musica sacra,. T. I). If only the instructions of the Pomeranian answers are true (answer 50, art. 13), which we did not have the opportunity to believe. However, for our part, we point to examples in the Laurentian Chronicle, p. in the 14th century (see the complete collection of Russian Let., vol. I, pp. 43–45, 49, 51, etc.). See, for example, in full. collection Rus. Years. vol. I, pp. 47, 53, 62, 66, 67, 79, 88, 89, 243, 254; vol. II, pp. 6, 9, 12, 19, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, etc. See, for example, in the Ostrog edition of the Bible, book. Numbers ch. 14, Nehemiah ch. 10 and others; in the Service Book of the Vilna edition of 1583, sheet. 215; in the Moscow Service Book. ed. 1616 Month. Sep. 1, as well as Monthly Words under the same number in other Moscow. service and missals. See in the same place - examples from the Charatean Gospel, the Golden Chain, the Charatean Psalter, the Helmsman, etc. Conversation 4, pp. 88–93, Moscow. 1844. Here are the very words of the preface: “I say this, about the correction of that Apostle about ourselves, we give the will to correct ourselves in the text; they didn’t care about anything???, over the testament of Vilensky and Chrysostom’s Conversations of Kyiv in spelling, Ilesma could, caution and sawliness diligently in the name of the blessed and holy Is???, call the old zahovalismo, For some reason, it’s not unknown to myself that it’s Jesus who is planning to write, not Jesus. For we close in ourselves a not a small secret chamber, and a personal library, osm hundred, osm ten and osm, in whose name, prayers are smeared for every day, the Orthodox Churches of the Holy Eastern Sons, publicly and privately, send a zvyknu.” To clarify the matter, we note that one of the ancient Sibyls (Cuman) is credited with predicting that the name of the Messiah will contain the number - 888. This number in the full name Ιησους - Iisous is actually found as follows: i = 10, i = 8, c = 200, o = 70, y = 400, c = 200, - total = 888 (Revelation of untruths split, ch. 4, l. 80). Here it is said about the sign of the cross: “The cross of Christ closes in itself the entire secret chamber of our good faith: it teaches us to recognize the Holy Trinity, the coming of the only begotten Son of God from heaven to earth... and His second coming on the day of judgment. The placement of the great finger with two small ones means the Holy Trinity, and the inclination of the one with the great finger to the middle means two births and origins??? in Christ" ... and so on. In this Collection, Part II, Ch. 5 reads: “The martyrs of Christ placed the sign of the honorable cross on their faces with their hands. And in this, the saints say, the great secret place of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is glorified... the great and the small and the third, which is next to the small one, confesses the secret place of those hypostases... By extending two fingers, the upper middle one, the secret place of the Lord Jesus Christ himself is shown, as God is thorough and man was thorough."... and so on. The entire second part of this book on faith, Kyiv edition, is taken entirely from the Ostrog Collection of 1598, and in this part the article on double-fingeredness is literally repeated. See list from the 16th century. to Rum. Muz., No. 264 and list of the 17th century. ibid., No. 265 (Description of the East. pp. 366–380). Demolished. article: about the works of Maxim the Greek, in J. M. N. P. 1834, No. VII. Evgen. Words spirit. pissing II, p. 41, ed. 2. L. 236. Here, however, some words and expressions have already been changed. (Transcribed above note 55 and the text to which it refers). These are the very words of the charter, however, rather unclear: “if panagia does not happen on the way, then take out the loaf of bread and put it in your right hand, saying: Blessed is God, who has had mercy and nourished us from our youth. He also makes a hand, three fingers, like a priest, makes a cross; and holding the loaf in his hand, he marks the cross with his hand, and raising the loaf up high, say: “Great is the name.” And there will be no other brethren, and he himself says: Most Holy Trinity, - and everyone in the place baptizes his image with his hand, with the same bread he holds, saying: Most Holy Lady, - and hand to the forehead; Mother of God, hand to the Persians; help, on the right hand; to us, on the left side of the hand” (l. 120). The same is repeated in the charter issued under Patriarch Joseph. In the Missal of St. Anthony the Roman of the first half of the 12th century, kept in the Moscow Patriarchal Library, after the instruction on the removal of the Lamb, it only says: “and having proscumised??? prosphora." In the Service Book of the second half of the 12th century, which belonged to the monastery of Anthony the Roman and kept in the Novgorod Sophia. library (No. 740), after instructions on removing the Lamb from the prosphora, other prosphora are not mentioned at all, but only about the removal of particles is written: “in honor and glory of the saint,” then “for health and salvation,” and finally “for the repose.” In the Service Book of our Academic Library (No. 125), which is copied, as evidenced by the hand signature of Metropolitan Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, from word to word and from page to page from the ancient Charate Service Book, kept in the Novgorod Sofia Sacristy, also after the removal of the Lamb from the prosphora, only the removal of particles is mentioned: “and behold proskumisaya will take in honor and glory of the Holy Mother of God..., and the holy heavenly Powers..., and the holy Forerunner... and so on.”; then: “and behold for the living,” finally: “and behold for the dead.” In the Service Book of the Novgorod Soph. bib. XIII century (No. 744), also after describing the taking out of the Lamb, it says: “and the priest proskumises the verb: “Accept, O Lord, this offering in honor and glory of our Lady Theotokos..., St. Heavenly Powers..., John the Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord... and so on.”; then: “and behold, to health”; finally: “and behold for your peace.” In the 14th century Missal, kept in Rum. Music (No. 399; after the instruction about the taking out of the Lamb, we read directly: “and behold, proscurumized in honor and glory, imrk???, and all the saints, with their prayers; and behold, for the dead, remember, O Lord, the soul of your departed servant, named, in a brighter place in the land of peace, where the light of your face shines, O Lord; and behold, covering the holy gifts.” In another Service book of Rum. XIV century. (No. 398) we also read: <and he takes out the prosfura: - accept, Lord Jesus Christ our God, this offering in honor and glory of the holy Lady Our Lady Theotokos and the Ever-Virgin and Mary, through her prayers, Lord, save our soul, and also to the saint; the same about health: - accept, Lord Jesus Christ, this offering in honor and glory for your servant, named, for health and for salvation and liberation; and behold, for repose: accept, O Lord, this offering in honor and glory for your deceased servant, Yamyarek, for the remission of voluntary and involuntary sins, and the rest of his soul in a bright place, where the light of your face is present, - and at the end of prosfury, incense.” St. Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod (in the first half of the 12th century), answered the question of the famous Kirin that it is possible to serve the liturgy on one prosphora, if it is impossible to get another, and for the funeral liturgy he appointed only three prosphoras: one for the Lamb, and two for the repose (Memorial. Ros. Slov. XII, pp. 173, 194). In the Resurrection Monastery there is a Charateal Service Book of 1380, in which the entire rite of proskomedia is limited only to the removal of the Lamb. In the Conversations to the Verb Old Believer, five such service books are indicated in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. (see conversation X, numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). We can also point to the Service Book Room. Music (No. 400), written - which is especially important - on St. Mount Athos in 1386. Here we read: “the priest receiving the second (after the lamb) prosphora in his hand says: in honor and in memory of our most blessed Lady Theotokos”... Further: “on the third prosphora say: by the power of the honorable and life-giving cross, the honorable ethereal heavenly powers, the honorable and glorious Prophet Forerunner... (by name) and all the saints, with whose prayers visit us “God”... Immediately after that: “we also take another (next fourth) prosphora, he says: about every Orthodox bishopric..., about our pious and God-protected kings, about the servant of God, named, abbot, about our brethren..., he also says by name, like the living.”... And after that: “on friends (next on the fifth) prosphora he says: about the blessed memory and remission of sins of the blessed Titor of this holy monastery... and all those like the hope of resurrection... our departed Orthodox father and brotherhood”... That’s all the prosphora! Such ranks are indicated in Conversations to the verb Old Believer (Conversation X, under numbers 10, 12, 13) Here are the words from the royal question: “only one lamb has taken away, yes, the Mother of God, and the Forerunner and all the saints, and about the holy bishopric of the Orthodox, and about the pious kings, and about all Orthodox Christianity, and for the repose of others, but few others are taken” (Chapter 5, Question 11). Here are the words of the answer: “Whenever a priest slaughters a lamb, the saint takes out the most pure portion from a small prosphyra and places it on the right hand of the lamb; Also from the third prosphyra, from the small ones, he takes out the forerunner's part, just like the most pure ones, and places a lamb on the left side; he also takes out the other prosphyra for every Orthodox bishopric, and for the king, and for princes, and for all Orthodox Christians, and for the repose, and places that offering on Wednesday under the lamb” (chapter 9). This rite is shown in Conversation X to the verb Old Believer under the number 12. The missal is in Rum. Music for No. 402 and fastened at the bottom of the pages by the hand of Patriarch Nikon. Here we read: “and therefore (after taking out the lamb) we accepted the prosphyra of the Theotokos and said: Lord Jesus Christ, accept this offering in honor of... the Mother of God.” Then: “and therefore let us accept the prosphyra of the cross, on the upper part it says: Lord Jesus Christ, accept this offering, by the power of the honorable and life-giving cross, by the intercession of the Holy One. ethereal heavenly powers, an honorable and glorious prophet and forerunner... (different classes of saints are listed by name) and through the prayers of all the Saints, accept this sacrifice into your most heavenly altar, and visit us, O God. And accept, Lord, this offering (this continues on the same line, without any arrangement) for the entire Orthodox archbishopric and for our archbishop..., for the health and salvation of the Orthodox kings... and thus commemorates the living, as He wishes... and remember the archbishops and the entire priestly rank, Lord. About memory (and this is on the same line and without any arrangement) and the remission of sins of the Orthodox princes who introduced themselves... commemorates their names, wishes to elik..., and Orthodox Christians everywhere. Reduce their spirits in the villages of the righteous, O Lord, loving of mankind. And we’ll take some of it.” See about this service book in X conversation to verb. Old Believer number 11. Namely, after the prosphora - for the lamb, the first prosphora is mentioned - in honor of the Mother of God, the second - in honor of the saints, and it is directly said: “the same prosphora (third?) says: about every bishopric..., about our pious sovereign... about the abbot and remembers all of them, who are alive.” Following this: “he still speaks (whether over the same or over another prosphora, it is not said); about the blessed memory and remission of sins... of all those who have fallen asleep”... Finally: “the same reception of the prosphora (which one? Isn’t it the same one you took out for the living?) says: Lord, remember... and my unworthiness”... See note above. 18 and the very text to which it refers. The rite of baptism only says: “I therefore, with the recipient and the newly baptized, create a circle around the pulpit three times” (Part I, p. 66). In the wedding rite: “and turns to them in the image of a circle, singing the troparion”... (Part I, p. 424). In the rite of consecration of the church: “performs a small consecration of the water of Augustus, and after the consecration is completed, he creates a Lithium around the church, nothing but Crosses” (Part II, p. 75). – part II, page 54. Unfortunately, we did not have breviaries at hand, printed. in Vilna, Ostrog, etc. Probably, they also do not contain information about walking in saltwater: because the schismatics do not refer to them (Pomor, answer 50, art. 32) They defend themselves this way: “even if in the secret of marriage, salting indicates walking around; for even in baptism, salting and walking around shows that it was a custom even before Patriarch Nikon” (Pomor, rep. 50, p. 32). But this is just arbitrary cleverness. From the fact that the old printed Moscow service books and missals indicate walking in salt in the rite of marriage, it does not follow that they show the same walking in the rite of baptism, when, on the contrary, they speak here only in general about walking around the font, without defining how to perform it - it does not follow, especially since, as we will see now, the same old books in the rites of some other sacred rites even directly command walking against sun. Did it really exist before Patr. Nikon’s unchangeable custom of walking in saltwater during the rite of baptism: this is what needs to be proven, and this is what you have so far been unable to prove with anything. See old printed service books and charters. See old bishop's officials. For example, more catechism l. 32, according to ed. Grodno 1787, required. n. Philaret 1633, l. 164 and 227 vol., books. Kiril., l. 89 rev. etc. Ch. 23 and 24. l. 94 rev. 110 and 113. – l. 1.64 rev. and 554; demolished l. 131 and 430 rpm So, in the Krakow Book of Hours of 1491, the symbol reads: “and in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father” (tetr. 3). See note above. 135–137. Although even then, Patriarch Peter of Antioch rightly noted in a letter to Michael Cerularius: “What does it matter to us that their bishops shave their beards and wear a ring as a sign of betrothal to the Church? We ourselves make a gumenzo on our heads in honor of the Apostle Peter... and wear gold on our clothes”... (Apud Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec T. II, p. 149, Lutet 1681: Allat. de cons. cccl. Orient. et occid. lib. III, p. 12). Apud Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec. T. III, p. 501. For this purpose, we deliberately revised the indicated books. See, for example, Filaret’s service book of 1630, l. 96 vol. 137, 165 vol. 166, 233 vol. 253 rev. 303 rev. 454, 482; Filaret's missal 1633 - f. 1 rev. 32 rev. 74, 112 rev. 356, 359, 366 rev. 371 rev. 402 rev. 412, 418, 419, 421 vol. 432; Filaret's charter of 1634 - l. 9 rev. 21 rev. 23 rev. 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 187, 189 rev. 194, 220 rpm; consumer book of Joasaph 1639 - l. about. 32 rev. 75, 116, 282, 285, etc. And in the following Psalms, see in general the psalms chosen for the Lord's feasts and on the days of deliberate Saints. In general, all the psalms chosen for the feasts of the Lord and special Saints end here, as in all previous editions. Psalms, with the words: “glory and now, alleluia thrice” (see l. 188–245) Note that we used the Joseph Psalter of 1646 according to its Vilna edition of 1778. See service books: Iovlevsky 1602 - Ch. 21 (sheets here are not marked with numbers); Filaretovsky 1630 – numbers 303 and 309; Joasaph 1637 - l. 327 and 333; missals: Filaret's 1633 – l.356 and 359; Joasaph 1639 - l. 282 and 285; following Joseph's psalter of 1646, according to the Vilna edition of 1778 - l. 275 and 283 rpm; Joseph. Consumer 1647 - l. 196 and 202. See Joseph's service book of 1651 - l. 305 and 312 rpm; service book 1652 - l. 307 and 315. The same profound alleluia is constantly repeated in the Book of Hours of 1652 - l. 4, 31, 57, 66, etc. For example, service. 1651 - l. 306 rev; service 1652 - l. 309. See the prefaces of the aforementioned service books. “On other days, the Cross of the Lord is in the church all the time, and they venerate and look at it, and when they bow to it, they kiss it; during Holy and Great Lent, they neither worship him nor look at him, but in some dark place, they hide him with a shroud wrapped around him” (l. 216). “I curse the Latin hypocrisy, about the honorable cross, which is always in the church all day long, and is hypocritically revered, and looked at, and kissed by those who worship it”; in holy Great Lent, they neither worship him nor see him, but”... (l. 442). For example, in the prayer book or breviary, ed. in Vilna 1617, on fol. 18 at the beginning of the sequence of St. baptism depicts the “baptism of adolescence.” There is also a church on which there is a four-pointed cross. – In the Kiev Great Breviary of 1646, on the back of the title page, the coat of arms of Metropolitan Peter Mogila is presented and in the coat of arms, by the way, there is a bishop’s staff, and two crosses - both four-pointed: one pectoral (which Peter Mogila probably wore as a holy archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra), the other - with a very long arm and with an image on it crucifix (which was usually worn before the Kiev Metropolitan when he walked for Divine services). Thus, in the Kyiv service books of 1620, 1629 and 1639 and in the Lvov service book of 1637, in the rite of proskomedia, a six-pointed cross is depicted on a lamb taken out of a prosphora - without the top crossbar, which is how prosphora were printed then, and - let us add - without a cane and a copy and without the inscription around the seal: behold the lamb of God, take up sins of the world - which is what schismatics now certainly demand. Thus, in the Kiev Great Breviary of 1646, on page 216, the crucifixion of the Savior on an eight-pointed cross is depicted; in the Moscow charter of 1610, in the rite of panagia (fol. 117), an eight-pointed cross is depicted, with which panagia bread was printed, and in the missals of St. Philaret and Joasaph, the full outline of the eight-pointed cross is presented, which was supposed to be on the antimensions. But, remarkably, in none of the old printed service books before Patr. Joseph, there is no image of an eight-pointed cross in the rank of proskomedia, from which one could conclude that it was this, and not the four-pointed cross, that was then used in Moscow for printing prosphoras. See Pomor. resp. 5, 16, etc. Stroev. description old printed Tolstoy's books, p. 1; add. to description old printed books - page 241 and at the end appendix 11. Sakharov. Review Slavic-Russian bibliogr. pp. 3 and 16; Stroev. Additional to description old stove books pp. 1–19. Sakharov, ibid. p. 3; Stroev. Description old man Tolstoy's books pp. 3–5. Sakharov, ibid., p. 10. Stroev. Additional to description old man book pp. 28, 38; description old man book Tolstova, pp. 41, 44, 61, 90; Sakharov. review Slavic-Russian bib. under the meaning for years. Description old man book Tolstova, pp. 29, 32–45, 49, 78, 179. Ibid., 168, 213; Additional to description old man books 22, 53, 118. Sakharov, in designated, review. 44, 51, 55, 68, 69, 74, 77. Sakharov, ibid. 88, 92, 120; Stroev. description book Tolstova 50–56, 103, 184, 211, 215, 218, 223, 231. Additional. to description 78. In the afterword to the Apostle of 1564, although it is said that the printing house was established in Moscow, by the way, with the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius, it does not say that this book itself was printed with his blessing. And in the afterword of the psalter of 1577 there is no mention of the metropolitan at all. As Patriarch Filaret Nikitich testified (Act. Exp. III, No. 228). See the prefaces or afterwords of the above-mentioned books. The afterword to this book says that Tsar Theodore Ivanovich, zealous “about the holy book correction of church harmony,” and his faithful wife Irina announced this “to their father, the most holy Job, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', and to the entire consecrated cathedral, and to the entire synclite of their royal polity, so that in the God-saved reigning great city In Moscow, in the great divine cathedral church, and throughout Russia, the holy books were witnessed and corrected, and the printing work was completed; For many years now, uneducated people have been corrected by the prescribers,” and that as a result of this, “with the blessing of His Holiness Job, the printing of this holy book of the colored triodion began quickly.” Because in the Menaea of ​​the Month 1699, ed. under P. Hermogenes, it has already been noted that it was printed from previous certified printed translations. In the afterword of this Menaion, for September 1607, it only says that Tsar Vasily Ivanovich announced to Patr. Hermogenes, in order to “congregately testify to the all-year circulation of the books of the twelve month of Menaion; For many years now, these books have been translated from the Greek into Slovenian, and many ancient ones have been interpreted and prescriptive, or are ironic, or mixed, or have erred in some way,” and that as a result of that testimony of these books, the beginning occurs. And in the afterword of the Menaion for December 1620 we read: “The printing of this inspired book began quickly, in the month of December, in the reigning city of Moscow, in the summer of the 7128th month of January on 1 day. And it was testified that from the first day to the third ten days, by the Holy Cyrus Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, in the summer of 7118; from the third ten days until the end of this book it was testified to the great lord and sovereign... His Holiness Philaret, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. It happened in the summer of 7129, on the 15th day of October.” Track. the witnessing took place during the printing itself, and not before printing, and not after the printing of the entire book. The latter is most likely. For both in the presented extract from the afterword to the Menaion for December 1620, and in all subsequent books in which their testimony is only mentioned, this is usually expressed in the words: “this God-inspired book was quickly begun to be printed... in such and such a summer...; and was testified to be the great lord... Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; It happened in the summer... such and such... month... on... day (see such afterwords in the Supplement to the description of old books, pp. 59, 61, 81, 83, 88, etc.). From this we can conclude that the books were witnessed not before they were printed, but during the printing itself, and that consequently the witnessing consisted primarily, if not exclusively, in monitoring the correctness of the work. About the arch.'s case in detail. Dionysius and his employees, as well as about the errors they noticed in our old practices. book can be read in the article by Mr. Kazansky: Correction of church services. books with Patr. Filarete (Reader. Moscow. Historical Society, 1848, No. 8, department I, 4–10). This is repeated in the afterwords of all service books, ed. with Patr. Filarete. See the inventory of these books, as well as those that were later collected under Patr. Joasaph, Joseph and Nikon, in “Read. Moscow. Histor. Society" 1847, No. 5 and 1848, No. 6. The inventories also show the years of collecting books. And this is repeated in the afterword of all Filaret’s missals of 1624, 1625 and 1633. Stroev. Additional to description old stove books 59, 61, 76, 81, 83, 85. Stroev. Description old man Tolstoy's books 195, 206; Additional 86, 90, 92; Sakharov. Description Slav.-Rus. bib. 124, 133. In the afterword of Joasaph’s breviary of 1639, almost literally the same thing is said about this as I did in the afterwords of Philaret’s breviaries: “it is the desire of (Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich) in the Holy Great and Apostolic Church that disagrees in the divine scriptures to be corrected by agreement. Let the union of church peace be firmly preserved in a spirit of meekness, so that there will be no disagreement for the sake of discord in the church body. For this reason, we shine from above with the light of the divine Paraclete, and commanded from the cities to collect books of good translations of the ancients, and to offer prudent advice to the testimony of the divine scriptures. And from those ancient charatean books of divine scriptures, correct the versification, even if it was not corrected from the prescriptive, and long-standing customs, the mistake was made. And this will correct everything, I will combine all the needs and ranks of the church hierarchy with unanimity.” Ignatius Met. Siberia and Tobol., sent. III, ch. 11 (director of our Academic Bible No. 164); Additional in the Act. East. V, pp. 448–451, 457. The first, by the way, testifies: “Holy Patriarch Joseph of Moscow, an elderly man, entrust all the correction of books to the advice of the above-mentioned archpriests and priests and do not worry about anything about this; entrusted myself to him." For example, in the afterword to the six-day period of 1651 it is clearly stated: “from previous translations we have printed them, but we have not yet seen the Greek ones.” See Denisov. Grape. Ross. in the preface. Evidence of this from Rev. We have already seen Maximus the Greek, the hundred-headed So6or and the first printed Moscow Apostle (note 34 - 36). Now we can point to the same evidence from other early printed books (see above notes 222, 224 and further note 241, as well as the text in which they refer). Also in the afterword in John Climacus, ed. in Moscow in 1647, that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich saw “many uncorrections in the Divine words of Scripture”, both from the translators and from the prescribers.... As an example, we can point to our old written service books of the 12th – 16th centuries, which we revised more than ten (see above notes 171–180). Those indicated here and below are the afterwords of various early printed books, which are generally rare and little accessible, anyone can see in the descriptions of our bibliographers; Sopikov (Experience. Russian bibliography), Stroev (Description of old books by Tolstoy, Tsarsky, and additional descriptions in this), Sakharov (Description of Slavic-Russian bibliography), etc. Description old man Tolstoy's books, p. 184. “However, they knew (of these days) you and the people, ve Lvove, who are rushing from their printing houses, having filled our church books with errors, without knowing the permission and blessing of our shepherds, our spiritual sheep, until they get along... They were not silent because of that courage, to lie down quickly they took the song sheet, and so on. the belly of the Lord, the book that contains the mysteries of Christ’s journey within itself, they stumbled upon it, they gave it to you, the most honorable co-servant; also the unblessing was given out to those who, from our flock, would have named the service books of the director of the Lvov Liturgiary, dove and dared to liturgisate on them, as if the wide sheets issued and sang in themselves.” He says: “before that, the washings, in those missals foreseen, came out, partly due to the simplicity and recklessness of the proofreaders, partly due to the carelessness of the clerks, and especially due to the oblivion of Orthodox pastors in the Russian Church, at which times in which such books were censured and they were issued to the world, not much information about such speeches was shallow and little they respected that in the sacraments the matter, and the form, was, taking care of the barzei’s belongings: for this they omitted many necessary speeches, and added those that were not necessary.” Acts Arch. Exp. III, p. 337. See Rev. Pitirima Prashits. resp. to the question 14, l. 37–54, St. Petersburg. 1721. It was noted about this: “and the priest’s burial was postponed, by order of the great lord, His Holiness Joasaph, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', because that burial was carried out by the heretic, Eremey the priest of Bulgaria; but in the Greek translations it is not: the same in the old Charatean and in the written ones in the old, and Malaya Rossiya, even in the Kyiv netzhe, and for this reason it is ordered that here in this book you bury the priest with a world burial” (fol. 301 vol.). See note above. 227. Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mohyla also looked condescendingly at the errors of book publishers (above note 243). This idea is expressed in the afterwords of many early printed books. Thus, in the afterword of the first-printed Moscow Apostle, it is said that when Tsar John Vasilyevich heard about the extreme defectiveness of the handwritten books purchased, at his command, from which only “little needs were found, while the rest were all corruptions from those who were prescriptive, unlearned and unskilled in their minds, who wrote with caution and without correction,” he began to think about how to have printed books so that henceforth the holy books would be presented righteously, and soon he actually opened a printing house in Moscow. A service book was printed in Vilna in 1583 “for the purification and correction of unlearned and unskilled scribes in the mind,” as stated in the afterword. In the afterwords of Filaretov’s service books it is repeated that they are printed “for the decoration of St. to the churches of God in the agreement of diverging translations.” In the afterword of the trephology, printed. in Moscow in 1636, we read: “and before that, for many years, books had been written in written inscriptions, but such an image was not completely formed, and it is not powerful for the word of God to be directly corrected and for everyone who knows the divine scripture to sing and say in the church of God without confusion and without doubt: for this sake, by his divine vision, all good things are done and the best is chosen from the worst, the books beginning to be printed imagination.” This is what, for example, one of them, Anisim Radoshevsky, says in the afterword to the charter of 1610: “We pray for you in rudeness and weakness, especially without punishment, and slavishly worship the face of the earth with tenderness, as if we want to read this holy book, or write it down, and even for the weakness of my sins, or to me obedient workers with bewilderment, withdraw, or join, or abolish, be merciful to us and do not blind our minds to weakness and bewilderment.” And again: “I pray that you will not hate or revile me for the sake of unworthy unlearning, but rather show me as a righteous woman with mercy and convict me. I am ready to accept my head with oil rather than a sinner, for I have seen few schools. It was not of my own free will that I dared to do this, and I renounced the impossible, and did so many things, belittling this meaning.” See the three words of Rev. Maxima in Rus. Church East. M. Plato, part II, at the end. This is evidenced by his contemporary Ignatius, later Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk, in his III Epistle against the schismatics, Ch. 11–13 (Manager of our Academic Bible, No. 164, l. 59–62) All three letters of Ignatius against the schism were published in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” of 1855, book. I and II. “And the consecrated rank and excellent dignity, I say, the most holy Patriarch Joseph, and as with him these books were published without printing, so an elderly man, an ignorant man, had his two fingers, as if this introduction was heretical in Armenian byashe” (Ignatus, epil. III, chapter 14, l. 62 vol.). When the eastern saints noticed that Nikon was crossing himself with two fingers, and began to reproach him for this: he “was greatly offended, and said to them: how you speak of me with pride and humiliation, since we have printed books in Russia about that constitution” (Ignatus, ate. III, ch. 19, l. 67–68). “Only the very elderly people of that Armenian teaching did not accept and barely saved themselves, and did not heed the charm of this new Armenian-imitative double-fingered build, but held on tightly to the triple-finger build; nonii and ???secrate, that is, young people, starting on these books in the blasphemy of the Armenian great wisdom” (ibid., ch. 13, l. 62). Demolished. “The word is responsible” Patr. Nikon, printed at the beginning of the Tablets he published in 1656, fol. 2. Patr. Nikon Words. will answer. l. 1 rev. Demolished. collection State, gram., vol. III, No. 135. See Issues of the Sovereign Tsars and palace notes under the designated years. Demolished. Patr. Nikon Words. will answer. l. 1 rev. Pitirim. Slinger, rep. 68. The schismatics themselves do not reject the authenticity of this event, as can be seen from the story existing in their manuscripts: “the debate between the cathedral elder Arseny and the Greeks.” It says here that Elder Damascene had “printed books of Moscow: the book of Cyril of Jerusalem and the psalter with prayers and a polysyllabic scroll and others based on them,” which were burned (Manufacturer of my Bible No. 15. l. 2). “That’s what he said: they want to change me, they want to throw me out, but they won’t let me go, and I myself will begin to beat myself up for the rubbish about my resignation” (Act. Arch. Exp., vol. IV, p. 83). For a description of his dying yearnings, see in the same place, pp. 80 - 82. “When - Ignatius Metropolitan of Tobolsk also tells about Patr. Joseph, - his last book, the Psalter, is published in educational edition, with the Armenian appendix, soon he will die: he narrates harshly, as if he died from the gnawing of the inner” (Epistle III, chapter 14, l. 62 vol.). We had at hand two copies of this book: incomplete (Manufacturer of our Academic Bible, No. 317) and complete. Another handwritten work that exists among the schismatics is not, however, together with the Proskinitary, but separately, under the title; “the debate between the cathedral elder Arseny and Greki... in 158” about the sign of the cross, about chronology, etc., and known to us from three rather dissimilar lists, undoubtedly does not belong to Arseny himself, but was compiled by an outsider. This can already be seen from the words of the preface based on one list: “for this reason, I offer this wondrous story with fear and love to my father and brethren, not truly my own, but that of the cathedral elder, the great Arseny, recommended by Sukhanov, and I will create zeal for the faith and the mind of a man for the benefit of those who hear” (Manual of my Bible 15, fol. 1 vol.). In the work itself there are often references to Arseny, such as the following: “The Latins were buying Orthodox books from the Turks, but they were not given them by the Greeks, according to the testimony of his wonderful husband and zealot of piety, Elder Arseny” (ibid. 21); or: “by the command of the king, the wondrous man Elder Arseny was sent to Jerusalem - his testimony is true”... ( - l. 54). It is said that Arseny had repeated competitions about the sign of the cross with the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, both during their journey from Moscow to Jerusalem, and in Jerusalem. But Arseny himself, in his Proskinitary, in which he presented a detailed diary of his travels, does not mention these competitions at all, while he sets out his other conversations with the Jerusalem and Alexandrian patriarchs in detail. Finally, in one of the lists (in the Collection of our Academic Bible, No. 427) it is mentioned that Patriarch Nikon elected Arseny the Greek as a compiler of books and spews out the usual schismatic blasphemies against Nikon himself: but Nikon became patriarch not in 1650, but in July 1652. Arseny the Greek was made a director of information already in 1655; The schismatics began to cry out against Nikon not before 1654, and Arseny Sukhanov was not one of Nikon’s opponents, who sent him as a trusted person, and in 1654. to Mount Athos and other places to collect books, and subsequently to Jerusalem to survey the site of the Jerusalem Church of the Resurrection of Christ (Shusherin. Life Patriarch Nikon). For example, speaking about the procession on St. Easter, celebrated in the Jerusalem temple, Arseny writes: “they take up the banners, go creatively through the southern gate and go against the sun of the great altar and circle around the tomb of Christ three times, singing the stichera.” Arseny deliberately asked the Alexandrian Patriarch Ioannikis about alleluia, and received the answer that it should not be doubled, but tripled with the addition: glory to you, God. Life of Theod. Rtishchev in Ancient. Ross. ???Vivliso., part XVIII, p. 401. Note about Epiph. Slaven. in Words Spirit. pissing Evgeniya, part I, p. 179. So they were published: in 1652, the Apostle, the colored triodion, the canon, in 1653, the Gospel, the general menaion, the psalter, etc. All this is stated in the preface to the patr. Nikon ed. in Moscow 1655. The history of this cathedral is set out in the same preface. to service 1655 (See Stroeva Add. in the description of old books, pp. 151–156) and in the preface. to Uvet the spiritual patriarch. Joachim. And the Act of the Council itself was printed towards the end of the first part of the Tablet, ed. Nikon in 1656 Metropolitans: Novgorod Macarius, Kazan Cornelius, Rostov Jonah, Krutitsy Sylvester, Serbian Mikhail; archbishops: Vologda Markell, Suzdal Sophrony, Ryazan Misail, Pskov Macarius; Bishop of Kolomna Pavel. Namely: for the prayer of permission, which the priest said for himself before the start of the liturgy, and for the dismissal, which the priest proclaimed to the whole church, standing in the royal doors, at the end of the hours before the liturgy. By the way, regarding the time of the liturgy, St. relics during the consecration of churches, bows to St. Pentecost, antimensions, etc. Archimandrites: Trinity-Sergius Monastery - Adrian and Luzhetsky Monastery - Misail, abbot of the Pereyaslav Boris and Gleb Monastery - Anthony, archpriests: Annunciation Cathedral - Stefan (Vonifatiev) and Ascension Church - Joachim. Both lists of those present at the cathedral and those who signed are printed in the cathedral Acts on the Tablet. See Sem. Denisova, Spiritual Vertograd or Russian Grapes, article: “about Paul, Bishop of Kolomna” (Collection, my library No. 31, l. 24). Preface to Service 1655 and to Uvet. spiritual All this Act of the Council of Constantinople or the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius to St. Nikon is printed in the Tablet, part I, pp. 639–760. Preface to Service 1655 and to Uvet spiritual. See the same prefaces. Collection State gram. Part Sh, No. 136. Register of Little Russians. affairs of old and new years in “Molodin” 1844, pp. 225, 226. Silv. Medved. table of contents books, who put them together No. 99 (in Reading Moscow. Ist. Obsch. 1846, No. 3, department 4. p. 43). Archive. Solov. monastery according to inventory No. 122. The title of one collection of paternal writings, translated by Epiphanius, says: “translated from printed Hellenic Greek into Slavic-Russian in the new, in the summer of 1656, and these God-inspired books are attested in the printing house from Greek old written and printed translations, the holy Mount Athos by Archimandrite Dionysius from his minions” ( Sopikov. Experience of the Russian Federation. Part I, No. 247, p. 79). All this is told by P. Nikon himself in the “Answering Word,” which is printed at the beginning of the Tablet he published. The council ended on June 2, 1656. The actions of the council are set out in the same “Sermon of Answer.” They were signed, after P. Nikon, by three metropolitans: Macarius of Novgorod, Cornelius of Kazan, Jonah of Rostov, four archbishops: Markell of Vologda, Lawrence of Tver, Joseph of Astrakhan, Macarius of Pskov, one bishop - Alexander of Kolomna, twenty-two archimandrites, nine abbots, builders, governors. It was translated by Arseny the Greek (Medical book of contents, who compiled them, in Reading Moscow. Ist. General. No. 3, exc. 4, p. 43). Sem. Denisov. Grapes Ross. in the article: about Pavel Bishop of Kolomna (according to my list, fol. 23 vol.). Upon his arrival from Yuryevets Povolsky to Moscow, he lived here with the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, John Neronov, and often served in his place in the Kazan Cathedral, as he himself tells in his “life”, written by himself (Manufacturer of my bibliography, No. 33, l. 16). Habakkuk. in his life (Collection, l. 17); Denis. Grapes Ross. in advance article about Nikon (l. 14 vol. and 15). “Danil and I, it is Avvakum who says, wrote extracts from books about folding fingers and bowing, and submitted them to the Emperor: a lot was written. We don’t know where he hid it; I think he gave it to Nikon.” Denis. Vinogr. Ross. about Nikon (l. 15), about Pavel Kolomensk. (l. 24–26). Avvakum, in his “tale of the transformation of godless new books”..., by the way, writes: “as Nikov is disgusting to God, such are the essence of his books and the dogmas of those who strengthen them; His lying disciples, teachers of Greekness and Rusticism, do not gather with Christ, but with Satan scatter the former saints, the father of the faith of Christ, and with their corrupted dogmas they prepare the way for the Antichrist” (Collected my Bible No. 35, l. 33). For example, one of Avvakum’s articles is headed: “There is reliable testimony about Nikon, the Marker of God, who was a shepherd in sheep’s skin, the forerunner of the Antichrists”..., and in the article itself he is constantly called the enemy of God, the enemy of Christ, a vessel of the evil devil, a cursed apostate, and it is said that he “slayed Nikon after his father Satan,” insisted that at baptism “It is inappropriate to spit on Satan” and so on. (Collection of my library No. 35, l. 37–41). And in another of his articles or “books on the crucifixion heresy,” the same Avvakum, by the way, says about Nikon: “in our Russian land there will be found a great devil...... the measure of the height and depth of which is a very deep hell... we, our fathers and brothers, without keeping silent, began to denounce the heretic and the creed of the Antichrist” (ibid. 51, 52). We leave Avvakumov’s other, even greater blasphemies against Nikon. See Pogodin's Note on the homeland of Patriarch Nikon and his opponents (Moskvit. 1854, No. 19, department 5). Epiphany Slavenitsky in Skrizhvli in 1656 speaks about the first schism teachers: “these, because of the dark, harmful hatred or stupidity of ignorance, the darkness of their souls has been harmfully darkened, and their mental thoughts, in order not to see the bright ray of corrections, are adjacent..., to the first-throne priest... they maliciously dare to murmur.” And further: “nets, either by the harmful envy of exaltation, or by the stupid ignorance of darkness, rush into destructive grumbling and malice” (pages 13 and 15). This is not rejected by the schismatics themselves (Denis. Vinogr. Ros. about Paul with a stake, fol. 24 vol.). See also about John Nero in Add. to Act. East. V, 457. Denis. Grapes Ross. about Paul with a stake, l. 25, 26; Ancient Ross. ???Vivliof. III, 406–407. The rassolniks speak differently about the death of Paul of Kolomna: Avvakum writes that he was burned by Nikon within the Novgorod borders (a book on the crusader heresy in the Collection of my Bible No. 35, l. 52); in one handwritten “tale of the suffering and death of the holy martyr Pavel of Kolomna” it is even said that this happened in 1656 (Collection of my Bible No. 46, stat. 8); but Semyon Denisov in his Vinograd Ros. narrates that Paul was in the Paleostrovsky monastery for quite some time, that then the Novochinites (and not Nikon specifically) transferred him to the Novgorod countries and here “after much languor in the log house he gave up fiery death” (l. 26). In general, it should be noted that city executions of schismatic teachers were carried out by the city court, by order of the civil authorities, and not by determination of Patriarch Nikon or other spiritual authorities (Ignat. tobol. three messages against the schismatic, l. 71). And so that Pavel Kolomensky remains alive until the Moscow Council of 1667. and already by this council he was exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery, as some claim - we have not found any evidence of this anywhere. Avvak. in his life (Manual No. 33, l.17); Add. to Act. East. V, 457. Avvak. in the book on the cross. heresy (Collection, No. 35, l. 52) and in his life (-l. 17 vol.-207); Denis. Grapes Ross. in the articles: about Daniel, Loggin and Habakkuk (–l. 26–30); Ignat Tobol. Three last against rask. (–l. 71 vol.). Denis. Grapes Ras. about Nikon (–l. 21–23). In general, Denisov exaggerates or distorts everything that is said about the patriarch. None, as in other schismatic writings. In addition to the Service Book and the Tablet under P. Nikon, the following were published, before its removal from Moscow in 1658: a Collection of prayers and the Lenten Triodion (1656), Irmologium, again translated from Greek by Epiphanius Slavenitsky, and the Gospel (1657), followed by the Psalter and Trebnik (1658/). According to their conciliar definition, the following were printed: the colored Triodion, corrected by Epiphanius Slavenitsky, the Avthologion, the general Menaion and the monthly and other books (see Stroev. Description of the old books of Tolstoy, Tsarsky and Additional list to this). Ignat. tob. last III vs. rask. l. 70 rev; Avvakum, in his book on the cross, heresy (Collected my Bible No. 35, l. 52, vol. 56), in his life (Collected my Bible No. 33, l. 20, 43); Denis. Grapes Ross. in the articles about everyone is indicated. faces (–l. 30, 60, 62). In a letter to Morozova, Avvakum says: “You were a boyar’s wife, Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, an honest widow, at the top of the rank of Tsarev, close to the Tsarina. There were about three hundred people serving you in your house, but you had 8,000 peasants, and the estate in your house amounted to 200,000, or half a third. You had the heir to all this, your son Ivan Glebovich Morozov. There are many many friends and relatives in Moscow; she went to them in a chariot, which had a drag in the carriage, arranged with money and silver, and many 6 or 12 argamaks, with rattling chains. Behind you there were 100 or 200 servants, slaves and slaves, and sometimes people and trusts protected your honor and health” (Collection of my Bible No. 34, l. 55). Add. to Act. East. V, 448. Demolished. the very letters of Habakkuk. Avvak. in his life (–l. 44); Denis. Grapes Ross. about Habakkuk (fol. 31 vol.). Avvak. ibid (–l. 45); Denis. ibid (l. 32, 33). Denis. Grapes Ross. about Deacon Theodore (l. 37); Add. to Act. East. V, 451. Stroev. source materials liter. §§ 209–211; Add. to Act. East. V, 457, 458; Denis. Grapes Ross. about Spiridon (l. 65–66); Hand. life of the monk Cornelius (Collection of my Bible No. 32, art. 7). Here, by the way, Cornelius himself tells that once in Moscow they gathered with a certain “god-lover, hiding persecution for the sake of: Father Spiridon, Archimandrite Pokrovskaya from the poor, cathedral fathers: holy archpriest Avvakum, archpriest Daniel, holy abbot Dositheos, holy abbot Kapiton, cathedral priest Lazarus, holy deacon Theodore, monks: Abraham and Isaiah and I, the sinner Cornelius, began to write advice about the current Nikonian heretical baptism, which happens according to newly printed books,” and so on. About the monk Joseph Istomin in detail in Ignatius M. Tobolsk in I in III messages (l. 71–72). Denis. Grapes Ross. about Lazarus and Nikita (l. 45, 71); Add. to Act. East. V, 449. Ignat. m.tob. last III, l. 63–66. It is remarkable that from this particular Kapiton our schismatics at the beginning were generally called Kapitons (in the same place, last I, l. 5 vol. and last II, l. 74). Act. East. V, 480; Add. Act. East. V, 452, 455, 458; Denis. Grapes Ross. about Joasaph of Kirill, Abraham of Nizhny Novgorod and Fr. John the typesetter (fol. 57, 69, 89). Description hands gr. Tolstova, p. 517. It was published by schismatics in one Collection, without publication, beginning with the article: the story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky (see l. 92). Denis. Grapes Ross. about Epiphanius (l. 53). Denis, ibid. 16 rev; Add. to Act. East. V, 447. It should be noted that Alexander was also driven by personal hatred of St. Nikon because the latter, with the permission of the sovereign, decided to annex the Kolomna diocese to his patriarchal region, as nearby and did not need a special archpastor, and decided to transfer Alexander to the newly opened in 1657 diocese of Vyatka and Great Perm (Addition to volume III of the Palace. Notes, p. 110, St. Petersburg, 1854), where, due to local circumstances, an archpastor was needed. Alexander was so irritated by this that, contrary to the will of the sovereign and his patriarch, he did not want to go to a new place for a long time and wandered without permission, saying that he would only go “to become a metropolitan or patriarch.” Fr. himself testifies to all this. Nikon in his handwritten book: “The objection or ruin of the humble Nikon, by the grace of God, the patriarch, against the questions of the boyar Simeon Streshnev, written to the Gaza Metropolitan Paisius Licharidius” (see the ruin of the 15th question and answer). That it was during this period that the schism took hold among us and spread, is evidenced by the contemporary “announcement of the deposition of Fr. Nikon”, where, by the way, it is said: “and as if by abandoning the throne, make the holy Church a widow for eight years and six months: during the period between the patriarchate, the time was seduced by him for the sake of many, and schismatics and rebels of the Orthodox-Russian Church appeared, destroying the souls of many people with their flattering teachings” (Ancient Russian Vivliof. III, 401). What is discussed at length, although as usual with various exaggerations and embellishments, in Sem. Denisova in Vinogr. Ross., part I. It is enough to recall the case that took place in the Nile Hermitage, in which for a long time they did not agree to accept corrected books, but continued to perform divine services using the old printed ones. When, due to this circumstance, those sent from the authorities arrived there and convinced the priest to conduct the service according to the revised missal on prosphora with a four-pointed cross: then the monks agreed among themselves not to allow the priest to attend this. As soon as he began to perform the proskomedia, one of the monks, named Cornelius, who was correcting the position of sexton, boldly began to rebuke him from what he had begun, and seeing that the priest did not stop, “hitting the priest on the head with a censer with a lit coal, as hard as the censer was broken.” The messengers removed Cornelius from the altar; but all the monks rushed at the sent ones, some with a candlestick, some with sticks and so on, and “fighting against each other until the church platform was stained with blood,” until the sent ones prevailed (manual life of the monk Cornelius in the Collection of my Bible No. 32, v. 7). The acts of this council were published in Add. to Act. East. V, No. 102, pp. 439–467. Namely, the metropolitans: Pitirim of Novgorod, Lavrenty of Kazan, Jonah of Rostov, Pavel of Sara and Pond, Pavel of Serbia; archbishops: Simon of Vologda, Filaret of Smolensk, Hilarion of Ryazan, Joasaph of Tver and Arseny of Pskov. This, or perhaps another similar incident, greatly irritated Habakkuk, so that he wrote the following about the deacon Theodore: “the young puppy Theodore the deacon, my spiritual son, taught fornication over old books and stumbled about the Holy Trinity and about Christ’s descent into hell, and about others, dogmatizing according to the Nikonian: it is absurd that it is written in my book and sent to you about the Lord. “I could not bear his madness, and could not hear the blasphemy against the Lord God, who cut him off from himself and put him under an oath, not for the sake of external annoyance, nor in any way, but for the sake of his lack of disobedience against God and blasphemy against the old books: cursed be he, the enemy of God” (book about the monk Theodore, in the Collection of my Bible No. 34, l. 94). Add. to Act. East. V, 456, 484–485. Printed in the same place, pp. 485–487 and in the service book published in Moscow in 1668. At this council there were: 3 patriarchs, 14 metropolitans, 8 archbishops, 5 bishops, 25 archimandrites, 8 abbots and 13 archpriests. Add. to Act. East. V, 487, 488, 500–504. What the corrections consisted of is shown in the cathedral scroll and printed. at this very service book. There, by the way, we read the following wonderful words: “every work, like the hands, like the human mind, is not absolutely perfect as usual (all works of the one and most perfect God are absolutely perfect), but little by little they are brought to perfection. By the same token, as in the Greek books, the final accomplishment in all countries was not unanimous, for even to this day the church, according to the custom of this rite, affirms and elevates every country to perfection: so our Orthodox Russian Church, from many of their translations, only wants to create a perfect rite, setting aside the custom of the rite of its own country, and moreover kindly maintaining the splendid one, which is wonderful Is it possible that in this new edition of the service book, which has been corrected for the sake of the best Greek translation, according to the customs that are praiseworthy to us and the Greek Church, it changes little? This does not invalidate the previous corrections, but raises them to a higher level of perfection.” Add. to Act. East. V, 451, 457, 467–475; Denisov about Lazar in Vinogr. Ross., l. 48 rev. In addition to the story about Nikon, compiled by Avvakum (Collection of my Bible No. 35, fol. 36 ver.), and the even more evil one, compiled by Semyon Denisov (at the beginning of Vinogr. Ros.), other similar handwritten stories circulate among the schismatics. One of them has the title: the story of our hierarch Nikon, is very wonderful, worthy of hearing..., and it begins: “that this hierarch is the son of the enemy of the devil’s father, the lowest Satan” (Collected my Bible No. 46, stat. 4). The other is called: a story about the birth and upbringing, and about the life and death of Nikon, the former patriarch of Moscow..., and it begins: “before, according to the ancient church paternal piety, even if I am consumed by ardent pity”... All these stories repeat the same main inventions with different embellishments and some additions. In the last, newest, story about Nikon, it is noted that he “had only one thing in his mind - to destroy the ancient paternal piety, and to establish the heterodox Roman wickedness.” Archdeacon Paul, who was in Moscow under the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius during the trial of Nikon, writes about him: “in Moscow there are many Franks and the people of Nems, Swedes and English. These are all merchants; before that, they lived with their families in the city itself, but the patriarch (Nikon) expelled them from here, because he hates all kinds of heretics... He demanded from the king that he expel them from all Orthodox cities and fortresses and that they live outside the city walls, excluding those who cross themselves. He ordered to destroy the churches and small churches that they had had here for a long time, as well as the mosques of the Tatars. The Armenians suffered the most, especially those who lived in large numbers in Astrakhan. It was ordered to destroy their churches, and they were forbidden to wear Moscow dress” (Wanderings of the Arab Patriarch Macarius from Aleppo to Moscow, printed in the Bible for Readings, vol. XV, section III, p. 101). According to the testimony of another contemporary (Olearius), Nikon armed himself in Moscow against everything foreign, such as dresses, music, calling all this Latin customs (Berkha of the royal Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, note 134, 135). Nikon clearly expressed his aversion to Latin in his famous letter to the Constantinople Patriarch Dionysius in 1666. Denis. Grapes Ross. about Nikon, (l. 14). Denis. there, l. 8 rev. and in other stories about Nikon (demolished, note 323). Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich informed Nikon: “let you know: the former Novgorod Metropolitan Athos passed away on the sixth week on Tuesday of Lent; and I, holy lord, wrote to the Archbishop of Pskov and Izborsk Macarius, ordered him to be buried, where he deigned to be buried; but it’s a long time to wait for you, holy lord, and it’s a long time for him to stand until those places” (Act. Exp. IV, 75). It was as if in one shoe there was an eight-pointed cross embroidered in gold, and in the other - an image of the Virgin Mary in silver. About another pair of Nikon’s shoes they said that they had the same images cast in silver to cover the entire foot (Abak. story about Nikon, in Collection fol. 37; also the story about our hierarch Nikon...). See arch. Apollos outline of the life and deeds of Nikon, Patr. Moscow and all Russia, pp. 147, 148, Moscow. 1845. East. Ross. hierarch. IV, 828. See request. Solovetsk Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Denis. Grapes Ross. about Nikon (fol. 17 vol.). Exits of the Sovereigns of the Tsars to the leading. princes: Mikhail Feodorovich, Alexei Mikhailovich and Feodor Alekseevich, p. 302, Moscow. 1844. Denis. Grapes Ross. about Paul with a stake. (l. 25) and petition. Solovetsk Rukop. “the tale of the suffering and death of the sacred martyr. Paul, Bishop of Kolomna” (Collection of my Bible, No. 46, stat. 8); Denis. Grapes Ross. about Nikon (l. 16). The acts of both councils with the signatures of those present are printed. at the Tablet, ed. n. Nikon. See Act. Exp. VI, 120, 147, 157, etc. Denis. Grapes Ross. about Nikon (l. 16). Add. to Act. East. V, 447, 475. See Denis. in Vinogr. Ross. about all these people. How Habakkuk thought, or, more precisely, was crazy about the Holy Trinity, about the incarnation of the Son of God and His descent into hell, can be seen in the Search for St. Demetrius (Part I, Art. 2, Chapters 17–19 and 25). Here are more examples of Habakkuk’s wisdom: “in the new books, wisdom, Saveli’s heresy, was revealed by the merging of the persons of the Holy Trinity,” they say: “We sing of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and let us bless the Father and the Son,” and here the two persons are merged into one person (?), the fatherhood is glorified. And in this the Holy Trinity judges them. How many holy books have been lost, and so many abominable heresies have not been found” (a legend about the transformation of abominable new books, in the Collection of my Bible No. 35, l. 22). Or: “Oh, oh, poor Rus', why do you want German actions and customs? And Nikola the miracle worker’s name is German Nikolai; among the Germans the German was Nicholas, and among the apostles the heretic was Nicholas, and among the saints the news of Nicholas is nowhere. That’s all that’s happened to them, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker is suffering” (post. Avvakum, in the same Collection of sheets, 79 vol.). Evidence of the wisdom of priest Lazarus is in his petition, where, for example, condemning the expression of the new books: two natures of the God-man, he states: “it is worthy for us to have a perfect God and a perfect man, and not a God-man (?) (Rod of Rule. Part II, Rev. 58); or writes: “yes, in the new books it is printed in all prayers and in exclamations: now and ever and unto ages of ages (instead of the former: forever and ever); and that speech is heretical” (!!) (reproach. 70). We do not give many other examples that are easy to see in the same petition. They themselves openly expressed this when they were called to the council in the presence of the bishops (Addition to Act. Histor. V, 418, 450, 452, etc.). See ibid pp. 448–452; also the works of Avvakum, petitions of Lazarus and Nikita-Pustosvyat, etc. For example, priest Loggin, when during the great exit he was cut off by order of the patriarchs. Nikon, was so impudent that, as Avvakum says, “he spat over the threshold into the altar in his (the patriarch’s) eyes, unbelted himself, grabbed his shirt, threw it into the altar in Nikon’s eyes, and the shirt covered the paten on the throne”... (Life of Avvak., handwritten by my bib. No. 33, l. 19). Add. to Act. East. V, 452–458. The main sources for this story are: 1) official acts related to the case of the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery (Act. Exp. IV, No. 160, 168, 171, 191; appendix to Act. Ist. V, No. 67); 2) testimony of people from the Solovetsky Monastery, during its siege, about the rebels there (Act. Ist. IV, No. 248); 3) a brief story about the same Macarius, who was an archimandrite in the Solovetsky monastery suddenly after it was cleansed of rebels, placed in the preface to the Solovetsky Irmolog of 1678 (Reader. Moscow. Ist. Obshch. 1846, No. 3, department I, pp. 34–39); 4) the same legend of Ignatius, who at the same time was the ecclesiarch of the Solovetsky Monastery for three years, and subsequently the Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk (see III of his last chapters, chapters 38–41); 5) short chronicler of Solovetsky (manuscript and printed); 6) the story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky, op. Semyon Denisov (ed. in the 8th, in Suprasl 1788, and in the 4th without indicating the year and place). This last work, however, as written long after the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, only according to rumors, by one of the leaders of the schism and in the form of a word of praise to the Solovetsky rebels, does not deserve complete trust in various details. Solov. letop. under 1656. Denisov does not admit that the books were sealed in the chests; on the contrary, he writes that they were then given to leading people to consider new things in them (fol. 20 Suprasl. ed.). This can be seen from the files of the Solovetsky archive (Ignat. truth of Solovki. habitation, p. 12). Such exiles are also mentioned in one royal charter (approx. to Act. Ist. V, 344). Solov. letop. under 1667 Description. handwritten gr. Tolstova, p. 517. “From these same Avvakumovs and Lazarevs... the disciples ran away to the sea, to the northern countries, to the Solovetsky Island” (Ign. Tobol. Sequence III, Chapter 38). About Nikanor - from Denisov, in history. about father Solovetsk l. 21. See note above. 308 and 309. Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 38. Denisov specifically say that the tsar, following the libel of the bishops against the Solovetsky zealots of the old piety, demanded their archimandrite (History of Father Solovki, fol. 21 vol.). But at the end of one list of the Solovetsky petition, in a postscript that is not included in the printed copies of this petition, it is said: “and but to our Bogomoltsev, you, gracious great Sovereign, granted your request, and deigned to change Bartholomew” (Collected my bibliography, No. 10, fol. 48 vol.). Years. Solov. under 1666 and 67; Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 24–27. See further note. 361. A decree about it was sent to Solovki on August 14, 1666 and is kept in Solov. archive No. 113 (Ignat. truth Solov. habit., p. 21). About everything - years. Solov. under 1667. In particular, it is said here about the confinement of the monastery: “and the monastery was locked in the same year 7075 and was in constipation for 9 years.” But one must think that at this time only the beginning was made for the conclusion of the Solovetsky Monastery - they began, perhaps, only to repair the walls and armament of the towers in case of a siege: because the monastery itself was already concluded in 1668 or 1669. One of the natives of Solovetsky, Elder Varlaam, testified: “and how their hosts of thieves used to be, and the brothers and servants, who do not bother them with theft, were forcibly locked up in the meal, and the black priest Gerontey at that time stood on the bench and showed them the letters to the thieves, and he himself said to the thieves: “Do you believe my extracts?” And the thieves told him that she believed his extracts, and they called him the second Chrysostom” (Act. Ist. IV, pp. 536–537). Solov. The petition was published twice, along with the story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky (ch. note 347). In its printed editions it is said, in the table of contents itself, that it was sent to the great sovereign “in the year 176 (1668) in the month of October”; and in the two handwritten copies you have, it is said: “in the year 176 of September on the 22nd day” (Collection of my Bible, No. 10, l. 1, No. 12, l. 11). The difference, however, is unimportant! Both - the fairy tale and the unsubscribe - are hand-drawn. collection of my Bible. No. 12. The tale was written “in the year 176 of February on the 20th day” and sets out, only briefly, the same imaginary novelties that are set out in the petition (l. 1–9). The unsubscribe is very small (fol. 9 vol.–11), and begins with the words: “in the current year of September 176 on the 15th day, according to your Great Sovereign and Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, the autocrat of all Great and Little and White Russia, by decree, and by the blessing and letters of His Holiness Patriarch Joasaph of Moscow and All Russia, and the Most Reverend Pitirim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikiye Lutsk, was sent to us in the Solovetskaya monastery as archimandrite at Bartholomew's place as the archimandrite of our own monastery, the tonsured holy monk Joseph, and he was ordered to serve with us according to the new service books, and we, your pilgrims, apostolic and holy father traditions, do not dare to change at all." Act. East. IV, 535; Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 27 rev. and 28. Denis, ist. about father Solov. l. 28–30. About the number of prisoners, food supplies, gunpowder, cannons, instigators of the riot - testimony of immigrants (Act. East, IV, 532-535). Denisov says that the monastery was locked in 1670 (ibid.). But this is unfair: a) at the very beginning of 1669 (September 1) there was already a decree in the name of Volokhov, why he was standing on Zayatsky Island, and not going straight to Solovetsky, to punish the disobedient (approx. in Act. Ist. V, p. 340); b) in September and July of the same year, some fled from the Solovetsky Monastery, which was probably already closed, others were expelled (ibid. 344); c) at the beginning (October 15) 1670, the cellarer Azarius and the servant Thaddeus the Tanner, who were the first to open fire on the royal army (Act. Ist. IV, 532–535), next. when the monastery was concluded, they were already captured and were in the Sumy prison (Act. Exp. IV, 223). Solovetsky Archimandrite Macarius notes that the Solovetsky riot began precisely on March 7, 1669, without mentioning when the monastery closed (Reader Mosk. Ist. Obsch. 1846, No. 3, department I, p. 36). Arr. to Act. East. V, 360, 361. There were working people in the designated monastery estates in 1668: 827 salters and wood carriers, 1485 their wives and children, 316 woodcutters (ibid.). Ibid., pp. 339, 342, 343. Ibid., pp. 340, 341; Act. Exp. IV, 220–221. Makar. archim. Solov. on Thursday Moscow East. General 1846, No. 3, dept. 1, 36–37. Track. They burned and drowned not only newly printed books, but also others: why? Is it not because they found bitter convictions for themselves in them? Makar. ibid., p. 37; Ignat. True Solov. inhabited 17–18. In the Sumy fort and in the Kelmsky town in 1669 there were in total: “4 ten-point iron squeaks, 4 iron squeaks of Turkish design, 4 shotguns, 2 copper one and a half squeaks, 2 copper rapid-fire squeaks, they each have two iron tabs, 4 iron rapid-fire squeaks with a wedge and with tabs, 3 squeaks with iron tails; in the armory treasury: 13 muskets, 3608 cannonballs, and musket lead bullets and 7 poods of cut shot, 4000 iron shot weighing half-6 poods, small guns and self-propelled guns with locks: 84 muskets with zhagra without locks, 35 muskets with locks, among the archers 119 arquebuses, 125 spears, 6 slingshots, 10 saadat basts, 6 bows, 8 crossbows, and to them 25 arrows, 62 powder for the backsplashes and 18 small ones, hand and cannon potions 72 poods and a half, lead 35 poods and a half” (Appendix to Act. Ist. V, 360). Arr. to Act. East. V, 344. Act. Exp. IV, 223. On the capture of Thaddeus the Tanner - Act. East. IV, 535. Letop. Solov. under 1667; Arr. to Act. East. V, 346 – 348, 354. Arr. to Act. East. V, 248–251. Arr. to Act. East. V, 252. Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 36 and 37. Arr. to Act. East. V, 353–356; Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 37 Arr. to Act. East. V, 357–369. Prnb. to Act. East. V, 370–371. Years. Solov. under 1676; Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 39; Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 46–54. Act. Exp. IV, No. 184, 188: Act. East. IV, no. 203. In the article about Nikon, according to our list of l. 20 rev. Act. Exp. IV, 212. And Joseph arrived at the Solovetsky Monastery on September 15, 1668, as the Solovki people themselves say in their letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (see above note 361). Arr. to Act. East. V, 458. It could not have been otherwise: because back in September 1675, there were only two priests or hieromonks left in the entire monastery, who, moreover, did not belong to the rebels, but rebelled against them (Act. Ist. IV, 538). These are precisely the kind of imaginary Solovetsky sufferers that schismatics commemorate in their synodics; “Holy Archimandrite Nikanor, Ignatius, John, Joachim, monk Chariton, Theodore, monk Markel, monk Epiphanius, monk Macarius, Samoil, Chrysanthus, monk Iakov, monk Joasaph, Iakov, Cyril, monk Cyprian, Simeon, Stepan, Trophim, monk Thomas, monk Mitrofan, Stefan, John, Job, Hilarion, monk Demetrius, Thaddeus, monk Tikhon, monk Simon, monk Guria, monk Gerasim, monk Job, monk Guria and others like them in the Solovetsky monastery suffered 500.” In another list we have, the order of the names is slightly changed and even some names are replaced by others (Collection of my library No. 47). Makar. archim. Solov. in the preface to the Irmologist of 1678 (Reader Mosk. Ist. Obshch. 1846, No. 3, Dept. I, p. 38); Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 39; letop. Solov. under 1676 Collection state gram. IV, no. 104, p. 336. Fomin, description. White Sea, p. 53, etc. St. Petersburg. 1797. See all these dissenters. at Denis's. in Vinogr. Ross., l. 35, 45, 53, 57. Contemporary Matveev directly says that they “were blasphemous against the royal house” (see his notes, ed. Sakharov, p. 38). News about him was preserved in the legends of five contemporaries: a) in a manuscript entitled: “The story of faith and petition for the archers,” by Savva Romanov, a schismatic who had previously been a cell attendant at the Archimandrite Makarievsky Zheltovodsk Monastery, and then, having become a townsman of a settlement near Moscow, took an active part in this very event (Collected by me bib., nos. 54 and 60); b) in the preface to “Spiritual Homage”, ed. Patriarch Joachim; c) in the notes of Matveev (edited by Sakharov in the book: “Notes of Russian People”); d) in Medvedev’s notes (printed in the same place); e) in the III Epistle of the Siberian Metropolitan Ignatius (chap. 44–47). The Suzdal priest Nikita Pustosvyat had already repented of his schism three times before this time: the first time before the Moscow Council of 1666–1667, after he was defrocked for his petition (Appendix to Act. Ist. V, 451, 473); another time - a little later, before Patriarch Joachim; the third time - before the Moscow Council of 1681 and each time he was forgiven, although the priesthood was not returned to him. Patriarch Joachim testifies to this in his teaching, which he published during the Streltsy riot and sent it to the people for reading (see further note 411). Savva speaks about the arrival of these people on the designated day in his story about faith. And Patriarch Joachim lists and describes all these leaders of the schism and streltsy indignation as follows: “Nikita the damned outcast judge, and vagabonds and rostrig monks, Sergius of the Nizhny Novgorod district, Savvaty rostrig boyar slave Muscovite, and another Savatiy Kostromitin was tonsured in Yaroslavl in a secular house by the same drag monk, Dorotheus is a villager, Gabriel is a villager. All of them are dragging themselves around the courtyards of the world and roaming around many monasteries willfully, who do not at all know that there is monasticism or the cutting off of one’s will: as if under the leadership of a monastery I do not live anywhere (this is what their rumors testify to), - and some ignorant laymen, and the most ignorant of the worst people and red-haired drunkards from taverns... and etc.” (Prev. in Uvetu spirit. l. 47). Patr. Joak. Prev. in Uvetu spirit. l. 40–43; Bear. note page 18; Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 44. Savva alone talks about all this in his handicraft. history. Medvedev clearly points to this number (note p. 19). But Savva writes that as early as Wednesday, i.e. On June 28, the archers set off for Khovansky to go to the cathedral; just doesn’t determine with precision whether on one day or another Khovansky demanded the Streltsy electors for this purpose The sovereigns themselves, in their letter dated September 17. 1682 testified: “Prince Ivan Khovansky, being in the order of the court infantry, did all sorts of things according to his own whims, without reporting to us Great Sovereigns...; passing to you, he brought many false words..., and when leaving us, he spoke many words of unrest, which has never happened among our Great Sovereigns” (Act. Ist. V, No. 94, p. 146). Savva says that while the boyar Khovansky walked alone in front to the chamber of the cross, and “left the electors and townspeople in the seine, the patriarch of the electors ordered everyone to be taken to the cellar and ordered them to drink plenty of vodka and red drink and honey; They, having gotten very drunk, came to the vestibule to the patriarch and the faithful asking: how will you answer the patriarch and the authorities.” If this is true, one can judge what kind of people these zealots of the old faith were, and how much they were busy thinking about what they came for. Savva alone talks about all this. He presents himself and his two comrades, who spoke against the patriarch, as naturally, victorious and triumphant, and the patriarch and the bishops as completely defeated and not knowing how to respond. Judging by the length and artificiality of the speeches that Savva puts into the mouths of his comrades and his own, one can probably assume that these speeches were composed by him later when writing history, and were not pronounced before the patriarch. Bear. records, page 19. Savva alone also conveys these rumors. Patr. Joak. in the preface to the Wedding of the Spirits. l. 43–44; Bear. note 19; Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 44; Savva in his story about faith. This teaching is very rare (Building appendix to the description of old books, p. 201). It was printed, according to Savva, in only 160 notebooks or copies and consists of 16 sheets of paper by 8th. One copy has been preserved in our Academic Library. (in handwritten collection No. 427). Savva adds that Princess Sophia saw this from the faceted chamber and praised Sergius for “not letting the people kill the priest.” They say about the intention of the schismatics to kill the patriarch and archbishops: sak patr. Joachim, also Ignatius Tobol., Matveev and Medvedev. About them Patr. Joachim notes: “and old books, written on charter and paper, Greek, some more than 1000, others 700, 600, 500 and 300 years old, when written; Likewise, there are many old Russian Slavonic books, of our ancient Saints, who were written under the Great Princes” (Prev. in Uvetu spirit. fol. 45 vol.). All of the above is conveyed in more detail by Medvedev (note, pp. 20–24). This is how the patriarch himself describes the matter. Joachim and Medvedev, and the presence of the young Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich at the council is not mentioned at all: Savva does not mention either. From the spiritual authorities, according to the testimony of the patriarch, the metropolitans were present: Cornelius of Novgorod, Nikifor of Astrakhan, Pavel of Siberia. Jonah of Rostov, Markell of Pskov, Barsanuphius of Sarkiss, Philaret of Nizhny Novgorod, Pavel of Ryazan; archbishops: Simon of Vologda, Sergius of Tver, Nikita of Kolomna, Afanasy of Kholmogory, Gelasy of Ustyug; bishops: Leonty of Tambov, Mitrofan of Voronezh (–l. 46). Savva says that as soon as Nikita Pustosvyat stood on the first step of the red porch, one of the parish priests, of whom there were supposedly up to 300, rushed to undress him and grabbed him by the hair, but, by order of Khovansky, he was shackled and sent to the Streltsy Prikaz. This is confirmed by all modern describers of the event, except for one Savva, who says that Nikita did not beat Archbishop Athanasius at all, but only “retracted him with a little hand.” This is how the entire course of the competition in the faceted chamber is described: Patr. Joachim, Ignatius Tobol., Matveev and with details Medvedev. Savva, on the contrary, narrates that the dissenters constantly triumphed at the cathedral, so that the patriarch and other bishops with shame did not find what to answer - that the elected archers boldly insulted Princess Sophia herself, who was defending the patriarch, and sets out various details of the competition, many private questions and answers, which, no doubt, he could not overhear during the noise that was happening at the cathedral, but probably later composed himself when he wrote his story about faith. So – especially Savva. From now on, we borrow news mainly from Savva. In addition to the aforementioned petitions, the same thoughts are expressed in many other schismatic writings. For example, even about Paul of Kolomna it is narrated in the legend about his suffering and death, as if he “commanded those who come from the Great Russian Church to baptize with true baptism, those newly ordained from Nikon not to accept priests and not to accept a single secret from them” (Collected my Bible No. 46). The life of Elder Cornelius says that even at the beginning of the schism, the schismatic teachers: Habakkuk, Lazarus, Daniel, Theodore the deacon, Archimandrite Spyridon, abbots Dositheus and Kapito and the monk Cornelius held a council in Moscow, at which they solemnly anathematized the Nikonian faith in general and ordered that “the current Nikonian baptism for baptism is not accept”, and that “out of need it is powerful to baptize even the common people” (Collection of my Bible No. 32). Up to seventy such novelties are counted in the schismatic article: “pre-news of the current customs of Hellenic, Calvinian, Luthorian and Latin, Jewish, Kalmyk and Hagaryan customs in great Russia, and so on” (Collected my Bible No. 10, l. 87). This year of Paul’s death is clearly indicated in the legend of his suffering and death (note 423) and twice in the article: “those who demand proof from whom and from what time they received the blessing of the simple and unordained, after the fall from the years of Patriarch Nikon, baptized the newly baptized and received them for repentance” (Collection of my Bible No. 20). That is why they allegedly asked Bishop Paul of Kolomna, as the legend of his death tells, in a whole council: “If your shrine moves from us orphans into the future, the holy and bloodless sacrifice will fade away and the priesthood will perish to the end; who will light for us the priestly lamp of God’s holy service?..” This idea is deliberately revealed in the aforementioned article: “demanding proof, from whom and since when...” (note 425). It says here that Paul of Kolomna himself “blessed the unordained for the construction of soul-saving mysteries”; then a number of holy monks and priests are introduced, who supposedly could teach the laity the same blessing, and a number of teachers from the laity, who, “having forgiven the existence and not having the ordination of the priesthood, received from the former sufferers and consecrated men the blessing and power from Great Russia to baptize the newly baptized and accept faithful Christians at repentance and to instruct and correct each other.” Let us also remember that during the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, Archimandrite Nikanor preached: “We can live without priests, we don’t need them,” and the Balti rebels, truly rejecting priests and all church secrets, confessed to each other, etc. See the handwritten “History of the Fleeing Priesthood,” compiled by schismatic Ivan Alekseev in 1755. All such thoughts are revealed in detail in numerous schismatic writings about the Antichrist, of which we will name two of the most remarkable. One is entitled: “testimony from the Divine Scripture about the Antichrist” and consists of 35 articles (see especially articles 4–6); another, without a title, begins with the words: children, the last hour is..., and consists of 18 sections. Both essays are handwritten. Even Habakkuk, in his book on the crusading heresy, wrote: “other zealots of the law understand the flattery of apostasy, so that they do not perish in evil spirit, gathering in courtyards with their wives and children and being burned with fire by their own will: blessed is this will in the Lord” (Collected my Bible No. 35 fol. 53 vol.). It is remarkable, however, that the schismatics themselves remember these suicides and imaginary martyrs in their synodics (see article 3), not as those who were burned by their own will, but as those who were burned for the sake of piety, although no one burned them, on the contrary, they even tried in every possible way to keep them from doing so. This is how they are called in the epistles of Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk, against the schismatics (manufacturer of our academic Bible No. 164, epistle 1, l. 5; epistle III, l. 74), in the notes of Matveev, ed. Sakharov (p. 40), in Medvedev's notes, ed. the same (p. 17), in Uveta Dukhovn. Patr. Joachim et al. All this about Kapiton is conveyed by Ignatius, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, as a contemporary (Post. III, ch. 13-17, l. 63-66), whose testimony is all the more worthy of belief since he himself in 1687, while still an archimandrite of Novospassk, was sent by Patriarch Joachim to the Kostroma and Kineshensky districts, where Kapiton was then active, to admonish schismatics, and wrote “historical news” about this journey (Evg. Slov. historical about the writing. spiritual rite I, 195). Denisov. Grapes Ross. in the article: about the Vyaznikovsky fathers (director of my library No. 31, l. 77). That Kapiton, who, according to Denisov, lived in the deserts of Vyaznikov, is one and the same person with Kapiton, about whom Ignatius Metropolitan of Tobolsk speaks, this, in addition to modernity, is evident from the fact that, according to the testimony of Ignatius, “this man resides within the boundaries of Kostroma and Vyaznikov” (Post. III, chapter 26, l. 74). And the same Ignatius of Tobolsk speaks about the underlattices (post. III, chapter 27, l. 74–75), a completely reliable witness, as a contemporary and eyewitness who acted in the Kineshma district against the schismatics (see note 432). Ignat. tobol. last II, l. 20–21; last III, ch. 24, 25, 31, 48–51. Ignatius speaks about this, as well as about other Siberian schism teachers, as a contemporary and eyewitness. Ibid., last. III, ch. 26. Ibid., last. I, l. etc. Ibid., last. I, l. 8; last III, ch. 53. Ibid., last. III, ch. 33. Ibid., last. I, l. 6 rev; last III, ch. 54. Ibid., last. I, l. 7; last II, l. 16, 19. Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 31, 33. The main source of information about the Pomeranian schism is the extensive handwritten history of the Vygov hermitage, composed by one of its former abbots, around 1744, namely Ivan Filippov (see the conclusion or superscript of this story, handwritten by my bibliography No. 13). We will indicate other, more specific sources in their places. Histor. vygov. deserts ch. 1; the legend of the suffering and death of Paul of Kolomna (demolished notes 423 and 427). Right there. In the legend about the suffering and death of Paul of Kolomna, it is also narrated that in the Kurnevsky monastery under Dositheus there was a great cathedral of schismatics, with the blessing of Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, Macarius, Metropolitan of Novgorod, Marvell, Archbishop of Vologda, Alexander, Bishop of Vyatka, Nikanor, Archimandrite of Solovetsky and many others; as if at this council the letters of all the above-mentioned bishops and the Solovetsky one were read, containing anathemas against the Nikonians and their new dogmas, and a determination was drawn up: those who come from the Russian Church should not be rebaptized and ordained; as if this definition was approved later and signed by all the mentioned bishops, etc. But all of it is an unreasonable invention: a) Pavel Kolomna, as the same legend about him claims, died back in 1656, when Nikon had just begun correcting the books and met five or six opponents in Moscow - when the schism had not yet formed or spread; b) Alexander, Bishop of Vyatka in 1656 was not yet Vyatka, but had just been ordained in Kolomna (see. approx. 310); c) Macarius of Novgorod and Markell of Vologda, as we have seen, signed in 1656 under the definitions of the Moscow Council, which approved Nikon’s tablet and all the articles printed in it against the schismatics (note 337); d) Archimandrite Nikanor became a zealot for the schism in the Solovetsky Monastery already in 1667, when the Solovetsky riot began (see note 355 and the text to which it refers). The Life of the Monk Cornelius, compiled in 1731 by one of Iv Vygovtsev, on the advice of Korniliev’s student Pachomius, like the compiler himself, and forced this story to be copied (Collection of my bibliography No. 32, article 7). Demolished. East. vygov. empty Ch. 1 and 5. Denis. East. about father Solov. l. 99 rev. From these stories, terribly distorted and exaggerated, over time even more distorted in the mouths of the people, Semyon Denisov subsequently compiled his books: the story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky and Russian Grapes, so respected by schismatics. Ignat. tobol. last III, ch. 29 and 30; Denis. ist. about father Solov. l. 104–105. It should be noted, however, that Ignatius M. Tobolsk does not determine the number of dead and does not name the monk who led them by name; but describes only how he acted in the desert, “in Kargopol and to the sea, and finally burned down in the Paleostrovsky monastery. But Denisov testifies that this monk was Ignatius of Solovetsky, that it was he who established the Obonezh and Kargopol borders in orthodoxy, although he is silent about his atrocities there, and that he burned down in the Paleostrovsky monastery with 2,700 people. We find the same thing in schismatic synodics. About Emelyan of Povenets, see Act. East. V, no. 151, p. 254. Act. East. V, No. 151, pp. 254 – 256, 260. We base the approximate number of deaths on the contemporary testimony of the Paleo-Ostrov monks themselves (- p. 260). But Denisov (story about father Solov. l. 106) and the schismatic synodik increase this number to 1,500 people. Act. East. V, De 223, pp. 386. 388–390. Denisov here also exaggerates the number 800. founded in modern Iowa (–pp. 369. 390). up to 1200 people (story about the fathers of Solov. l. 107). East. Vygov. empty Ch. 1. Subsequently, this entire quartet of Vygovtsy was probably canonized as saints: each of them has a special service, Daniel - on the 31st day of Dec., Andrew - on the 19th day of Aug., Peter - on the 16th day of Jan., Simeon - on the 24th day of May, where they are all called venerable fathers and so on. (Collection of my Bible No. 32, v. 8–6). East. vygov. empty, part I, ch. 1, 2, 4 and 33. In the last chapter it is noted: “his life: at first he lived in great Novgorod and in the Shumsky churchyard and near the churches in the deacons, for a total of twenty-nine years; with Father Ignatius, the summer was one in the Vygov desert, wandering and running; by the sea wandering through the deserts for five years; Having come from the sea, he lived in the Vygov desert on the saroozero and in Ryazan and in an old factory for almost five years. The common life in this place, where now, by the grace of God, the monastery stands, as it happened with Zachary, lived for forty years, and his entire life was eighty years.” Ibid., ch. 1, 3, 4, 14, 23 and 24. Information about Simeon Denisov is placed at the beginning of his Russian Grapes (in my list). Ibid., ch. 4, 5, 7, 13. In one place in the history of the Vygov monastery, the accomplices of these abbots are counted in the following way: “the devout men predicted by the abbot to assist in the dormitory were: Isaac, Evfimy, Zakhary Stefanov, Leonty Feodosiev, Trifon Petrov, Gabriel and Nikifor Semenov, Luka Fedorov, Yakov Povenetskaya, Ivan Germanov, Mark Fefilov, Mikhail Pavlov; Yes, foreigners - Paphnutius of Kola, Procopius of Nizhny Novgorod, Serapion of Russia, Theodosius of Ustyug, Jacob of Kovachinnizh, Nikola of Russia; Anthony, Simeon and Gabriel: these three elders came from their very first children, two from the Tolnuy village, and the third from Foymoguba, and David and Joseph were Pomeranian desert dwellers... And in the hermitages of this spiritual government there were strong monks who helped the monks: Sergius, the remembered, and Serapion of Moscow, and Varlalm, and Paul of Torom, and Pitirim, the remembered; and Beltsy: Pyotr Anufriev, Joseph and Ivan Davydov from Tikhvin, Leonid the Shcheltoporozh monk, nobleman Evstafiy Yakovlev and Ladozhonin, Moses Ivanov of Tolvuiskaya, Daniil Ivanov, Semyon Eremiev from Olonchan, Zakhary Mefodiev with his son Titus, Ivan Akindinov, Siman Iovlev, Ivan Beloutov, Gabriel Efremov with his brothers, Mikhail Shelekhov, Ivan Dmitriev from Sumlyan, in the Ladosk monastery the monk Theodosius” (Part I, Chapter I). There are entire collections of sermons by Andrei and Simeon Denisov, as well as others, unknown by name. For example: a) a word in memory of our wise father Kinoniarch Andrei Dionisievich, b) a word on the re-erection of the prayer church of the Vygoretsk desert in the name of the Epiphany of the Lord, in 7296, etc. (Collection of my Bible No. 16, book III, art. 1 and 2). In particular, the schismatics say about Andrei Denisov: “a great speaker of the words of God without a book from his mouth, always teaching the brethren with a free voice; and his teaching is so sweet, because everyone listens obediently and diligently... because he is cunning and sweet in words, because no one like him is found in today’s Christians; about church dogmas and about Orthodoxy, knowing the Divine Scriptures, seeing in the end that it will never end in the future, and simply saying, “This is the house of wisdom, and the dwelling of Christian philosophy, like John Chrysostom” (Hist. vygov. empty., Part I, Chapter 23). East. vygov. empty Ch. 4, 13, 14. Prot. Andrey Ioannov is complete. history news about ancient Strigoln. and new schismatics. p. 120, St. Petersburg. 1799. Based on this edition, we will continue to link the pages of this work. East. vygov. empty Ch. 14; Ioannov. full ist. Izv. o rask. page 117 These are: a) Pomor answers, compiled mainly by Andrei and Simeon Denisov (this book will be discussed in more detail in its place); b) Russian grapes, op. Simeon Denisov; c) the story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky, his own composition: d) many dogmatic messages of Andrei Denisov in defense of schismatic opinions; e) many of the sermons of both brothers are dogmatic and moral; f) the message of Pyotr Prokopiev to Daniil Vikulich about suicide death (collection of my library No. 29, art. 1); g) twelve books of the Chetyi-Menya, collected by the same Peter Prokopiev: “which books, his collections, says the Pomeranian historian, are still read in the monastery all day long” (Hist. empty. ch. 17). East. vyg. empty Ch. 4 and 14. We read about Andrei Denisov, “having studied well grammatical and rhetorical teaching, as well as others; his brother Simeon and Tryphon Petrov, and Manuel Petrov, and the icon painter Daniel, and Nicephorus Simeonov, and others who learned the same art from him, each according to his strength, so that he could write and speak well, know the power of Holy Scripture and know the dogmas of the church, and strengthen the other brethren in the Orthodox Christian faith" (Ist. vyg. empty part I, chapter 23). The most famous of them: a) Following the rules of baptism and priesthood, op. Trifon Petrov (collection of my library No. 27, art. 2); b) a book about the Antichrist (see above note 429); c) Collection “on the knowledge of the Orthodox-Catholic Church, in what sense it stands,” or: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God is the foundation of St. churches", op. unknown (collection of my library No. 41); d) a book called the Spiritual Sword - an extensive work compiled by an unknown person in 1761 (collection of my library No. 6); e) books about recent events, also a large composition of the unknown. Ioannov, ist. Izv. about schism. pp. 118–119. East. vygov. empty Ch. 15 and 16. From now on, the Vygovites even began to write “about praying for a parey” (Collection of my Bible No. 28, Art. 7; No. 41, Ch. 53). There is a special “story of the misadventure on the Vygov desert through the evil lawless Ivan Kruglago,” which serves as a continuation of the history of the Vygov desert, although in some manuscripts it has a special count of chapters (Collection of my library No. 16, book III, see especially chapters 1, 7, 16, 18 and 21). East. vyg. empty Ch. 21 and 22; demolished, note. 458. In addition to entire works written to confirm each of the above points, a brief outline of the Pomeranian teaching can be seen in Andrei Denisov’s letter about the Theodosians, which begins with the words: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his holy Gospel”... Demolished. Ioannov, ist. Izv. on the schism, pp. 121–124. In particular, regarding the title, let us remember that even in the Solovetsky Monastery, during the riot, some rebels armed themselves against it and destroyed all the crosses on which it was found (note 372). East. vygov. empty Ch. 4; the story of the evil key. on the vyg.empty Ch. 7, 10 and 25. The Tale of the Mischievous Key. on the vygov. empty Ch. 1. Manuscript about the non-priest schism (Collection of our Bible No. 60). Denis. Grapes Ross. in articles about the named persons, l. 99–117; the legend of our former first fathers (Collection of my Bible No. 20, Art. 12). Ioannov. ist. Izv. about schism. p. 106; Act. East. V, no. 127, p. 220. Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. pp. 89–97. The legend of before. started. father (note 475). These and other points of his teaching, in contrast to the Pomeranian, Theodosius outlined in his letter to Andrei Denisov or “proposal on dogmas and titles”, beginning with the words: “be aware of your brotherly love for Christ for us sinners”... In particular, about marriages, see this last. Art. 2. See previous note. The message to all Feodosievites begins with the words: “It’s nothing to slander the age-old enemy thoroughly, as if”...; message to Evstrat Feodosievich - with the words: “the sweetest silence is sweeter than the storm”... Everything hitherto about the fate of the Feodosievshchina has been borrowed: a) from the legend of the former. father.... and b) from a handwritten story compiled by an unknown Pomeranian: “about the beginning of the feud of the Feodosians with the Vygorets community and about the reason why it happened.” The first essay lists by name many of the fathers of the Feodosian Concord: Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, Yaroslavl, Polish and Starodub. The Conversion of Konstantin Fedorov and his comrades and the desire to convert him and his other former co-religionists is also spoken of in the Sobran. Zach. Vol. V, No. 3161. Ioannov. East. Izv. about schism. page 129. Subsequent news about the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery in Moscow is partly borrowed from history. Izv. o rask. Prot. Ioannov, pp. 130–143 and 183, and mainly from manuscripts. history of this cemetery (Collection of my library No. 60). Sources: a) handwritten “news about Philip the Elder, from whom the concord of Philip is named” (Collection of my Bible No. 20), b) Ioannov. ist. Izv. on schism, pp. 143–148. Demolished. Search, pp. 585, 591, 605. Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. page 149. Ioannov, ibid. 148 and handicraft. note about the priestless schism (Collection of my Bible No. 60). Subsequently (in 1762), either Alekseev himself or someone else from his sect wrote a huge essay “on the secret of marriage,” divided into two parts, of which the first contains 20 chapters, and the last 7. The newlyweds were subjected to different penances: in St. Petersburg they were excommunicated for three years from the company of their co-religionists, but in Moscow only for forty days. This is evident from the strong messages of the unknown Feodosian, directed against the newlyweds (Collection of my Bible No. 30. Art. 2, 3 and 4). In support of this speculation, it was written by an unknown person: “a discussion about the sacrament of legal marriage, published on the opinion of those people who, out of ignorance, confirm that, in the absence of a priesthood and marriages that agree with them, it is impossible to formulate; and it contains true proof that marriage can take place in need and without the priesthood” (Collection of my Bible No. 48). All these rules are printed in Ioannov’s history. Izv. o rask. pp. 156–175. These refutations are briefly stated in a letter to “the respectable man and prudent husband Arkhipp Dementievich with all his common brethren” (Collected my Bible No. 48, art. 5). In general, about newlyweds, see Ioannov’s story. Izv. about schism. pp. 150–155. Handwritten note about the priestless schism (Collection of my Bible No. 60). Several works remained from Euthymius, in which he expressed the teachings of his sect, namely: 1) Rant, written in 1784; 2) Message written in 1787; 3) Flower garden; 4) Interpretation of the word of Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, about the Apocalypse; 3) About the ill-fated last times and about the signs of the Antichrist. Information about the sect of wanderers is borrowed from the manuscript of my library, No. 61. See Dimitar. Rostov. Search. pp. 605, 609, etc.; Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. 175, etc. Additional to Act. ist. V, 453, 458; Pitirim. preface to the “Spiritual Sling”; Ioannov. Full ist. Izv. o rask. 206. Extracts from these letters from Habakkuk to St. Dimitar in Search, part I, ch. 17–19, pp. 50–64, and Ioannov. East. Izv. o rask. 82–85. He was originally from Poshekhon. For more information about him, see Denis. Grapes Ross. pp. 73–75. Ioannov. East. Izv. o rask. 206–208. Ashamed of these letters from Avvakum, Denisov claims that they are forged and that “Dimitri of Rostov and the sling-writer wrote unrighteous slander and untrue fables for all good” (Vinogr. article about Avvak. l. 35). But what about St. Could Dimitri and Pitirim have invented these letters, when back at the end of the 17th century, long before the writing of Search and Sling, they were known to the schismatics themselves and for some they constituted a shrine? How can we call the letters forged, when all the Kerzhen monasteries, who argued about them for about ten years, and no more than ten years later, after the death of Avvakum, during the life of many who knew his hand, did not at all think of rejecting the authenticity of the letters (which most likely could have resolved the dispute), but called them letters from Avvakum to Deacon Theodore, only non-Orthodox? In 1717, the same hermits again condemned these same letters of Avvakum as non-Orthodox, without rejecting their authenticity (John, ibid. 208 - 210). Denisov points out that neither Nikon nor the book: “The Rod of Government” convicted Avvakum of the heretical thoughts that are found in his alleged letters. But - a) the letters addressed to private individuals could have been unknown to either Nikon or the compiler of the book of the Rod, especially b) that Nikon denounced Avvakum in 1654 - 1656, the Rod of Government was published in 1666, and Avvakum remained alive and wrote his letters even before 1681. Perhaps, later Avvakum himself renounced the heretical thoughts he expressed in these letters, when he was convicted by Deacon Theodore, or someone else, as often happened between them; but the letters could nevertheless remain genuine. According to the testimony of her then archpastor, St. Demetrius (Rozysk. 600, M. 1824). Ioannov. East. Izv. o rask. 208–211. St. Demetrius Search. pp. 76, 573, 585, 600–603; Ioannov. East. Izv. o rask. 106, 211; Ignat. Tobol. last III, ch. 28. We borrowed everything about Job and Dositheus - a) from the manuscripts. stories of the fleeing priesthood op. dissenter. Ivan Alekseev in 1755; - b) from the same story, with some additions, however, composed subsequently, probably by the Kerzhen monk Jonah Snub-nosed (taken by Ioannov. Ist. Izv. about stories 212–225 and 321, ed. 3). and - c) from the royal charter to the Don atamans and Cossacks, given on August 14. 1688 Collection. zak. Vol. II, No. 1310. Act. ist. V, Nos. 215, 220, 221, 241, 254; Rigelman. East. about the Don Cossacks pp. 74, 79, 139. Moscow. 1846. Rigelman. ibid 80–81, 95, 140; Golikov. Acts Petra Vel. II, 188. Pushkin. East. Pugachev. riot, appendix 1. It is known, for example, that Pugachev himself lived quite a bit with the schismatics, first in Poland, i.e. on Vetka, then in the villages of Chernigov, i.e. Starodubsky (Pushkin, ibid. app. 10). See both manuscripts. stories of the fleeing priesthood (note 507); also Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. 102–103. Alekseev. ist. about escape. priesthood; Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. 212, 221, 244. Names of Vetka settlements: 1) Kosetskaya settlement, 2) Oak Log, Papsuevka, 4) Maryina, 5) Milici, 6) Krasnaya, 7) Kostyukovichi, 8) Buda, 9) Krupets, 10) Grodnya, 11) Nivki, 12} Grabovka, 13) Tarasovka, 14) Spasovka (ibid.). For example, in his letter to the Kerzhen monasteries, Theodosius wrote: “I, Father Theodosius, I do not give my spiritual blessing to my spiritual children to go to that Sophontius, and I do not order him to receive him as a priest: because he does not demand communion from our church and does not require the humble from us... I bless the priest to go to Gerasim in spirit, and to correct every shrine for him, for the sake of the scripture sent to us and his hand attached, which asks forgiveness from us humble ones and demands blessings, and from the church... ours accepts, but we send the sacraments to him” (Ioann. ibid. 275, 276. n. 219). Alekseev notes about Feodosius: “his morals are praised, as if he were humble and favorable, simple, devoid of envy, a guardian of church peace. Having only one vice, from the weakness of the long-dark prison for freedom to new dogmas, the door is opened and the beginning of the tribute to them is sacred, from where those who come through it, both newly baptized and newly ordained priests, accept and give power to sacred deeds, not like the former priests” (story about the flight of priests). Alekseev speaks about the impoverishment of the ancient world under Theodosius: “it appears from the charter of Alexander the deacon that in the days of Theodosius the ancient world ended, about which there is a lengthy message” (ibid.). And the fact that Theodosius brewed a new ointment was testified by the Vetkovsky Ustavnik contemporary to him, Athanasius (Ioannov, also 213). Ioannov, ibid. 215–217. The same is confirmed by the hands. Questions to Vetkovites, numbering 261, proposed by an unknown Bespopovets in the last quarter of the last century, see question. 213 (director of my library, no. 59). Question Vetkovts. 30 and 32; Conversations about the difference between those who accept real priests and those who do not (Collection of my Bible No. 25, Art. 1). Here the priest, by the way, says: “the image of accepting such is manifested in us, as if by vow and denial, the newly arrived priest will bless the senior priest in us: and the Priest will command him to act, and he acts.” Forbidding the Kerzhenites to receive priest Sophontius, Theodosius remarked: “he also says that he burned people, and he does this not according to church regulations” (Ioannov. 275). Question Vetkovtsy 215, 216, 219. Same questions. 70, 72, 76, 108. Kerzhensky or deacon's answers (manuscript), submitted in 1719 to Nizhny Novgorod. Bishop Pitirim, Rev. 57, 90, 91; Ioannov. 213, 214. It was written by a certain Timofey Matveev Lysenin, who is even called the teacher of Priest Dimitry himself. See Collection. my library No. 44. Art. 6 – about how qaditi should be performed, and art. 7 – about the four-pointed cross. In 1709 there was a “debate between Elder Theodosius and Timofey Matveev and with his disciple Vasily Vlasov and with their free wills.” From this debate it is clear that the first deacons gave the four-pointed cross absolutely equal respect as the eight-pointed one - they said, for example: “the Nikonians have the true and life-giving holy cross of Christ printed on the prosphoras, on which your Lord Jesus Christ was crucified”..., or “we agree with the Nikonians about the cross of Christ” and so on. (This debate is in the Collection of my Bible No. 44, Art. 8). There is also “a word of objection for the admonition of the new incensers,” proposed in fourteen questions to the deacons (in the same Collection, art. 9). Vasily Vlasov, as an “evil schismatic and teacher,” is mentioned in the Decree of October 27. 1722 (Collected Laws, vol. VI, No. 4109). The message is printed. at John's. page 274. Kerzhen. resp. Pitirimu is 42–45. Same replies. 34, 46, 51, 52, 59. The entire subsequent story about Epiphany is borrowed from official papers printed in the history. Izv. o rask. Ioannov. pp. 228–243. Ioannov. Ibid. 337, 352; Question Vetkovts. 145, 150. Decree 3 September 1735, demolished. decree 23 Feb. 1738, to the Collection. Zak., vol. X, No. 7521. Here are the names of these towns and settlements: 1) Klimovskaya, 2) Zybkovskaya, 3) Klintsovskaya, 4) Luzhkovskaya, 5) Zlynskaya, b) Mitkovskaya, 7) Shelamovskaya, 8) Elenskaya, 9) Dobryanskaya, 10) Voronkovskaya, 11) Demenka, 12) Churovichi, 13) Timoshkin transportation, 14) Svyatskaya, 15) Ardon, 16) Mlinka, 17) Radul (Ioannov. 222). Decree 1761 Feb. 15, in Collection. Law., vol. XV, no. 11, 205. Ioannov. 260–263, 348–356, 364–376. Ioannov. 338–341. There are also two stories about the pathetic ignorance of the Chernobolites. Rukop. Sergius about the beginning of the Irgiz monasteries. About the priesthood sect on Irgiz (manuscript. Collection of my library, No. 60). Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. 308–311. Sergius of Irgiz himself testifies to all this in his work: Mirror for Old Believers, St. Petersburg. 1799, pp. 73 et seq. He also talks about himself: “I myself suffered great shame then. One day, as I was walking in rows, some of the merchants called me into a shop in a row of bast shoes. Before I had time to look around, there were about ten of them, and then I saw two of them dragging that huge samovar. His very appearance struck me; but then the merchants asked if this cauldron was familiar to me? And when I was silent, they, showing what was left in him, said: Father Sergius, don’t you admit it? There was nothing to do, I was forced to close myself and run away: but they did not forget to see me off with the most poisonous ridicule. When I told about this at the cemetery, I received an answer: who else, if not the monks, could endure it, and then they renounced the world.” The work of Nicodemus, which sets out in order all the acts of the council, is printed in the original by John. in history Izv. o rask. 313–335. Ioannov. ibid 336; hieroschema John - Spirit of wisdom color. Interpretation, pp. 44, 87. This brief information about the state of the priestly sect in the Siberian region was borrowed by us: a) from the Collection. Law. vol. VI, No. 4109, vol. IX, No. 6835, vol. X, No. 7663, and - b) from the manuscript, under the title: “copies of the Sibirs,” containing various petitions and, in general, correspondence of Ekaterinburg schismatics in 1817–1821 on the case of their church and priests (Collected my Bible No. 21, Art. 4). Arr. to Act. East. V, 472, 486–487; Full Collection Zach. Vol. I, No. 412, p. 706. Preface to Uvet spirit., l. 36 vol., ed. 2. Code of Tsar Alexei Mikh. Ch. I, in Collection. Zak., vol. I, p. 3. Act. Exp. IV, 235, 242; Act. East. IV, 436. Act. East. V, No. 75, pp. 108–118. Stroev. description old printing. books gr. Tolstova No. 168, p. 346; Additional to description old stove books of Tolstoy and Tsarskago No. 116, p. 201; M. Evgeniya words. history oh spirit. pissing I, pp. 226, ed. 2. In addition, Patr. Joachim published - 1) “a notice of the miracle of the folding of the first three fingers into the sign of the cross on the forehead,” printed. back in 1667, where, having told about the miracle that happened from the three-fingered sign of the cross, he briefly outlines the very foundations of this sign and convinces schismatics to turn to the truth; 2) “an oath announcement against the scolders of St. icons that dared to display the image of the Most Holy One in the Chudov Monastery. The Trinity is stabbed with knives and stinking tar with the resin of ointment, depicted for the sake of folding fingers (dissenter of the opposite), blessing hands” (see the manuscript of our academic library No. 423, art. 4). East. Ross. Dioceses I, pp. 34–35, ed. 2. M. Evgeniya words. history oh spirit. pissing I, 195, ed. 2. Ignat. m. tobol. last III, ch. 31, 33; Act. East. V, 166. Hand. our academic. bib. No. 164. Ignatius himself writes about this in his III Epistle, ch. 51. M. Evgeniya words. ist. oh spirit. pissing I, 58; Arkhangelsk governor Ved. 1847, No. 27, in an article about archang. hierarchs. M. Evgeniya words. ist. oh spirit. pissing I, page 20. Collection Zach. III, No. 1612, Art. 1, 2 et seq. Act. East. V, nos. 93 and 100. Act. Exp. IV, no. 284; Collection Zach. II, no. 1102. Act. East. V, no. 151, p. 253. Collection Zach. II, no. 1310, p. 942. Collection Zach. V, No. 2996; demolished No. 2991 and VI, No. 3547. The last decree says: “to St. The churches (schismatics) will not convert, but want to be in their schismatic charms: and such people came and signed up to pay a double salary, announcing themselves as reports on their households in the orders of church affairs, without any doubt or fear, and some were inattentive to the empty advice.” Collection Zach. vol. VI, nos. 3662 and 4009, paragraphs 17, 22; vol. VII, nos. 4162, 4526; Vol. VIII, No. 5349; vol. XI, 8644, etc. A detailed list of them can be seen in the alphabetical index to the Collection. Zach. under the word: split. Collection Zach. vol. VI, p. 342, no. 4009, paragraph 6, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20; Nos. 4052, 4526, 4750, 7430. Ibid., Nos. 3944, 3962, paragraph 4, 4596, 9155, 10053. Ibid., Nos. 3340, 4875, 4900. Ibid., No. 4022, item 20, 4052, 6415. Ibid., Nos. 4052, 5554, 6928. Ibid., Nos. 4153, 6835, 7172. Ibid., No. 4009, paragraphs 25, 26; 4022, paragraphs 15–17. Ibid., 3161, 3340, 4121, 5998, 6442. M. Evgenia Slov. ist. oh spirit. pissing II, 255. Ibid., I, 302–304; history vygov. Empty. Ch. 15; a legend about a former father (Collection of my Bible No. 20, Art. 12). Preface to the Search; Evgen. Words oh spirit. pissing I, 123, 126–127. See also about him in the Dictionary of M. Eugene II, 168–175. Rukop. life of Andrei Denisov, ch. 17. Collection Zach. Vol. VI. No. 3522. Collection Zach. Vol. VIII, No. 5564. Collection Zach. Vol. VIII, No. 6134 and Vol. XV, No. 11435. It should be added that during the same period of time two more works were written against the schismatics: a) Raphael, Archbishop of Kholmogory, “a statement on the double- and tripartite sign of the honorable cross,” collected in 1711 (handled by the Archangel Spirit. Semin. No. 572), and b) a former student of Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Andronik, abbot of the Alekseevsky Uglitsky Monastery, also about the folding of fingers for the sign of the cross. in 1713 (East. description. manuscript. Rumyants. Music. No. 7). Ibid., No. 3925. “The deadline, it is said in the decree, for those who want to appear, is set to this year, March 1722, from the first of Moscow and those who come to Moscow; from all countries two hundred miles away in May until the first days; and the rest, which are over five hundred, until July; and those that are a thousand miles away, according to August, and those further away, according to March of the next year, 1723.” M. Evgenia Slov. oh spirit.pisat. II, 305. Both this and the previous announcements or proclamations of St. The Synod was written to the schismatics by Rev. Feofan Prokopovich. The highest order of the Sovereign Emperor to send Neophyte to Petrozavodsk was given on April 22. 1722; decrees about the same from St. Synod addressed to the head of Petrovsky factories Muravyov on July 5, - from the Senate addressed to the same chief on July 11; the instruction to Neophyte was signed on August 8 (for all these decrees and instructions, see the Collection of my Bible No. 21, Art. 1). On this occasion there was also a decree from St. Synod to the head of Peter's factories, Muravyov, June 24, 1723. Collection. my library No. 21, art. 1). “I worked a lot,” his biographer says about him, with the wise Andrey in writing the answers submitted to Hieromonk Neophytos, and through him to the entire All-Russian Spiritual Synod. His works include five articles: 1) on the sign of the cross with the fingers, 2) on the blessing of the priests, 3) on the song of angels, 4) on the four-pointed cross, 5) on the name of Jesus, written in 1713, while imprisoned in Novegrad, he remained in prison for four years” (this biography is placed at the beginning of Vin. Ross., in my collection bib. No. 31). We borrowed the main features of the story about Neophyte’s stay in Petrozavodsk and about his relations with the Pomeranians from their work: “a multiple story about the answers, why and how these answers and ranting about these, and when, and where, with whom I did this.” This story actually constitutes the 20th chapter of the history of the Vygov desert, but is sometimes rewritten by schismatics separately (Collection of my Bible No. 21, 3). Here, as was natural to be expected, the schismatics extremely praise the wisdom of their teachers, present them as constantly triumphing over Neophyte in competitions, and Neophyte as defeated at every step, humiliated, not knowing what to do and what to answer. It is not superfluous to add that this “story of answers” ​​(one of the chapters in the history of the Vygov desert) was compiled already in 1744, i.e. 22 years after the event. Under this title this book exists in a manuscript now in the Bible. archangel. spirit. Sem. for No. 532, and previously belonged to Rev. Arkhangelsk Barsanuphius (1740–1759) M. Evgenia Slov. ist. oh spirit. pis. I, 57; II, 326. Collection Law. VII, No. 4635; M. Evgenia Slov. history oh spirit. pissing II, 308. Simone mentored. compete with schismatics, p. 21. Kalaid. and Stroev. description handwritten Tolstova, dept. IV, no. 60. Alekseev, director story of escape. priesthood; Monk Vitaly about the church and schismatic. Ch. 14, l. 78 rev. (manuscript of my library No. 24). Ioannov. full history Izv. about schism. 195, ed. 3. Mon. Vitaly about the church... color. Ch. 14, l. 75 rev. and 80. Ioannov. ist. Izv. o rask. Art. 280–283. Alekseev, ist. about escape. priesthood (see the end of the essay). Ibid., No. 11989, item 19, 12067. Ibid. ХVШ, No. 13255; XXI, No. 15581; XXII, 16238. Ibid. XVI, No. 12067, 12272, 12281. M. Evgeniya words. ist. oh spirit. pis. II, 182. See the warning in the replies of the Reverend. Nikifor, ed. in Moscow 1821, pp. 3–7. Mon. Vitaliy Rukop. about the church and about the story. Ch. 16, l. 75 rev. and 105–108; Ioannov. ist. known o rask. pp. 197 and 362. Mon. Vitaly there l. 77–78, 108–120; Ioannov. ibid., pp. 362–363. Everything we have said about Elder Nicodemus and the beginning of the common faith in Starodubye is described in detail: a) in the book of the monk Vitaly about the church and the schismatics, ch. 14, l. 122–142, and b) in the correspondence of Elder Nicodemus and his like-minded people with various persons on the matter of unity of faith (Collected my Bible, No. 60). Demolished. Collection Zach. XXII, No. 16239, paragraph 9. Mon. Vital. there, l. 114–118; correspondence of Elder Nicodemus on the matter of common faith (see previous note). Mon. Vital. there, l. 142–144; Ioannov. full ist. Izv. o rask. pp. 395–397. These answers are published together with his district message to the Old Believers and with his answers to the Solovetsky petition. The entire story about Father Sergius is borrowed from his own hands. articles: “about the priestly sect in Irgiz” (Collection of my library, No. 60). Collection Zach. XXV, No. 18428; XXVI, No. 19621. The book exists in manuscript (by the hand of my library No. 24). Only the first 13 chapters were recently published in Chr. Readings 1854, 1, 396–436. This third book is known to us (the director of my Bible No. 18). It consists of 16 chapters and discusses the conciliar Church, the five Old Believer churches, the priesthood, its inexhaustibility in the Church until the end of the world, the eternity of bloodless sacrifice, the bishop and his significance in the Church, the eternity of the conciliar Church, etc. As for the first two books, we know about them only from the following remark of the author himself at the conclusion of the third book: “My first book is about internal heretics; the second - about the four kinds of the conciliar Church, namely - a) about the kind of simple sins, b) about the kind of sins called heresy, c) about the holy generation, d) about the cursed generation... therefore, this third of our princesses, “the true path of knowledge,” was published for the sake of those who are many of our Old Believers among our brethren and who are confused about the conciliar Church.” 179). His work was published in St. Petersburg in 1799. You might be interested in: