I. Состояние церкви по внешнему составу

The Russian Church, from its very origins, is one of the metropolises of the Patriarch of Constantinople, 2 containing several dioceses. Therefore, its hierarchy consisted of one Metropolitan, several Bishops and other lower clergy. Information about our Metropolitans of that time is extremely scarce, so we can only present here almost one list of their names. We then had all of them, in succession, up to twenty-two. And exactly: St. Michael, a Syrian by birth, sent to the Grand Duke Vladimir from the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas Chrysovergus in 988. Having shown himself an example of the most fiery zeal for faith in planting the Church in our fatherland, and at the same time an example of true piety, for which Providence was pleased to glorify him by the incorruption of his very remains, this Hierarch of Christ worthily began the series of Russian high priests, and, as it were, prefigured in himself those truly pastoral qualities that more or less distinguished all our subsequent hierarchs. Died in 992 3. Leonty or Leon, Greek, consecrated by the same Patriarch in 992 and died in 1008. It is known about this Saint, firstly, that he established the first six dioceses among us in 992, giving them to the Bishops who arrived with his predecessor and who had hitherto been engaged only in the spread of Christianity; and secondly, the fact that he was called the Metropolitan of Pereyaslavl and Russia, perhaps because there really was no metropolitanate in Pereyaslavl before, as Nikonov’s chronicle testifies, 5 and Leonty already determined that there would be no metropolitan residence anywhere except Kyiv, 6 or, more likely, because our first Metropolitans, being mainly in Kyiv, at the same time had their own home in Pereyaslavl, where some of them went only occasionally for peace and relaxation, while others went very often, remaining there for whole years. For even after Leonty, as we will see, some of our Metropolitans lived in Pereyaslavl. John I or Jonah, as he is probably called in the schema, is a Greek who arrived in Russia from Patriarch Sergius in 1007 or 1008. No matter how long-lasting his service to the Church was (he died already in 1035); but in the chronicles very little is said about him, namely, that in 1008 he laid the foundation for the stone Peter and Paul Church or the Holy Apostle Church on Berestovo, transferred the relics of St. Olga to the Tithe Church, and buried Grand Duke Vladimir next to his wife Anna in the same church. Theopemptus, a Greek, sent from Patriarch Alexius the Studite in 1035 or 38, and died in 1047 or 49. He consecrated three churches in Kyiv - St. Sophia, built by Yaroslav, Annunciation, which was on the Golden Gate, and Tithe, after its renovation: only the chronicles say about it 7! Hilarion, Russian, elevated to the rank of Metropolitan from the priests of the Kyiv Church of Saints Apostle on Berestov. It is especially remarkable both in that he was elected, by the will of Grand Duke Yaroslav, and consecrated (in 1051) by a council of Russian Bishops, without relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, although he subsequently asked for a letter of confirmation from Patriarch Michael Cerullarius, and in the fact that during his twenty-year pastorate (he died in 1071), fully justified the choice of the Grand Duke and his fellow shepherds with excellent zealous exploits in favor of the Russian Church. For the chronicler, not without reason, noted that under this Metropolitan the Christian faith began to especially multiply 8. George, a Greek, sent from Patriarch John Xyphilinus in 1072 and died in 1079. Only two cases are told about him in the chronicles - one is the one that George carried to Vyshgorod, with other Russian Bishops, St. the relics of the Blessed Princes Boris and Gleb from the old Church to the new, and was miraculously convinced of the holiness of these martyrs, and another that he traveled to Constantinople, probably on the occasion of civil strife between Izyaslav and his brothers - and in his absence, his flock was subjected to the claims of papism, partly from the Polish King Boleslav, and more from Pope Gregory VII himself, who sent his ambassadors to Izyaslav. John II, Greek, dedicated in 1080 by Patriarch Eustratius Garidus and died in 1089. We called him a prophet, no doubt, because he was, as the Monk Nestor notes, a cunning man of books and teaching, silent and eloquent, comforting the sad with holy books; they also called him kind, of course, because he was merciful to the poor and widows, and affectionate to everyone, rich and poor 9 . John III, Greek, eunuch, brought from Constantinople from Patriarch Nicholas the Grammar by Grand Duchess Anna Vsevolodovna in 1089 or 90. Behold, the dead man came to us, the people of Kiev spoke about him; By the way, this Metropolitan is unlettered, simple and simple, the chronicler noted about him 10. He died the same year. Ephraim, Greek 11, eunuch, dedicated by the same Patriarch Nicholas in 1091 and died in 1096. In the short period of his ministry, he did a lot: he built a magnificent St. Michael’s Cathedral in Pereyaslavl, where he himself lived, erected several other stone churches and buildings, surrounded the city with a stone wall and built a stone bathhouse (probably a bathhouse for clergy), which, according to the Monk Nestor, had never happened in Russia; finally he installed more doctors and hospitals free of charge in the cities and villages of his metropolis, which also had never happened before 12. Nicholas, a Greek, known only for his short, touching speech, with which he tamed the just anger of Vladimir Monomakh and other Russian princes, who had surrounded Kyiv with their troops in order to take revenge on Svyatopolk, who was imprisoned there, for the treacherous blinding of Prince Vasilko 13. This shepherd was sent by Patriarch Nicholas in 1097 and died in 1104 or 1106. Nikephoros (1104 or 1107–1121), a Greek dedicated by Patriarch Nicholas the Grammar, is a wise shepherd and most zealous of his duty, as his letters to the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh show. Nikita (1122–1126), Greek, ordained by Patriarch John IX, who buried the great Monomakh in the St. Sophia Cathedral, in the midst of the weeping of the Russian land. Michael II (1127–47), sent from Greece by the same Patriarch and, on the occasion of the incessant civil strife of our princes, returned again to his fatherland in 1145. In his absence, the ruler of the Russian hierarchy was Chernigov Bishop Onuphry. Clement Smolyatich (1147–56), Russian, from the reclusive schema-monks. He was elevated to the metropolis by the domestic hierarchs, by the will of the Grand Duke Izyaslav, without relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and therefore was not recognized by them, and after the death of Izyaslav he was deprived of his place: a glorious man in his time for the holiness of his life and extraordinary wisdom 14. Constantine I (1156–59), Greek. At the request of Grand Duke Yuri Dolgoruky, he was dedicated by Patriarch Luke Chrysoverg, in the place of Clement, from the Bishops of Chernigov; and after the death of Yuri, he was forced to renounce metropolitan power and return to his former diocese. This shepherd is memorable in our history for his extraordinary humility: dying, he bequeathed the Chernigov Bishop Anthony to vomit his body, as unworthy of burial, from the city to be devoured by wild animals and birds. Theodore (1160–63), a Greek, asked from the same Patriarch by the princes who were looking for the throne of Kyiv - Rostislav and Mstislav, of whom the first did not want to see Constantine at the metropolitan see, and the latter Clement, although both of these hierarchs were still alive. John IV (1164–66), a Greek, whom the Kiev Prince Rostislav, who wanted to return the deposed Clement to the metropolitan throne, did not agree to accept for a long time, and finally accepted only at the strong request of the Greek Emperor, Manuel Komnenos, and with the condition that henceforth Metropolitans would be sent to Kyiv, with the consent of the Grand Duke of Russia: Kossov and Hierarchical The Kiev catalog testifies that John (IV) was a man of science in worldly and spiritual sciences. Constantine II (1167–74), Greek, according to Tatishchev’s legend, elected Grand Duke Rostislav from the Russian Bishops, and ordained Patriarch Luke of Constantinople. After the death of this hierarch, the Metropolitan was not in Kyiv for about ten years, due to the unrest and strife of the princes. Nikephoros II (1185–97), sent to Kyiv, according to the legend of the Kyiv catalog, from Patriarch Vasily Komatir. This shepherd, wanting to prevent a fight between the Grand Duke of Kiev Rurik and his matchmaker Vsevolod Yuryevich of Vladimir (because the latter demanded some cities from the former, and the former, having previously given those cities to his son-in-law Roman Volynsky, with an oath never to take them away, did not agree to the latter’s demand), accepted this oath on his soul, and thereby made it possible for those who argued to reconcile. Matthew (1200–21), a Greek, dedicated, according to the Kyiv catalog, by Patriarch John Komatir before the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, is a witness to the terrible devastation of Kyiv (in 1204) by the princes Rurik Rostislavich and the Olgovichs of Chernigov. Cyril I (1224 or 25–33 or 36), according to some, a Greek, and according to others, a Russian, ordained either in Nicaea, where, after the occupation of Constantinople by the papists, the Patriarchs of Constantinople retired for a time (1204–61), or, if you believe the Pushkin list of Nestor, in Kyiv in the St. Sophia Cathedral. The chroniclers call this archpastor either a philosopher and someone who lived according to God, or a pious and learned man, or skillful in church affairs. Joseph (1236 or 37–40), who arrived in Kyiv from Nicaea from Patriarch Germanus Nauplius, and died, along with Kiev, during the Batu invasion. From this brief overview of the life of our High Hierarchs, in the pre-Tatar period, it is revealed that the state of our metropolis at that time was rather monotonous. Metropolitans usually came to us from Greece, and almost all were Greeks, so that out of the twenty-two it is hardly possible to indicate two or three names of Russians proper. The Patriarch of Constantinople elected and sent them to us, and there were only two attempts to elect our Metropolitans by a council of their own hierarchs, one under Yaroslavl, the other under Izyaslav, very significant attempts. The permanent residence of our Metropolitans was Kyiv, but Pereyaslavl, it seems, also had a temporary residence. Another remarkable case concerning our metropolitanate, which we have not yet mentioned: Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky, wanting to elevate his throne city of Vladimir to the level of the Russian capital, and taking advantage of the unrest in our Church, at a time when either Clement or Constantine were being elevated to the metropolitan see, sent in 1159 to Patriarch Luke of Constantinople Chrismarch asked for a special metropolitan in Vladimir, and thus attempted to divide the single Russian metropolis into two. But the Patriarch, having considered the matter collectively, did not agree to fulfill this request 15. The attitude of our Metropolitans towards the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Grand Duke, the subordinate Bishops and the people, as expressed in the events before the Tatar invasion, was as follows: Our High Hierarchs were completely dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople. He usually chose, dedicated and sent them to us; he had the right to judge them. It is known that under the authority of this Patriarch there were three huge dioceses, Thracian, Asian and Pontic, each of which contained several metropolises, and was most closely under the authority of the most important of its Metropolitans, or Exarch, which in the Thracian diocese was considered the Metropolitan of Hercules, in the Asian diocese of Ephesus, in the Pontic Caesario-Cappadocia 16. Our Metropolitan was not under the authority of any of these Exarchs, but was always and directly related to the Patriarch himself. Consequently, our metropolis, although it was not called an exarcheia, was obviously in the form of an exarche, and in its vastness constituted a kind of special diocese. From here it is clear why the Patriarch of Constantinople gave our Metropolitan some visible preference over all his Metropolitans, sending to him only one letter not with a wax, but with a lead seal - an honor, as was done on his part only to crowned heads and Patriarchs 17. Our Grand Dukes, on the one hand, exercised power over the Metropolitan. So - a) they tried to acquire for themselves the right to directly participate in the election of the Metropolitan: this thought was expressed during the election of Metropolitan Hilarion as Yaroslav the Blessed and Metropolitan Clement as Grand Duke Izyaslav; b) they also tried to demand that, at least without their prior consent, a Metropolitan of Russia should not be elected in Constantinople: under this only condition, taken from the Patriarch and Emperor of Constantinople, Grand Duke Rostislav agreed in 1176 to accept Metropolitan John IV from them - and the next Metropolitan, Constantine II, was indeed elected with the consent of the Grand Duke 18, although subsequently such grand-ducal participation is again not visible; c) they had the will not to accept an undesirable Metropolitan at the beginning, as shown by the same example of Rostislav over Metropolitan John, and d) they sometimes allowed themselves to later deprive the Metropolitan of his see and expel him from Kyiv: the fate of Clement and Constantine confirms this. On the other hand, the Grand Dukes showed spiritual humility and obedience to the Metropolitans. The prince usually called the Metropolitan his father, and the Metropolitan the Grand Duke his son. And therefore, before starting any important business, the Grand Dukes usually turned to the Metropolitan for advice and blessing, 19 and the decrees they often issued seemed to support it with consent: evidence is the church statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav. Taking advantage of such influence on the Grand Duke, and even more so on the appanage princes, the Metropolitans constantly tried to use this influence for the benefit of the fatherland and the Church. That is why many of them dared to make representations to the Grand Duke that were useful for the state; in troubled times of princely strife, when nothing could prevent bloody civil strife, they hastened to be reconcilers of the warring princes, and almost always with success. So, Leonty, together with other Bishops, persuaded Vladimir to execute the villains; Nicholas reconciled Vladimir Monomakh and other princes with the Grand Duke Svyatopolk, who insidiously blinded Prince Vasilko; Mikhail (in 1136), reconciled the Grand Duke Yaropolk with his nephews, and Vyacheslav Vladimirovich with Vsevolod Olegovich (in 1138); Theodore reconciled Grand Duke Rostislav Mstislavich of Kyiv with Svyatopolk Olegovich of Chernigov and others, and so on. 20. It happened that Metropolitans showed their spiritual power over princes, as over other believers. For the most part, this was limited only to the fact that the High Hierarchs threatened the princes with anathema and excommunication from the Church - with the goal of this last resort to reconcile them among themselves; and once Metropolitan Constantine even excommunicated from the Church the already deceased Prince Izyaslav, who elected Clement to the metropolis 21. In relation to the subordinate Bishops, our Metropolitan, in accordance with the canons, enjoyed the right of ordination, as well as the right of trial and reprisal. And his power over them was such that sometimes he himself, without a council trial, deprived the guilty of the Bishopric. Thus, in 1055, the Novgorod Bishop Luka Zhidyata, based on a false denunciation against him, was convicted by Metropolitan Ephraim, and was kept in Kyiv for three years until his acquittal 22; in 1155, Bishop Nestor of Rostov, slandered by his own family, was deprived of his diocese for a time by Metropolitan Constantine 23. Our people looked at the Metropolitan with the deepest respect, and everyone considered it a great happiness to see the High Hierarch and especially to receive a blessing from him. That is why, by the way, the princely decrees appeared before the people as if sealed with the consent of the Metropolitan. At the meetings, where some power and freedom of the people were manifested, the voice of the Metropolitan was always considered the strongest 24. As a result of such universal respect for the Metropolitan, it happened that with one word he produced among the people something that no other means could do: so in 1134, when a strong rebellion broke out in Novgorod, one letter from Metropolitan Michael, placing a ban on the willful city, pacified the rebels 25 . This power of the Metropolitan was partly used by the princes themselves, when there was no way left to keep their subjects in proper obedience. The number of dioceses subject to the Kyiv Metropolitan before the enslavement of Russia by the Tatars increased to 17, or, with the exception of one, which was abolished shortly after its establishment, to 16, namely: six of them were established in the 10th century (992) by Metropolitan Leonty: a) Kiev, b) Novgorod, c) Rostov, d) Vladimir in Volyn, e) Belgorodskaya near Kyiv, and e) Chernigovskaya; four - at the end or last half of the 11th century: g) Yuryevskaya near Kyiv on the Rosa River, h) Pereyaslavskaya, i) Chelmskaya in Chermnaya Rus, and j) Tmutarakanskaya in the former capital (near the Sea of ​​Azov) of some appanage princes: this last diocese, on the occasion of the ruin of Tmutarakan and the entire principality from the Polovtsians, at the end of the same century was forever abolished; five - in the 12th century: j) Polotsk, at the beginning of the century, in White Rus', k) Turov (in 1114) in the city of Turov, located near Pinsk on the Slucha River; m) Smolensk (about 1128 or 37), n) Przemysl in Chermnaya Rus (mentioned. Until 1157, when it was temporarily united with Galicia), and o) Galicia (in 1157 or 65) in Chermnaya Rus; finally two in the first half of the 12th century: p) Ryazan (from 1198 or 1208), and p) Vladimir on Klyazma (in 1215) 26. The hierarchs to whom these dioceses were entrusted were initially all called Bishops. But since 1166, Bishop Elijah or John of Novgorod, for his great virtue 27, was elevated by the Metropolitan to the dignity of Archbishop, and since then, both he and all his successors began to be considered the first in our hierarchy according to the Metropolitan. We have already seen the attitude of our Bishops towards the High Hierarch of our Church. Their attitude towards the princes of those destinies where their dioceses were located was similar to that which the Metropolitan had towards the Grand Duke of Kyiv. That is, these princes, on the one hand, enjoyed some power over their archpastors. The princes - a) had the exclusive right to choose a Bishop for themselves, of course, on the advice of their retinue, as they decided on all important matters: it is not worthy, the chronicler notes, to rush to the hierarchical rank, but God will call him, the prince will delight the people 28. However, the right to approve this choice, it seems, belonged to the Grand Duke, at least until then, while his power in Rus' was strong, and to the Metropolitan. It is known that Vsevolod Yuryevich around 1185, having elected, with the consent of his citizens, Bishop Hegumen Luka for the diocese located in his inheritance, he sent a special ambassador to the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the Metropolitan, asking for their consent 29. The princes could - b) not accept Bishops who were not elected by them: the same Vsevolod Yuryevich did not accept Bishop Nicholas, who was sent to him by the Metropolitan, instead of Luke, elected by this prince 30. They could, finally, c) judge them, of course, in civil relations, and even expel them: so Yaroslav Theodore (in 1229) judged some important lawsuit of Bishop Kirill of Rostov, accused him and deprived him of almost all his estate; The Rostovites expelled Bishop Leon; Prince of Chernigov Bishop Anthony and so on. 31. On the other hand, the appanage princes showed spiritual subordination and obedience to the saints. And therefore - a) they always called them for meetings and did not dare to do anything important without their blessing 32; as well as - b) Bishops, like Metropolitans, using their influence on princes, always acted as their peacemakers in days of strife and civil strife 33 . Since in Novgorod the supreme, princely power was assumed by the veche, the Archbishop treated him here in the same way as in other appanages he treated the prince: that is, the veche had the right to elect an archpastor, and then judge him, expel him and call him again, and so on. So, the Novgorodian was expelled and Archbishop Mitrofan was again received (in 1212); expelled and again received Archbishop Anthony (in 1218) and his successor Arseny 34. For this reason, the elected saint in Novgorod at the people's assembly, even in civil administration, had special importance and power 35, which Bishops did not have anywhere else in Russia. That is why the Novgorodians called him from the very beginning their Lord, a name that was later gradually adopted by our other Bishops, but only as an honorary one. The Novgorodians also have a remarkable feature when it comes to electing someone to the archbishopric. They - a) sometimes elected not by votes, as the veche generally operated, but by lot; b) they were certainly elected from the clergy of their region, while in other destinies they were elected to the Bishops from other destinies; and c) they elected whoever they wanted: in other destinies, Abbots and Archimandrites, and certainly already monastics, were usually elected as Bishops; and the Novgorodians often erected on the Archbishop's porch spiritual from Balti, priests, deacons, who, however, had to enter monasticism. The sources for the maintenance of the Metropolitan and Bishops were: 1) Tithe. About it you can note: a) that it was given to St. Vladimir only for one cathedral church, the Tithes: behold, I give this church to the Holy Mother of God, 36 he said after its consecration; just as precisely, Yaropolk 37 gave tithes only to the Holy Mother of God, according to the testimony of the Monk Nestor; Only for the cathedral Church of the Virgin Mary in Vladimir did Andrei Bogolyubsky 38 determine a tithe; Only the cathedral churches received tithes and appanage princes in their affairs 39; b) that our princes gave this tithe from their princely estates and their cities, and not from the zemstvo estates of their subjects: behold, I give, said Vladimir, a tenth from my estate and from my cities, and Yaropolk gave the Tithe Church only from all his cattle and from his livestock for the whole year; Bogolyubsky also gave tithes only in his flocks 40; c) that this tithe went, it seems, solely for the maintenance of the Metropolitan and Bishops, who usually lived at the cathedral churches; The Novgorod prince Svyatoslav in his charter (given in 1137) refers to the former charter in Rus' from his great-grandfather and from his grandfather, namely by Piskup, tithes from donations and from vir and sales that enter the court of the princes in total 41; d) finally, that our Bishops continued to use tithes until the Tatar invasion, except for some places where it had already been abolished: Prince Svyatoslav of Novgorod in the mentioned charter already refers to the charter on tithes, only as a former charter, and instead of tithes from then on, he determines payment to his Bishop and St. Sophia Cathedral in money from the city or princely treasury and gifts when touring the diocese 42 . 2) Judgmental spiritual duties. They were established among us, on the basis of the Nomocanon, by St. Vladimir, granting the Metropolitan and Bishops certain legal proceedings over their subjects and determining a certain fine for the perpetrators for each crime. But according to the statute of St. Vladimir Metropolitan and Bishops could take only one tenth of these duties paid by the guilty, 43 setting aside nine parts for the share of the Great and appanage princes. Vladimir's son Yaroslav ceded these duties to the Metropolitan and Bishops, some up to half, and others completely 44. To carry out such trials and collect duties, according to Rule 52 of the Council of Carthage, the Bishops had to survey their diocese annually, and the Metropolitan had to survey each of the dioceses under his control every two years on the third. 3) Ordination or imposed duties. They came into use in the Eastern Church even before the Emperor Justinian, and were collected from everyone ordained as a priest, deacon and tonsured as a surplice, also for certificates issued to these persons, as well as to Archimandrites and Abbots. This also includes duties that were collected for letters of approval for the construction of churches and monasteries and for letters of permission for marriage, called coronal memorials 45. 4) Real estate. According to the testimony of the Degree Book, even St. Vladimir bequeathed great gifts and earthly acquisitions to the churches of the saints, and his heirs added a lot..., mercilessly giving them an eternal inheritance of cities and graveyards, villages and vineyards, lands and borders, lakes and rivers and great volosts with all the profits 46. The Kiev Tithe Church, as mentioned in the chronicle in 1169, even had the city of Polonna in its possession. Andrei Yuryevich gave over to his Vladimir Cathedral Church a lot of estates and settlements he bought and with tributes and the village of lepsha 47. However, in some places these estates were temporarily taken away from the clergy. Thus, Prince Yaropolk Rostislavich (in 1175) took away from the cathedral church of Vladimir all the villages and incomes granted to it by Bogolyubsky, which, however, were returned to it in the same year, after the expulsion of Yaropolk, by the new prince Mikhail 48. All such incomes of the Metropolitan and Bishops were used not only for them, but also - a) for the maintenance of the clergy who were with each of them and their cathedral churches, as we can guess from the example of Metropolitan Ephraim and the first Novgorod Bishop Joachim Korsunyanin 49; b) for the maintenance of religious schools, which were originally entrusted to St. Vladimir to Metropolitan Michael, and then, without a doubt, passed into the jurisdiction of his successors and other Bishops; c) for the maintenance of hospitals and almshouses, which is also evident from the example of Metropolitan Ephraim; d) finally, to assist the orphans, the supervision of whom, according to the rules of the council 50, was entrusted to the Bishops, and the like. 51. In the reasoning of the other lower clergy, almost nothing positive and definite has survived to us. It is natural to assume that our first priests, deacons and readers were predominantly from the Greeks and Bulgarians, with whom the holy faith and liturgical books in the Slavic language came to us. But little by little, of course, Russians themselves appeared at these hierarchical levels, emerging from the established St. Vladimir and the successors of his schools. It is also necessary to agree that in the beginning it was granted to people of any status to enter these positions, of course, by election, until a special spiritual class was formed 52. The means of support for our lower clergy were: a) first of all, without any doubt, voluntary alms from parishioners, as was the case in the Eastern Church from the very first centuries of Christianity 53; b) the annual collection of money, bread and other everyday needs from the yards of the entire parish, called rokovshchina 54; c) sometimes a salary from the princes: at least this is what is known about the Grand Duke Yaroslav, who, according to the chronicler, later gave a lesson 55 from his estate; d) lands, sometimes villages and villages, which, however, were owned by very few rural parish churches 56. We can add to all this one more piece of news: that our lower clergy, like their archpastors, tried, in those troubled times of civil strife, to be reconcilers of the warring princes and intercessors before them for the good of their subjects 57 . The general privilege of all our clergy, higher and lower, was that, according to the statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav, they were exempt from jurisdiction by the civil authorities, from civil service, from public works and in general from all state duties, and were subject only to the court of Bishops and Metropolitans. However, this important privilege in some destinies was sometimes taken away from the clergy: for example, in 1174, Prince Yaroslav Izyaslavich of Lutsk, who owned Kiev, suspecting the Kyivans of treason, imposed tribute not only on all citizens, but also on priests and monks 58 . Grand Duke Vladimir extended this right in his church charter to certain laity, whom he assigned to the church people, such as: a pilgrim for pilgrimage, a healer, a forgiver, or miraculously recovered from an illness, a soul-suffocated person, or freed by a master to save his soul, a supporter or a foreigner, a blind man, a lame man, and in general people living in monasteries, hospitals, hotels and hospices. The state of the flock in the present period represents mainly two series of events, completely different from each other: a series of successes of Orthodoxy within our fatherland and a gradual increase in the number of Orthodox believers, and a series of obstacles to these successes, a series of attempts by unbelief to reduce this number. The Orthodox faith, accepted with such love by our ancestors under St. Vladimir, before the Tatar invasion not only managed to illuminate the whole of Russia itself, so that then, one might say, not a single pagan remained in it, but also penetrated into some border regions, which little by little became part of our fatherland. Its distribution, after St. Vladimir, most of all, was assisted by his children, between whom he divided his state, and to whom, sending them to their assigned destinies, he gave wise advisers - shepherds and firmly bequeathed that by all means they would eradicate paganism, destroy temples, and lead people to baptism. And they built churches of God everywhere 59 . In addition, history, in particular, mentions the spread of Christianity: a) in the principalities of Suzdal and Vladimir, where many pagans were baptized by the zeal of the local Prince Yuri Dolgorukov 60, and then many pagans and Jews - by the jealousy of his son, Andrei Bogolyubsky 61; b) in Rostov, where (around 1159) St. Abraham destroyed the last idol of Veles, built a Christian church in its place and baptized the rest of the city's inhabitants, who had hitherto been pagans 62; c) in Murom, where also (around 1192) the last remnants of paganism were finally eradicated by Konstantin Svyatoslavich, thanks to the faithful Prince of Murom 63; d) in the country of Vyatichi, in the present Oryol, Kursk and Kaluga provinces: here St. preached Christianity. Kuksha (from 1215), tonsured Kiev-Pechersk, who with his miracles attracted many idolaters to Christ, but finally suffered martyrdom from them, together with his disciple 64. In the border countries of our fatherland Christianity spread - 1) and in the East: a) in the vicinity of present-day Vologda, where in 1147 the tonsure of the Kyiv Glushinsky Monastery, the teacher. Gerasim, and, while disseminating St. faith between the pagans, built a church 65 on Kaisarov Creek; b) between Chud, Votyaks and Cheremis, who inhabited Vyatka and surrounding countries: here they sown and established St. Vera, the Novgorod settlers, who in 1174, having taken possession of the entire Vyatka region, built their villages and cities with Christian churches in it, and, having founded a small, independent republic, in the likeness of Novgorod, entrusted power over it primarily to the clergy 66. 2) and in the West – in Livonia. The beginnings of Christianity were laid there still great. Prince Yaroslav, who built the city of Yuryev or Dorpat 67. After that, German chroniclers testify that during the 11th and 12th centuries, when Livonia was a tributary of the Russian Princes (Polotsk, Novgorod and Pskov), Pskov priests often traveled around the entire country with a willingness to administer baptism if someone voluntarily accepted the faith - and this was much before Western missionaries penetrated here (1184); they mention the baptism of some of the local inhabitants by the Russians (in 1209), and how subsequently (between 1213–1214) these latter, under duress, changed the Christian faith, adopted from the Russians, to the rite of the Latins; they say that some of the Lithuanians were converted to Christianity by the Novgorod prince Mstislav in 1212, although, not having time to quickly send priests to them, he lost them to the Orthodox Church, and that in the Russian fortresses on the Dvina there were even Christian churches with utensils, icons, bells, treasures, and so on. Christians lived long before the Germans and Latins came 68. 3) and in the North: a) in Zavolochye or ancient Biarmia, stretching from Bela Lake to the Pechora River: according to the testimony of the Dvina chronicler, the inhabitants of this country, who had long depended on the Novgorodians, were enlightened by baptism by St. Vladimir; at least it is necessary to assume that Christianity was transferred to them very early, perhaps by immigrants from Novgorod, who little by little settled there: in the 12th century, monasteries already existed on the banks of the Dvina, as undoubted historical monuments show 69 - and b) in the land of Korelskaya (in present-day Finland): in 1227, Prince Yaroslav of Novgorod sent there a deliberate mission of priests Orthodox, who, without any violent measures, baptized almost all the inhabitants who had long been subject to Novgorod, and who were voluntarily disposed to accept St. faith 70. 4) And in the South among the Polovtsy, whose princesses, marrying our princes, had to accept Christianity 71. The following people tried to counteract the increase in Orthodox Christians in Russia and even reduce their number: a) partly some of our pagans, known as the Magi; b) mainly the Roman high priests, and c) partly some heresies that came to us from Greece. The Magi, in all likelihood, our pagan priests, partly out of a desire to support the falling paganism, and more for their own benefits, attributing to themselves in the eyes of the people secret communication with the gods, the gift of foresight and miracles, they strove for their goal very zealously. For this purpose, they sometimes appeared several at a time: for example. in 1024 in Suzdal during the famine, where, declaring the misfortune of women to be the fault, they incited a great rebellion against them and killed many of them until the Yaroslavs themselves were executed - and also in the Rostov region under the Novgorod Prince Svyatoslav, also on the occasion of the famine and with the previous slander against innocent women, of whom here dozens were put to death, until they themselves were again subjected to worthy of execution from Ivan Vyshatin, who at that time was collecting tribute from Belozertsy. Sometimes they appeared alone: ​​so in 1071. one sorcerer appeared in Kyiv with a prophecy that in five years the Dnieper would flow up, Greece would move to Russia, and Russia to Greece, but soon disappeared without a trace; the other - in Novgorod under Prince Gleb, calling himself God, condemning the Christian faith and inciting the people to kill the Bishop, until he himself died publicly at the hands of Prince Gleb, and so on. In the teachings of all these Magi, in addition to the incomprehensible hatred against women, one can notice: a) the teaching about two opposing gods - the God of heaven, who created the immortal soul of man, and the God of the underworld, who created the human body; b) the doctrine of the multiplicity of gods of the last kind, whom the Magi, in contrast to the God of heaven, call their own; c) the doctrine of their special communication with these underworld gods, and d) finally, obvious weapons against Christianity. By spreading such a teaching, the Magi, with their false signs and predictions, had a strong effect on the rude people, although already enlightened by Christianity, but who did not yet properly understand the new faith and had not forgotten paganism. And because of this, on Belo-Ozero, the gang formed around the Magi extended to 300 people; and the Novgorod sorcerer even carried away with him the entire mob, except for the prince and boyars who remained on the side of Bishop Theodore. But suddenly, as soon as the Magi themselves died, the effect of their teaching ceased among the superstitious people: the people again turned to St. faith 72. All the attempts of the Roman high priests to extend their power among us until the invasion of the Tatars, as far as can be seen from the faithful monuments, remained only attempts, and, contrary to the false thoughts of Western writers 73, did not have any success. Rus' remained a purely Orthodox country, did not submit to the popes, as their very attempts to win it over to their side clearly show. These attempts consisted of the fact that the popes more than once sent their ambassadors and messages to Russia, sent missionaries, and finally used the sword for the same purpose. Messages and ambassadors were sometimes sent in particular to one or another of our Princes or Metropolitans, sometimes to all the princes together and to all the Bishops, clergy and people. More than ten embassies are known to private individuals. The first four followed to the Grand Duke Vladimir himself: one at his conversion, the other suddenly after baptism, when the papal legates allegedly brought him some kind of St. relics 74, along with congratulations from his high priest, - and two more a little after 75. Fifth in 1075 to Vel. Prince Izyaslav, who, after his second expulsion from Kyiv, turned with a request for help to the powerful ruler of Rome Gregory VII, promising through his son to recognize his power over himself. In this case, the pope also sent a letter to the prince, which has survived to this day 76. But since the circumstances themselves changed in favor of Izyaslav, he rejected the pope’s proposal, especially since the teacher. Theodosius of Pechersk hastened to admonish the prince in a special message that the Latin faith is evil and the law is unclean 77 . Sixth to Vel. Prince Vsevolod in 1091, when a certain Bishop Theodore 78 came from Pope Urban II. Seventh around 1169 to Metropolitan John IV of Kyiv, who considered it necessary to write to the pope a reply letter 79 imbued with the spirit of Christian meekness, on the one hand justifying in it to the pope the teaching of the Orthodox Eastern Church, on the other convincing the imaginary head of the Church to restore its ancient unity: could our Metropolitan write in this way if he recognized the authority of the pope? Eighth in 1169, to Vel. Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky does not know on what occasion and for what purpose 80. Ninth at the end of the 12th century to the Grand Duke Vsevolod III and Metropolitan Nikephoros II, with an invitation to take part in the crusade 81. Tenth in 1204, to Prince Roman. Galitsky. The legate who came to him could not attract him to his side either with evidence in favor of the Roman faith, or with the promise that the pope would conquer many nations and make him king. “Is this the kind of sword dad has?” our prince asked the speaker, instead of answering his last convictions; “As long as I have my sword with me, he will give me land, I have no need for anything else, and I buy cities with my blood” 82. In 1205, having invaded Poland, Roman even allegedly declared 83 that he would completely destroy the Roman faith, although the death that soon followed did not allow him to keep his word. Eleventh in 1231, to Vel. Prince. Georgy Vsevolodovich. Pope Gregory IX, by the way, writes to him: “we have heard that you are a Christian Sovereign, but you adhere to the morals and customs of the Greeks and Russians... Therefore, sincerely caring for your salvation, your successes, benefits and honor, we pray and exhort your lordship that you humbly accept and preserve the rites and customs of the Latin Christians, subduing yourself and your entire kingdom out of love for Christ the sweet power of the Roman Church, the mother of all the faithful, which offers to have you in the Church of God as a great Sovereign and to love you as a chosen son" 84 . Is it possible to testify better than these words of the pope himself that the whole series of papal attempts at the present period did not have the slightest success for us, and that we did not have unity (union) with the Roman Church at that time? Pope Honorius III sent a message to all our princes (ad reges) in 1227, on the occasion of the conclusion of peace between our Pskovites and the Livonian Order. Announcing peace and prosperity to the princes in the arms of the Latin Church, and wishing to see their ambassadors in Rome, he told them, among other things: “your errors in faith irritate heaven and are the cause of all evil in Russia; fear even more terrible ones. If you don't turn to the truth. We exhort and pray that you express your good will in writing through reliable ambassadors, and meanwhile live peacefully with the Livonian Christians” 85. What again is striking evidence from the pope himself that we did not have a union at all until the invasion of the Tatars! Innocent III wrote to all Bishops, clergy and people on the occasion of the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1207: “although hitherto you were removed from your mother’s breasts, like alien children, but, according to the duty of a shepherd entrusted to us unworthy by God to enlighten his people, we have a paternal duty, so that the members are consistent with their head, so that Ephraim turns to Judah and Samaria to Jerusalem... The Greek Empire and the Church have almost all submitted to the Apostolic seat, and humbly accept orders from it; wouldn’t it be reckless if the part does not agree with the whole and... For this, the pope continues, I am sending Cardinal Sti-Vitalis to you so that he will bring his daughter to his mother and his member to the head...”, and in conclusion he advises and exhorts to obey the suggestions of his ambassador 86. Another testimony from the pope about the same thing, and an indisputable testimony! The popes sent their deliberate missionaries to Rus'. So, Romuald’s disciples, Roman monks, came to us, allegedly preaching Christianity in the countries of southern Russia, suddenly after the Treaty of Gniezno (concluded by Emperor Otto I and the Polish King Boleslav in 1000); but we know nothing about the effects of their preaching 87 . Around the half of the 12th century, the Abbot of Clervon Bernard came, who was aroused by the Krakow Bishop Matthew with his special message. Claiming that the Russians, as numerous as stars, although they confess Christ, they reject Him in deeds, and that therefore a zealous abbot will earn himself a great reward from Christ if he acquires these alien peoples 88: isn’t it obvious and assumed that the Russians. Does this mean that they did not contain the Roman faith when they should have been converted to it? Nothing is known about the success of Bernand's preaching either. Finally, around 1186, the Augustinian monk Meingard came to us, who, having asked Prince Vladimir of Polotsk for permission to convert Chud to Christianity, was successful, and for the safety of his followers built a small fortress Ikskul with a Christian church 89; but this success, obviously, did not occur between Russians in the proper sense and not in the depths of the Orthodox Church. Our popes acted with weapons for their own purposes: a) through the Order of the Sword-Bearers, founded in Livonia in 1201 by Bishop Albert, the founder of the city of Riga, although, until the invasion of the Tatars, being primarily engaged in the conversion of Livonian pagans, these knights did not yet extend their sights to Rus' itself 90; b) through the Danes, whom King Waldemar, thinking to atone for his sins, twice sent his fleet to assist the knights in their cause, and in general through the Germans, who annually came in droves to Livonia to seek the salvation of their souls by killing people; c) through the Hungarians, in Galicia, partly during the reign of Andrew, the son of the Hungarian king, and more under another prince from the house of the kings of Hungary (1214), Koloman, when the Orthodox bishop and priests were expelled from Galich, the papists involuntarily began to convert the people to their faith. Fortunately, all this soon stopped: for from 1222 Galicia passed into the hands of the Russian Prince Daniel 91. As proof of the success of the Roman faith in our fatherland even before the Tatar invasion, Roman writers claim, firstly, that under the Grand Duke Vladimir himself, Bishop Reibach of Kolberg (or Reiben), who arrived in Kyiv together with the Polish princess, Svyatopolk’s wife, converted our entire country and Svyatopolk himself to Catholicism 92 . But this could not have happened - not before Vladimir’s baptism: because Svyatopolk was only eight years old, and there were no traces. he did not yet have a wife; not after baptism, during the life of St. Vladimir, who, as is known, accepted the offer of the Roman ambassadors about faith; nor, finally, after his death, during the reign of Svyatopolk, who, although he ascended the grand-ducal throne twice, held it for only one year each time 93. Secondly, they indicate that the Bishops of the Krakow diocese, founded by Boleslav the brave, or others, together bore the name of Russian Bishops and had their vicars in Kyiv 94. But, on the one hand, these Bishops could only be titular Russians, according to the then custom, in the hope of their future successes with us, and on the other, their vicars, according to Western historians 95, from ancient times were completely expelled from their residence in Kyiv, if it is also true that they could establish themselves here even for a few days at that time. Thirdly, they often repeat 96 a perfect fable invented by one apostate to the Union, allegedly the Grand Duke Yaroslav himself asked for a Bishop, in place of the deceased Metropolitan Theopempt, from Pope Benedict VIII, and received from him in 1021 (when Theopempt had not yet come to us!) Bishop Alexei, who was skilled in the Greek and Slavic languages, founded a new Kyiv bishopric, and the first served in the St. Sophia church; but, due to the envy of the Greek clergy, he was forced to retire to Bulgaria, where he died. To prove this fable, its culprit, Cassian Sakovich, referred to some Russian writer Nikanor (who allegedly lived in 1240), which we have never seen before. Fourthly, they point out that since 1231 a Catholic bishopric was established in Kyiv, and the Dominican Gerard was sent here as the first Bishop. But a) this Bishop was given, without a doubt, not for the Russians, but for Catholic foreigners, who, due to trade matters, always lived in Kyiv in abundance, such as the Poles, Hungarians, Bohemians 97; b) these Catholics, judging by their complaints, lived in Kyiv allegedly in considerable cramped conditions regarding their confession, as can be seen from the letters of Pope Gregory IX to them in 1234 98, and, consequently, the Russians themselves were not of the same mind with them in the faith; c) some of the Catholic writers say that this Bishop did not live in Kyiv, but was only titular - and the mentioned charter of Gregory IX, which does not mention the Bishop at all, clearly confirms this; d) even if he lived, it was not for long, having been forced to leave our ancient capital on the occasion of the invasion of the Tatars. Fifthly, they claim that around 1231 the Dominican Mother of God Monastery was founded in Kyiv, allegedly even by the Kyiv Prince Vladimir Rurikovich, as stated in the letters given already in the 17th century to the Kyiv Dominican Church by the Polish kings 99 . But a) the monks of this monastery could not be from the Russians at all, but from foreigners who lived in Kyiv; b) Vladimir Rurikovich could allow the construction of a non-Orthodox monastery in Kyiv solely in the spirit of religious tolerance - and this is all the more certain because - c) soon (1233), as soon as he noticed the machinations of new monks to the detriment of the Orthodox, he expelled all these newcomers from his capital, forbidding them to ever return to it 100; d) finally, seven years later (in 1240), the Tatars completely destroyed the very buildings of the Kyiv Dominican Monastery 101. There were also Catholic churches in Novgorod. But again also only for foreign merchants, due to trade agreements 102. And in order to keep the Orthodox from being seduced by papism, our shepherds threatened them, in case of treason, with church punishment: for example, Bishop Niphon of Novgorod ordered that a mother who would take her child to the Varangian priest for prayer be subjected to six weeks of penance. The Roman clergy was subject to even greater responsibility for their attempts: for example, in the 12th century, Yaroslav Izyaslavich partly expelled from Kyiv not only the entire Latin clergy, but also all the papists, and partly imprisoned them 103. In general, it is enough just to recall the above words of the popes themselves to our Princes, Bishops and people, that until the invasion of the Tatars, the Russians were not submissive to the Roman faith, and to this add the testimony of Pope Gregory IX from his message in 1232 to the Polish clergy about the prohibition of marriages between Catholics and Russians because the latter not only do not submit to the Roman Church themselves, but also rebaptize drunken wives in their faith 104 - it is enough to take this alone into account. To completely disbelieve all the cries of later papists about the existence of a union or Catholicism in our country in those days. Some accusatory writings of the then pastors of our Church against the Roman confession, which we will see later, will further confirm this. The heresies and schisms that came to us from Greece, to the detriment of Orthodoxy, are: the heresy of Pavlikian or Bogomilov, and the heresy of Martin. They tried to spread the first one among us: a) a certain Adrian a monk and eunuch, who began to preach it in Kyiv in 1004; but soon, exposed and excommunicated from the Church by Metropolitan Leonty, and then even imprisoned, he came to repentance and abandoned his intention, and b) Dmitry (in 1123), called in the chronicle an evil heretic 105, who was also soon exiled by Metropolitan Nikita of Kyiv to the city of Sinelets 106. Adrian and Dmitry, if only they really were Bogomils, on the one hand, falsely taught about the face of Christ the Savior. According to Paulikian, “He is the Word that God the Father belched out from his heart in 5500 liters.” from the creation of the world, to deliver the human soul from the power of Satan - the firstborn son of God, who formerly sat at the right hand of the Father, but was then cast down from on high for his indignation. This Word, descending from on high, entered the right ear of the Virgin, took on flesh in her, apparently material, but in fact immaterial, came out of the Virgin in the same way, so that the Virgin did not feel Him in herself at all, and found Him already as a baby lying in a manger. Having completed his work on earth and imprisoned Satan in the abyss, Jesus Christ again returned to heaven and was resolved into the Father.” And on the other hand, they rejected everything external in Christianity, and therefore did not believe the miracles of the Savior over the body and nature, trying to explain them spiritually; rejected all the sacraments of the Church, reinterpreting them spiritually; reviled St. churches, icons, relics, holidays, hierarchy, monasticism, etc. The chronicles say nothing about the successes of Adrian and Dmitry, who so quickly found zealous accusers among the high priests of our Church. Martin was the son of an Armenian priest, lived for a long time in Rome, then in Constantinople, and in 1149 he came to us in Kyiv. To attract the Orthodox to himself and conveniently seduce them, he, firstly, called himself a relative of the Constantinople Patriarch, that is, a person worth all their trust in matters of faith; after that he asserted that Orthodoxy was not handed down to the Russians in all its purity at the beginning, and finally he offered them the true, in his words, teaching of the Eastern Church, in his book, which he called Pravda, and, having written several copies, distributed it freely to everyone. Martin's false teaching, as recognized by the council itself, which considered it, contained a mixture of opinions of Armenian, Latin, and those belonging to Martin himself. He preached: a) that in the God-man there is one nature; b) that I. Christ brought his flesh from heaven, and passed through the womb of the Virgin Mary, as if through a canal; c) that during the liturgy wine should not be dissolved with water, but served over wine alone; d) on Wednesdays and the heels of those weeks in which the Church does not prescribe fasting, one should fast, and on Holy Saturday one should be allowed to eat cheese, eggs and fish; e) when folding the cross with the finger, the first finger should be folded with the last two, and the index and middle fingers should be crossed and blessed by the priests; f) one must fast on Saturday; g) on ​​the prosphora, imprint not a two-part cross, but a crucifix; h) proskomedia should not be performed; i) the Liturgy should be served not on leavened bread, but on unleavened bread; i) one must baptize without the anointing of the saint. peace; j) in the sign of the cross, place your hand first on the left and then on the right shoulder; k) perform the entire liturgy according to the Latin rite, and not according to the Greek; l) all psalmody should be read facing the west, not the east; m) when baptizing infants, walk around the font in the direction of the sun, and do the same during ordination and weddings; o) at Vespers and Liturgies with the censer, the Gospel and the Great Exaltation, leave the altar through the southern doors; n) write and pronounce the name of Jesus: Jesus, not Jesus; p) say hallelujah twice, and add the third time: glory to you, O God; c) build churches with an altar at noon and pray like that. Acting unhindered for about seven years, under the cover of his imaginary relationship with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Martin managed to attract with him not only many ordinary people, but also many shepherds of the Church, until the Kiev Council in 1157 put an end to his actions 108. Believers, as believers, for their faith did not suffer any oppression in our country during this period, and constantly prospered, although, as citizens of Russia, they suffered a lot from princely civil strife and from external enemies. In the list of these metropolises, it was constantly ranked in 60th place until the time of the Emperor Andronicus (1283–1320), whose charter clearly states: Russiæ (scil. Metropolis), post sexagesimum locum, septuagesimum secundum obtinuit.Vid. apud Condinum de officiis magnæ ecclesiæ… pag. 344–346. Venet. 1729. His holy relics were found incorrupt in 1103, and at the same time they were transferred from the Church of the Tithes to Anthony's Cave; from here in 1730 they were transferred to the great Church of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, in which they rest to this day. Is this why in some chronicles Leonty is considered the first Russian Metropolitan? Nikon, Letop. Part I. p. 191, St. Petersburg 1767. Kossov in the chronology of the Kiev Metropolitans p. 170. After him, for two years, Palinodia, on the basis of the Kyiv memorial, believes Cyril, about whom, however, there is not a word in the chronicles or in the hierarchical catalogs. Complete collection Russian. letop. II, p. 267. Some call him Ephraim (maybe that’s what he was called in the schema); and the Nikon Chronicle mentions Metropolitan Ephraim as early as 1055. Palipodium puts Ephraim after Hilarion. Full collection Russian Letop. II, p. 277. According to the Patericon, however, he is recognized as a Pechersk monk from the courtiers of Grand Duke Izyaslav. In some lists of the chronicle, he is considered only as the Bishop of Pereyaslavl, or mixed with the Bishop of Pereyaslavl of the same name. View Full collection Russian letop. II, pp. 10, 277 and 278. Also in History of Karamzin, II, note. 160. Brief Histor. Russian Church, His Eminence Plato, I, p. 93. Moscow. 1805. Histor. Karamzin, III, note. 28. See Oriens Christ. 1, pag. III – 120. Known Byzantine. Histor. III, p. 158. P. II. b. 1774. Described. Kiev-Sof. Council, pp. 79 and 80. See Degree. books. pp. 147, 151, etc., as well as History. State Ross. Karamzina, III, p. 203. Histor. Russian Churches of Plato, I, pp. 81, 97, 73, 107, 111, 116, etc. Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, page 77. Histor. Russian Hierarchies, Kiev 1, 172. Histor. Russian Cer. Plato, 1, 86. History of Karamzin, III, p. 202. St. Petersburg 1818. View Histor. Russian hierarchy, Kiev, 1827 pp. 5–14. Step. books I, p. 302. Moscow 1775. Histor. Karamzin, III, note. 81. demolished. Full collection Russian letop. II, p. 93. Histor. Karamzin, III, note. 81. Ibid. p. 202 and notes. 223. Full collection Russian letop. II, pp. 92 and 280. Histor. Ross. Church Plato, I, pp. 110, 114 and 115. Experience in Posadniki Novgorod. page 44. Moscow 1821. Full collected. Russian letop. II, p. 82. Degree. books. I, page 157. Add. to the description of Kiev-Sof. Cathedral No. 1. Histor. Karamzin. II, p. 186 and note. 267. View Charter of St. Vladimir in Additional to acts of History. Volume I, No. 1, and in Add. to described. Kiev-Sof. Cathedral No. 2. Add. to described. Kiev-Sof. Cathedral No. 3. Degree. books. I, pp. 142 and 159. Completely assembled. Russian letop. II, p. 82. Histor. Sovereign Russian. Karamzin III, pp. 39 and 41. “The clergy, notes our famous Hierarch-historian, did not burden their peasants with monetary taxes, but were content only with their ladle or half-time work in agriculture, fishing, felling forests, beekeeping, cattle breeding and distilling, and from these only establishments they received monetary income for the maintenance of churches and themselves. In addition, following the example of other owners, they collected duties from the driving and feeding of other people’s livestock on their lands, from mills, from passage along their dams, bridges and carriages, and from fairs at churches and on church lands, receiving from traders a payment by measurement, weight and weight for the drinks sold.” Description Kiev-Sof. Cathedral p. 258 and notes. 159. Histor. Russian. Hierarch. 1, p. 171. Kiev. Damn it. Church Histor. II, p. 191. In the conclusion of one handwritten word, which, in all likelihood, belongs to our Metropolitan Kirill II or III (1250–1280), after calculating the ecclesiastical courts, it is said: “then all ecclesiastical courts were given by the law of God by the former Tsars and our Great Princes... by the clergy for the needs, and of old age and infirmity and in sickness, many feeding children, the poor feeding, helping the offended, diligence in the strange, assistance in times of adversity, in fires and floods, redemption for captives, assistance for widows, in the thinness of dying, coverings and coffins and burial, shelter for churches and monasteries, refuge and consolation for the living, and memory for the dead.” Description Manuscripts of Rumyants. Museum No. CCXXXI, page 291. However, it should be noted that even towards the end of this period, slaves were sometimes given the sacred rank, and, moreover, not released, which resulted in various abuses, as can be seen from the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople German to our Metropolitan Kirill I in 1228. (Description. Manuscript. Rumyants. Music. pp. 303–304). View Rule of Saints Apostle 4. Described. Kivo-Sof. Cathedral p. 258. Histor. Russian Church Plato, I, 56. Full Collection Russian Letop. II, p. 11. Histor. State Ross. Karamzina, III, p. 25. Degree. Books Part 1 degree. 1. Ch. 50, p. 151. Histor. State Ross. Karamzina, II, 276. See Life of St. Abraham in the Prologue and Cheti-Min. on October 23rd. Histor. State Ross. Karamzin, III, note. 153. Dictionary of Russian sacred things, under the word: Kuksha. Encyclop. Lexicon. XII, 394: Vologda. East. State Ross. Karamzina, III, 34. Described. Kiev-Sofiysk. Cathedral page 70. See Moskvityanin 1843. No. 7: Where did the indigenous inhabitants of Livonia initially receive Christianity, from the East or the West? Histor. State Ross. Karamzin, II, p. 92. note. 64. East. Russian Churches of Stral, I, 126. See Discourse on heresies and schisms in the Russian Church, Rudneva, pp. 4–28. Moscow. 1838. Stilling (Acta sanct. tom. II. Septembr. de convers. et fide Russorum), Buttler (Vies des Peres et des Martyres... 24. Iuillet, Lille. 1834), Rohrbacher (Hist. de I'Egl. Cath. tom. III, p. 238. Paris, 1844) and very many others. Nikon. Letop. I, 104 and 111. Histor. Russ. monumenta, t. I pag. I. Petropoli. 1841 Dictionary of spirits. pissing under the word: Theodosius. East. Karamz. II, 104. About the establishment in our country, supposedly on this occasion, of a holiday in honor of the transfer of St. the relics of the saint of God Nicholas, let’s say later. It was printed in Memory. Russian Words XII century. Nikon. Letop. 2, p. 203. Histor. Ross. Churches of Strahl, I, p. 187. Histor. State Ross. Karamzina, III, p. 110. Hist. Polsk. Dlugosz. I, 596. Hist. Russ. monum. tom. I. pag. 30 No. XXXIII. Hist. Russ. monum. tom. I., pag. 20 Acta Sanctor. under 7 Feb. Karamz. 111, 110 and note. 112. Histor. Karamz. III, 86 and 87. Some proved the existence of confessors of the Roman faith in our country at that time also by the fact that the Roman Catholic Bishopric, supposedly founded by Boleslav the brave in the ancient Slavic city on the Elbe, Lubusz, was constantly called Lubusz-Russian, and the local hierarchs had long laid claim to Rus' (quoniam ecclesia Lubucensis, they write in one charter, nobis divinitus commissa, quæ olim in Rusia sedem habebat catheadralem, et abinde per paganos et infidels expulse et crudeliter profugata ab antiquis temporibus... and so on (see de Episcopatu Kiioviensi... Friesii p. 3), - rights that must, they say, be based on something, when no one dared to refute them (see Matsievsky's History of the Early Church among the Slavs, p. 141). But this same letter of Bishop Peter of Lubech, written in 1373 (from which the papists usually cite only the beginning presented here in their favor), further explains the matter in a completely different way. There the Bishop clearly says that the residence of his see was once in Russia or in Gorizia near Lubech and Frankfurt on the right bank of the Oder, and that means, of course, Russia is not ours at all... (See the study of F. Moroshkin about the Russians and Slavs, section I. chapter I. and the letter itself in Mayak 1842. volume 4. book. VIII. mat., pp. 46–47). Bandtkie–dzieje... I. page 125. Annai. eccles. Baron. XIV, p. 362. Kiiovienses, antiquitus Galatae appellati, jam a centum annis, propter schism Græcanicum, pastorem et clerum Catholicum quin et populum Christianum habere desierant. See about this in Described. Kiev-Sof. Sobra on page 68. Histor. State Ross. Karamz. III, note. 19. Hist. Russ. monum. No. XXXIX. Description Kiev-Sof. Sob. page 83. But in our short Essay we cannot even list all the imaginary evidence that the zealous Jesuits invented to confirm their favorite idea that the papacy has existed in Russia since ancient times. It is known that one of them, Jan Alonsius Kulesz (in his book: Wiara prawoslawna, published in 1704 in Vilna) counts 2837 such evidence!!! Let us leave this for another time and place, limiting ourselves here to considering some of the most important ones. East. Karamz. III, approx. 153 and 244. See this original document in Hist. Russ. monument. No. XXXIV. Reasoning about heresies and coloring. in the Russian Church, Rudneva: Adrian and Dmitry. You might be interested in: