Every year, some poor soul of unsound mind, calling himself an Old Believer, starts acting foolish in public. Either he wanders off into the taiga, or buries himself in the ground… Those lying scare-stories, once invented to oppose the schism, are eagerly reproduced by some modern writers who portray Old Believers as half-crazy religious fanatics. It works effectively on the gullible and those prone to losing their minds. But in reality, of course, it’s all nonsense. The kerzhak-Old Believer was healthy, sober, clean, hardworking, fruitful, thought clearly, and was exceptionally disinclined toward any foolishness.

They themselves were not surprised by it. It was only later, when they had all been completely wiped out, that people began to wonder. How could they live without shouting, without orders, just by themselves? How could they raise children without beatings? How could they sow bread and reap it without commands? And how did they even think with their peasant minds?!

And since no one could understand it, they all together accused the kerzhaks of conservatism, inertia, and stubborn adherence to outdated traditions. It’s laughable to even hear. What outdated tradition?! Cleanliness, family values, and the expediency of all life? Where in Russia, one wonders, did such a thing ever exist and then become outdated?

Are there still mysteries in the old faith? Yes, of course. Old Belief is an extremely complex historical and social phenomenon. I believe we are still very, very far from a true understanding of this “peasant faith.” And my reflections are deliberately narrowed thematically—this is an attempt to show the natural-scientific aspect of Old Belief. So please do not scold me for failing to cover this or that. Others will cover it. And I will try to present what I, a physicist, think.

Why is it immediately assumed to be an atheistic view? That is completely wrong.

As a natural scientist, I spent quite a long time engaged in experimental physics. That is, in dialogue with Nature, the only creation of the Almighty accessible to us. One and the same throughout the entire Universe, with uniform laws for the most distant galaxies. With infinite complexity in both the large and the small. Such pursuits quickly instill the understanding of how insignificantly weak the human mind is. And how ridiculous is the pride of those who believe they can convey their voice to the Creator, and that their way is the only reliable one…

In the beginning was… what? The WORD? No. In the beginning was the LOGOS (as in the Greek originals). And that, in precise translation, is LAW. (Compare: geo-logy, bio-logy…) And all that is accessible to man is to follow the thought of the Creator (Newton), to comprehend Nature. The laws of the Creator, whose complexity is infinite, unfold in the process of study, and there is nothing that could change them. The Creator is not a State Duma deputy; He did not create laws in order to violate them Himself.

From a physicist’s point of view, the peasant-kerzhak was my colleague: he was in constant dialogue with the Creator, with Nature; he was the same natural investigator as I. But peasants, deprived of access to education and without means of intellectual communication with society, could record the achievements of the mind only in their way of life.

Peasant-Old Believers treated labor on the land with the same fervor and the same awe as prayer. In fact, it was a kind of prayer. The peasant comprehended the great Laws, tried to become a co-Creator, forming a family Universe. House, livestock, field—all of it was arranged in the image and likeness of God.

It is regrettable that the “cultured” part of Russian society looked upon the peasantry with contempt, upon their life—as darkness, backwardness, savagery, and folly.

“They, the demons, are swarming all around, you just don’t see them! At night they look for unwashed dishes, and all sorts of dirt. There they have full freedom, the demons. And they get married, and hold weddings, and give birth to little demons. And if you eat from such dishes, they’ll jump into your mouth and ruin you.” Well, replace the word “demons” with “microbes.” And think: these ideas arose no later than the 15th century. And the “dark, backward” schismatic woman who spoke these words somewhere in the 17th century was far ahead of all Europe, which had not yet created the science of hygiene. Our schismatics, in the time of Catherine II, knew how to resist even the plague, though they did not know the word “quarantine.”

I believe that the strongest alloy of natural-scientific, moral-ethical, organizational, and dogmatic principles was the result of a collective brainstorming, literally a national intellectual feat, later called the peasant faith, ancient Orthodoxy. More precisely, a part of it, and only in the form accessible to the intellect of the 17th century. Through the efforts of the ideologists of the schism, folk knowledge, as sociologists say, was verbalized and rationalized: turned into a coherent worldview. And at least in that form, the intellectual achievements of our ancestors became known to society. Without the schism, no one would have known.

A significant part of the cultural heritage of the kerzhaks has already been lost, since their way of life is lost, and the intellectual achievements of peasants are still valued at nothing. Because what is ordinary and familiar often seems simple…

Here’s such a simple phrase: the peasant sowed rye. What’s interesting about that?! Well, a peasant. Well, he sowed. And rye—who doesn’t know it? Yet in these three words there are two historical riddles. Let’s start with rye. More precisely, with winter rye. This plant played a huge role in the history of Russia. There is not a drop of exaggeration here.

Winter rye is a weed by origin, everywhere considered merely an ineradicable admixture in wheat. Rye survived in the most unfavorable years, when the main crop perished. And black rye bread was considered the bread of famine years. In the ancient Russian states, winter rye was sown only in the Novgorod lands, the coldest ones, where wheat simply did not ripen. It was precisely through the cultivation of rye that the great northern peasant—the Novgorod peasant—arose, creating what is called the fallow system of agriculture.

Sown in mid-August, rye rises with the autumn rains and sends its roots down to a depth of up to 1 meter; no weeds can trouble it anymore. Rye cleanses and ennobles the soil, coping even with such a villain of fields and gardens as couch grass. It is also important that rye seed does not need to be stored all winter long, protected from rotting, freezing, or rodents. Thus, rye is simply ideal for sowing on newly cultivated lands. It was precisely with rye that our peasant crossed the Urals and Siberia, laying the foundation for life across those vast expanses. Without their own bread, no one could have lived there. The Urals are the zone of the northernmost seed crop production in the world.

Rye, capable of growing even on the poorest and—what is very important—acidic soils (and that is exactly what we have), dramatically increases its yield when manure is applied. If you want a good harvest—keep livestock. Rye sharply boosts productivity when sown precisely at the right time. Not earlier and not later. “Prepare to die, but sow the rye,” the peasants used to say.

Since ripe rye sheds its grain very quickly, it is reaped in the waxy stage—that is, at incomplete ripeness. If cut too early, the grain will be thin, the yield lower, the germination poorer. If delayed—the grain will shatter. So rye is the highest peasant piloting skill; it demands mastery, responsibility, and enormous experience accumulated over generations. And also a certain level of prosperity. A poor man without a proper household will never get a good harvest. In our parts, only the kerzhaks—Old Believers—knew how to grow rye properly.

They also actively used what was called “roshcha,” that is, the same rye, immediately after harvesting moistened and sprouted in the dark. Wheat, right after harvesting, cannot be sprouted that way; it requires vernalization, that is, cold treatment. After all, wheat is supposed to sprout in spring, not in autumn! In this sense, rye is simply beyond competition.

It was rye, for centuries, that formed the basis of the economic independence of the kerzhaks. Roshcha was historically the first—and still unsurpassed—raw material for moonshine. The Vyatka ancestors of the Perm peasants were the creators, and later the main suppliers, of this raw material. The state monopoly on distilling in Russia would tighten or loosen from time to time, but the peasants were always with their own. In our Perm province, moreover, right next door was Udmurtia, where they always distilled their own kumyshka, no matter how many times it was forbidden. The benefit was twofold. First, there was always a market for rye. Second, being fierce abstainers, the kerzhaks themselves did not drink vodka or moonshine; instead they drank rye kvass and braga made from roshcha. These were everyday drinks, liquid bread.

Just think about it: a drink from sprouted grain—every single day! Modern science presents as a sensation that sprouting grain, its sprouts and roots, are enriched with biologically active substances; they are strongly recommended for children’s nutrition as well as for restorative diets. Yet the kerzhaks consumed this unique product—for centuries, every day… Is it not from here that the famous kerzhak fertility and seething vitality come?

Rye still fills its ears in our fields every summer, but most of the other elements of the traditional peasant way of life have now been lost. This includes, for example, such a subtle matter as the moral-psychological and organizational foundations of the Old Believer community. There was no shortage of astonishing things there.

An outsider, if allowed into a peasant izba, would see crowding: so little space in the house, yet so many people. The man himself with his wife, and the old woman, and however many children—four or maybe eight. Yet it was not crowded! And there is nothing surprising in that. After all, fingers on a hand are not crowded, are they? So too the family was not crowded. The house was the dwelling of a single many-headed being—the kerzhak family. Everyone had their place. Day and night, at prayer and at table. Just like fingers on a hand.

As soon as a child could stand on his own two feet from the cradle, they would put him in the round dance at a holiday. The little person would grab hold of his sisters and brothers, and from then on they could never be separated for the rest of his life. And there was work for everyone to do. And each one knew and saw for himself what needed doing. And if fate carried someone far from kin (to soldier’s service, for instance)—they would write a letter at the first opportunity. One is amazed today, reading those letters. Practically the entire letter consists of greetings and bows. “We bow to you, sister Maremyana, from our white face down to the damp earth…” And then more greetings and bows to all the family, from the old grandfather to the infant in the cradle. “And does our dear uncle Aleksey Filimonovich come to us? Give him my greeting too.”

In Russian artistic literature there has always been a certain perplexity: just where is folk wisdom located? Strangely enough, modern information technologies provide substantial help in understanding this. Namely, the concept of “distributed knowledge.” Modern computer networks are distributed databases—that is, a collection of relatively low-powered computers united into enormous systems. Our Russian intellectuals could never understand why no single peasant gives the impression of being a great sage, yet the wisdom of the people somehow exists?! And that is precisely the informational power of the network.

Look: in Russia the authorities persecuted Old Believers for centuries as best they could. The diaspora—whether in the Baltics, Canada, or Brazil—lived as it wished. In Russia, people of Old Believer origin form a constellation of brilliant names among merchants, entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists… The Ryabushinskys, the Morozovs, the Tretyakovs are well known. In our parts—masses of merchants, brilliant inventors at the Demidov factories, the very creators of the steam locomotive, the Cherepanov brothers, and so on.

The greatest economist, Nobel Prize laureate Vasiliy Vasilyevich Leontyev (lived in the USA from 1930. All his life he dreamed of making Russia happy, but Russia did not want it.) Grandfather—an Old Believer peasant; father already a St. Petersburg merchant.

Ivan Yefremov, the famous science-fiction writer, thinker, major paleontologist. His grandfather, Khariton Yefremov, from the Volga Old Believers, was taken into the Semenovsky regiment for his stature, ended up in St. Petersburg, and stayed there. Ivan’s father was already a respectable merchant. And Ivan, with all the kerzhak energy and indescribable giftedness, went off into completely different fields of activity.

Whom did the foreign Old Believer diaspora produce? Seemingly no one.

Collectivization destroyed the very foundations of traditional peasant life, including Old Believer life… The destruction of kerzhakdom will be understood for a long time yet. And it will not be understood until the minds of those who understand are cleansed of arrogance. Of the certainty that they themselves, educated people, are of course on a higher level of development compared to these bast-shoe toilers. That the hierarchical pyramid of one person’s subordination to another, and of many people to one—sometimes established by force, sometimes with blood—is the constantly progressing form of Russian life. Atomized by individualism and armed with personal freedom, Western society is seen as an utterly unattainable ideal. Whereas family concord and the community built upon it are archaic, antediluvian—in a word, primitive.

This arrogance has become so deeply rooted in the minds of domestic thinkers that neither centuries of economic success nor a people healthy in body, mind, and morals convince them. A people capable of instantly rising to the level of any intellectual achievement of humanity, mastering it, developing it, and adapting it to themselves. The doom of “archaism” raises no doubts in anyone. And the fact that in Russia it was finally destroyed is seen in such a context as a sad but inevitable affair. They say the old always perishes when it collides with the new.

In reality, what perished was a complex, subtle system of human relationships, centuries of social experience in self-government.

This structure was destroyed by something far cruder, primitively cannibalistic. Well, such things have happened in history before. And the fact that the village land has become depopulated, the people have gone wild, degenerated, and perished—there is nothing new in that either. There are many places on earth where only the wind blows sand across the ruins of vanished civilizations, and somewhere even the ruins are no longer known, buried deep under the sand.

 

source

To Ivan, the first servant, a new son among the children of the Church, from which all are born through the font of holy baptism—in it you too desired to be baptized with holy baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

On the fact that the Orthodox faith leads to baptism voluntarily. Remember yourself that no torments, nor any threat, compelled you to this. But you yourself, of your own will, having seen that our Orthodox faith in Christ God is immaculate and pure, desired to be baptized and to be equal with us, Orthodox Christians.

On the time of baptism. And this happened to you not in infancy, but at a mature age, and not many years ago, but recently.

On the renunciation of Satan. And therefore you must and need to remember how you stretched out your hands and renounced Satan, and all his angels, and all his works.

On the renunciation of heresies. After that you renounced the heretics and heresies that distorted the Orthodox faith: from the accursed Formosus and the nasal Peter, and Martin Luther, and from the others who followed them, their teaching, and their works. From all of them you renounced.

On evil works. Now remember and do not forget what the satanic works are, from which you renounced: pride, haughtiness, falsehood, flattery, perjury, heresy, sorcery, deceit, envy, uncleanness, fornication, theft, robbery, and every malice, and impurity, and the rest.

On forgetting the heresies you formerly held. Of those evil heretics from whom you renounced at holy baptism, do not recall them; after the renunciation, do not heed their teaching. And do not return your thoughts to them anymore, and always avoid their heresies, so as to forget them. And if your former life comes to mind—how you lived in Poland, and here with your masters—and the teaching on faith of those heretics: Formosus and Peter and Martin—know that they are enemies of God and murderers of men. Such is the renunciation from those heretics and from their heresies.

On the promise to Christ at baptism. You must and need to remember how you, looking to the East, stretched out your hands and promised Christ to love Him, and to do His works, and always to fulfill His commandments and precepts, which the Lord God Jesus Christ Himself gave us in the Gospel, and as He commanded His holy disciples the apostles to teach. And how He confirmed this through the seven councils of the holy fathers.

Praise to the one who has been baptized. Know that you have done a good deed and, truly, you are now born; you have washed your body and cleansed your soul. You have left those who gave you birth and come to know the One who created you. You have fled from darkness and, having received light, drawn near to God.

On drawing near to God. Listen, remembering, and consider, understanding, by what means you have drawn near to God. Because you were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and have now given a promise to Christ through holy baptism, you are a servant of God and one promised to Christ. Do not depart from Him by your works, for the sake of your promise and for the sake of your deeds. And God will draw near to you, and you will be God’s.

How to gain a good name and inherit grace. If you want to be God’s, always keep God in your heart and act everywhere according to righteousness. Do not fight, do not steal, do not lie. Be humble and have love for every person. And in the house of your master be obedient and faithful in everything, good and not cunning, and not lazy in doing good. Thus you will acquire all that is good and inherit every grace.

On wisdom. If you want to seek wisdom and have good understanding, and to adorn your character, study books and the reading of divine words, and the teaching of His saints; and then you will see them, for the human soul is honored above the whole world. For the wealth of the whole world is perishable and mortal, but the soul is immortal.

On the soul. If you understand that your soul is immortal, then you will comprehend the true Orthodox faith, in which the prophets rejoiced, the apostles took pride, all the faithful rejoiced, the hierarchs were adorned, the martyrs were crowned.

On the right faith. Now the word is about it. And I tell you, such is this Orthodox faith, that in that faith people living on earth are united in love with the heavenly angels, conversing with them and glorifying and singing to God; and after the departure of their souls to God, they work great miracles: they give sight to the blind, heal the lame and paralyzed, restore the demon-possessed, and cure every infirmity and disease.

On the saints. Such, as I say, were among the hierarchs: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Clement pope of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Peter, Alexis, and Jonah of Moscow; among the venerable fathers—Sergius of Radonezh, Cyril of Belozersk, Varlaam of Khutyn. And many such, their number and names only God knows.

On the food of the saints. Do not be surprised at this and do not think it is a lie, that by human prayer sight was granted to the blind and every infirmity and disease was healed. For their life too is not human, since they endure as though bodiless. Their food is bread and water, and they eat rarely and little. One eats every other day, another every two days, another every week, another every two weeks, and another eats nothing for forty days. And another does not eat bread, only grass and roots.

On the clothing of the saints. They also take no care for clothing; barefoot and naked they endure the heat of the sun and the frost of winter, and every wandering over the earth, over wood and over stone.

On the prayer of the saints. Their prayer to God is also always unceasing. Day and night they stand like an unshakable pillar. They sleep only a little on the ground. Such is the faith and love of the saints for God.

On the prayer of the laity. For us who live now, it is impossible to endure such labor; therefore the holy fathers established church rules for us. They also commanded prayer at home: according to each person’s strength they established and commanded to pray. And without the church rule and without home prayer it is impossible to be an Orthodox Christian, and it is not permitted.

On the church rule. The church rule consists of vespers with compline, matins with midnight office, the hours with the liturgy.

At what time what chant is to be sung. Listen, then, why the holy fathers established in the church when to sing what chant—vespers or compline, midnight office or matins, the hours or the liturgy, or a moleben—and understand this:

On vespers. Vespers is commanded to be sung because the Lord allowed us to pass the day from morning to evening in health. It also foretells and anticipates the evening.

On compline. Compline is commanded to be sung and to pray to God, that He may grant us to pass the night without fear and to perform the night prayers as the faithful.

On the midnight office. The midnight office is sung because at midnight God will come to judge the living and the dead, the righteous and the sinners, and to render to each according to his deeds.

On matins. Matins is commanded to be sung because in the deep morning, that is, very early, Christ our God rose from the dead and granted eternal life to all the faithful.

On the hours.

The first hour is to be sung to glorify Him who gave light, who created day and night, and who, by His great mercy, illumined us with the light of day.

The third hour is to be sung because at that hour the Lord sent from the Father His Holy Ghost upon His holy disciples and apostles, and then they began to speak in strange tongues.

The sixth hour is to be sung because at that hour our Lord Jesus Christ, of His own will, was crucified in the flesh for our sins. At that same hour Adam was created, and by the serpent’s deception he was deprived of his likeness. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ suffered in the flesh at that hour, to deliver us from death in sin.

The ninth hour is to be sung because at that hour the Lord gave up His spirit to the Father and suffered in the flesh on the cross, remaining God. He died in the flesh for the sake of those in Hades and destroyed the kingdom of Hades. And on the third day He rose and raised up with Himself all the faithful dead.

On the liturgy. The holy liturgy is celebrated—this is a great and ineffable mystery. Then angels invisibly serve together with the priests. Then, like our Lord Jesus Christ, the invisible Lamb is slain and given as food to the faithful, for deliverance and cleansing from sins. It is enough to speak of this here: in the proper place and at another time you will find writing about it. For now this is sufficient.

On molebens. Molebens are sung whenever anyone wishes, early or late, by day or by night, in the morning or in the evening, for there is no prohibition by time: just as wherever they meet a king, there they entreat him, so understand this.

On the church rule. Here is the word to you about the church rule. Attend to it and learn the good customs of true piety. And [listen to] teachings about morals and words, and about the good deeds of people. And about good servants, not evil ones.

On the church. Listen about the church itself—how to think of it, how to enter it, and how to stand in it. For our holy fathers called the Church of God an earthly Heaven and the Bride of Christ, and the House of God. Because God dwells here in it, and to Him all the faithful come here, and from Him they ask mercy and forgiveness of sins. And they receive it if they ask with undoubting faith.

Further on the church. Listen diligently to this and do not consider this church a mere house, for it is sprinkled with the blood of Christ and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Therefore let nothing unclean be in it: neither beast nor any other defilement may enter it. But if ever they enter through negligence or for some other reason, then the priest sprinkles it with holy water and prayer, so that it may remain clean and holy. Hear my words, for you are newly enlightened; you will not be able to understand all this yourself unless you hear it from someone. And for this reason I have now written to you a little about Christian customs, so that you may be faithful to them and come to know God within yourself. For good has been done to you, not evil.

On foreign faiths. There is indeed the Latin faith and the German faith, and the faith in which you once believed. But these faiths are incorrect and untrue, distorted by evil people, impious heretics. Therefore I have written to you about the Divinity Himself and about His Church, also about prayer to Him and about fasting. Attend to this.

On the temples of the unbelievers. There are indeed churches among the Latins and among the Germans, and in Poland. But they are not sanctified nor arranged as the holy fathers and the divine apostles commanded; rather, evil heretics have plundered and stripped all their church beauty and taken away all honor. They do not even consecrate the church, nor place a cross on it, nor bring holy icons into it, nor adorn it with them. And though they gather books of divine words in it, they do not honor them, and by this they dishonor it. In short, their church is entirely deprived of every church adornment. There is no voice in it to proclaim the true path with words. They do not sing stichera, nor chant canons, nor proclaim ikoi. Lamps, theotokia, and staurotheotokia are not proclaimed. Holy and sacred doxologies never occur in it.

On the Christian Church. Among us in Orthodox Christianity there is the holy, immaculate, apostolic Church, which is sanctified by divine and sacred-bearing men, adorned and perfected by the preachings of the holy apostles, and filled with every good thing. Therefore learn how to approach it, how to enter it, how to stand in it, and how to pray in it.

On approaching the church. Now learn this to guard against: when you approach the church, do not hasten to enter it. Stand outside at the doors and question your conscience—what happened to you in sleep or waking, from demonic disturbance, fantasy, and deception—and whether, while going, you thought of any fornication or uncleanness. If so, then do not enter the church, but stand outside like Adam before the gates of Paradise, and know that the enemy separates you from the Church.

On the same. If you bear enmity or are greatly angry with someone, do not enter it either until the enmity subsides and your conscience is reconciled.

On the same. Even if you have guarded yourself from the uncleanness of demonic fantasy, still do not enter the church quickly. Bow three times, looking at the deesis, and say with the first bow: “God, be merciful…”, with the second: “God, cleanse…”, with the third: “Thou who hast created me…”. Then turn to all four sides and bow to the people standing here, saying to them: “Forgive me, fathers and brethren”, and so enter the church.

On entering the church. Entering the church with fear and trembling, recognize yourself as sinful and unworthy to enter it. For you enter the earthly Heaven, where you are to pray to your Creator and our God, and think as though you stand in Heaven. Think of nothing earthly, but only sigh, praying for your sins.

On standing in the church. Stand in one place, quietly and humbly; do not push anyone, do not crowd without extreme need. And having stood, also make three bows as I told you before, with the same words—“God, be merciful…”.

On bows. If there is no feast, not on Saturday nor on Sunday, make all bows to the ground; but on a feast, on Saturday, and on Sunday, make bows to the waist. Then say: “It is truly meet…”, all to the end, and a bow to the ground—even if on a feast, Saturday, or Sunday—then “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”, also with three bows as before.

On bows to people. Then bow to the four sides to the people standing around you and say to them the same as before: “Forgive me, fathers and brethren”. And bow to the waist, not to the ground.

On [spiritual] authority. If spiritual authority happens to be present anywhere, always bow to the ground before bowing to people and say: “Forgive me, holy father, and bless, and pray for me, a sinner”. Say this to yourself, not aloud.

On entering the church. Entering the church, as though finding Noah’s Ark, you have escaped the flood of sin. And stand worthily as in Heaven itself. And behold, you are joined to the Heavenly Powers.

On standing in the church. Stand meekly and humbly, turn your face to the image of Christ and make prayer to Him unceasingly, keeping it on your lips.

On the prayer to God. Say the prayer to Christ thus: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”. Say it to yourself, not aloud, for people.

On the prayer to the Cross. When you see the image of the Life-giving Cross of the Lord, say: “We bow to Thy Cross, O Master, and glorify Thy holy resurrection”, and bow to the Cross.

On the prayer to the Most Holy God-bearer. When you see the image of the Most Holy God-bearer, also direct your mind to her prototype, to our Lady the God-bearer herself. Say: “Most holy Lady Mistress God-bearer, have mercy on me and save me, and pray to Thy Son, our true God, that He may save and have mercy on me, a sinner.”

On the prayer to John the Forerunner. When you look at the image of John the Forerunner, direct your thoughts to him, saying: “Holy John, prophet and forerunner, baptist of the Lord, pray to Christ our Savior God that He may save and have mercy on us sinners.”

On the saints. When you look at the image of any saint, say: “Holy [prophet or apostle or other saint named] of God, pray to Christ our God that He may save and have mercy on me, a sinner.”

On the prayer of the saints to God. For all the saints pray to God for us, and God has mercy and saves us through His saints, always being merciful to their prayers for sinners.

On prayer where there is no image. Understand this also: if you have special faith in any saint or particularly honor his memory, even if you do not see his image, still call upon him to pray to God and invoke him as your helper by his holy name. And so God will help you in sorrows and illnesses and in every trouble.

On faith in the saints. Even if you sin in something, but fervently believe in some saint. Also call upon the Most Pure Mother of God herself everywhere, to entreat Her Son and our God—even if you do not see Her image. Likewise make prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself always and everywhere. Not only in church, but on the way, at home, in bed, as I told you before.

On standing in the church. When you have already taken your place in the church, do not look around here and there; do not even leave your place, remember the place where you stand, do not move to another unless by extreme need or because of crowding or to honor some person. And then firmly take hold of your laziness: do not move one foot from the other, do not lean against the wall or pillar. If you see someone doing something incorrectly, do not condemn him, for he is unlearned. And if you yourself correct yourself, do not be proud, for God does not love pride. Do not let your body relax, nor give yourself to the vanity of this world; only listen to the singing and attend to the reading. And if you hear some word and cannot understand it, ask those who know after the service.

On what kinds of bows there are. Understand what I wrote to you earlier: what the church is, why to go there, and how to stand in it. Now listen to these words of mine. There are three bows with names: the first is called the ordinary bow, that is, from the chest to the navel; the second is the middle bow, that is, to the waist; the third bow is the great one, that is, to the ground. When it happens to make prostrations to the ground, do not strike your head against the church floor or the ground, nor in the house either. Bend your knees and lower your head low, but do not press it to the ground; rather lead both your hands together from the heart and place them neatly on the ground, without sticking out your elbows. And when you rise or bow, do not drag or stamp your feet. Also bend and raise your knees together. Learn this from those who know and be taught by the learned. About waist and chest bows, you should bow well—that I do not write to you.

On prostrations to the ground. Remember that at festal vespers, or vespers on Friday, or on Saturday, or on Sunday, there are no prostrations to the ground, only to the waist. At the dismissal, and also at the words “the very God-bearer [from It is truly meet]…”, there is always a prostration to the ground. Likewise on compline and at the zadostoinik there is a prostration to the ground; the others are to the waist.

On forgiveness. When there is the forgiveness, the priest says: “Christ the true…”, say to yourself: Amen. The priest bows to the people standing there, and you also bow to the ground with forgiveness. When the priest rises and says the commemoration, and then makes three prostrations to the ground before the royal doors, then you also bow three times to the ground, and at each bow say as usual, as I told you before: “God, be merciful…” and the rest. The priest says: “Bless, fathers and brethren”, and you also bow to him, and rising say to him: “May God forgive thee, honorable father”, and then bow to the ground, whatever the day may be, saying before him thus: “Forgive me, father…”, all to the end. And the priest answers: “By His grace…”. Do the same at the midnight office and at the dismissal. And after the hours before the liturgy, according to the same custom.

This is also called the threefold forgiveness, for every Christian as a confession of his sins. And remember this.

On bows at the liturgy. When you begin to hear the liturgy—and about the beginning it was told you before—now I will tell you how and where to bow. Make the beginning according to the custom told you, and stand with fear as before Christ our King Himself, and listen to the holy singing. When the priest comes out with the Gospel, bow saying: “Lord Jesus Christ…”. When they sing “Glory to Thee, O Lord”—a bow; after the Gospel—a bow. At the litany of supplication, at each petition three bows—for the tsar and tsaritsa and their children, and for the hierarch, and for the whole church clergy, and for all Christians. And if it seems too many to you, at least make one waist bow at each petition, and if there is no feast, it is good to make them to the ground. At the transfer, at the words “…may the Lord God remember…”, three prostrations to the ground. But on a feast, on Saturday, and on Sunday—one to the ground and two to the waist. At the “I believe…” cross yourself without a bow and listen. At the “It is truly meet…” and after “It is truly meet…” always prostrations to the ground—even on a feast, Saturday, and Sunday. After “Our Father…” a waist bow. At “With the fear of God…” always a bow, at “And now…” a bow. At “Blessed be the name…” three bows, and all the bows from “It is truly meet…” according to the day. At the dismissal after “It is truly meet…” a prostration to the ground, even on a feast. “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”. Then three bows as at the beginning, as I told you earlier, and so on. At compline and at the hours the bows are according to discernment, depending on the day—at the “Glories” in the Psalter and at the litanies, and at the Trisagion, and at “Our Father…”, and at “Come, let us worship…” three bows each, according to discernment, looking at the day. Remember all this and watch those who know.

On standing before the icons. Stand before the image of Christ and before the Most Pure One and His saints with all humility and self-abasement. And pray fervently, and hold undoubting faith in your heart.

On icons. For if any of the Orthodox stands before the image of Christ or the God-bearer with faith and humility, he will receive what he asks. Because where the image is, there is the grace of Him who is depicted.

On a sign from an image. I know from writings of such a man who, looking at the image of the Most Pure God-bearer, saw a human face unspeakably shining, so that he could not call it human, but the light from that face shone beyond human understanding.

On miracles from icons. Likewise from writings I found about miracles from the image of the God-bearer: sometimes a voice comes from the image of Christ, likewise from the image of the God-bearer; sometimes tears, sometimes fragrant myrrh flows from dry wood. And of those miracles there is an countless multitude. For those who pray with faith the blind received sight, the lame walked, the paralyzed were healed, the demon-possessed were made chaste, and those suffering every disease were cured.

Understand rightly: I do not tell you that the image does this, but the Prototype Himself, He whose image it is. He Himself acts through His image for the sake of the faith of the one praying. Understand and comprehend this.

On molebens. When they sing a moleben in church or at home, then one should strive to stand with all heartfelt contrition and pray and ask, for that prayer is called supplication and thanksgiving. Therefore I spoke to you before about the same: a moleben is sung at any time, late and early. At each ode three bows, and you listen standing. When the priest sings “Save from troubles…” or “Preserve…” and bows three times, you also bow with the priest, depending on the day, as I told you before. When the Gospel is read, also bow before and after.

On hearing the Gospel. Hear it with understanding and attend diligently: this is the word of Christ’s most pure lips, by whom all things were created. By Him we also live and die, which means we depart to Him.

On how to venerate the Gospel. When you want to venerate the Gospel, then with all your soul and conscience consider whether you are worthy, and that there be no uncleanness in your body or your clothes. Also leave all evil and cunning thoughts and understand why you venerate it. For when Moses received the law from God and gave it to the Israelites, they, having heard, said: we will do as God told us and showed us. Likewise here understand and submit to the word of God and promise to do as you heard in the Gospel. Venerate the Gospel: to the crucifixion that is in the middle of the Gospel [on the cover]; kiss the evangelist that is below on the right side, but do not kiss the crucifixion. And going back to your place, bow to the priest who read the Gospel and say: “I believe, O Lord, in the holy Gospel; Christ God, help me and save my soul”, and read the Jesus prayer.

On “It is truly meet…” at molebens. When they sing “It is truly meet…” or “Mistress…”, always a prostration to the ground. And crush your heart with humility. It is good if someone weeps then.

On the litany. When they say the litany, that is, when the priest or deacon prays, you also pray for the petitions, as I told you: for the tsar and for the patriarch, and for all Christendom.

On the censer. When the priest or deacon brings the censer with incense, spread your hands as though receiving the spirit of life, and say the Jesus prayer, for this is called the censing of the life of good deeds. Thus also prayer ascends to God. Of this David writes in the psalms: “Let my prayer be set forth as incense before thee; the lifting up of my hands…”

Dismissal. And at the dismissal, when you approach the cross, examine your conscience to see if you are worthy. And when the priest blesses you with the cross, kiss the foot of the cross, that is, the hand of the priest holding the cross. And returning to your place, bow to the priest. To the cross say: “I believe, O Lord, and worship Thy life-giving Cross, for on it Thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the earth.” And so, waiting until they sing the dismissal, you go to the house of your master in peace. And always guard against leaving the church singing before the dismissal, except only in extreme need or when your master sends. Also keep the beginning of the singing.

On the spiritual father. Honor priests everywhere, but above all your own spiritual father. If you have no spiritual father, choose and call one, and do not live without him. For it is written in our Christian law: whoever lives in the world and has no spiritual father is not a Christian. And again: woe to that man living in the world if he dies without having a spiritual father. It would have been better for him not to have been born.

On the rank of priesthood. Great is the priestly rank, for it is the apostolic inheritance. Because to them is given authority from God over human souls, which they can bind and loose. Therefore many names are given to the priestly rank: Purifier; Mediator to God; Light of the world; Salt of the earth; Guide to the lost; Teacher of the unwise; Watchman and Shepherd of the rational sheep of Christ’s flock; Hidden House; Priest of the offering; Spiritual Trumpet; Source of living water; Mouth of God giving peace to the world; Helmsman; Eye of the church; Keeper of the door of birth and the rest. And you, knowing this, do not live without him.

On the remission of sins. If you have sinned or will sin in anything before God, and coming to your spiritual father you confess, he will be your mediator to God and will loose the sins that bind you. And without him no one can free himself. Even if you intend to do good deeds, first receive blessing from him, as though receiving a charter and seal from the ruling king and taking up arms.

On the priestly blessing. Receive the blessing as honor and joy. It is the crosswise overshadowing of his hand with the cross upon your forehead, upon your chest, then upon the right shoulder and the left. Having received the blessing, kiss his hand. And if he does not give his hand, entreat him to give it to you to kiss. Did I not tell you that great is the Cross, and great is the power of the Life-giving Cross, by which you also shield yourself.

On the cross we wear. It is not without reason, but full of great mystery: when you fold the thumb, called the finger, with the two smaller ones, the last and the penultimate, this signifies the image of the mystery and the pre-eternal essence of the indivisible Trinity: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And when you fold the middle finger with the index finger bent, it signifies the two natures in one person, Divinity and Humanity; therefore they are placed on the forehead and brought down to the chest and to the navel, and this signifies that God the Word descended to earth and was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and lived with men on earth, and suffered for us and for our salvation; the placing on the right shoulder signifies that He ascended into the heavens and sat at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come a second time to earth to judge the living and the dead and to render to each according to his deeds. It also points to the Kingdom of Heaven for those who in the day of the Dread Judgment will stand on the right; and when you move your hand to the left shoulder, this shows that sinners will stand on the left and be sent into eternal torment. Having made the sign of the cross, straighten your hand and so bow.

On the imperfect cross. Therefore watch yourself that all is depicted correctly. First the Trinity, also the two natures, the descent, and the placing of the hand on the forehead and lowering to the chest. If anyone does not depict this correctly, he does not confess the indivisible Trinity. Also the placing on the forehead and to the navel. The body signifies the image of God, and the navel signifies the footstool of the Lord, the head of Adam. If anyone does not show this earnestly, he does not confess the incarnation of God the Word. Also, if anyone by laziness and negligence does not bring his hand to the right shoulder or the left, he does not confess the indivisible Trinity and the Judge of the living and the dead. Therefore beware and do not grow lazy in bringing your hand to the right shoulder and to the left.

On the same. Remember and do not forget the cross. That you cross not your clothing but your body: for this you are overshadowed with the cross. Apply your hand distinctly so that your body clearly feels it.

From the perfect cross the demons tremble. If anyone makes the cross and depicts it as the holy apostles and holy fathers bequeathed, the demons greatly fear and tremble at him and flee far from him. But whoever depicts it not as it should be, the demons rejoice at him and entice him with every temptation. Such is the sign of the Life-bearing Cross of the Lord.

Why we bow to the Cross. When you bow, this signifies Adam’s transgression and the accomplishment of repentance, and the raising up to the original incorruption. From this also man bows to man, because in him is the image of God, and according to the image of God he was created.

On the neck cross. Listen about the cross that you wear on your shoulders: remember your agreement between you and Christ Himself. When you came out of the font of Baptism, then you promised to be a servant of Christ and bowed to His Crucifixion, that is, to Christ’s Cross, and were signed with it, and received the cross from the priest’s hands, and hung it on your shoulders, and so accepted Christ’s covenant. And you promised Christ to follow this covenant according to the Gospel, as it is written: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; he is not worthy of me.” You took the Cross, promised to follow Christ. Remember then to bear on your body the image of Christ’s Cross, on which He of His own will suffered for our salvation. Here is God’s covenant to you, here is the sign of Christ the King. Here is the banner of the heavenly hosts. By it they will know that thou art a servant of Christ. And if anyone asks you—“What is this?”—tell him as it is written: “I bear on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” And when someone says to you: “Who commanded this, and where is it written?”—tell him that the Lord commanded to bear the Cross. When He went to voluntary suffering, He bequeathed to us who believed in Him to bear the Cross, as the divine apostle Luke says: “They took one Simon of Cyrene, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.” Then also the wise thief through the cross entered Paradise. And if anyone blasphemes the cross, depart from him quickly, and know that he is an unbeliever. For when people inquire much about divine things, they have pride in their heart. And God departs from such a one, and he goes down to hell, for he tries to know what is above him, but does not keep what is given to him.

On offerings to the church. Listen about when you bring what offering to the church of God. From yourself—what you have—a candle or prosphora, or something else from your possessions. For the gathering for prayerful service—either kutia or incense. Or for the divine service for the Divine Mysteries—grape wine, or a book for the enlightenment of the Divine Church, or something else. And all this is great good.

That what you bring be your own, not another’s. You should take care that whatever offering from us be honest, that is, gained by your own labor, not stolen by you, not obtained by any cunning.

That it be new, not old. That it be new, not old; the best, not the last or spoiled; that it be offered from love, without noise and without publicity—for God loves a cheerful giver in quietness.

Not to take anything from the church, since all is royal. See that you take nothing from the church to the house: neither church vessels, nor priestly vestments, nor candles lit in the church for your own need, for these are dedicated to God.

On the canon. When you receive communion or when you sing a canon for health or for repose, remember that you be worthy.

On the prosphora. When you consume the prosphora, taking it from the priest after the liturgy, remember how to use it: with all caution, standing not sitting; and spread a clean cloth, and consume over it. Or over the table, or over something clean, so that by your negligence crumbs do not fall and be trampled. That bread is holy, and remember how you should consume the prosphora. And it would be good for you before it on that day to sing the whole church rule, and so taking eat it. Also beware of defilement before that day.

On feasts. The feasts of Christ and of the God-bearer, and of the holy apostles, and martyrs, and hierarchs celebrate with a pure soul and undefiled conscience, with righteousness and love to God and to men. Not with malice and cunning, not with rudeness and gluttony, not with drunkenness. And do not mock.

End of the tale on the church rule. Here is to you in brief a certain tale on what is most necessary for people living in the world. If you learn this, you yourself will understand more than this, for by this writing I have given you the small and necessary, as to a newborn infant.

Beginning of the word on the home rule. Listen about the home rule: how you, rising early from your bed, should pray to God.

On rising from sleep. When you wake, cross your face three times with the Jesus prayer, and so rise. And do what is usual, and wash with water.

On prayer. Stand in the house before the image of Jesus Christ, and standing say first of all: “Bless, Father.” Then always bow three times to the ground and at each bow say: 1. “God, be merciful…”, 2. “O Lord who created me…”, 3. “Without number have I sinned…”. Then say, standing before the image: “Glory to Thee, O our God, glory to Thee, Source of life, glory to Thee. To Thee glory is due forever, amen.” Then “Through the prayers of our holy fathers…”, “O Heavenly King…”, the Trisagion three times with the usual bows, and for whoever wishes, prostrations to the ground are not forbidden, depending on the day. After “Our Father…”—“Lord, have mercy” 12 times; then “Glory…, and now…” and “Come, let us worship…”; if you know it, read “Having risen from sleep…” [and if not, omit it for your ignorance, later you will learn and read]. After “Come, let us worship…” the 50th psalm, and “I believe in one God…”. And then 100 Jesus prayers and 12 bows with the Jesus prayer. Then “It is truly meet…”, as I taught you before. Then “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”, “Through the prayers of Thy most pure Mother and all the saints…”. And then with prayer bow for the sovereign tsar and for your master, and for your mistress, and then for whomever you wish. Learn: here is your morning rule, for every day, rising from sleep.

On prayer before the meal. After that, the second rule: when you want to taste bread, by no means do this simply and silently, like an unbeliever, godless and ungrateful. But do everything according to the Christian law. Read “Our Father” all to the end, then “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”. Then read the Jesus prayer and cross your face. And eat the bread and other food with which Christ feeds us.

On sitting at table. Take care not to sit down at table in agitation and to begin eating with thanksgiving whatever is set before you. Do not reproach anyone in anything. Do not play with food, do not laugh; beware lest some crumb stick in your throat and you choke, for this often happens. Also at the meal think of no evil deeds, nothing cunning or unclean, for with food an evil and cunning thought enters. And such a thing brings destruction to soul and body. Remember also the food of Judas: it is written in the Gospel that with the bread Satan entered into Judas, and he betrayed the Lord to crucifixion.

On prayer after the meal. When you rise from the table, give glory to Him who fed you and say: “It is truly meet…”, all to the end, “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”. Then the Jesus prayer. And bow with prayer: for your master who feeds and clothes you and cares for you. And then bow to your master and mistress and say: “God save thee”; likewise to the others.

On drinking. If you begin to drink anything, do not hasten to pour it into your mouth, lest what you have already taken come out of you. But lean to the vessel and look whether there is any dirt or hair in it, lest it harm your health and trouble your stomach, and lest what was eaten come back out defiled, lest sudden illness weaken you. And when you see that the drink is clean, even then do not hasten to drink, but look at the image of the Savior and cross your face, and read the Jesus prayer, and say: “Bless, Father”. And then drink what you wished.

On supper. Listen about when you sit down to supper: do the same with prayer and thanksgiving. And read first of all: “The poor shall eat…”, then “Glory…, and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”. And so eat with humility and thanksgiving. And rising from the table, say: “Thou hast gladdened me, O Lord, in Thy creation…” and the rest, “Glory… and now…”, “Lord, have mercy” twice, “Lord, bless”.

On prayer before sleep. When, drawing near to sleep, you want to sleep, stretch out your hand and read the same rule that you read in the morning when rising from bed. At this time spiritual people pray much: some read compline with many canons, others the Psalter with bows and prayers, others various other prayers. For us and you that is enough. For God’s sake keep at least this. You will learn more than I have told you, and later you yourself will understand more.

On lying down on the bed. When after prayer you lie down on your bed, do not forget to pray. Cross your face: out of laziness three times, but without laziness many times. And remember your place in the grave, for thus you will lie in the grave. And at the general resurrection, at the sound of the archangel’s trumpet, you will rise as from sleep to the Judge of all your deeds. And receive according to your deeds—good or evil. For sleep is the likeness of death.

On awakening. When you wake after sleeping enough, or if you wake from some noise, or something appears to you in a dream, or frightened by dreams you wake somehow, then cross your face two or three times, or as many times as you wish, or read the Jesus prayer. For a man is often frightened by dreams in forgetfulness. But by prayer and the Life-giving Cross the human mind is quickly set right.

114. On rising. Also, rising from sleep, cross your face: as you lay down, so rise. And do as is written to you. Here is your instruction on home prayer.

On the Jesus prayer. And on the Jesus prayer, which should be made in every place. On the fear of terror. Listen: when you sleep or sit, and some terror seizes you, and cunning thoughts come instead of righteous ones—to do injustice, or to plot something unclean, or any evil deed—know that at that time the devil has drawn near to you and subjects you to his will, and wants to separate you from God and from His righteousness.

On good thought. Also know what happens when some gladness and joy comes to you, and some good thought, as for example to become like a holy man or a reverent person, and you want always to act according to righteousness and do good deeds—know that at that time an angel of God draws near to you, and guards you from the evil nets of the devil, and wants to draw you near and bring you to God, to whom you gave your vow. For though with your bodily eyes you do not see the invisible suffering and joy, your invisible soul sees the invisible and from that rejoices or is terrified. Understanding this, always read the Jesus prayer and shield yourself with the cross. For when you cross your face and read the Jesus prayer, then the devil flees from you, and evil and cunning thoughts flee, and the angel of the Lord who guards you draws near to you and puts all that is useful into your heart. And know this.

On entering any house. Do not enter any house in silence, but read the Jesus prayer and say “Amen”. And bow to the image standing there.

On work. When you begin to do anything: whether to pray, or to rise, or to lie down, or to take, or to strain, or to pour, or to cut, or to chop, or to break, or to crush, or to open, or to close, or whatever you begin to do, always say for every work: “Bless, Father”, and then the Jesus prayer.

On drinking. If ever you begin to prepare food and drink, you will sweeten them much by this. Having heard this, remember and do not forget. Do everything with prayer.

On the name of servant. Listen why you are called a servant, for you named yourself a servant. Understand also that your master is the one you serve; and remember what your master has become to you: for you were under the sword of death, tormented in prison in hunger and thirst, naked and sorrowful, not expecting to remain alive.

On the sovereign. Know the Jesus prayer and perfect yourself in fasting. And being perfected in all this, you will be able to be called a Christian.

On the reason. Know that you came not from good to bad, but from bad to good. Not from light to darkness, but from darkness to light. You were not defiled, but cleansed; you serve not a master who sheds blood, but one who hates bloodshed. Here is an incentive to understanding: think how to stand before your master and how to serve him. And how to live prudently with him.

Teaching to good. Keep righteousness for him in your mouth and faith in your heart. Sitting in place or being on the way, keep love for him. And what he has granted you, guard with great care. And beyond that, care for what has not been granted you: in his house and everywhere be faithful to him in small things, and you will be chief over great things.

On delicacies. Do not be enticed by temporary delicacies; refrain a little to gain eternal sweetness. Do not treat your master’s words with cunning and contempt—for he will see cunning in your words and judge that you are cunning in deeds also. For thought in a man comes from the heart, and this thought gives birth to the word. And by words a man is known—righteous or cunning. Therefore be simple in all things with your master, not cunning, and not only with your master but with good people also, and you will be honorable and loved by God. But if you act cunningly, you will prove evil to all and abominable to God, and you will perish eternally with a cruel death, not only in body but in soul.

On temptation. Beware lest a friend or companion tempt you with some cunning and evil word. For few are good, loving, and teaching; more lead to evil, turning from good. And many hate good and fear everything; and all wonder at such a one, but themselves do not wish to act according to righteousness, but perish in the despair of their madness. But you know that many will say to you: “Lie”. You, strongly armed with reason, say that lying is from the devil, for he is a lie and the father of lies. And they say to you: “Do this evil”. You consider diligently and do not do it. For those who do evil perish.

On theft. If anyone says to you: “I steal, and you steal”, flee from him and do not steal. For whoever steals perishes and is lost—remember the scourge of Aphonic. Likewise in every matter beware of what is unseemly; do not listen to those who tempt you. Guard against this and understand it, for you have the age of a grown man. Understand me who writes: I am a servant, the same as you.

On Christianity. Therefore I have shown you the law of brotherly love. And in my writing I have spoken only of some Christian customs. For as an infant you should receive soft food with diligence and learn with understanding, and from these small words gain great fruit by obedience of piety: the perfect divinity of divine radiance. And enlighten yourself with wisdom, adorn yourself with purity and chastity, and complete it with prayer and fasting. And from all this you will be able to be called a perfect Christian.

On fasts. Listen about fasting and the days of fasting. For the divine apostles and holy fathers, having established fasting, showed us great grace and union with God.

On Great Lent. For above all the holy fathers established that we fast the Great Lent, that is, the Forty Days, because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself fasted forty days. And then the seventh week, the week of His most honorable sufferings. Therefore every Christian in those days must fast with all fear and heartfelt contrition. For in those days our Master Jesus Christ for our sake accepted reproach, mockery, and humiliation endured. Therefore on such days an Orthodox Christian should by no means eat and drink to excess, nor rejoice in idleness, but as the holy fathers commanded, fast and pray.

On the Fast of Peter. Likewise the fast in which we fast from the week of All Saints, called the fast of the divine apostles Peter and Paul. For the divine apostles rejoiced and celebrated Bright Resurrection until Ascension forty days and ten days after Christ’s Ascension until the day of the Descent of the Holy Ghost, which is called Pentecost. On that day, at the third hour, He sent to them the gift of the Holy Ghost. And therefore they celebrated and rejoiced for eight weeks. And thus the divine apostles bequeathed: it is fitting to rejoice in God’s gift, and after that to fast. And so they remained in fasting and prayer. And when they departed from Jerusalem to preach to the Gentiles, the faithful, imitating them as true teachers and enlighteners of our souls, fasted as each could. And the seven councils of the holy and divine fathers established to complete this fast on the holy day of the apostles Peter and Paul. Therefore it is called the Fast of Peter.

On the Dormition Fast. Likewise the fast of the Most Holy God-bearer for the sake of Her honorable Dormition, from the first day of August. For when She received news from Her Son and our Lord Jesus Christ of Her Dormition and ascension from earth to heaven, then for fifteen days She tasted no food, remaining all the time in fasting. For She was then preparing for departure, as the apostles prepared to depart from Jerusalem.

On the Nativity Fast. Which is called the Fast of Philip, forty days from the day of the holy apostle. The holy fathers at the holy Ecumenical Councils always and necessarily established to fast, that by pure life, fasting and prayer, and other good deeds, we prepare for the feast of Christ’s Nativity. And by this after labors they granted us glory and consolation. And from Nativity to Theophany there is no fasting, and no kneeling.

On Wednesday and Friday. Likewise understand about Wednesday and Friday. On these days we the faithful fast for this reason. On Wednesday the lawless Jews gathered in council, plotting to kill the Lord. And on Friday they crucified Him on the cross. Therefore the divine apostles and holy fathers appointed us to fast on these two days—Wednesday and Friday. On those days one should not rejoice and gorge oneself, but rather grieve and fast.

On fasting. True fasting is that of which Divine Scripture speaks: not only to abstain from food and drink, but to refrain from all evil and unseemly deeds and thoughts. To eat, drink, and rest is bodily. But to fast and refrain from all evil deeds and thoughts is spiritual. For a good man his possession increases from spiritual deeds, not bodily. For spiritual deeds lead upward and draw near to God, and abide eternally with man. Bodily deeds drag downward and deliver to eternal corruption.

On understanding. Having heard this, remember what you have read. Understand the writing, learn the Law of God. Attend to every good deed and thereby inherit all good. Attending to this my small writing, you will learn great understanding. To God Almighty give glory forever, amen.

 

source

Among the fellow prisoners and co-sufferers of Archpriest Avvakum was this humble and guileless monk Epiphaniy. He was born in a certain village in the 1610s or 1620s. From childhood he was greatly devoted to fasting and prayer, and he loved reading holy books. In 1638, having become an orphan, he moved to a certain large city (most likely Moscow), and later, desiring the monastic struggle, he set off for the Solovetsky Monastery. Arriving at the glorious monastery of the Venerable Zosima and Savvatiy, he became a novice in 1645, and seven years later the venerable archimandrite Ilya tonsured him into monasticism, giving him the name Epiphaniy, which means “manifested.” And indeed, God manifested him as one of His holy favorites, granting him a miraculous end…

Seeing the diligence and God-fearing nature of the monk Epiphaniy, the monastery authorities wished to ordain him to the holy priesthood, but out of great humility he refused.

The monk Epiphaniy’s father and guide in the Gospel was the elder Martiriy, under whom Arseniy the Greek — a man who had repeatedly changed his faith and even renounced Christianity, considered an astrologer and sorcerer — had previously been “under correction.” It was Arseniy the Greek who became the support of Patriarch Nikon in carrying out the unfortunate reform: Nikon not only justified the apostate but even appointed him, a man ignorant of the Slavonic language, to direct the Moscow Printing Yard and make changes to the liturgical books. “Correct it, Arseniy, somehow — just not the old way!” was the command given by the “great sovereign patriarch Nikon.” And so the new “correctors” acted: instead of “yunoshi” (youths) they put “deti” (children), instead of “deti” they wrote “yunoshi,” they changed stresses in words, rearranged words, replaced them with synonyms, altered verb forms, and so on. They introduced more substantial, even meaningful distortions. They even changed the Orthodox Creed and the description of the Orthodox sign of the cross. They ordered the “Alleluia” to be sung four times in the Latin manner, contrary to the prohibition of the ancient holy fathers. They abolished many prostrations during the service… In short, not a single liturgical book, not a single rite, not even a single psalm remained without unnecessary or even blasphemous-sounding changes. The old, unaltered books were declared heretical and subject to removal from the churches.

It was precisely such “newly corrected” books that were sent from Moscow to Solovki in October 1657. The holy archimandrite Ilya did not serve according to them but ordered the literate elders first to study them and compare them with the ancient handwritten books in the monastery’s rich library. The elders’ verdict was this: the texts were not corrected but corrupted, and there was no need to replace the old books.

Disputes and strife began in the monastery. Some defenders of Nikon’s innovations appeared and began to rebel against the abbot. Grieved by these events, the monk Epiphaniy decided to go “into the desert” to live in silence there. He did this at the turn of 1657–1658, receiving a blessing for this new struggle from his mentor, the elder Martiriy. With him he took books, tools for carving (the monk practiced making wooden crosses, both pectoral and processional, as his handicraft), a copper-cast icon of the God-bearer, a censer, and everything necessary for the solitary life of a hermit. Father Epiphaniy’s path led to the Andom skete of the Venerable Evfrosin of Kurzha, located on an island in Kurzha Lake at the source of the Andoma River (now Vologda region). After living about a year with the venerable mentor, Epiphaniy asked for a blessing to intensify his struggle in the “farther desert” and went to Vidansky Island on the Suna River. In the Sunaretsky Trinity skete he lived seven years under the Venerable Father Kirill of Sunaretsky.

Throughout his entire monastic life, the holy Epiphaniy was repeatedly subjected to various attacks from the devil: sometimes ants tormented his flesh for many months, sometimes his cell burned down for no apparent reason, and other terrors came. He called upon the Lord Jesus and His Most Pure Mother for help; the copper icon of Her remained undamaged by the fire. The God-bearer Herself appeared to the venerable one and helped him. After his repose, the Venerable Evfrosin of Kurzha, with whom he had struggled together in the Andom skete, appeared to him in a vision. He was also granted a visit from the holy martyr-bishop Philip, the murdered Metropolitan of Moscow, whose relics were discovered in the Solovetsky Monastery in the presence of Father Epiphaniy.

In 1659 the recently deceased Solovetsky archimandrite Ilya also appeared to Father Epiphaniy and commanded him to write a work for Tsar Alexis, to demonstrate the wrongness of the church innovations and to call for a return “to the true Christian faith, the old one.” The elder set to work: he made excerpts from the Gospel, the Apostle, church canons, and other holy books that showed the complete untenability of Nikon’s church reform. Father Epiphaniy put much labor into compiling this petition-book, personally — despite weak eyesight — copying the rough drafts cleanly. The book was approved by the Venerable Kirill of Sunaretsky and the monk Varlaam, who lived nearby “in the desert.” They blessed the elder to go “to Moscow” and present his work to the tsar.

On the way to the capital, Father Epiphaniy decided to visit the Venerable Korniliy of Vyg, so that he too might approve his composition. Korniliy suggested that he stay with him for a time to refine the book. This stop lasted two years: at first they lived in a stone cave on the Vodla River, and later in a cell at Kyatkozero. Here the monk also wrote an autobiographical note—a draft of his future “Life.” This note became the preface to the petition.

Father Epiphaniy proposed to the elder Korniliy that they go “to Moscow” together to suffer “for the sake of piety,” but Korniliy received a divine notification to remain in the desert. Then the monk Epiphaniy resolved to fast and pray for six weeks in order to receive some “notification” from God; having received it, he joyfully set out for the suffering that lay ahead, carefully carrying with him his precious literary labor.

Arriving in the capital at the end of 1666, he became acquainted with the noblewoman Feodosia Prokofievna Morozova (the future venerable martyr Theodora) and the fool-for-Christ monk Abraham (the future venerable martyr) who lived in her house; the latter effectively led the ancient Orthodox Christian community in Moscow.

In the summer of 1667, Father Epiphaniy publicly presented his petition to the tsar on the square. The tsar passed it to the hierarchs assembled at the Great Moscow Council, which had been convened to curse the “old faith.” The hierarchs ordered the arrest of the “rebel,” and the monk Epiphaniy was seized. On July 17, the Nikonian hierarchs tried with exhortations and threats to incline the unyielding monk to “submission” to their heresy, but in vain, and he was cast back into prison. On August 5—a new unsuccessful attempt… On August 26, 1667, the apostate hierarchs sentenced Archpriest Avvakum, the monk Epiphaniy, the Romanov priest Lazar, and the Simbirsk priest Nikifor to lifelong exile in the far north, to the Pustozersk stockade. The next day, on Bolotnaya Square, Fathers Lazar and Epiphaniy were brought out and had their tongues cut out so they could no longer preach the “old faith.” Avvakum was left with his tongue, through the intercession of the tsaritsa…

The journey to Pustozersk was long and arduous. Only on December 12 did the prisoners arrive at the place of their prolonged suffering and future fiery execution. Father Nikifor was not brought there due to his death en route, but on April 2, 1668, the deacon Theodore of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral was delivered, also with his tongue cut out.

Father Epiphaniy grieved greatly over the loss of his tongue, and through his prayers a miracle occurred: the tongue grew back in his mouth. The saint glorified God for this sign.

In strict confinement, the elder found consolation in prayer and handicraft. Over his life he made up to 600 wooden crosses, large and small. And when an eye ailment prevented him from continuing his craft, a wondrous visitor appeared to him with materials, tools, and an order for a large cross. Epiphaniy began to refuse, but the visitor insisted. And suddenly his sight returned to the sufferer!

Here, in the earthen prison, the monk became the spiritual father (hearing thoughts, according to the monastic custom) of Archpriest Avvakum and “compelled” him to write his autobiographical “Life.” The archpriest did not remain in debt: he compelled the elder himself to compose his own life story. These two “Lives” are precious testimonies to that sorrowful time and to the struggle of the Christian Old Believers.

The monk Epiphaniy, together with Archpriest Avvakum, wrote letters and books and secretly sent them to the Old Believers in Moscow and other places in Russia, hidden in little boxes that Father Epiphaniy made in the axe-handles of the musketeers guarding the holy sufferers—who secretly sympathized with them.

When the authorities learned of these letters, they intensified the regime for the Pustozersk prisoners. On April 14, 1670, by tsarist decree, the streltsy half-captain Ivan Elagin arrived at the stockade and again cut out the regrown tongues of the three sufferers (except Avvakum), and also maimed their right hands, cutting off either the whole hand (for Deacon Theodore) or the fingers. The sufferers were separated from one another and placed in earthen pit-prisons, where in inhuman conditions, exhausted by hunger and cold, they continued their struggle for the faith of Christ.

After the second execution, Father Epiphaniy grew faint in spirit and even wished that all the blood might flow out of his body through the wounds so as to accept death. But by God’s providence this did not happen, and the wounds healed extraordinarily quickly. And in a dream he had a vision of the Most Holy God-bearer, who showed him his two cut-out tongues floating in the air—the first and the second—and commanded him to choose one of them. He chose and placed it in his mouth, and awoke. And from then on his tongue began to grow back little by little, reaching up to his teeth again. And once more the monk began to glorify God aloud…

Tsar Alexis died. His successor Theodore, at the instigation of the new-rite clergy, gave the order to burn the four Pustozersk confessors in a wooden frame. In the desolate, treeless Pustozersk there were no spare logs, so some buildings had to be torn down to provide wood for the martyrs’ burning… The saints were led out to execution on April 14, 1682, on Great and Holy Friday—the day when the innocent Jesus Christ Himself accepted execution. The sufferers went joyfully to meet the Lord. Here is how a contemporary, recording the account of eyewitnesses, describes the events: “When they placed Father Epiphaniy and with him his three co-sufferers—Archpriest Avvakum, Priest Lazar, and Deacon Theodore—into one wooden frame… and covered the entire frame with pitch and birch bark and straw and pitch, and set it ablaze with fire. They all sang in unison within the frame: ‘Mistress, accept the prayer of Thy servants.’ The fire roared greatly and blazed up with a great flame into the air; they stood in the flame and finished singing that verse to the end, and bowed to the ground, and the flame enveloped them. All the people of the Pustozersk settlement standing around, and the soldiers, and certain God-loving men saw from the frame and from the flame—Father Monk Epiphaniy was lifted up into the air, as if borne by some divine power, upward to heaven, and became invisible. They pointed to one another, and some saw it while others did not. And when the frame burned down and the flame subsided, they found the bodies of the three sufferers unburned, only scorched—Archpriest Avvakum, Priest Lazar, and Deacon Theodore—and parts of their vestments were not consumed; but they found neither the body of Father Epiphaniy nor anything from his vestments, and they marveled at this. And those who had seen this most glorious miracle—of Father Epiphaniy being lifted up from the frame and flame into the air toward heaven—told of their vision, and they began to marvel at this most glorious mercy of God and glorified God, wondrous in His miracles, for even in these last times God glorifies and strengthens the ancient church piety. But some doubted, and after a little time had passed, to those who had not seen such a most glorious miracle and were doubting, and who were once walking along the road and conversing about this among themselves, the wondrous Father Epiphaniy appeared to them as if alive, traveling the road, and he made the Jesus Prayer and said to them: ‘Peace be unto you, children! Do not doubt concerning me; I did not burn in the frame, but I am alive, as it pleased our Master the Lord Jesus Christ, and tell this to your brethren, that they may not doubt concerning me, but magnify and glorify the Lord God, wondrous in His miracles, and be strengthened in ancient church piety.’ And having spoken, having made the Jesus Prayer, and given them peace, he became invisible. They rejoiced and glorified God, wondrous in His miracles…”

The memory of this great venerable martyr is celebrated on April 14 according to the church calendar (April 27 according to the civil calendar), together with his Pustozersk co-sufferers, on the day of their fiery end.

Troparion to the Holy Venerable Martyr Epiphaniy of Solovki, Tone 6 Faster and sufferer and wonderworker Epiphaniy, / who wast ascended by fiery flame unto the throne of the Lord, / ever pray to Him for us, / that we may be delivered from misfortunes and the assaults of the enemy, / and that our souls may be saved.

Kontakion, Tone 8 Having acquired a peaceful spirit, O venerable one, / thou wast ascended to the supramundane habitations, O Epiphaniy, / unto Christ God the Giver of myrrh; / ever pray to Him, O passion-bearer, / to grant peace to the world / and to save our souls.

Ikos In truth thou hast shown thyself to be aptly named, O our venerable father Epiphaniy, / for thou wast manifested by God as a wonderworker and martyr, / having acquired purity of soul and body / through fasting, prayer, and abstinence, / and lying upon the earth, and all-night vigils, / love of truth and almsgiving, / humility of mind and meekness of character; / an angel on earth thou didst appear, / a heavenly man. / Now standing before the throne of Christ God, / ever pray to Him / to grant peace to the world / and to save our souls.

-Written by Belokrinitsa priest Vadim Korovin

source

Apologetic Investigation by Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin

The book “The Old Faith” was first published in 1914, shortly after the death of its author, Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin. An outstanding expert [in religious debates], a zealous defender of the Old Belief, he came from a poor family but, thanks to his natural abilities and talents, as well as his pious Christian qualities, despite life’s difficulties and obstacles, achieved significant success in understanding Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers.

These extensive knowledge, combined with exceptional industriousness, broad outlook, intellect, gift of speech, and extraordinary memory, served him as a reliable shield and effective means in preserving the dogmas of ancient Orthodoxy and church piety, elevating him to the ranks of remarkable figures in the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.

This re-edition of the book “The Old Faith” represents yet another attempt to trace church life “in the last times.”

Examining divisions in the Old Belief, the author puts forward serious arguments in favor and defense of those who accept marriage without priestly blessing, while giving doubters and opponents of the lawful teaching an open, perhaps sharp, assessment that is just and principled.

Uncompromisingness was in the author’s character. The work of Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin will serve successfully in our time as well.

Published by the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church Moscow, 1991.

PREFACE

Circumstances create prosperity and privileges for the human race, but there is no person who is not subject to all the dangers of this present life.

All the beauties and privileges of the world are nothing but soporific means under which a person helplessly slumbers: in most cases, he surrenders to dreamy enchantment and falls asleep in the sleep of carelessness. Only a case of sharp change can awaken a person from such an age-old sleep.

The ardent curiosity of human nature often shatters against unforeseen obstacles, like a mountain stream against rocks, and breaks away from the whole into unperfected forms and crude outlines of personal imagination.

Organic vigilance is dulled by sleep, the moral state is subjected to the temptation of passions, and faith is replaced by enticing novelty.

An inevitable companion of human life is sleep. This is natural sleep, as a medicinal remedy relieving the organic nature from daily labors and cares.

But there is also another sleep—a heavy sleep—this is the sleep of the soul. Natural sleep in the original man (Adam) produced, by the will of the Creator, a helper for life, while the sleep of the soul produced transgression.

The original progenitors Adam and Eve, enjoying God’s gifts within the limits set for them, lived a life of joy without any sorrow, ruling over everything around them and enjoying all the blessings that could seem pleasant to them.

There were no cares, only merriment! There was no labor—only the intoxication of life! There was no sickness—only flourishing health! There were no tears, for there was nothing to weep over, but there was joy and happiness!

The enemy of such a life for the original people was the devil. Being envious of all good things and as the chief and main apostate from God, he endeavored to deceive people living in truth, to separate them from God, and to plunge them from great joy into great sorrow, from life into death. The cause of the transgression, in essence, was the progenitors themselves, while the devil was only a cunning and false teacher for their transgression.

The forefathers wanted to know more than was given to them by God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as a forbidden fruit, served as a law for them, but the inclination of curiosity—to become better from the best—attracted them to the transgression of the law. But as soon as the transgression occurred, punishment soon followed without delay. The cunning devil, taking advantage of the simplicity of the forefathers, began to seduce the further human race: some with envy and fratricide, some with self-deception and a beastly life, unbelief, and idolatry. But the good God always provided worthy people to destroy the wiles of the evil enemy and to expose the very deception.

The natural law: “Do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself” was observed by few, but those who fulfilled the innate law of righteousness were above all prejudices and appeared as a light of faith for the darkened state of people infected with unbelief.

Upon dark and beastly unbelief followed the wrath of God: the unbelieving and beastly people perished in the fierce waters of the flood, but faith, as God-chosen seed, remained unharmed—though in small quantity, yet of high quality in people.

By faith Noah illuminated the universe, by faith Abraham shone, by faith Isaac and Jacob shone like two candlesticks, by faith Moses was great, by faith Aaron received the high priesthood from God, and by faith the written law was given by God to the lawgiver Moses.

By faith all the chosen of God lived, by faith the holy prophets foretold the distant as if it were present. For the sake of faith, the holy people of God struggled with beasts, with scorching fire, and with lawless people. Only by faith did people know the true God.

The cunning devil, seeing true worship of God among people, devised the invention of false gods—idols. To achieve this goal, he darkened some with the beauty of life and attachment to everything earthly. He also invented false prophets, soothsayers, and sorcerers. He wanted to darken true worship with idolatry, to replace true prophets with false ones, and believing righteous people with sorcerers and ventriloquists. But faith overcame everything. False prophets, although several times attempted to dominantly establish idolatry—as especially under Ahab, king of the Jews—yet true faith in true worship triumphed solemnly here over the false inventions of the shameful prophets. Not by quantity, but by the quality of one believing prophet, faith in the true God was solemnly restored on the summit of historical Carmel. Although the faith of true worshippers endured many afflictions from false worshippers, truth, as always, solemnly defeated the dark false belief of people.

The faith of true worship served as a guiding star for true worshippers of God to the cave of Bethlehem, where in the flesh was born the Redeemer of the world, Christ. Faith brought the Magi to worship Christ. By faith the shepherds were vouchsafed to hear the angel’s good news about the born Savior of the world and by faith worshiped the God born in the cave in the flesh. The cunning and shameful enemy of the human race, the devil, sensing his powerlessness, taught the tyrant Herod to kill the one born; but the villain blunted his weapon on innocent infants, seeking to destroy God in the flesh, and himself lost his life as a desperate fighter against God. The end came to the darkness-worship. The star in the East preceded the Sun of Righteousness; the great prophet, the Forerunner of Christ’s coming, John, already thundered in the wilderness: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Then the cunning devil again taught the scribes not to accept the true preaching of the prophet, taught Herod to destroy him; finally, he taught the high priests to deliver the Lord Christ Himself, the Savior of the World, to a shameful death. But faith in the Savior Christ remained untouched by the enemy.

The faith of the holy apostles was above all the prejudices of the Jewish scribes: thanks to faith, the gospel teaching was planted, a new true life flourished, and access to the Kingdom of Heaven was so simple that there was no special labor to comprehend it. Faith and truth—these are the two companions to the Kingdom of Heaven! But the cunning devil here too acquired people worthy of his title, trying to present them as apostles, with the intention of diverting people from the true faith. Simon the Samaritan apostate, the abominable Nicolas, founder of foul Gnosticism, Saturninus the vessel of demons, Cerinthus and the godless Carpocrates in polytheism, Basilides the false-teller of the gospel, Marcion the myth-maker and abominable Montanus with false prophetesses, the fiercest enemy of the Trinity Sabellius, and the reviler of holy baptism Eulogius—these are false apostles, distorters of faith and tramplers of the true Gospel. No matter how much these thieves tried to rob the faithful in faith, the true faith was untouchable for the foul hands of corrupters, for great preachers of God, the apostles, stood guard over faith in Christ as true servants of the Lord, before Whom demonic falsehood could not stand, and every heterodoxy was mercilessly driven out by the words of their mouths.

Attempts were also made on the true faith in the true Christ God by the lowly vain-talker Paul of Samosata, the evil-minded Arius and the blasphemer of the Holy Spirit Macedonius; Nestorius, Eutyches, the blind Didymus and Evagrius; Sergius the Monophysite and Pyrrhus, his foul companion with Celestine of Western Rome; Anthony—the patriarchal abomination of desolation in the holy place—with a demonic host of blasphemers of iconoclasm—but they too could not drown the true faith in Christ in streams of innocent blood. Lives were destroyed by the tens of thousands for the faith, but no weapon was powerful against the faith. The enemy of Christ, like a wounded wild beast, rushed from east to west, where he had long wanted to tyrannically reign under the guise of a true shepherd, with the assistance of civil authority. And the crafty deceiver, by the permission of the Holy God, succeeded in this. He endowed the pope with such pride that he considered no one equal to himself on earth, wanted to be the second prince of the world, the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and God on earth. The pope fell away from the true faith, introduced heresies, and destroyed the commandment with wicked teaching. This greatest calamity in the Christian world forced true Christians to be cautious against such encroachments on the faith and to make corresponding dispositions for the present and future generations of the truly Christian race, that any inclination toward the holy faith in Christ and open encroachment on the immovable traditions and laws of the Church would be subject to alienation from the Church and anathema, and therefore any separate heterodoxy in itself would be considered impiety. Thus, our undertaking will also aim to present before the reader’s eyes the truly true faith in Christ up to the very boundaries of the prescribed last times. The events of things bring us closer to the fateful end of the fall of the stars of heaven to the earth, that is—the episcopal rank into earthly wisdom. We have stopped at the Roman fall and the impiety of its popes; let us pass from there to the native faith and Church.

The ambition of the Roman pope in matters of faith was reflected also in the southwestern church of our fatherland. In the thousandth year from Christ’s Nativity, in the five hundred and ninety-fifth year, almost all of Little Russia fell away from the true faith and joined the Roman pope on the rights of the impious union, against which, though few, yet strong in spirit fighters arose, arose in full spiritual armor. They spared no words toward the apostates and, applying Holy Scripture to the time, openly said that the time was not far when the general falling away of the stars of heaven would follow, that is, the hierarchs, after the pattern of the western and Little Russian churches. This time was literally pointed out by the zealots of the ancient true faith to the year 1666, according to chapters 20 and 13 of the book of Revelation of the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian. The fateful number found on the throne of our royal ancestors the weak-willed Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, but evil fate put forward for us the proud despot and capable of all evil, the Russian chief hierarch Nikon. Under the guise of correcting church books, Nikon deceived the council of hierarchs and deceived the tsar, authoritatively shook the holy faith and produced corruption of books; he brought confusion into the holy Church, setting aside the Gospel, gave free rein to passion, armed executioners, and pointed to terrible torture chambers where the bones of confessors of the old ways cracked in iron collars. Bonfires burned under the feet of those hanging on the rack for holy piety, and the merciless whips of executioners whistled over the bodies of new martyrs for the old faith, where the clerk, according to the instructions of Nikon and his accomplices, in the tone of a trusted torturer under the blows of the executioner questioned the confessor of the old piety: “Do you fold three fingers for the sign of the cross? Are you willing to say the alleluia in the psalms thrice, and a fourth time—Glory to Thee, O God? Will you submit to Nikon and his consecrated council, and recognize all the hierarchs who approved the book correction as Orthodox?” And for each negative answer, the executioner’s whip mercilessly struck the exhausted body of the confessor of the holy old faith. By this Nikon fully proved that he was not a true shepherd, but a bloodthirsty wolf in sheep’s clothing. Thanks to his cunning and satanic ambition, earthly prisons and gallows, corruption of ribs with iron hooks, cutting of tongues and ears, burying alive in the ground, and cutting off members of the body became known. All this was practiced on the confessors of the holy Russian antiquity. To requests for mitigation of tortures and torments Nikon was unrelenting. His power extended beyond command. He found no equal among hierarchs, wanted to appear as God; surrounded himself with comely youths, calling some of them cherubim and others seraphim, and surrounded by them, he solemnly performed religious services; signed acts as “great sovereign,” and finally built a “new Jerusalem,” erected a stone temple, and in this temple tried to present himself as God, and his youths as cherubim and seraphim. Such are the facts of the accomplished number 1666. But the Lord God here too did not leave His Church without providence, raising up courageous and fearless fighters for the old faith: Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, Archpriest Avvakum, Priest Lazar, the wise Abbot Spiridon Potemkin, Archpriest Daniil, Abbots Dosifei and Kapiton, Deacon Feodor, and monks Avraamii, Isaiah, and Kornilii, who, together with all the remnants of the ancient holy faith, condemned the apostate Nikon and all his accomplices. In accordance with the time and taking into account the published heresies, the remnants of the old piety decided to say that “the present churches are not churches, the divine mysteries are not mysteries, baptism is not baptism, bishops are not bishops, writings are flattering, and all is foul.” The thought is completely clear: the confessors of the faith of the old piety recognized nothing in Nikon’s new church—neither priesthood, nor mysteries, nor even baptism itself. Such is the opinion of the preservers and defenders of the old holy faith.

But the cunning devil, unable to tolerate the confessors of zeal here either, spread nets of temptation, and with the passage of time sowed enmity even among the remnants of piety. Some adhered to the teaching of the confessors, contenting themselves with priests of the ancient ordination for performing the mysteries, while others, out of necessity, began to accept priests of the new ordination as well; because of this, enmity arose among the nurturers of the old piety. Some completely refused to accept priests of the new ordination, while others, on the contrary, began to accept such priests, and from this division arose among the zealots of antiquity. Some of them came to be called bespopovtsy [priestless], because after the death of priests of the old ordination they did not wish to accept priests of the new ordination; others, on the contrary, began to accept new priests and therefore came to be called popovtsy [priestly].

Then new zealots of the old faith appeared: they too shunned priests of the new ordination, but accepted baptism from them. They did not belong to the first bespopovtsy, since the first bespopovtsy did not recognize baptism in Nikon’s church as baptism at all, and in the case of conversion from such, the first bespopovtsy gave a new baptism, whereas the second bespopovtsy, having themselves been baptized in Nikon’s church, accepted those baptized in the same church without repetition. The sect of this society is called “Spasov” [of the Savior]. Both the first and second bespopovtsy remain with the same teaching to the present day.

In the 1850s of the nineteenth century, the popovtsy divided among themselves in their opinions regarding the reception of sacred persons from the Greco-Russian church, as a result of which two sects formed among them: the old popovtsy and the new popovtsy, called Austrians or those accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, which appeared in 1846.

All the societies I have named, both bespopovtsy and popovtsy, call themselves equally Old Believers, hold the same books and traditions of the ancient church. But they differ among themselves because of the new priesthood and the baptism derived from the new priesthood. From this arise heated disputes even among the Old Believers themselves, but to mutual agreement, to great regret, they have not been able to come even to the present day.

I consider this religious disunity among people who equally strive to be saved under the banner of the “old faith” pitiful and sorrowful; and, placing my hope in God, I take upon myself the labor, to the measure of my strength, to impartially examine the hope of salvation of each separate society and to show which society among the Old Believers truly holds the truly old holy faith, inherited from our ancestors of blessed memory, who so selflessly defended the holy antiquity in the difficult days of Nikon’s reforms. First place will be given by me to the church of the year 1666 and the priesthood of that ordination; then gradually each Old Believer hope will be set forth separately.

I pray to the Lord, Who gives understanding and mercy, that He grant to me, unworthy and the least of all in strength and understanding, to accomplish this difficult feat to the glory of the Most Holy, Life-Giving, and Life-Originating Trinity: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Chapter 1. Historical, Theological, Dogmatic-Canonical Investigation of the “Old Faith” and the Division from the Greco-Russian Church from the Times of the Year 1666.

The most important division of the Old Believers among themselves into different sects and beliefs. Who among all the sects of the Old Believers truly holds the old faith in all its inviolability from the new belief.

QUESTION. What reasons compelled the ancestors of the Old Belief to refuse to be together in faith with the Greco-Russian church from the times of 1666–1667? ANSWER. Many and various. The first and chief reason: betrayal of the holy ancient evangelical, apostolic, and patristic orthodoxy.

I will say in order: the betrayer and traitor of the holy Russian antiquity was the Moscow Patriarch Nikon.

“In 1653 Nikon sent the following memorandum to all Moscow churches: according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not fitting to make prostrations to the knees in church, but to make bows from the waist; also, you should cross yourselves with three fingers.” “In the summer of 1654 Nikon ordered his servants to gouge out the eyes of newly gathered icons (painted with the two-finger sign) and to carry them in that form through the city and announce the tsar’s decree, threatening severe punishment to those who henceforth dared to paint such icons with the two-finger sign.”

“In 1655, in the presence of the tsar in the cathedral church, Nikon, pointing to certain new icons brought to the analogion, referred to our (Greek) lord the Patriarch (Macarius) as witness that those icons were painted not according to Greek but according to Frankish models. Then both patriarchs anathematized and excommunicated all who henceforth would paint or keep Frankish icons in their homes. Thereupon Nikon took one after another of the new icons brought to him, and each one, showing it to the people, threw it onto the iron floor with such force that the icons broke, and finally ordered them burned. But Nikon did not stop at this: following the sermon against the new icons, he began a sermon against another novelty—against the two-finger sign of the cross.”

“On February 12, 1656, at Nikon’s request, Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Chudov Monastery, after reading the Prologue, proclaimed: ‘Men of all Orthodoxy, hear: I am the successor and heir of this holy throne of Meletius. You know that this holy Meletius showed the first three fingers separated from one another, from which there was no sign; then he joined those three again, and with them showed the sign. And if anyone does not depict the sign of the cross on his face with these three fingers, but joins the two last with the great thumb and has the two middle ones extended and depicts the sign of the cross with them, such a one is an imitator of the Armenians. For the Armenians depict the cross in this way.’ Then on February 24 of the same year, in the Dormition Cathedral on the first week of Great Lent, on the day of Orthodoxy, the same Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, in the presence of the tsar and his synod, joined the three first great fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity and, showing them, exclaimed: ‘With these three first great fingers every Orthodox Christian should depict the sign of the cross on his face, and whoever does it according to the writing of Theodoret and false tradition is cursed.’”

“At Nikon’s special request, at that same time the Greek hierarchs—Macarius of Antioch, Gabriel of Serbia, Gregory Metropolitan of Nicaea, and Gedeon of Moldavia—answered: ‘We have received the tradition from the beginning of the faith from the holy Apostles and holy fathers and the seven holy councils to make the sign of the honorable cross with the three first fingers of the right hand, and whoever of the Orthodox Christians does not make the cross in this way according to the tradition of the Eastern Church, which has held from the beginning of the faith even to this day—is a heretic and an imitator of the Armenians. And for this reason we have him excommunicated from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and cursed.’”

“On June 2, 1656, the council decreed: If anyone from henceforth, knowing this, does not obey to make the sign of the cross on his face as the ancient holy Eastern Church received it and as now the four ecumenical patriarchs with all Christians under them throughout the universe hold it, and as here the Orthodox formerly held it until the printing of the word of Theodoret in the Psalters with the following of the Moscow press—that with the three first great fingers of the right hand to depict in the image of the holy, consubstantial, indivisible, and equally adored Trinity, but instead makes this thing unacceptable to the church, namely joining the two small fingers with the great thumb—in which the inequality of the Holy Trinity is indicated—and the two middle ones extended. In which is concluded two sons and two natures according to the heresy of Nestorius, or otherwise depicts the cross: such we, following the rules of the seven holy ecumenical councils and other local councils and the holy Eastern Church of the four ecumenical patriarchs, have entirely excommunicated from the Church, together with the writing of Theodoret, and so forth.”

From this it is clearly seen that Nikon changed and betrayed to anathema the holy tradition of the Conciliar and Apostolic Church, whereby Christians should sign their faces crosswise with two fingers. But not only this mysterious tradition of the holy ancient Church did Nikon change, but also other traditions, which will be spoken of in the following places.

In 1658 Nikon withdrew from Moscow to the New Jerusalem he had built, leaving the patriarchal throne vacant. But the work begun by Nikon began to be introduced with the severity of civil laws into churches throughout Russia.

In 1666 a great council gathered in Moscow by order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It too continued the work begun by Nikon. In the eleventh act the council first of all condemns the confessors of the holy antiquity and those unwilling to accept the new ordinances, among which are the following: “It removes the former seals of prosphora with the depiction of the eight-pointed cross and the inscription: ‘Jesus the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the whole world’ and instead gives such a seal:

Ic Xc Nī kā

and commands: ‘Therefore we conciliarly command archimandrites and abbots, protopopes and priestly elders to frequently inspect in all churches… And also examine all prosphora bakers where it is assigned, that they seal prosphora with the seal of the four-pointed cross, as depicted above, and such a seal we have issued from the council.’ ‘Those who sign themselves with the three first fingers in their prayer should say: Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us.’ This innovation—of signing oneself with three fingers—and the rejection of the two-finger composition for signing oneself—the council of 1667 also confirms. In the 22nd rule of the conciliar scroll this council decreed:

‘Moreover, the writing composed by some schismatic and hidden heretic of the Armenian heresy and printed ignorantly and indiscreetly in the book Psalter with the following, and in others, that is, concerning the folding of the fingers, commanding to sign oneself according to the custom by which heretics the Armenians sign themselves with the cross—do not accept this, and let no one henceforth believe this writing or hold it, but we command to root it out from such printed and handwritten books.’”

QUESTION. So did Nikon and the councils agreeing with him reject and curse the tradition of the Holy Conciliar and Apostolic Church, whereby Orthodox Christians should sign their faces with two fingers? ANSWER. Yes. And that the two-finger composition is a tradition of the ancient holy Church—hear. In the book On the True Faith, in chapter 9, it is written: “The holy Eastern Church from the days of the Apostles received it, and commands her true sons to bear it and to sign themselves with it, according to the apostle: ‘But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord.’ The time comes to speak of signing with it and what mystery is contained therein. Thus the holy Church confesses. By the joining of the three fingers of the right hand, that is, the great and the small and the third next to the small, the mystery of the divine three hypostases is confessed: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God in three persons. By the extension of the two fingers—the upper and the middle—the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is shown, that He became perfect God and perfect man for our salvation.”

On January 26, 1581, the first all-Russian Patriarch Job was installed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. Upon ascending the patriarchal throne, Patriarch Job wrote an epistle to all the churches of Great Russia, in which, among other things, he teaches: “When praying, one should cross oneself with two fingers: first placing them on the forehead, then on the breast, then on the right shoulder, then on the left. The bending of the fingers signifies the descent from heaven, and the standing finger points to the Lord’s ascension. And to hold the three fingers equally—we confess the indivisible Trinity, that is, the true sign of the cross.”

Maximus the Greek in his book, in chapter forty, writes: “Concerning what you previously asked me to explain to you the power of the mysterious apostolic tradition, that is, the image of the cross. For the joining of the three fingers (the little finger—antirich, and the ring finger, that is, the nameless) together with the thumb and the one from the middle and small—we confess the mystery of the three God-originating hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three. By the extension of the long and the middle, the two natures come together in Christ, that is, we confess the Savior Christ Himself perfect God and perfect man in two essences and natures believed and known.”

The Great Catechism, chapter 2, where it is written: “To have three fingers equally: the great with the two small together joined. By this we image the Holy Trinity. And to have two fingers inclined, and not extended, and by this to indicate thus: this images the two natures of Christ: Divinity and humanity.” The same teaching of the ancient Church is handed down in the Psalters with the following. From this it is clearly seen that Nikon and the councils following him violated the great mysterious tradition of the holy conciliar and apostolic Church.

QUESTION. How then should we understand Nikon and his supporters: are they subject to the judgment of the ancient holy Church for rejecting this tradition of the Church? ANSWER. Undoubtedly they are subject. In the Kirillova Book, on the Holy Spirit, from the voice of the ecumenical councils 5-6-7 it is laid down: “If anyone rejects all the tradition of the Church, written or unwritten, let him be anathema.” In the Great Sobornik on leaf 389 it is written: “Cursed is he who destroys the statutes of the fathers and the immutable church statutes which your fathers established.” And again: “For whoever rejects little or much of the divine, rejects the whole law.” And again: “If anyone destroys the command of our immaculate and orthodox faith of the holy fathers, let him be cursed.”

The holy Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians declared: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Saint Chrysostom: “And he did not say if they preach contrary things or pervert all, but if they preach even a little something other than what we preached, if they move even a little thing—anathema they will be.” Nikon and his accomplices, having rejected the divine tradition of the holy Church—the two-finger folding—from the holy Church of Christ are also cursed.

QUESTION. From where did Nikon and his associates, the Greek hierarchs, take the custom of crossing themselves with three fingers? ANSWER. From the heretic Pope Formosus. In the book On the Faith it is said about this: “Stephen the Seventh, who ordered Pope Formosus to be dug up from the grave, and having clothed him as a pope, ordered him seated on the throne and performed mockeries and derisions over him. And then ordered him unclothed and the three fingers with which he blessed to be cut off and his body thrown into the Tiber River.” Baronius in the year of the Lord 897, under number one, writes: “Stephen ordered Formosus taken from the grave, and clothed in papal garments seated on the throne, and ordered that papal clothing stripped from him, and the three fingers with which blessing is made cut off, and his body thrown into the Tiber River.” From this it is known that the three-finger sign is from the heretic Pope Formosus, and not from Christ, not from the apostles, and not from the holy fathers. But everything alien to the holy Church and introduced outside her tradition Nikon brought into the new church, and what is newly introduced into the church is cursed by the ancient Church. As it is said in the Kormchaya Book, in chapter 71: “Everything that is newly created and done or intended to be done contrary to church traditions and teachings and the images of the holy and ever-memorable fathers—anathema.” The ancient holy council of the year from the creation of the world 7059 [1551], held under the pious Tsar Ivan Vasilievich, pronounced this decision on those not crossing themselves with two fingers: “Whoever does not sign himself with two fingers, as Christ also did, let him be cursed.” In the Trebnik, in the rite of receiving from the heretic Jacobites, it is laid down: “Whoever does not cross with two fingers, as Christ, let him be cursed.” See and understand that Nikon and his accomplices are under the curse.

QUESTION. If this is so, as indeed it is, then did this curse have effect on the followers of Nikon’s teaching for rejecting the Christ-given two-finger composition in the sign of the honorable cross? ANSWER. Not only were the followers of Nikon’s teaching not instructed by this thunder of curses, but as if in madness of mind they came to worse things.

Opening their mouths they uttered the bitterest blasphemies against the Christ-given two-finger sign with their tongues, and all together pronounced these blasphemies: 1) That the two-finger sign was supposedly received from some heretic Martin the Armenian. 2) They slandered it with Arianism. 3) Nestorianism. 4) Macedonianism. 5) Evil division. 6) Armenianism. 7) The abyss of Arius. 8) Magical sign. 9) Deadly poison, and finally Theophylact Lopatinsky in refutation concludes: 10) Whether your two-finger folding differs from the Latin finger-folding, or not, we make no investigation or reasoning here, and whether you took it from the Latins or from some worse devil, we do not inquire here. 11) Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, says: “It is more fitting for these schismatics on their Armenian two-finger folding to write the demonic name on one finger—de, on the other—mon, and thus on their two fingers the demon will sit.” 12) Patriarch Joachim in the Uvet called the two-finger folding “with foul hands.” Thus, forgetting the terrible judgment of God, the new-lovers, as if possessed, vomited forth blasphemies against the mysterious and terrible-to-demons Christ-given two-finger folding for the sign of the cross.

Thus far concerning the finger-folding.

Chapter 2. Concerning the Naming of God as Darkness

QUESTION. Is it truly written in the books of Nikon’s friends and associates: “It is better to call God darkness,” and is it so written in their books, or do they speak some lie? ANSWER. It is truly so written in their books, and those who have seen it bear true witness.

In the book Skrizhal’, on leaf 665, it is written: “For it is better to call God darkness and ignorance than light.”

The council of 1666, in the 5th act, conciliarly confirms this new theology with the words: “There was read the lying writing of the schismatic and false accuser from the city of Suzdal, Priest Nikita. In it first he blasphemes the word of the holy martyr Dionysius the Areopagite, which is: ‘For it is better to call God darkness and ignorance than light.’ The council, strengthening this—that it is better to call God darkness—confirms: ‘Dionysius the holy Areopagite, the great pillar, says these words, and not the author of the Skrizhal’ writes from himself.’ It is asked: where then does the holy martyr Dionysius the Areopagite himself write this? The council answers: In chapter 2 of the Celestial Hierarchy, ‘denials in God are more strengthening than affirmations.’”

QUESTION. Did the council speak the truth—referring to St. Dionysius the Areopagite—that he writes thus: “It is better to call God darkness,” etc.? ANSWER. The council spoke untruth. For in St. Dionysius the Areopagite there are no such words. Here is his book on the celestial hierarchy, chapter 2, where it is written: “Thus the mysterious teaching handed down to us in holy scripture describes the venerable supreme Divinity in various ways. Sometimes it calls God Word, Mind, and Essence, thereby showing understanding and wisdom proper to God alone, and expressing that He truly is and is the true cause of all being, likens Him to Light and calls Him Life. We shall see that the mysterious theologians fittingly use such likenesses not only in describing heavenly beauties, but also where they depict Divinity. Thus they, borrowing images sometimes from the most exalted objects, sing God as the sun of righteousness, as the morning star graciously ascending in the mind, as unquenchable and intellectual light; and sometimes from less exalted objects: call Him fire harmlessly shining, water of life quenching spiritual thirst, or speaking figuratively flowing into the belly and forming ever-flowing rivers; and sometimes borrowing images from lowly objects: call Him fragrant myrrh, cornerstone.”

The lie of the council of 1666 with the book Skrizhal’ is evident. Now it is clear that the Greco-Russian church, from the year 1666, mysteriously dogmatizes that “it is better to call God darkness than light.”

Chapter 3. Blasphemy Against the Divine Name

QUESTION. All that has been said is trustworthy. But what else follows after this? ANSWER. That by calling God the Father darkness, they have also blasphemed the Son! QUESTION. Where is this written—show me clearly? ANSWER. In the same Conciliar Decree of the year 1666. The council says: “Such is the most sweet name Jesus, which we received from the Greek Iēsous, a three-syllable word signifying Savior, according to that angelic announcement, as to Joseph it was said: and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

QUESTION. The defenders of Nikon’s deeds and of this council say that the name Jesus is truly Greek, that is, Hellenic—so wherein is the blasphemy against the Son of God here? ANSWER. In that, first, they lied concerning the divine name, and second, they gave a new name to the Lord Jesus Christ. QUESTION. How is one to understand the saying: a lie in the name of the Lord, and a new name to the Lord Jesus Christ? ANSWER. Hear and understand. First, the name Isus is not Greek, but Hebrew. In the Gospel of Matthew (the Gospel of the Annunciation), on leaf 27, it is written: “The name Isus is not Hellenic, but Hebrew.” In the Didactic Gospel, in the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ, it is written: “And the name Isus is Hebrew, and it means Savior.” In the Great Catechism, on the verso of leaf three, it is asked: “The Hebrew word, the word again Isus, how is it interpreted?” ANSWER. “Isus is interpreted Savior, or Deliverer, that is, Redeemer.” On leaf 36 of the same catechism it is written: “Isus is a Hebrew name; in Greek it is called Sōtēr.” In the Kirillova Book, on the verso of leaf 554, it is written: “Isus is a Hebrew name. In the Greek language it is called Sōtēr; in our language it is called Sōtēr-Savior.”

See that the council of 1666 spoke a lie concerning the name of the Lord. If this is so, as indeed it is, does this lie touch the name of the Lord? Yes! In the commentary on the 13th chapter of the prophet Zechariah it is written: “These words also deserve attention: for thou hast spoken a lie in the name of the Lord. For if we examine properly what it means to speak a lie in the name of the Lord, we shall see that this iniquity is worse than to kill an innocent man, to poison a guest who has come, to lay violent hands on a father, or to steal what belongs to another. How? God is made subject to a lie—and can anything else be compared with such dishonor? God is true, or rather truth itself: He wishes to be worshiped under this name by us. Therefore, whoever turns truth into a lie places the father of lies—the devil—in the place of God, or wishes to transform God into Satan. And thus every other iniquity, even the most cruel, as we have said, cannot be compared with this terrible iniquity. The name of God is held sacred among us because we constantly seek His sanctification, sending fervent prayers to Him; but when a lie is pronounced in this name, is not God violated? Does He cease to be God? And does not the devil take His place? Thus do impious false prophets mock God, perverting His teaching so that true piety might utterly perish from the earth.” Such is the fate of those who speak a lie in the name of the Lord.

QUESTION. Horror seizes one at what has been heard, but are there yet more blasphemies against the divine name—Isus? ANSWER. There are. And they will be brought forth here. First, Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, honored as a saint by the Greco-Russian church, in his book called Rozysk, writes: “For Iisus signifies one thing, and Isus another. Iisus is interpreted from the Hebrew language as Savior; from the Greek, as Healer. But what does Isus signify? Attend: in Greek Isos means equal, us means ear. When these two words are put together in one place, it will be Isus, which is called even-eared (equal-eared).” Further: “For among them was found one Isus called even-eared. But among us there is one who was before, and is now, and ever shall be—Iisus, called Savior.”

Pitirim, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, in his book called Prashchitsa, says: “Isos and us—these two words, when you join them together, will be Isus, which is called even-eared.”

Nikifor Theotokis, Archbishop of Astrakhan, a Greek by birth, in his book writes: “To write Isus (which is much more probable) Martin the Armenian taught, as all Armenians, even to this day, read and write not Iisus, but Isus.” Further: “And this is the name which, by the temptation of the enemy of the human race, your predecessors dared to distort, taking away one syllable from it and making it monstrous and signifying nothing.”

See the blasphemies against the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. See also the very denial by the Greek hierarchs of the name of the Lord Isus. The name brought down from heaven and entrusted by God the Father Himself to the Archangel Gabriel to say: “And the angel said unto her (Mary), Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Isus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.” See that this name was given to the Son of God and God by God the Father through the Archangel Gabriel. But the Greco-Russian teachers have blasphemed this divine name—Isus—calling it “monstrous,” “even-eared,” “sought out by the enemy of the human race,” and finally “signifying nothing.”

QUESTION. Can any church mystery or pious prayer be performed by such teachers? ANSWER. There are no words to say about such. Hear how God Himself through the mouth of the prophet Malachi condemns such: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.”

Saint Chrysostom interprets this place: “That is, I will place a curse on your blessing, by which the mystery is performed.” Then God, as though to priests justifying themselves, says: “Ye priests, despising my name, ye said: Wherein have we despised thy name? In that ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.” In the commentary it is said: “The prophet does not introduce their bold words without cause, but to show that their forehead was brazen and their neck iron, when they so shamelessly ask him: Wherein have we despised thy name? that is, what have we done, or how have we dishonored thy name? But God, repelling such shamelessness, says to their face: Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.”

The Antichrist needs the mockery of the divine name. In the commentary on the First Catholic Epistle of John it is written: “What is proper to the Antichrist? To deny that Jesus is the Christ Himself.” Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in his first Encyclical Epistle against the Arians writes: “For such is the form of the opposing activity, and such are the fabrications of heresies. Each heresy, having its own invention from the beginning, has turned and become a murderer of men, a liar devil, and being ashamed to pronounce his hateful name, it hypocritically clothes itself in good and, above all, in the name of the Savior; yet in the words of Scripture it clothes itself and speaks the words, but steals the meaning.”

Of the same Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in the second Encyclical Epistle against the Arians: “As those falling into heresy have their mind perverted and become shameless, they change the name of the Lord of Glory into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.” Further: “The Lord Himself, how justly will He cry out against these as impious and ungrateful, which He also foretold through the prophet: Woe unto them! for they have fled from me; wretched are they, for they have acted impiously against me; I have delivered them, but they have spoken lies against me.”

The Venerable Ephraim the Syrian writes: “For with all craftiness he forges (the Antichrist) that the most holy and glorious name of the Lord Savior might not be named at all in the times of the serpent.”

Blessed Jerome, in the commentary on the prophet Ezekiel: “And I will be jealous, saith the Lord, for my holy name, which was blasphemed among the nations through heretics.” And so let the impious teaching triumph as much as it wishes, and let the prophets of Jerusalem boast that they have prevailed by lies and strengthened the hands of evildoers: their end shall be as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Chapter 4. The Greco-Russian Church with a Special Curse Renounced Naming the Holy Spirit “True” in the Creed and Thereby Distorted the Creed

The council of 1667 commanded: “For this reason we command, we the Orthodox patriarchs with the whole consecrated council, with a great curse, to receive the holy Creed without addition.”

QUESTION. What did the council mean by the word “addition”? ANSWER. The word “True.” QUESTION. Is it possible in the Creed to subtract anything or add anything, even if only a little? ANSWER. It is impossible in the Creed either to subtract or to add what the holy fathers established at the first and second ecumenical councils.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in the epistle to John, Bishop of Antioch, writes: “We absolutely cannot tolerate anyone shaking the faith or the Creed once issued by the holy fathers of Nicaea. And we absolutely will not allow ourselves or anyone else to change even one word established there, nor to omit even one syllable, remembering the words of the one who said: ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers have set.’”

In the Great Catechism, on leaf 335, it is written: “If anyone changes or rewrites this composition, which is I believe in one God, let him be cursed.”

In the Kirillova Book, in the seventh sign, in the discussion, it is written: “Thus also at all seven ecumenical councils it was confirmed by all the holy fathers in writing and with imperial golden seals that in the confession of the Orthodox faith, which is I believe in one God, neither to add nor to subtract. If anyone dares to add or subtract or change, let him be cursed.”

The Venerable Maximus the Greek in his book, in chapter 69, writes: “For this reason the holy third council concluded and firmly commanded with terrible curses—the holy Creed set forth by the previous two councils—that no one henceforth should dare according to his foolish audacity to add anything at all to it or to subtract anything from it, not one tittle, not one jot, nor to change any word or letter from what is in it; and they said thus: If anyone after us dares such a thing in the holy Creed of the Orthodox faith, let him be cursed.” Further: “How much did the great Emperor Justinian entreat the holy fifth council that they permit him to add in the holy Creed one particle, namely ever, so that where it says and of Mary the Virgin, it should say and of Mary Ever-Virgin. And those most blessed fathers, preserving the commandment of the first four councils, did not permit him to add that particle in the holy Creed, even though it does no harm, but rather increases the glory and praise of the most holy Theotokos.”

Thus we have learned that truly it is impossible in the Creed not only to change any word or to add or subtract any word, but it is impossible even to touch a single syllable or a single tittle.

Chapter 5

QUESTION. The Roman church, by adding one word in the Creed—“and from the Son”—distorted thereby the evangelical dogma of the faith, making the Holy Spirit a grandson to the Father, for which it was cursed by the holy fathers. Now the Greco-Russian church by its council of 1667 with a curse removed from the Creed the word “true”—has it damaged the evangelical dogma concerning the Holy Spirit, as did the Roman Church? ANSWER. It has damaged it. Hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying concerning the Holy Spirit: “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.” And again: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” And a third time He says: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” See and take heed: the Greco-Russian church in the years 1656, 1666, and 1667 completely fell away from the Old Faith and Church, and uttered great blasphemies: a) against the mysterious two-finger composition for the sign of the cross, b) teaches to call God darkness, c) blasphemes and reviles the most holy name Isus of our Lord, d) with a great curse removes from the Creed the evangelical word “true,” and thereby mocked the venerable Divinity—of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Father it calls darkness. The Son even-eared and monstrous. The Holy Spirit with a curse it renounced naming True in the Creed.

QUESTION. How then do some say that the Greco-Russian church baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit just as the ancient church did? ANSWER. Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the third (encyclical) word against the Arians says: “Many other heresies there are which speak only names, but do not think rightly, as is said, nor have a sound faith. The water given by them is unprofitable, lacking piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather defiled in impiety and is not delivered.”

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “I cannot endure to remain unilluminated after illumination, sketching the three into which I was baptized, and truly buried with Christ in the water—not unto regeneration but unto mortification we perform. I dare to say something: concerning the Trinity, and forgiveness of folly. For the soul is in danger—I am an image and myself of God, of the glory above, even though I have been placed in a house. I am not content to be saved partially, if the Holy Spirit is not God, that the first may be deified and thus deify me who am partial. But now what deceit of grace, or rather of those who give grace, that one should believe in God and come forth godless. To confess one thing and to be taught another—what theft and deceit of words. To ask one thing in question and confession and another thing not existing. Alas for the brightness if after the bath (after the font) they are blackened. Even if I see brighter ones, they are not cleansed. If by reviling the baptizer I blacken myself. If I seek a better Spirit and do not find it, give me the bath, that is baptism, and think evil of the first.”

If the Arians baptized into the Father as Creator, the Son as creature, and the Spirit as Comforter, the Theologian calls it black baptism and false. Then how can baptism into another “Jesus” be pure and saving baptism? Some will say: We baptize into the Son, into the Father, and the Spirit indivisibly. I know that too. But they pronounce only bare names. And the Arians also baptized into the Trinity of persons with bare names, but called the Son, the second person of the Godhead, a creature. Therefore the Theologian says that this is deceit, only patched on. How then? Thus. Ask an Arian whether the Son is equal to the Father and co-eternal? The Arian will say: The Son is neither consubstantial with the Father nor co-eternal, but created in time, and therefore is a creature and creation—such is the dogma of the Arians concerning the Son. Therefore the Arians baptize not into the Creator and Co-eternal Son of the Father, but into a creature and creation. Behold the deceit and deception of the Arians in baptism.

But what can there be in common between the Arians and the Greco-Russian church in dogmatizing about the Son? This: that the Greco-Russian church confesses Christ under two iotas—Iisus, but under one iota—Isus, confesses some Isus, not Christ the Savior, but some Isus—even-eared, monstrous, and signifying nothing; and therefore remains only with Iisus, whom it confessed as its God.

But where is this? someone might ask. There, where the Greco-Russian church confesses: “For among them was found one Isus called even-eared. But among us there was one who was before, and is now, and ever shall be—Iisus, called Savior and Healer of our souls, Christ the Lord.” See that the Greco-Russian church baptizes into another Jesus, and this confession is not only unsafe, but exceedingly terrible. The Savior Christ in the Holy Gospel says to the Jews: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” Saint Chrysostom and Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, interpret: “Another, He says, shall come—the Antichrist is manifest.” “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” according to the Lord’s saying.

Chapter 6. Concerning the Baptism of the Greco-Russian Church: That It Accepts Immersive, Pouring, Sprinkling, and Washing Baptism

The command of the council of 1667 concerning pouring baptism: “Concerning Latin baptism, which is performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by triple pouring, all the most holy patriarchs—Kir Paisius, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and universal judge, and Kir Macarius, Patriarch of the great temple of God in Antioch and of all the East, and Kir Joasaph, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia—and the most reverend metropolitans and archbishops and bishops, and the whole sacred council, having heard the extracts, judged this matter: that it is not fitting to rebaptize those coming from the Latins to the Holy Apostolic Church.”

To strengthen and put into effect pouring baptism, the ruling Holy Synod composed and on January 15, 1724, published a book entitled True Justification of the Orthodox Christians Baptized with Pouring Baptism into Christ. It recognized: “The laver (baptism) means nothing else but simply washing, however it is performed—whether by immersion or by pouring.” Further: “From this alone it is sufficiently and powerfully known that the only necessity is to perform the mystery of holy baptism in the form of washing, and there is no necessity that this washing be by immersion and not by pouring: for the Apostle calls baptism a laver, and a laver is washing, and it is well performed both by immersion and by pouring.” And again on leaf 19: “There is no necessity to perform it under the single form of immersion: but it is sufficient to perform it so that washing is depicted.” Leaf 22 of the same book: “But if we consider the power of holy baptism, we shall see even more that the mystery is equally performed both by immersion and by pouring, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is given.” On leaf 37 of the same book it is printed: “Since the laver and the font and spiritual washing are under the form of bodily washing, therefore it is sufficient that there be some form of washing, and therefore the mystery is performed not only by immersion but also by pouring.”

This little book is praised by Theophylact Lopatinsky with the following words: “We here have no need to reason about this at all: for in recent years a little book has been printed in which it is shown sufficiently and powerfully that baptism performed by immersion or by pouring is one and the same baptism.”

In the book Peace with God, in the teaching on the church mysteries, dogma 1: “There should be so much water as is sufficient for triple immersion; or now for washing, or for triple pouring, if it is poured upon the one being baptized, according to the custom of whatever country, especially in scarcity of water.” Further: “There should be the union of form with matter, that is, the words accomplishing this mystery should be spoken together with the immersion, or with the triple pouring.” “In time of necessity one may baptize, even one who is himself unbaptized and unbelieving.” And: “As when birth is difficult, and the child in the mother’s womb is near death, and only the head or some other principal part of the body appears, showing the child to be alive; then, to avoid the danger of death to the child, the midwife or anyone else should immediately baptize by pouring upon that part which has appeared, and saying the accomplishing words.” Further: “But if the child is entirely in the mother’s womb and no member appears, it is in no way possible to baptize. But if the woman about to give birth has died without giving birth, then those sin who do not immediately extract the living child, having safely cut open the mother’s womb and taken it out, and do not baptize it.”

Do you see the perverted orders and commands of heretical baptisms? Have you understood how the church that was with Nikon fell, and where it is found!? Has it not accepted the dogmas concerning baptism of the Roman pope? O evil will! They command things worse than the most impious papists themselves: to baptize in the mother’s womb, making the genital member a font and impurity as sorcerers do, commanding to pronounce the divine names. Having become foolish in mind, thinking themselves wise, and blinded in spiritual eyes, they do not know what they command—to baptize whether male or female in difficult birth. Or is this not mockery, that they command even an unbaptized pagan to baptize in necessity? And what can be more impious than this: they command, when a woman has painfully died in childbirth, to cut open the dead womb and, finding and taking the infant, to baptize it. O impiety! The most impious of all impieties! For even the impious pagans do not do what the new-lovers command to be done. In every way they have become fighters against God. What God has put to death, these strive to raise. They have blasphemed God Who makes the living and the dead, and as open enemies of God they mock the judgment of God and revile human nature. O shame, that like senseless beasts they are not ashamed of female nature!

QUESTION. Does the Holy Church accept pouring, sprinkling, and washing baptism? ANSWER. Not only does the Holy Church not accept these baptisms, but it curses them. In the Great Trebnik the Holy Church has laid down: “I curse their foul baptism that is poured and not immersed according to the Lord’s form in the Jordan.”

Chapter 7. Concerning the Divine Song Alleluia, Which the Ancient Holy Church Accepted to Sing Twice, and a Third Time: Glory to Thee, O God

The council of 1666 commanded: “Further, it says, hear and preach everywhere firmly that in churches and in homes the priests themselves should say in the doxology of God the angelic song, and should likewise teach the people to say: Alleluia thrice, a fourth time Glory to Thee, O God.”

The council of 1667 also says: “To this we also command concerning what is written in the life of the venerable Euphrosynus from the very dream of the writer himself, concerning the double Alleluia, that no one should believe it, for all that writing is false, written by a deceitful and lying writer to the delusion of pious peoples. And this confusion, which you say—Alleluia twice and also Glory to Thee, O God—did not come from Euphrosynus, but from the writer of Euphrosynus’s life by diabolical slander” (leaf 30).

The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the First: “For there are such things manifestly false and contrary to sound teaching. For example, in the life of Euphrosynus of Pskov the dispute about double Alleluia singing is manifestly false and invented by some worthless person, in which, besides the most vain dogma about doubling Alleluia, are found Sabellian, Nestorian, and other heresies.”

QUESTION. Do the councils of 1666–1667 and the Spiritual Regulation speak the truth that the double Alleluia is an invention of some worthless person and hidden heretic? ANSWER. The councils and the Spiritual Regulation speak commanded falsehood. The double Alleluia is not from a worthless person, but was announced from heaven by the holy Angels and handed down from holy Ignatius the God-bearer. And it is not a lying writing, but a tradition of the Apostolic Church. But the triple Alleluia is a tradition of the Latin Church. Concerning this the venerable Maximus the Greek in his book, in word 28, writes in the superscription: “Word to those daring to say Alleluia thrice contrary to church tradition, a fourth—Glory to Thee, O God.”

“We have received from the beginning equally with the written the apostolic and patristic tradition handed down to us the orthodox dogma, to keep the apostolic and patristic unwritten church traditions unchanged.” Further: “How then do some dare to change—this old church tradition handed down by Angels—to say Alleluia thrice, and add a fourth Glory to Thee, O God?” Further: “Judge for yourselves whether it is profitable and saving for you to sing the Holy Trinity together with the evil-believing Latins and the pope, and not with the pious ones preaching the word of evangelical truth, the four orthodox patriarchs. But if, being ashamed of the Roman pope’s rank, you thus proclaim Alleluia, it is time for you, O most good ones, to agree also with other church papal customs—or more truly to say, heresies.” Further: “To this we also say to you that you have said thus (Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God), preserving diligently the custom handed down from the Angels themselves to blessed Ignatius, when they appeared to him singing divine psalms, lest we be condemned also with our other sins as despisers and transgressors of patristic traditions. But you (who triple Alleluia), what do you answer against this? And how justly do you show that you think piously and well concerning this? For we know firmly (says Maximus) that contrary to patristic traditions and the very holy scriptures you are borne along and deceive yourselves and others”—thus far Maximus.

The holy council of Russian hierarchs held in 1551 in chapter 42 decreed: “That in Pskov and Great Novgorod, in many monasteries and churches in many places up to this day they have said the triple Alleluia contrary to apostolic and patristic traditions. We have learned certainly from the writer of the life of our venerable father Euphrosynus of Pskov, the new wonderworker. How for the sake of his holy prayers the Most Holy Theotokos revealed and forbade the triple Alleluia. And she commanded Orthodox Christians to say double Alleluia, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, as the holy catholic and apostolic Church has and handed down, and not to triple Alleluia. As formerly in Pskov they said and in many places the triple Alleluia, and a fourth time added: Glory to Thee, O God. This is not an orthodox tradition, but Latin heresy. For they do not glorify the Trinity, but quadruple it.”

See and understand that the Greco-Russian church openly—not compelled, but conciliarly—commanded to triple the divine song Alleluia, and a fourth time to add Glory to Thee, O God, and fell away from the ancient holy catholic and apostolic Church, and together with the falling away confesses Latin heresy. Consider, O fervent and zealous Christian, the very essence of the matter if you desire salvation and wish to be far from delusion and heresy. What does the council of 1666 say, by what spirit and whose mouth speaking thus: “that Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, came from diabolical slander”? Should one believe this? O evil and destructive delusion! Not from diabolical slander, but from heaven by the holy Angels, manifestly as from God Himself, was given the order to sing Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, as the venerable Maximus the Greek wrote. And not from some worthless person and hidden heretic, as the Spiritual Regulation says, but from holy Ignatius the God-bearer and the whole ancient holy Church.

But if they say that it was from a dream vision, as the Most Holy Theotokos appeared to the writer of the life of the venerable Euphrosynus and commanded to sing Alleluia twice and forbade singing thrice—then let them also accuse the evangelist Matthew who relates: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Isus.” If they do not accept the dream appearance of God’s good pleasure, then let them not accept the Annunciation of the holy Angel concerning the birth of the Lord Isus Christ, since it too was announced in a dream vision.

Chapter 8. Concerning the Traditions of the Ancient Holy Church, Namely: The Written Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ with One Iota—Isus, the Holy Creed with the Word—True Lord.

The Mysterious Two-Finger Folding for the Sign of the Cross, and the Divine Hymn Alleluia Twice, and a Third Time Glory to Thee, O God. From the Year 1666 and Afterward the New-Lovers Say That (These Traditions) Are from Some Monk Martin, an Armenian Heretic, Who Was Judged at the Kievan Council in the 12th Century

In the book Prashchitsa of Pitirim, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, it is written: “Conciliar act against the heretic Armenian, against the monk Martin. In the year from the creation of the world 6665, and from the incarnation of Christ 1157, in the month of June on the 7th day.

For he (Martin) taught many new dogmas contrary to the Eastern Church… He rejected the two-part cross… he called the name Jesus written in this form Iisus a heresy among us, commanding to write thus Isus. In the psalms he commanded to say Alleluia twice, and not thrice. He taught to fold the fingers of the hand, the first finger with the two last, and with the index and great-middle to command crossing oneself, and priests to bless, and so forth there.” Thus far from Prashchitsa.

Nikifor Theotokis, Archbishop of Astrakhan, confirming the existence of this Martin and the council held against him, writes: “Thus the two-finger depiction of the cross and blessing proceeded from the Armenian sect. The chief who first taught this novelty in Russia, contrary to the most ancient church tradition, is Martin the Armenian. The time when he began to teach is the year 1149.”

The book entitled History of the Russian Schism, composed by Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, in this book in the first period Macarius also confirms the existence of the Kievan council and the heretic Martin. He writes: “Some of the present schismatic thoughts were first brought into Russia by the heretic Martin, who came to us around the 12th century (1149).”

QUESTION. Is there anywhere written by the holy fathers of Great Russia and Little Russia about this council, or does any historian mention it? ANSWER. No one, not only from the holy fathers but even from the heretics, mentions the heretic Martin and the Kievan council against him, nor does any single historian write about it. QUESTION. Whence then did this narration come in the book Prashchitsa, narrating about Martin and the council that condemned Martin? ANSWER. This narration is false and forged. QUESTION. How can you confirm this—tell me? ANSWER. Thus: investigators of the same Greco-Russian church relate this. Paul Melnikov writes: “The famous resolution of Peter I (seven years after the death of Demetrius): ‘to write something against the schism and to say against Demetrius and his brethren,’ as a result of which Stefan Yavorsky secretly wrote, and Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod openly printed the forged act against Martin the Armenian.” From the book Contemporary Church Questions by T. I. Filippov, where it is said: “The desire to confirm the opinion of the council concerning the supposed heretical origin of the pre-Nikonian rites alone can explain the appearance in print in March 1718 of the forged act of a non-existent council against a non-existent heretic Martin the Armenian, in which this heretic, dated to the 12th century, is attributed, together with heretical delusions chiefly of a Monophysite nature, also the introduction into Russia of the rite peculiarities forbidden by the council of 1667: two-finger folding, double Alleluia, procession with the sun, sealing of prosphora with the cross of the crucifixion, depiction of the name Isus—and which, despite the obvious signs of the coarsest forgery with the schism, is mentioned without denial of its authenticity even in the History of the Russian Schism of His Grace Macarius, edition of 1855.”

Do you see the manifest and crude forgery of the supposed council? Do you understand for what reason the Greco-Russian hierarchs composed and published in print this forged council? Manifestly for this: to abolish the traditions of the holy ancient church, so that they should not fold two fingers in the image of the God-man Isus Christ and three fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity for the sign of the cross, so that they should not say Alleluia twice and a third Glory to Thee, O God, and should not name our Lord Jesus Christ—Isus, but should name Him by another, Iisus. For this reason this forgery was devised.

Know this also, O lover and careful preserver of the holy old faith, that in those times when that forged tale about the false council and the fabulous Martin who never existed in the world appeared, no one dared either openly or secretly to speak of the forgery of this council. But if some somewhere said something doubtful about that council on Martin, they were seized as grave criminals, were beaten with the knouts of executioners, and exiled to hard labor in Siberia. This is written in the register of the state archive, cabinet affairs, 2nd section, book No. 56, leaves 925–926, from the words: “who for what crimes were exiled to hard labor in eternal work: Timothy, Ivan, Athanasius, schismatic teachers, cell-dwellers; Vasily Vlasov for inciting the people and for his false naming of the book of the conciliar act, which by His Great Sovereign’s decree was printed in Moscow against the heretic Armenian Martin, calling it false and substituted.”

Do you see, beloved, the cunning and severity of Satan, how much he taught to say: what is false, call true and faithful, and what is true and faithful call false.

What is false? The council against Martin, and that the holy tradition of the church is supposedly from the heretic Martin. What is true? That the two-finger folding is from Christ and the holy Apostles, and therefore is a tradition of the apostolic Church. Likewise the double Alleluia and the most holy name of our Lord—Isus—is the true and faithful tradition of the ancient holy church.

Chapter 9. Concerning the Number 666 and the Time of the Fulfillment of the Number. Concerning the Final Falling Away from the True Ancient Faith of the Ranks of the Hierarchy, as the Last Falling of the Stars of Heaven, and Concerning the Torment of the Faithful Servants of God

My heart trembles and my mind is horrified to narrate this, that the stars of heaven fell, that is, the great teachers of the Church; but the truth of things bears witness to me, and I will not grow weary to speak of this.

QUESTION. Where and what writing speaks of this, that the stars, that is, the church teachers, will fall from the church heaven? ANSWER. He who saw the hidden mysteries of God, the great theologian and evangelist John, speaks of this in the divine Apocalypse: “And lo there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” This the holy bishop Methodius of Patara explains: “But the stars which he (the Antichrist) touches their summits with the end of his tail and draws down to the earth are heretical sects.” Andrew of Caesarea in the commentary on the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse interprets: “But for the stars to fall, as was written of necessity concerning those deceived by Antiochus, that even the luminaries should fall and those thinking themselves in the world should be inclined and perplexed, as (the Lord says) the elect might be deceived if possible by the greatness of the tribulation.”

Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the fourth epistle explains what are the falling stars: “That the stars shall fall from heaven. But heaven is the Church of Christ, exalted above the earth. Which, according to the divine prophet Habakkuk, the word of the Savior covered, adorned with various graces, and placed on that heavenly firmament certain ones as shining stars holding the word of life, as the Apostle says. From this heaven therefore understand the falling stars.” Further: “This is the cause of change and he who thought himself like the Most High becomes a leader to destruction. Behold one of the evils and not the least sign of the Antichrist’s apostasy—that the stars fall from heaven. Which we now see fulfilled.”

Likewise in the book On the True Faith it is attested: “The divine apostle and evangelist John in the Revelation writes: that the stars of heaven fell unto the earth. These are understood according to the interpretation of the holy ones as the notable spiritual ones in the church, which is the earthly heaven, as the great ones of this world in glory and power. Concerning such fallen stars the holy apostle Jude commands with these words: wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. And that this has already been fulfilled in its time. That the most notable, not wishing to remain in humility under the submissive head Christ the Savior at His Church bride, tore themselves away.” See that the stars, that is, the ordained and teachers of the church, fall from the church heaven.

QUESTION. Tell me, what is the fig tree casting her untimely figs, and the wind that casts them down? ANSWER. By the fig tree the blessed and venerable Maximus the Greek names the Church, as he writes in his book: “But the fig tree, he says, mysteriously spread throughout the whole universe—the holy catholic and apostolic Church; but the fruitful branch—the teaching word, that is, the evangelical preaching.” But by the wind he names the Antichrist. This was attested by the holy Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “For what other scorching wind from the desert? But unless the Antichrist is about to appear.”

QUESTION. Tell me, if you can, when and where this will be? ANSWER. Not from myself, but with God helping me, I will tell you for profit. Hear and attend with understanding. In the divine Apocalypse it is mysteriously said: “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled.” And this signifies the Roman fall; as is narrated in the book On the True Faith: “To this I will not refuse to recall also that which the holy John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse, in chapter 20, writes concerning the binding of Satan for a thousand years and afterward his loosing. The devil turns to his first beloved place, whence he still wished from heaven, and from that time the West was smitten with a heavy pestilence.”

QUESTION. This then concerning Rome and its stars is trustworthy, that they fell from the true evangelical faith, but tell me from Scripture: did this also come to pass in our Russia? ANSWER. It came to pass manifestly. Hear as the Scriptures relate. The divine John the evangelist in the Apocalypse says: “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” Further: “And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” This mysterious number of the time of the last Antichrist the writer of the book On the Faith explains: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists. Of the truth, that there are many forerunners, but he himself is now near according to the number concerning him 666. For the number of a man is the Antichrist’s. Who knows whether in these years 1666 he will not point out his manifest forerunners, or himself?” See that the number of the Apocalypse, chapter 13, is fulfilled in the year 1666.

QUESTION. So did this come to pass, that finally the stars, that is, the teachers, fell from heaven into apostasy, as was said also concerning the Romans? ANSWER. It came to pass manifestly and certainly, what you have heard in the previous chapters. Attend and again. The Moscow chief hierarch Nikon changed the traditions and dogmas of the ancient church: 1) He abolished the 12 bows in the prayer of St. Ephraim. 2) He abolished and renounced with a curse the two-finger folding in the sign of the cross, commanding instead to fold three fingers, and for priestly blessing with five fingers. 3) By the council of 1666 the three-part cross of Christ was rejected from the seal on prosphora, and instead the Latin cross was given in this form: Ĭĉъ I Хĉъ ни I ка 4) In the book Zhezl to name our Lord and God—Jesus. 5) God was called darkness. 6) In the Jesus prayer they removed the Son of God. 7) They newly ordered to sing the divine Alleluia thrice, and a fourth Glory to Thee, O God. 8) By the council of 1667 the evangelical testimony—the word “True”—was excluded from the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit. 9) They laid a great curse on those who would name the Holy Spirit True in the Creed. 10) They accepted the Latin-heretical rite of pouring baptism on equal terms with immersion, and also the Latins themselves. Moreover, washing and sprinkling baptism. 11) The Christ-given two-finger tradition for blessing and the sign of the cross, as the sacred natural symbol of the God-manhood in two fingers, and of the indivisible consubstantial Trinity—of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—in three fingers—the church established by Nikon calls: a) Arianism, b) Nestorianism, c) Macedonianism, d) evil division, e) Armenianism, f) the abyss of Arius, g) Armenian fig, h) Armenian heresy, i) gates of hell, j) magical sign, k) demon-possession, l) devil’s tradition, m) deadly poison. See and understand what entered into the number 1666.

QUESTION. Truly it is so, as indeed it is, the fulfillment of the times according to Scripture has come. But how can I understand, looking at the order of the priesthood, the preaching of God’s covenant, and the sacrifice of the mystery of communion of the flesh and blood of Christ? ANSWER. If you delve into the Scripture and call God as helper, you will see manifestly. Look with the mind’s eye of the soul and consider what was said by the prophet Daniel concerning the time, for he spoke from the Holy Spirit: “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. And they that do wickedly against the covenant shall fall by flattery.”

QUESTION. But who will be preserved from these? ANSWER. There the divine prophet Daniel forepointed: “But the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.”

QUESTION. A fearful thing it is for the stars to fall from the church heaven, and great is the struggle in those days for the believers—will there then not be at the end sacred pastors at the church? ANSWER. Do not be horrified, beloved, but attend to Scripture. The Most Holy God Himself through the mouth of the prophet Habakkuk announced: “The flocks are cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls.” And through the prophet Ezekiel He says: “Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.” Further: “I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God. And they shall know that I am the Lord.” Know this, take heed lest you be deceived, and with bitter sorrow ponder the falling of the stars to the earth from the spiritual church heaven into carnal earthly wisdom.

Chapter 10. How, Who, and Where They Were Tormented for the Faith, According to the Number 1666

QUESTION. Where in Scripture is it said that there will be persecution for the faith of the servants of God in the year 1666? ANSWER. In the book On the True Faith this is forewarned with the words: “After the passing of the years of the number one thousand six hundred and sixty-six, is it not necessary for us also, for these reasons, to have fear lest we suffer some evil according to the previously spoken testimonies of the fulfillment of Scripture? For the day of Christ is at hand, as the Apostle said—and ought we not to be ready, if anyone reaches those times (1666), for battle with the devil himself?”

The first to enter the battle for the holy old faith was Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, against Patriarch Nikon. The zeal of the sacred Paul was expressed in the words he wrote: “If anyone takes away from the customary traditions of the holy catholic Church, or adds to them, or otherwise perverts them, let him be anathema.” For this Nikon deprived Paul of the episcopal rank and in 1655 exiled him to the Paleostrovsky Monastery on Onega Island. And from there he was taken to the Novgorod regions, and there he was burned alive in a log house.

Then: “Seeing that Patriarch Nikon with his counselors, by their cunning and machinations, achieved nothing—neither by exhortations, nor by councils, nor by tsarist decrees and epistles—could he bend the Russian people to his will. Finally, what wondrous thing does he devise, what terrible thing does he perform? He sends preachers everywhere—what kind? Chains. He sends heralds—what kind? Prisons. Teachers—what kind? Beatings, torments, unbearable sufferings, terrible ones, with which he filled all the regions of the Russian realm, with which a great trembling, a most terrifying quake resounded terribly over the Russian land.” The Russian church historian relates: “Nikon inflicted civil punishment: whom he beat with the knout, whose arms and legs he broke, whom he tortured and executed with civil executions.” “For the two-finger folding and for the use of ancient books arose terrible persecutions, exiles, tortures in the Preobrazhensky Chancellery.” “To a certain John in torture they broke his hand with shaking, then with a whip they terribly wounded his body, after that they threw that wounded body into the fire, commanding to burn it like a stone, and even then did not take pity, but commanded to pull out the ribs from that burned body with red-hot tongs, after that commanded to cut off the head.”

“To a certain Macarius he commanded to bind his feet with rope and drag him to the seashore and place him on the frozen ice, so that pressed by triple pain—from the air, the ice, and the water—he might painfully depart from life.”

“After this Chrysanthus the skilled wood-carver and Theodore the wise icon-painter with the disciple Andrew, the voivode, having tested them and seeing them firm and unshakable in the patristic laws, commanded them to be executed with the most cruel death: to cut off their hands and feet, then to cut off their very heads.” “The rest of the laymen and monks he delivered to various deaths and executions, commanding to hang them: some by the neck, some by the feet, and many others, having pierced their ribs with sharp iron and threaded hooks through them, to hang each on his own hook.” Further: “Others of the fathers the beast-hearted tormentor commanded to bind by the feet with rope, tie to horses’ tails, and mercilessly drag along the field until they gave up their souls.” Further: “To bind two by the backs instead, and to tie by the feet with rope he commanded: thus to drag to the seashore in only shirts, mercilessly, and to leave on the ice in the time of fierce frost; others, having cut through the Jordan not all the way—not in the likeness of the Theophany water-blessing—and having filled such bound hospital fathers, they let the water in, and thus in that most freezing water on the cracking ice, in the most cruel frost, the blessed fathers froze and, with their bodies iced and frozen to the ice, gratefully enduring, received the end of life, being about one hundred and fifty in number.”

In the preface to the three petitions of the corrector Savvaty, Savva Romanov, and the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery, on the third page it is printed: “To all this the Moscow government responded with numerous exiles and executions: it destroyed opponents by fire in log houses, poisoned them in damp earthen prisons, cut off heads, buried alive up to the shoulders in the earth, cut out tongues, ears, and so forth.”

From the History of the Russian Schism of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow: “At that time Tsars John and Peter Alexeevich, having confirmed to the hierarchs to seek out schismatics, to judge them according to church rules, and, in cases of necessity, to deliver them to civil judgment, and to voivodes to render every assistance to the clergy in this matter.” Further: “After a threefold interrogation at execution, if they do not submit, to burn them in a log house.” “Those accused of schism, if they justify themselves and their innocence is attested by their spiritual fathers, to deliver them under strict supervision to the latter; but if they deny falsely and are convicted, to beat them with the knout, even if they repent, and to exile them to distant cities. Those convicted of harboring schismatics among themselves, of supplying them with food, drink, and so forth, if they confess, some, judging by the guilt—to beat only with the knout, and others to exile to distant cities. From those who kept schismatics under surety, not knowing of their schism, to take a fine of five rubles for each person.” Further: “The property of schismatics and unfaithful sureties who will be exiled to banishment is to be sold for the benefit of the treasury: because much of the Sovereign’s treasury goes for their travel expenses and for the salary of searchers.” “It was also commanded to watch strictly that schismatics do not live in forests and in volosts, and where they appear, to seize them themselves, to destroy their refuges, to sell their property and send the money to Moscow.” “To schismatics who have declared themselves and registered in the double tax, it was strictly forbidden to convert their household members and other people to schism; but secret and unregistered ones were delivered to judgment, double tax was exacted from them for past time, or they were sent to hard labor.” “Archpriest Avvakum for steadfastness in the old faith was deprived of rank and exiled to Siberia, to the Pustozersk ostrog.” “The like-minded of Avvakum were burned in log houses and on bonfires, publicly hanged, strangled in prisons, roasted in ovens.” … “The prison in which he (Avvakum) sat was a vast, if one may so speak, well without water.” “For 28 years Avvakum suffered in torments and finally, in the year 7189, was burned alive in a log house in the Pustozersk ostrog.” “Such were the torments for the old faith from the year 1666. And that this should be so, hear what is said in Scripture. The prophet Daniel said: ‘And they shall faint in the furnace and in flame and in captivity and in plundering given.’” And the Lord in the Gospel said: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.”

QUESTION. So were these things said concerning these? ANSWER. Yes. For concerning the Jews in part, but here completely: it shall stand, He says, the abomination of desolation in the holy place. When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand).

QUESTION. How is it that many did not recognize this? ANSWER. Do not marvel, for they do not believe the fulfillment of things from Scripture. To whom the Lord said in the Gospel: “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

Chapter 11. Concerning Those Who Remained Faithful to the Old Faith, and Precisely Where

QUESTION. In those times when great persecutions followed for the Old Faith, who remained faithful to the old piety in faith, and in what regions—show me this from Scripture? ANSWER. The first adamant and pillar of the old piety, Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, not accepting the new dogmas from Nikon, was deprived of sacred rank and in 1655 was exiled to the north to the Paleostrovsky Monastery, as the historiographer Macarius relates: “The third place where the schism of the priestless sect most spread and established itself was the Pomorie in the Olonets regions. In these countries many schism teachers appeared. At the head of all—Paul, Bishop of Kolomna. Having been deprived of rank and exiled in 1655 to the Paleostrovsky Monastery (on Lake Onega), he for about a year (d. 1656) taught the surrounding inhabitants to remain firm in the supposed ancient patristic traditions and, among other things, commanded not to accept any mysteries or sacred rites from the Russian church, to rebaptize those coming newly baptized, not to accept newly ordained priests in it, affirming that not only the sacred monks still among them (that is, the schismatics), but also monks and simple pious men could perform the mysteries and satisfy others in spiritual needs—a purely priestless thought.”

QUESTION. So from this testament of the sacred sufferer Paul did the priestless, called Pomortsy, remain without priests? ANSWER. Yes. For not accepting the ordination of Nikon’s priesthood, necessity compelled these to remain without priesthood when, by God’s will, the priests of the old ordination died out.

QUESTION. So was Paul alone the confessor of the old piety? ANSWER. Many remained faithful to the holy antiquity besides Paul. The monk Cornelius, a tonsured of the Korniliev Monastery, from the year 1612 extended his life even to Patriarch Nikon, not loving his innovations, left his homeland and wandered in the Pomor regions. “Once, when Cornelius was still in Moscow, and when all the opponents of Nikon (ten persons in number) gathered in the house of a certain boyar, a secret Christian, yet God-loving, hiding from persecution for counsel, it was resolved: to reject all the newly introduced and to subject all this to curses and anathemas, having grievously and reproachfully arranged a council; to count the present Nikonian baptism not as baptism.” The names of the mentioned ten persons are these: Archimandrite Spiridon of the Pokrovsky from the poor, cathedral protopopes Avvakum and Daniel, abbots Dosifei and Kapiton, priest Lazar, deacon Theodore, monks Avraamii, Isaiah, and Cornelius! See how and by what zealots of the Old Faith the Pomor country was populated. “The second after Paul they name Dosifei, abbot of the Nikolsky Besedny Monastery not far from Tikhvin. Leaving his monastery, he wandered in various places preaching schism and most often loved to stay in the Kurzhenskaya hermitage near Povenez, where the inhabitants of the Obonezhie country gathered to him and were instructed in the old piety. The third was the monk Cornelius. He was born in Totma from a peasant, received tonsure in the Vologda Korniliev Monastery, steward or cellarer under Patriarch Philaret, baker under Patriarch Joasaph and Novgorod Archbishop Afthonius, overseer of prisoners from the clergy under Patriarch Joseph.” Further: “Then he moved several times from place to place, from desert to desert, received men and women coming to live with him, himself rebaptized and tonsured into monasticism, though he had no sacred rank, until finally he established himself on the Vyg River and became the first planter of the famous Vygoretsk hermitage in the history of the schism.”

“But most of all the spread of schism in the Pomor regions was aided by the Solovetsky fugitives. Some of them left the monastery at the beginning of its siege, others after the end of the siege. Having scattered throughout all the Pomorie, they everywhere spread that the Nikonians strive to destroy the old faith and introduce a new, soul-destroying one, that they torment the orthodox with every kind of suffering, chains, wounds, imprisonment, cutting out of tongues, burning in log houses, and so forth.”

“Daniel Vikulovich, clerk of the Shungsky pogost, with the monk Cornelius in the year 7203 founded the Vyg skete, in which he was hegumen or koinobiarch for about 40 years, and which after his name was called Danilov. Peter Prokopievich, seduced into schism by Ignatius Solovetsky in earliest youth, came to Daniel Vikulovich from Povenez even before the foundation of the monastery; skilled in church reading and singing and knower of the church rule, he was made the first ecclesiarch of the hermitage, established strict order in the performance of church services and celebration of feasts, and for more than thirty years was the most active collaborator of Daniel in the arrangement of the hermitage. Two brothers Andrew and Simeon Dionisievich and relatives of Peter Prokopiev, descended from the princely family of the Myshetskys, former Novgorod landowners, lived with their parent in Povenez, where even in youth both were seduced into schism by Ignatius Solovetsky. And in 1692 they moved with their brother John to the Vyg hermitage.”

“The main church needs in the monastery at first were performed by elder Cornelius: he baptized or rebaptized, confessed, tonsured monks and nuns. Then the same was done by: the Solovetsky elder Pafnutii, elders Paul, Varlaam, and others, just as Daniel, Andrew, and Simeon themselves.”

“The Vyg hermitage has also this important significance in the schism that here was formed the first in time of the existing until now sects of the priestless sect—the Pomortsy sect, or Pomor, otherwise Danilovshchina, after the name of Daniel Vikulych.” Further: “They said: 1) The Antichrist has already come and reigns mentally in the Russian church from the years of Patriarch Nikon, destroyed in it all mysteries and priesthood. 2) Those coming from the Russian church must be rebaptized.”

Historical information of Smirnov concerning the Pomortsy: “In the Pomor region the activity of priests of the old ordination rendered great service to the schism. In the Kurzhenskaya and Sunaretskaya hermitages people gathered in crowds to their divine services and for the performance of church needs, especially when the famous Abbot Dosifei served in the Kurzhenskaya hermitage. Povenez had its own old-ordained priest Ephraim, who managed to hold here approximately until the middle of the 80s. On the shore of the White Sea the hieromonk Pafnutii Solovetsky long lived, who then visited the Vyg hermitage.” Further: “The hieromonk Dosifei living in the Mileevaya hermitage rebaptized those coming to him from the neighboring Mileevaya church—peasants with wives and children.”

V. P. Andreev. The Schism and Its Significance in Russian Popular History: “But even in the less populated Olonets regions civil life soon began to develop. Marriages appeared there also among the priestless, and now Andrew Denisov consented to them.” Further: “Marriage in the priestless milieu first appears under the form of new-marriedness, and already in 1685 in Moscow Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriage in the priestless. The first of them was a contemporary of the Solovetsky petitioners.” Further: “But with the exception of this monastery all Obonezhie already long knew family relations, and marriage was recognized by Pomor teaching.” The history of the Pomor population by the Old Believer priestless is quite extensively written by Ivan Filippov.

These inhabitants recognized: 1) The Antichrist has come and reigns in the world; 2) Nikon destroyed the old piety; 3) To recognize Nikon and those with Nikon as heretics; 4) Not to accept priests and church mysteries from Nikon’s church; 5) Not to recognize baptism in Nikon’s church; 6) To baptize those coming from Nikon’s church.

Such are the Danilovtsy-Pomortsy, tracing their origin by the path of successive baptism; and as baptism and the old holy faith were planted by the Solovetsky fathers in the Pomorie, so it is preserved even now.

As the ancient fathers, so also the contemporary Pomortsy recognize: a) The Antichrist has come into the world and reigns by the path of everything contrary to God. He is called by various names: apostate, Latin-minded proud one, bearing all evil in himself, destroyer, robber, crafty one, evil leader, bearing the seal of the time 666, or the number of his name. All these adjectival names bear allegorical coverings. In all these names intelligent people enlightened from above recognize things by experience. b) The priesthood has fallen into heresy. c) The fulfillment of the times according to Scripture. d) The world is passing through the mysterious Danielic seventieth week. e) They do not consider baptism saving among all heterodox. f) To those coming from heterodoxy they give new baptism. g) They shun priesthood, not out of contempt, but for heresies and false inventions concerning this. h) Confession, as a mystery, they reverently perform. i) They accept lawful marriage, do not tolerate depravity. j) The mystery of communion, in great necessity, believing in the Lord God, if anyone keeps himself from all impurity and ardently desires to commune, believes that the Lord Jesus Christ will vouchsafe this gift according to the faith of each, by the path He Himself knows, for: “with God all things are possible,” and: “where God wills, the orders of nature are overcome.”

Thus we have learned about the first Old Believers, and what they are we have said; the rest we propose to speak also about other Old Believers.

Chapter 12. Concerning the Old Believers Called Popovtsy, Who Accept the Priesthood of the Greco-Russian Church after the Number of the Year 1666

QUESTION. With the appearance of Nikon’s reforms, as witnessed above, there appear two warring sides: the new-believing and the old-believing—from what and how did it come about that the people faithful to antiquity divided among themselves into priestless and priestly? ANSWER. From what was indicated above concerning the priestless, you may satisfy your curiosity; but concerning the popovtsy hear and attend. When the priesthood of the ancient ordination grew scarce, some of the adherents of antiquity decided to accept fugitive priests from Nikon’s church and allowed such to perform sacred rites in their midst.

The historian Andrei Zhuravlev relates: “The popovtsy trace their beginning from one source, just as the priestless, with only this difference: that the rebaptizers, as we saw, after the death of their old priests remained entirely without priesthood and mysteries; but these determined to accept fugitive priests to themselves.

As in Pomorie the Zaonezhsky Monastery was arranged and sketes scattered from it throughout Olonets, and Vetka beyond the border was populated with numerous fugitives from Russia—at the same time in the Novgorod region on Belmash in the Chernoramensk forests Kerzhenets various popovtsy sketes appeared, of which one of elder Onuphrius from 1690 according to Avvakum’s teaching became better known than others, in the following way.”

“Vetka we see as a seductress of the superstitious; the net of delusion attracted a great number of fugitives of every rank from Russia. For Vetka greatly prided itself on the newly consecrated Pokrovsky church, which was consecrated by the monk Theodosius, and with it he gathered a monastic hermitage.”

“This Theodosius is considered the first founder of the popovtsy system. For he was the last among them of old baptism and ordination—that is, before Patriarch Nikon—and the first to establish accepting priests of new ordination, though also of such baptism.” Further: “After Theodosius on Vetka the priest Alexander took the place, and after him followed others corresponding to the quality of the people.”

The historian P. S. Smirnov concerning the popovtsy: “At the time when one part of the schism separated into the priestless, the other received the name popovtsy. Originally it appeared in the form of беглопоповщина [fugitive-priest], because its followers decided to be shepherded by priesthood fleeing from the Great Russian church.”

“Disputes about the manner of receiving fugitive priests arose at the end of the 1770s. They led to the division of беглопоповщина into two unequal parts: the перемазанцы [those anointed over], who formed the vast majority, and the дьяконовцы [deaconites], who stood for receiving fugitive priests by the third rank. Then two new centers of беглопоповщина formed: Moscow with its Rogozhskoe cemetery and Irgiz. The foundation of Rogozhskoe cemetery falls in the year 1772.”

The historian Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow: “All the Kerzhenets sketes at first accepted priests only ordained before Patriarch Nikon, rebaptized those coming to them from the Russian church; but from the first years of the 18th century, following the example, as we shall see, of their other co-believers, they began to accept also fugitive priests ordained after Nikon, and little by little abolished rebaptism.”

“In Starodubye (Chernigov province) the schism was brought by the former Moscow priest at the church of All Saints on Kulishki, Cosmas, who, not wishing to submit to the determinations of the Moscow council of 1667, fled with twenty parishioners to his friend, the Starodub colonel Gabriel Ivanov.” Further: “Among others there came from Belev another priest of old ordination, Stefan with his son Demetrius, who founded yet another settlement Mitkova. Both priests performed all services for their flock except the liturgy for lack of a temple; those coming from the Russian church they rebaptized and did not accept new priests.”

“Stefan dying commanded his spiritual children to beware generally of novelties and not to accept new ordination” (p. 324).

P. S. Smirnov. Internal Questions in the Schism: “The first Starodub and Vetka performers of needs: priest Cosmas and priest Stefan repeated with their baptism those newly baptized coming from the church, and likewise did not accept priests of new ordination. Dying, they commanded their spiritual children to keep this testament for all times.”

“Under their influence the Vetka inhabitants shunned the then-living on Vetka aforementioned priest Joasaph, who received ordination from the Tver hierarch. But when Stefan and Cosmas were no more, and Joasaph received blessing from Dosifei to perform sacred rites, the Vetka people with emotion begged Joasaph not to leave them orphans, and Joasaph indeed became their priest. He also did not accept either baptism or ordination performed according to the new books.” Further: “But Joasaph’s successor—the black priest Theodosius, himself of old ordination—already opened the door on Vetka to priests of post-Nikonian ordination, though he repeated post-Nikonian baptism: the priests Alexander and Gregory invited by them in 1696 for the consecration of the church had new ordination.” The letter of deacon Alexander which Smirnov placed in his book Internal Questions in the Schism. Theodore writes: “The last apostasy has come, soon the Antichrist will be, the forerunner of the end of the world, therefore everything approaches abolition. Hippolytus, Pope of Rome—in the word on the Antichrist by the Holy Spirit foresaw the time now begun—said concerning evil pastors destroying souls; in those times there will be an evil leader, that is, unrighteous priesthood—and now it is fulfilled. Christ said: when ye see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and so forth, let him that readeth understand. The abomination of desolation—unrighteous priesthood, the delusion of Antichrist, shall be set in the holy place, that is, on the altar of unorthodox services, which we now see fulfilled. There will be no other apostasy.”

Ivan Alekseev of Starodub concerning the fugitive priesthood: “Let it be known to the reader concerning these that these five priests—Cosmas, Stefan, Job, Dosifei, and this Joasaph—coming from Great Russia, except Dosifei, performed simple services, not requiring blessing from other priests for sacred rites, being satisfied with the blessing of those hierarchs from whom they were ordained, and not confessing the grace of ordination in priests.”

Here is the very chief beginning of the faith of the popovtsy and the root of their priesthood; it did not proceed from the succession of Christ’s priesthood, but from the heretical root of the number 1666.

QUESTION. But how is it said in Scripture that the priesthood of heretics, if any of them repents of heresy, may be accepted? ANSWER. There is no such thing written in Scripture that it would be possible to borrow priesthood from heretics. QUESTION. How then does the first Nicene council in the 8th rule say: “The heretics called Puritans, coming to the catholic church, first let them confess that they submit to the church laws, and communicate with the twice-married, and forgive the repentant, and if there be in any city a true bishop or presbyter appointed, let him remain in his rank”? How is this to be understood, that after joining the church the council commands the heretical bishop or presbyter to remain again in his rank? ANSWER. Understand thus: when the heretics called Puritans come to the catholic Church, if there are among them bishops or presbyters, they are first anointed with holy chrism, as is said in the commentary on this rule: “And simply to say, following all church commands, having cursed their heresy and all others, let them be received, and only anointed with holy chrism.” When chrismation is performed over heretical clerics, then they become simple laymen; but when they express desire to be in that rank in which they were in heresy, if they are found without reproach, they are ordained anew by the hand of an orthodox bishop. This is confirmed by the Council of Constantinople in the epistle to Martyrius: “And then, it says, that is after chrismation, the diligent laymen are appointed to the rank in which they were, whether presbyters or deacons, or something else.” And Theophilus of Alexandria in his twelfth rule says: “Those who from the heresy called Puritans turn and approach the catholic Church, appoint from them deacons and presbyters and bishops according to the command of the Nicene council, if their life be right and they have nothing contrary.”

See that heretical clerics are ordained anew, and not accepted with heretical ordination. And understand the rule itself: that heretical clerics come to the Church where there is “a true bishop.” But among the popovtsy, when priests fled to them from heresy, there were no bishops, and there was no ordination upon the heretical priests; therefore, since heretics came running, manifestly they remained heretics according to ordination.

QUESTION. But could not those priests who had ordination from ancient orthodox bishops—the five, as indicated above—accept priests fleeing from heresy and place them in their ranks, out of necessity for lack of a bishop? ANSWER. A priest is one thing, and a bishop is another. A priest only performs sacred rites but does not ordain; a bishop both performs sacred rites and ordains. Therefore a priest may receive a heretical priest to repentance and unite him with the faithful through chrismation or baptism, but he cannot give the grace of ordination, so that a priest coming from heresy might again perform sacred rites.

Concerning the rights and duties of an orthodox priest. Symeon of Thessalonica writes: “Hear: no priest can perform sacred rites in the Spirit, or do anything else, unless he has ordination. But this is from the bishop. Therefore through him the episcopate acts. Again, a priest does not perform the mysteries without an altar: but this is consecrated through chrism; and chrism through the bishop: it is perfected by him himself. Therefore without a bishop there is neither sacrifice nor priest nor altar at all; thus all these things are through the bishop.” See that a priest does nothing without a bishop, but among the Old Believer popovtsy there was no such bishop when they accepted fugitive heretical priests—understand that this was unlawful and not according to God’s will. For a presbyter can only baptize and perform sacred rites, but he cannot give the right to sacred rites to a priest coming from heresy. This again Symeon of Thessalonica confirms: “But a presbyter, it says, called perfect as having only perfective grace in the mysteries: not transmissive. He baptizes and performs sacred rites: but he cannot ordain nor do anything else to a priest, or to any who partake of the sacred rank.”

From this it is manifest that fugitive priesthood from heresy is unlawful, and therefore not saving.

Hear also the prohibition: “It is not permissible for a priest to perform sacred rites.” In the preface to the Nomocanon it is laid down: “But the sins of priests and protodeacons which bring deposition and torment are subject to the judgment of bishops, lest a spiritual father dare to absolve them.” Of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite: the essential: “Therefore the sacred order of divine ordinances, the priesthood—that is, ordination—the divine chrism perfectly and the sacred altar’s service of divine hierarchs with perfective powers alone vouchsafes. Interpretation. Note that neither to consecrate nor to perfect chrism is of a presbyter, nor to bring an altar to offer upon it, nor to ordain. For these things only a hierarch can do; without whom a priest neither baptizes nor offers, but performs sacred rites of those afterward made by the bishop.”

See, beloved, the fugitive priesthood from heresy and attend with the mind to its validity—whether it is holy or not. History and the laws of Scripture are laid before you here; if you wish to be with Christ, attend to His teaching: that many false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and the time is near which is; the last week of Daniel is running its course, and the coming of Christ is already at the doors. Attend to what Christ said in the holy Gospel: “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?” “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”

Thus far concerning the fugitive priesthood among the Old Believers.

Chapter 13. Concerning the Old Ritualists Holding the Belokrinitsa Priesthood

QUESTION. Tell me about the priesthood existing among the Old Ritualists called popovtsy, which is called Belokrinitsa—what is it? ANSWER. The so-called Belokrinitsa priesthood is the same as the fugitive-priest one, with only this difference: that the fugitive-priests accepted only priests from the Russian church, but here they accepted a metropolitan from the Greek church.

QUESTION. Tell me, when was this? ANSWER. In the year 1846. As the historian Nikolai Subbotin testifies: “In general this day, October 28, 1846, from which the now existing hierarchy among the schismatics traces its beginning, when the event occurred that constitutes an epoch in the history of the schism, must be marked in the annals of the schism as one of the most memorable.”

QUESTION. So is this priesthood lawful and holy? ANSWER. It is not lawful and not holy. QUESTION. Can you confirm by Scripture that this priesthood is not lawful and not holy? ANSWER. I can. Hear and attend.

1. Priesthood proceeds by succession through ordination.
2. Priesthood that has ceased its succession is no longer successively Christ’s, but collateral.

On the first: successive ordination of priesthood ceased from 1666 according to the belief of the popovtsy themselves in general. On the second: ordination of priesthood among the popovtsy from the year 1846 took its beginning from the heretical church: since, according to their own belief, the metropolitan Ambrose they accepted was a heretic. But a fugitive priest could not ordain a heretical bishop, as has been attested above: therefore it is unlawful. Not holy because the Holy Spirit does not act in heretics: “For the Holy Spirit forsakes them,” as the Great Basil said in his first rule. And the 68th rule of the holy Apostles says: “He who is ordained twice and he who ordained him, let both be deposed, unless the first hand was only heretical. In the commentary it is said: For those baptized by them (heretics) are not baptized, and those ordained are not clerics.” Not holy because in heretics there acts not the Holy Spirit but a spirit, as the venerable Joseph Volotsky says: “Heretics have in themselves the unclean satanic spirit.” And the theologian called the Antichrist a heretic—so how can the divine judgment follow the Antichrist’s judgment?

QUESTION. But how then were ancient heretical clerics accepted, as John the son of Marcion by the venerable Sabbas and Theodosius, in his own rank? ANSWER. John the son of Marcion was not of heretical ordination, but orthodox, as was his baptism. Hear what is related of him in the life of Sabbas the Sanctified: “The venerable Sabbas was building a monastery near Castalia, helped by his own means by the presbyter of holy Sion Marcion, with his son Anthony and John. On the shore. This John was patriarch in Jerusalem after Elias.” See that John with his father Marcion and brother Anthony were orthodox.

Concerning the deposition of Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem in the life of Sabbas the Sanctified it is written: “When therefore Olympius came with much force, he immediately fulfilled the emperor’s command. He deposed the patriarch without trial and sent him into exile to Aila, and in his place raised the son of Marcion the presbyter John, who promised to curse the Chalcedonian council and to have communion with Severus.” See that John was raised from the orthodox to the patriarchal rank by the indication of the eparch Olympius and ordained by the remaining clergy after Elias—orthodox; for the eparch could not ordain. And moreover know this: that John only “promised” to defend the Sidonian council and have communion with Severus, but Severus was not in Jerusalem but in Antioch, and he fulfilled neither the one nor the other. For when the venerable Sabbas learned of this, gathering monks from all monasteries as a certain commander with an army of monastics came to Jerusalem, he reproached John for the word he had given, that he promised to reject the Chalcedonian council and commune with Severus. John, ashamed before so many great fathers who came with Sabbas, promised them not to do this—to reject the Chalcedonian council—but gave his word to defend the Chalcedonian council and to curse the Sidonian together with Severus, and thus he fulfilled it.

Hearing this, the emperor grew angry with the eparch Olympius and deposed him from rank for choosing such a one—that is, an orthodox patriarch—instead; and instead of Olympius he appointed Anastasius as eparch in this Palestine and sent him to Jerusalem to incline Patriarch John to accept communion with Severus and the Sidonian council and to curse the Chalcedonian.

When Anastasius came to Jerusalem, he seized Patriarch John and cast him into prison. John besought Anastasius to grant him respite, promising to fulfill the emperor’s will voluntarily and not under compulsion. Anastasius believed John’s word and commanded him released from prison. John secretly sent to inform Sabbas and Theodosius of this and asked them to hasten their coming. And after a week both archimandrites Sabbas and Theodosius arrived, having with them monks as many as ten thousand. When the church council took place, and the eparch Anastasius, and there also Hypatius the emperor’s kinsman came to the church with his soldiers, and a multitude of people gathered: the patriarch ascended the ambo, having with him Sabbas and Theodosius; and all the people with the black-robed cried out to the patriarch: Curse the heretics, confirm the Chalcedonian council. And taking boldness, the patriarch cried out saying: “If anyone is of one mind with Eutyches, Nestorius, Severus, and Soterichus, let him be anathema.”

See that in the action of John the son of Marcion there is nothing in common with Metropolitan Ambrose. John was orthodox and ordained to patriarch by orthodox bishops. But Ambrose was a heretic both by baptism and by ordination. Moreover, Sabbas and Theodosius did not join John but were only witnesses of his cursing of heretics. See that there is no likeness of white to black, so also of John to Ambrose. For Ambrose, as a heretic, was joined by the fugitive priest Jerome by the second rank of chrismation, and he could not re-ordain him to the rank of bishop.

QUESTION. I see that you speak rightly, but do not tell me also about Patriarch Meletius of Antioch, how he was ordained to the Antiochian patriarchate by the Arians, and yet he ordained Saint John Chrysostom to deacon: was ordination ever repeated over Meletius? ANSWER. Hear and attend: Saint Meletius was not a heretic first of all. As Nikephoros the Greek historian relates in his life: “Saint Meletius was first bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, then transferred to Beroea in Syria, afterward became archbishop of the throne of Antioch.” See that Meletius was not a heretic but orthodox in all things, since before Antioch he was appointed bishop in Sebaste—manifestly by orthodox bishops; but he came to Antioch already a bishop, as is related in his life. He was appointed in this manner: “When the impious heretic Macedonius, false shepherd of the church of Constantinople, was deposed from the throne, Eudoxius archbishop of Antioch, likewise an Arian heretic, desired the throne of Constantinople for the sake of riches, since in the reign of Constantius son of Constantine the Great the church of Constantinople abounded in many riches more than that of Antioch and others; therefore Eudoxius, despising the throne of Antioch, began to seek that of Constantinople. When the Antiochians learned of this, they grew very angry with their archbishop Eudoxius for despising their church and expelled him; he went and took the throne of Constantinople, but the Antiochians, having gathered a council, made a common judgment of election whom to raise to the throne instead of Eudoxius; but there were then among them very many and most notable Arians who could do much: and the orthodox were fewer, and these were despised and called Eustathians after holy Eustathius who had formerly been archbishop of Antioch and suffered exile for the pious faith. In that council the name of holy Meletius was on the lips of all, and all resolved to have him as their archbishop; and especially the Arians desired him, thinking him to be of one mind with them, and hoping that he would bring the Eustathians also to the same mind and teach all Antioch the dogmas of the Arians. They therefore composed a common judgment of election, confirmed it with the signature of their hands, and entrusted holy Meletius to holy Eusebius bishop of Samosata, a right-believing man who was at that council, and having sent a petition to holy Meletius with imperial consent, they brought him to Antioch with great honor and popular meeting.”

See that the Arianizing Antiochians together with the orthodox asked Bishop Meletius by common election—with a letter—to occupy the throne of the church of Antioch. And to whom was it entrusted by the council to raise him to the patriarchal rank of Antioch? To Eusebius bishop of Samosata, an orthodox man. See the truth of things shining like the sun, and the flower of grace-successive ordination blooming on the throne of Antioch? And therefore it is manifest that holy Meletius was not a heretic, nor did he accept ordination from heretics.

And Athanasius of Alexandria also relates: “Meletius, who had been bishop first of Sebaste in Armenia, then of Beroea in Syria. The Arians thought to see in him one of their own mind, but they were deceived.”

Likewise Baronius testifies in the year of the Lord 360, under number 12: “When Eudoxius came from Antioch to Constantinople, in his place the Arians gave Meletius bishop of Sebaste, thinking him to be of one mind with the Arians, but they were deceived. For when raised to the episcopate of Antioch, he began from orthodoxy.” Further: “Theodoret writes that Eusebius bishop of Samosata, an orthodox man, secretly arranged Meletius on the throne of Antioch, knowing what he was inwardly, and kept the writing of his election with himself.” The Menaion for the month of June, day 22; in the life of the holy hieromartyr Eusebius bishop of Samosata it is written of the same: “Knowing well concerning holy Meletius, who was bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, that he is orthodox, holding firmly to the first ecumenical council of the holy fathers in Nicaea, he counseled all to elect Meletius to the patriarchate. Those thinking Arianly, not knowing Meletius’s orthodoxy but thinking him of one mind with them, easily obeyed Eusebius’s counsel, and composed a common judgment of election against him, confirmed it with the signature of their hands, and entrusted it to holy Eusebius.”

See the truth of things, that Meletius was first of all an orthodox bishop, and he was raised to the Antiochian throne not by Arians but by holy Eusebius bishop of Samosata; the Arians only thought about Meletius—that is, supposed that Meletius would defend the dogmas of Arius, but they were mistaken, therefore they deposed him from the throne; but remembering that they had given their own handwritten letter for the election of Meletius, which they entrusted to holy Eusebius, they feared when they would be exposed at the council, and entreated the emperor to send an official to take the letter from Eusebius, but Eusebius did not give that letter, in order to expose the Arianizers in falsehood by it and to magnify the orthodox Meletius. Moreover attend to this, beloved, that then everything was done by the judgment of bishops, but the Old Believer popovtsy did their affairs by the judgment of laymen with the participation of priests coming from heresy. And that Meletius was not a heretic, free from heretical ordination is attested also by our Russian holy fathers.

At the council under Tsar Ivan Vasilievich and Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow the fathers say: “This Meletius was bishop of Sebaste, very renowned in life and word. But for the disorder of those under his authority he renounced his episcopate and remained in silence. But the heretics thought that Meletius thought with them. They asked him of the emperor to be patriarch, and this came to be.”

And by this trustworthy testimony it is certain that holy Meletius did not accept Arian ordination, but was bishop of Sebaste, orthodox, and had successive orthodox ordination upon him; the Arianizers only thought that Meletius would be their supporter but were mistaken. From what has been presented understand: what difference there is between the orthodox Meletius and the heretic Ambrose.

QUESTION. I am troubled by the narration: orthodox and Arians had a joint council for the election of Meletius—I am perplexed how the orthodox had communion with Arians; tell me about this? ANSWER. Do not marvel nor be troubled, beloved, but incline your ear to hearing and understand that the Arianizers had not yet been condemned—attend to this: the first ecumenical council condemned and anathematized only the originator of the heresy Arius himself, but the council said nothing about the followers of his teaching. Therefore the Arianizers were still in the Church, for they had not been excommunicated.

But when the second ecumenical council was held, then the rule was laid down against the Arianizers themselves, and this is the seventh rule: those coming to the holy Church from the Arians they commanded to be anointed with chrism. But the affair with Meletius and the Arians themselves was between the first and second ecumenical councils.

QUESTION. I am satisfied with this resolution, but it is still necessary to ask: you say it is impossible for a priest to accept clerical heretics and leave them in their ranks, be it priest, bishop, or deacon—so how did the priest Michael accept such and leave them in their ranks? ANSWER. The priest Michael did accept heretics, truly, but not so simply as you think. Hear what the historian Baronius relates of him: “Without delay the pope sent to Constantinople the priest Michael for the reception and absolution of those repenting who, for fear of the Caesar, had apostatized from the holy faith, and easily returned to it.” See first that the pope sent the priest Michael and gave him the right for this. Second, Michael received those orthodox who had apostatized for fear of the Caesar to repentance by the will and blessing of the orthodox pope; but the fugitive priest Jerome himself was first of all a heretic-fugitive and received the heretic Ambrose without any permission for this. The difference is obvious.

QUESTION. But Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus—so how was he patriarch of Constantinople and president of the fourth ecumenical council, and how was he accepted with ordination from the heretic Dioscorus? ANSWER. Hear and attend: Dioscorus ordained Anatolius then when he had not yet been condemned by the council for heresy.

There is testimony concerning Dioscorus and Anatolius in the acts of the ecumenical councils, saying thus: “Dioscorus, contrary to the spirit of the canons, permitting himself ordination to the episcopate of Constantinople, raises to bishops of it a certain Anatolius who appeared in Constantinople with answers of the church of Alexandria. In concelebration with Dioscorus was also Eutyches. Anatolius, not knowing what would come of this, said to him with gratitude: Wherever you appeared, everywhere you ordained.”

Let us look in history when this was—before the trial of Dioscorus or after the trial.

“This affair was in the year 449 from the Nativity of Christ. When Dioscorus came from Alexandria to Constantinople for the fourth ecumenical council, and: in the place of Flavian in Constantinople he gave Anatolius, and in the place of Domnus in Antioch he gave Maximus; this same impious Dioscorus.” See that Dioscorus ordained Anatolius in 449 still before his deposition. Dioscorus was deposed in 451, as the same historian relates: “They pronounced sentence upon him, depriving him of episcopate and of all sacred ministry. First the chief ones, then all the six hundred bishops unanimously condemned him.”

Likewise in the books of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils it is related. Thus it was said: “The holy, great, and ecumenical council, by the grace of God, by the command of our most pious and most God-loving Emperors, gathered in the Bithynian city of Chalcedon in the most holy and victorious church of the martyr Euphemia—to Dioscorus.

Know that you—for contempt of the divine canons and for your disobedience to this Ecumenical Council, and besides other your offenses in which you are guilty, for not appearing on the thirteenth day of the present month of October before the holy and Ecumenical Council to answer the accusations brought against you—are deprived of episcopate and alienated from every church office by the holy and Ecumenical Council.”

This was in the year 451 after Christ. But Dioscorus ordained Anatolius in the year 449, two years before his deposition. Therefore the ordination, as being while he was in the church, was not rejected; but when he was stripped of episcopate and excommunicated from the church, then nothing from him was acceptable. But let us again return to the act of the seventh Ecumenical Council. The most holy Tarasius said: “What will you say about Anatolius? Was he not the president of the holy fourth Council? And yet he was ordained by the impious Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches. Thus we understand those ordained by heretics, as Anatolius was accepted. Again truly is the divine saying that children are not to be put to death for their fathers, but each dies for his own sin, and finally ordination is from God.”

See how Saint Tarasius the patriarch, as president of the seventh Ecumenical Council, did not reproach the fourth Ecumenical Council that he was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus, since Dioscorus ordained Anatolius before the trial upon him; so here the speech is about the iconoclasts, and from their number many declare submission to the Church, ask to remain in their places which they occupy in sacred ranks; therefore the holy father said that they received ordination from God—that is, from the hands of truly divine bishops; since this occurred before the trial of the iconoclasts. But when the trial was held over such, then it is forbidden to recognize ordination among heretics. As was also established by those same holy fathers who were at the seventh Ecumenical Council. They said: “If anyone dares to accept ordination from excommunicated heretics after the proclamation of the conciliar determination and the unanimous opinion of the churches concerning orthodoxy: let him be subject to deposition.” See that ordination is accepted from such heretics as have not yet been condemned; but from heretics condemned by the church ordination is taken away, as is said. This is confirmed also by the historian Baronius. In the year of the Lord 787, under number 12, he writes: “And the bishops who erred and were iconoclasts, for the sake of peace, when they repented, were returned to their episcopates.” See where ordination is from God—manifestly upon those who from orthodoxy turned to heresy. Here we will rest the answer concerning the popovtsy; let us take up the rest.

From what has been shown above it is evident: 1) The popovtsy do not have successive ordination. 2) They borrow priesthood from heresy. 3) They recognize heretical baptism as baptism. 4) They confess ordination from God in heretics. 5) They arranged the heretic Metropolitan Ambrose (according to their belief) by a fugitive priest. 6) In the encyclical epistle they confess: “The church now ruling in Russia, together with the Greek, believes not in another God but in the one with us. 7) The name Iisus they accept in the encyclical epistle, saying: ‘Nevertheless the written and pronounced by the present Greeks and Russians thus Iisus we do not dare to blaspheme nor call by the name of another Jesus and by the name of the adversary of Christ, as some priestless foolishly think. For now the ruling church in Russia, together with the Greek, under this name confesses the same Christ the Savior.’ 8) Likewise the four-pointed cross is not the shadow of the old shadowy covenant and is not abolished from the new-grace law of Christ.” Thus far concerning the popovtsy.

Chapter 14. Concerning the Old Ritualists Priestless Called Spasovy, or Netovshchina

QUESTION. Whence did the Old Believer Spasovy originate—from the ancient, pre-Nikonian Church, or from the Church after Nikon? ANSWER. The Spasovy originated from the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon. QUESTION. If this is so, as you say, confirm for me by writing that the Spasovy did not come from the ancient but from the new Church. ANSWER. That the Spasovy originated from the Church after Nikon is certain, and that this is true I will present witnesses. Andrei Ioannov Zhuravlev testifies: “A certain Kozma, an illiterate peasant, was the founder of this sect. He was the first in the priestless to forbid rebaptism, in which many, contrary to all the rebaptizers, followed Kozma and abandoned rebaptism. Therefore at first they were called ‘Kozminovshchina.’ Their teaching, excluding rebaptism, is almost in agreement with what has been described above: they also teach that the Antichrist has come into the world, and they have seen neither the word of right faith nor its mysteries anywhere. ‘And so there is no sanctity on earth, therefore those desiring to hold the old faith ought with us to flee to the Savior, Who Himself knows how to save us poor ones.’

They are called Netovshchina because they say there is no orthodox priesthood and no mysteries in the world.” Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow also testifies: “The Spasovo agreement, otherwise Netovshchina or Kuzminovshchina. It is called Kuzminovshchina after the name of its founder Kuzma, an illiterate peasant. It is still called Netovshchina because it taught and teaches that there is now in the world neither orthodox priesthood, nor mysteries, nor grace.” Further: “The followers of Netovshchina do not rebaptize those coming to them, sometimes they do not even baptize their own children in the hope that the Savior can save even without baptism; they have monks, and they consider marriage wherever it was performed indissoluble.”

V. V. Andreev: “The Spasovo agreement (Netovshchina) also represents a softening of Pomor teaching. Its founder was Kuzma, for which reason the agreement itself is sometimes called Kuzminovshchina. The illiterate peasant Kuzma also appeared as teacher to poor people. Kuzma rejected rebaptism.”

P. S. Smirnov. History of Russian Old Ritualism: “The Netov direction arose very early, still in the 17th century, and originally the Old Ritualist sect of this direction was called Kuzminovshchina after the name of the founder Kuzma.” Further: “They interpret thus: although even a heretic baptizes, yet a priest in vestments, and not a simple peasant. Nevertheless, when an infant is carried to church for baptism, at that time old men and old women of the Netovtsy distribute prepared pancakes to the poor, asking them to pray that God complete the baptism and count it as holy.” And thus there can be no doubt that the name Netovtsy was originally applied to the followers of the schism-teacher Kuzma, although the person of the latter cannot yet be determined with precision.” The historians clearly say that the Old Believer Spasovy came out of the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon.

QUESTION. It is evident that the Spasovy have the root of their baptism from the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon; I ask you to testify by holy Scripture: is it possible for them to be saved with the new baptism? ANSWER. Absolutely impossible. For the Savior Christ in His holy Gospel says: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” And again: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

QUESTION. From what plant did the Spasovy originate? ANSWER. You have seen from history that manifestly the Spasovy originated from the plant of the Church of the year 1666, when the old was rejected with a curse and the new was confirmed by councils.

QUESTION. And what Christ says concerning baptism: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit”—what are we to understand by these words? ANSWER. Grace-filled baptism. QUESTION. Tell me: can there be grace-filled baptism among all who are called Christians? ANSWER. No. Only in the true Church of Christ; where Christ is, there is grace. QUESTION. Is it impossible for baptism to be among heretics? ANSWER. Baptism is possible. But grace-filled baptism is impossible among heretics. Basil the Great in his first rule says: “For the Holy Spirit forsakes them (heretics).” In the seventy-third rule of the Council of Carthage, in the commentary, it is said: “For heretical baptism is not baptism, but rather defilement.” Zonaras in the commentary on the 68th rule of the holy Apostles also says: “For neither the baptism of heretics can make anyone a Christian, nor their ordination make anyone a cleric.”

Holy baptism is the seal of faith, as Gregory the Theologian says: “If thou shalt anticipate thyself with the seal of baptism, and for the future fence thyself with the best and strongest help, having signed both soul and body with anointing and Spirit.” And in the Great Catechism it is said: “With which the Lord God, as His own sheep, marks and seals us with holy baptism.” But the Lord God abides only in His holy Church, as the prophet of old spoke from the mouth of God: “And I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God.” But in heretics God does not abide. Hear what Scripture says of them: “For heretics have both hypocrisy and falsehood, because unclean demonic spirits dwell in them.” And again: “But heretics have in themselves the unclean satanic spirit—how can they bind and loose on heaven and on earth?”

The holy martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: “But it has been handed down to us that there is one God, and one Christ, and one faith, and one hope, and one Church, and one baptism established in one Church. If anyone now should fall away from this unity, such a one must necessarily be considered a heretic.” Further: “Likewise Peter, proving and defending this unity, taught that we can be saved in no other way than through one baptism alone, belonging only to one Church.” Further: “For as in the time of that universal baptism which cleansed all ancient unrighteousness, whoever was not in Noah’s ark could not be saved from the water: so also now, whoever is not baptized in the Church—in the mystical likeness of Noah’s ark—founded on the Lord’s unity, cannot be saved by baptism.”

In the Great Catechism “On the Mystery of Baptism”: “To this also, since no one can be saved except in union with the Church, as also in the time of Noah those not in the ark perished by water. How then shall they be united with the Church here, if they are not brought into it by baptism?”

See and understand who the Spasovy are and what their lot is.

QUESTION. But the Spasovy say of themselves that they are Old Believers, they think they are in the Church—so will they not be saved either? ANSWER. If the Spasovy were in the Church according to the old holy faith, they would accept baptism from the ancient holy Church; but they not only deprived themselves of this only saving source of baptism, but all were born by baptism in Nikon’s Church, and they fight for it. Even though they have separated from that Church in which they were baptized, yet not seeking the ancient source of holy baptism and not joining the zealots of the truly old faith, they made themselves a society of Old Believers and stood on a slippery path to salvation.

Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian writes: “Whoever, having despised the evangelical and apostolic tradition, not following anyone, came forth from himself.” And the Great Basil also writes: “For where the beginning is not firm, there the end is not strong.” And: “What one does not have himself, he cannot give to others.” But the Spasovy do not have baptism from the truly old faith, therefore they cannot give it to others. For the same holy father said: “Baptism is the seal of faith—and faith is the confession of Divinity.” From this attend to what the Old Believer Spasovy are. The Spasovy confess: 1) The Antichrist has come and reigns. 2) Baptism among any heretics whatsoever, only if it be in three immersions, is holy and divine. 3) They reject confession to the face of a man, though some confess. 4) About thirty years, a little more, ago they began to baptize infants with their own old men. 5) They recognize lay marriage as lawful.

Thus far concerning the Spasovtsy.

Chapter 15. Concerning the Old Ritualists Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy

QUESTION. What are the so-called Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists? ANSWER. The Fedoseevtsy Old Ritualists by origin from the ancient holy faith, by baptism are Christians, but they err in their understanding of the mystery of marriage: they reject marriage, reasoning: there is no priesthood and there is no marriage.

QUESTION. If there is no marriage when there is no priesthood, then how do generations upon generations of Fedoseevtsy Old Ritualists continue to be born? ANSWER. By the path of open and secret fornication!

QUESTION. Do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy have any foundation from divine Scripture that it is possible to prolong the human race by the path of secret and open fornication? ANSWER. There is not only no foundation in divine Scripture for fornicating cohabitation, but it is strictly forbidden. The Apostle Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians says: “Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, and so forth, with such an one no not to eat.” And in the commentary on the 26th rule of Basil the Great it is said: “And for this reason fornication is not marriage, nor the beginning of marriage, but sin and transgression of the law of God.”

QUESTION. So do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists err against the law of God by which marriage is held? ANSWER. Not only against the law, but against God Himself do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy err. Blessing upon marriage was given by the most good God Himself in the person of the first-created forefathers Adam and Eve, saying: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” And to the second forefather Noah, as Moses writes, God’s promise was given: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” See that both Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy err against God Himself. God gave blessing to the human race, without distinction: to barbarian and believer, marriage, and not lawless fornication.

The Apostle Paul writes: “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” See that the Apostle calls the wife of a believing brother who married in unbelief a wife. Therefore even among unbelievers marriages are constituted without violating blood kinship; they are lawful marriages, but the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy, having rejected the all-powerful blessing of God upon marriage for all the days of the world’s existence, have reduced it to human conditions: there is no priest, and there is no marriage.

QUESTION. Who was the first to sow this teaching contrary to God? ANSWER. A certain Feodosii Vasiliev. As the historian Andrei Ioannov relates concerning this: “The chief of that was Feodosii Vasiliev, church clerk of the Krestetsky yam, who in 1706 or 1707 (according to the Pomortsy) was the first to break away from the Vygoretsk union.”

QUESTION. In Vygorets itself they also rejected marriage, just as Feodosii and Filipp—what will you say about the Vygoretsk Pomortsy? ANSWER. The Vygoretsk Pomortsy rejected marriage because the male and female monasteries were arranged according to the monastic rule; and therefore it was impossible to live either in the male with wives or in the female with husbands, but in the so-called sketes they lived in family fashion, as the historian Andreev relates: “In the first time Andrew Denisov could firmly stand against marriage, and married life among the priestless was established only in the south in Chuguev, on the Don, in Austria, where the surrounding sphere most quickly conditioned civil and social life. But even in the less populated regions civil life soon began to develop. Marriages appeared there also among the priestless, and Andrew Denisov now consented to them!” The reason for the celibacy of the Pomortsy is explained as the same historian says: “The Solovetsky monks planted in the north a desert-dwelling, celibate schism. The wandering and scattered life amid the inhospitable northern forests, together with persecutions, long maintained the family-less character of the schism on the Russian outskirts. Later another reason strongly influenced the maintenance of celibacy among the priestless schismatics: the recruit obligation was borne only by the married milieu, and the more resourceful of the Russian people, not wishing to bear recruit service, adhering to the teaching that preached celibacy, later had wives and children but were officially and according to the statute of their sect counted as unmarried, thus freeing themselves from recruit service.”

Here are the two main reasons that forced the ancestors of the Pomortsy to remain in celibacy. 1) The Solovetsky monks, as fugitives from persecution, could not teach otherwise than on monastic terms—by the path of celibacy, recognizing the time as the last. 2) It is quite admissible that the ancestors of the Pomortsy, in order to avoid recruit obligation—not because they did not wish to serve the tsar and fatherland, to which the Pomortsy were never opponents, but so as not to violate the old faith which was then persecuted with all severity—avoided military service by indirect celibacy, but in essence they recognized marriage as the eternal promise of God.

And here to great regret people who were in seclusion and persecuted for the faith so thoughtlessly accepted forced celibacy as law.

QUESTION. In the first times of the Old Faith was there teaching of priestless marriage among the priestless Old Ritualists? ANSWER. There was. Already in 1685, as Andreev relates: “in Moscow Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriage in the priestless. The first of them was a contemporary of the Solovetsky petitioners.”

And with the exception of the Vygoretsk region, all Obonezhie already long knew family relations, and marriage was recognized by Pomor teaching. See that marriage was recognized by the Pomortsy even when the Vyg hermitage flourished, and even earlier in Moscow in 1685 Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriages among the priestless Old Ritualists.

QUESTION. If marriage among the priestless Old Ritualists was preached so early and tolerated by the Vygovtsy in the sketes, then how do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy not attend to the need of lawful family life, trampling God’s blessing upon marriage, and continue to live in depravity? ANSWER. By extreme ignorance and crude stubbornness. By ignorance, because they do not enter into the position of their ancestors and their extreme necessities for existence in the faith. The ancestors had no time for family life when every moment of their life they could not be safe from persecution. By coarseness of upbringing and habits from people who poorly valued evangelical love and saving peace. By stubbornness, seeing with their own eyes that the end of the world has not yet come and, having lived whole centuries, they do not wish to acknowledge their delusion that celibacy is possible only for each separate person in the lot assigned to him by the Creator, but in no way for the existence and continuation of the human race.

QUESTION. I see that the Feodoseevtsy and Filippovtsy are not right in their teaching and far from the truth concerning the essence of marriage, but tell me: can marriage be performed without a priest, by parental blessing, or in some other way? ANSWER. Marriage can be performed both without a priest in necessity and without necessity. First: marriage has first of all blessing from God: “Be fruitful, He said, and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Marriage was honored by His own presence by Jesus Christ Himself and was vouchsafed by the miracle of turning water into wine. Second: the Apostle Paul recognized marriages also among pagans—marriages in ancient times were performed even without a priest, by the personal consent and love of bridegroom and bride, with the consent of parents. As Theodore Balsamon testifies in the commentary on the 38th rule of Basil the Great: “And therefore only the subsequent agreement (of parents) makes the marriage innocent. And this, it seems to me, took place when marriage was concluded by agreement alone.”

Sevast Armenopulos. Book 8: “Marriage is the union of husband and wife and joint inheritance for the whole of life, communion of divine and human laws, whether by blessing, or by crowning, or by record. And what is done without these is counted as not having been.” Likewise Matthew the Corrector repeats: “Marriage is the union of husband and wife and joint inheritance for the whole of life, communion of divine and human laws, whether by blessing, or by crowning, or by record; and what is done without these is counted as not having been.”

The law of the Greek emperors Leo and Constantine. Book of the Rudder, chapter 50: “Christian marriage is agreed, whether written or unwritten, between husband and wife.” Further: “Written marriage is constituted in written proper form by three trustworthy witnesses according to what is now lawfully ordained by us piously. But if by narrowness or humility one cannot well and pleasantly constitute and write the marriage, then let the marriage be agreed even unwritten, without guile, by the counsel of the uniting persons’ parents. Or in church for the sake of blessing, or before five friends it was commanded.”

QUESTION. Marriage then is a church mystery. Tell me wherein this mystery consists? ANSWER. In the bridegroom and bride. See what is written concerning the mystery of matrimony in the Great Catechism.

QUESTION. What is marriage? ANSWER. Marriage is a mystery by which bridegroom and bride from pure love in their heart earnestly desire one another, and make agreement between themselves and a vow that they will willingly, by God’s blessing, be joined in common and indivisible cohabitation. Just as Adam and Eve before the fall and without carnal union had right and true marriage. And it is the union of husband and wife according to lawful order in indivisible cohabitation, who from God receive specially this grace: to bear children well and Christianly and to raise them, and to be preserved from abominable fornicating sin and incontinence.

QUESTION. What is the matter of this mystery? ANSWER. Those being joined in marriage. QUESTION. Who is the agent of this mystery? ANSWER. First, the Lord God Himself, as Moses the God-seer writes: “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” And in the Gospel He confirms, saying: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” After this the spouses themselves perform this mystery for themselves, saying: “I take thee as my wife,” “I take thee as my husband,” as if one sells oneself, he himself is both the thing and the merchant. So also in this mystery they both sell and give themselves together into this honorable service.

Thus it is trustworthy that the mystery of marriage is constituted by the spouses themselves. This constituent love those who wish to be lawfully joined, without hindrance of kinship, with the consent and blessing of parents, God Himself blesses; which the priestless Old Believer Pomortsy undoubtedly have as lawful marriage, even though it is performed without priesthood. For they do not lack priesthood out of contempt for priesthood, but for benevolent reasons.

But the teaching of the Feodoseevtsy is such: 1) they recognize the Antichrist as having come. 2) Priesthood has fallen into heresy. 3) They baptize all coming to them from heterodoxy. 4) They have no communion in drink and food with heterodox. 5) They do not recognize lay marriage. 6) They recognize: the time of Antichrist, in which marriage cannot be. They have many other peculiarities, but they are not important.

The Filippovtsy teach: 1) Not to pray for heterodox tsars. 2) To write the eight-pointed cross of Christ with the title I. N. Ts. I. 3) They shun the Pomortsy for praying for tsars and for signing to voivode Samarin that they would pray for tsars and authorities.

Such is the main teaching of the Feodoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists.

CONCLUSION

All this I have written for the sake of saving cause, and I have depicted each agreement in its hope of salvation with things and appearance. I have omitted nothing from the belief of each separate hope of salvation, and I have added nothing unnecessary. But everything that each separate society has in the realm of canonical right, church traditions, and the very dogmas, I have written exactly and clearly, moved by the zeal of care for the old faith; not wishing to be a partaker of anything new. The reason for writing this is the reproaches from people who are not with us in faith: You, say the reproachers of us, all called Old Ritualists do not agree with the ruling Greco-Russian Church—why do you not agree among yourselves when you all confess the old faith? For this reason, as far as God’s grace helped, having written, I have delivered it, for what reasons we do not agree in faith with the ruling Greco-Russian Church and among ourselves for very important reasons, and not out of contempt for one another. For all zealots of ancient piety desire to be saved under the banner of the old faith, but you see who among all Old Ritualists truly holds the old faith in all its inviolability. Do not marvel at this if there are many Old Ritualists; for it must be so, that each, even if he will be saved in struggle, and not grow lazy concerning his salvation. Do not marvel also at the disputes among Old Ritualists themselves, but attend, for they do this for the salvation of souls, and not to shame one another, even if somewhere they speak harshly, yet they seek truth alone. For even the most insensible and cold stones, if they simply lie on the earth, manifest nothing but insensibility; but if they strike one another, they give forth fire. If cold and insensible bodies from striking one another give forth such heat, how much more do the animate bodies of zealots of the old faith from disputes give forth the bright light of their confession. But you, seeing what is sanctified by Scripture, who stands closer to the number 666, understand. For it has been shown you clearly: 1) The popovtsy accepting fugitive priesthood from heresy accept it and are shepherded by it. 2) The popovtsy founded a new hierarchy from 1846, which they now hold and are governed by. 3) The Spasovy, not recognizing any priesthood, originated by baptism from the ruling Church, and now accept it. 4) The Feodoseevtsy reject marriage, thinking to live purely, but lead a life more impure. 5) The Filippovtsy likewise reject marriage; being unmarried, they love foul lawless marriage by the path of which people are born to them. 6) The Old Ritualist priestless Pomortsy, confessing God’s promise upon the human race, accept lawful marriage and, reverently honoring it, offer praises to God who gave the law for the continuation of the human race. They honor virginity, but true virginity and not pretended. They have no priesthood by great necessity: there is no ancient, and they fear the new. They confess the most pure mysteries: the most precious and most honorable life-giving flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ God; though for lack of an orthodox performer of the mystery they do not have visible communion, yet they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that they will be vouchsafed also mystically, that is, spiritually, to partake of this great sanctity, according to holy Scripture: John, chapter 21; the Evangelist from John, leaf 105 verso; Ephraim the Syrian, word 83, his creation, part 4, p. 349; Great Sobornik, in the second word on Pascha, leaf 687. They accept confession. They honor their superiors in the Lord as they received from their ancestors who were fugitives from the Solovetsky Monastery and Danilov. They do not accept baptism from all heterodox—not from pride and contempt, but from fear of God, lest they infect their faith in Christ with that leaven. If, as the Apostle Paul said, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, how much more foreign baptism to the holy faith.

Thus doing, they abide in the holy old faith, accepting neither priesthood nor heretical baptism. This holy Church under the banner of the old faith I also confess to be the true and saving one.

The most lowly member thereof L. Pichugin

This work, to the measure of my strength, was finished after a long interruption. Year 7418, April 9th day.

source

Anonymous lecture on the words “A strong soul amid temptations” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, Discourse 105).

When I was in prison, I constantly had to move among worldly people with a psychology foreign to me: I was surrounded by people with different worldviews, people of other faiths—Nikonians, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, or outright unbelievers.

The mood of these people sharply differed from mine: the atmosphere, at any rate, was not Christian, not monastic. Swearing, obscenities, foul language, songs, blasphemous phrases—these were everyday occurrences; frequent fights, quarrels—everything offended religious feeling.

Once, in conversation with a serious man, I pointed out these “inconveniences” of imprisonment as ones that weighed heavily on me. I said that I feared for myself, lest I myself become like them: I feared that long-term stay in this environment would have a corrupting influence on my morality and religiosity. At these words my interlocutor gave an unpleasant smile. “What kind of Christian are you then?” he said, half mockingly, half contemptuously. “Can’t you remain religious among people? You’re afraid your faith will go out: that means you’re a poor Christian, that your faith is very weak!” These last words strongly affected me: I felt in them a great reproach. I became ashamed of myself. In my soul I had to agree that this man was speaking the truth. At least there was much truth in his words.

Indeed, can a true Christian stand firm only when he sees and hears nothing bad? Only by living somewhere far from people, in solitude? Must a Christian inevitably decay upon contact with evil? Among immoral people, must he himself become corrupt? Where then is the strength of the Christian religion? Where is its conquering power? Where is that firmness it imparts to its sons? No! If vicious people corrupt us by their presence, this only shows our own weakness—in essence, things should not be this way.

When Jesus Christ taught His doctrine to the apostles, He did not send them into the desert to be saved in solitude—how then would the world have been enlightened? No, He sent them into the world to preach, to teach “all nations,” and said to them: “You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world.” When founding His Church, Jesus Christ did not remove it from the midst of evil, but said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it: “They shall not overcome her” (Matthew 16:18).

The first Christians, upon accepting the faith, remained in their places, right in the midst of the world, amid paganism. They had sufficient strength so that the surrounding evil did not harm them. Having firmness in their hearts—firmness of faith and hope—they were inaccessible to corruption, rising above the vicious environment surrounding them. They themselves influenced that environment, weakening and conquering every evil. By their faith, by their healthy psychology, they healed others. Their very presence refreshed the atmosphere, bringing new healthy forces into it.

In our present time, our Christian life is usually arranged so that in our cells we are isolated from the worldly environment: we live an almost monastic life. But in recent years this arrangement of our life has changed significantly. A great many cells have been completely destroyed, large groupings of Christians have been broken up. Christians in large numbers have been scattered into worldly homes, often one person at a time, living among the families of benefactors. Thus they find themselves torn from their closed environment; they no longer breathe the “cell” spirit; they have been thrown into the worldly, everyday milieu. Living in worldly homes forces close contact with worldly weaknesses, face-to-face encounters with various vices. Here a Christian can constantly see something immoral: hear bad conversations and imperceptibly be drawn into them. Sometimes Christians are directly drawn into worldly vices. For example, they offer a Christian refreshments and are thus ready to make him a participant not only in this but in further evil. I have even seen such things: a Christian man or woman sits somewhere in a side room, while next to them in the hall or overhead upstairs a wildly merry ball is taking place: music, songs, dancing are heard; the whole building shakes from the noise. In my opinion, such hosts are not benefactors: they deserve some other name. Christians in such a position deserve sincere pity. Yes, Christians scattered among worldly homes endure many great temptations. Compared to life in a cell, moral life has become heavier, and moreover, being in such circumstances, they are deprived of great guidance and left to themselves. They no longer have the feeling they once had—that someone is over you, watching your life, someone to fear or be embarrassed before. In an hour of despondency no one extends a hand of consolation; there is no one from whom to expect support and good advice; often one hears bad advice, weakening words.

With these brothers I would so much like to speak heart to heart, to help them according to my strength. I want to say: Brothers and sisters, do not lose heart, do not let your hands drop, do not get lost in the new circumstances, do not attribute some invincible power to evil, do not fear it excessively. Even if a bad environment surrounds us, there is no necessity to submit to that environment. Even if our former guides are no longer with us, let us continue our ascetic struggle independently. Let some fall, let the faint-hearted turn their backs—what of it? “Do not envy evildoers, nor be jealous of those who do iniquity,” it is said. The wind will blow away only the chaff; the wheat will always remain.

Those who fall are the ones who previously stood only with the support of others. Those who remain are the ones who have within themselves an impulse toward the divine. For us who remain, it is now time to delve deeper into ourselves, into the inner moral wells, and there find strength to continue the struggle. A good support for us now can be the saints who pleased God amid people, who conducted their lives blamelessly. Was there no evil in the world back then? Does not Chrysostom say that out of a thousand, one man is saved, and out of ten thousand, one woman? “Woe to the world because of temptations,” said Jesus Christ. Yes, even then the world was full of temptations. But the saints who were saved amid the world were able not to be perverted by these temptations. That means it is possible; that means, with God’s help, it is within human nature’s power.

Remember Alexander the Coal-burner (Menologion, August 12), and Philaret the Merciful (December 2); remember how Ambrose of Milan was taken directly from civil service to the episcopal throne by God’s indication.

During a great drought, when the people’s prayers could not bring rain, it was said to ask a certain blacksmith to pray; and when he began to pray, rain came.

In the Life of Macarius of Egypt, about two daughters-in-law who lived in the city and by their holiness surpassed the great ascetic Macarius himself (January 19).

In the Life of St. Xenophon and Mary it is said that their children, who from youth renounced the world, “did not attain the measure of their parents” (January 26).

So great were some of those saved in the world; and many of them were right in the thick of worldly affairs: Ambrose was governor of an entire province; St. Xenophon served at the court of the Greek emperor; Alexander burned and carried coal; the aforementioned daughters-in-law lived with their husbands.

But none of this prevented them from being virtuous and holy. Everything visible is ultimately judged by the intention of a person’s soul: God looks not at the face, but at the heart.

Recall here the chaste Joseph. While in Egypt, among idol-worshippers, this handsome young man did not forget God; he always kept the fear of Him in his heart. To his shameless mistress he said: “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). What held him back from the base act was not fear of his parents—they were not with him; nor shame before people—the bedroom of his mistress was hidden from the eyes of outsiders. What restrained him was his own prudence and the fear of the all-seeing eye from which nothing is hidden.

Here is an example worthy of imitation! Here is a champion of chastity whom we must constantly remember, especially when we find ourselves in similar circumstances—where no supervising eyes are upon us, where everything depends on our own will. Let the same thing hold us back from evil deeds: our own prudence and the fear of God. Let those exalted feelings—that “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him” (Hebrews 4:13)—be our guide in life. This feeling will save us from many temptations.

In the Life of St. Xenophon it is said that, while daily fulfilling his official duties, he never abandoned the church of God “evening and morning.” This means he never missed either Vespers or Matins. See how this man was saved amid the world! What zeal he had for prayer! And of all the saints it must be said that they became saints precisely because they prayed constantly.

Look at the desert-dwellers: their life was unceasing prayer; their mental eye was always directed toward God. That is why all the hardships of desert life, complete solitude, and the difficulties of battling demonic temptations did not frighten them.

Of the saints saved in the world, it must be said that worldly evil did not corrupt them because they were always clothed in the strong armor of prayer. A person whose gaze is fixed on heaven is inaccessible to temptations. Abiding in daily communion with God, he finds there an inexhaustible source of moral strength and power. Prayer is life for a Christian; it is the beating of his spiritual pulse. From it is kindled in his soul that heavenly fire of which Christ speaks: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49). Therefore, if any of us seriously thinks about eternal salvation, let him learn to pray; let him know that this can be attained only through prayer.

Besides prayer, the strongest weapon against evil for a Christian is Holy Scripture. The remembrance of its divine sayings and their frequent repetition have great power for moral strengthening and the quenching of passions. The “word of God” can sober a person; it shakes and softens the soul and chastens the mind. The “sayings of God” are a “spiritual sword” (Ephesians 6:17) by which every assault of sin is cut off; it is a healing balm for every wound of the soul, an antidote to all passions. Whoever listens to the words of Holy Scripture with a simple soul and sincere faith experiences their irresistible influence: they regenerate him, impart strength, and give him great moral power.

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life,” said Jesus Christ (John 5:39).

Through Scripture a Christian can not only strengthen and educate himself, but also edify those around him: he can not only avoid corruption himself, but also protect others from corruption. And he is obliged to do this. If he only saves himself, that is still not enough. “What benefit is there from the sun if it does not give light?” says Chrysostom. “What benefit is there from a Christian if he benefits no one?” A Christian must be “the salt of the earth.” Salt not only does not spoil or rot itself, but preserves other things from rotting, making them inaccessible to the bacteria that cause decay. The same must the Christian do in the spiritual realm: he must “salt” those around him, impart strength to them so that the various microbes of moral evil flying about do not produce corruption in them. Let them swarm in great numbers in the air around, but let them not touch believers, let them be powerless to harm them.

“You are the light of the world,” said Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:14). A Christian is called not only to have light in his own soul, but to share that light with others; not only to preserve spiritual warmth within himself, but to warm others as well.

To be salt and light, it is not necessary to be a preacher or to speak eloquently. A simple, unlearned Christian man or woman—even an old woman—can possess the evangelical salt within. The salting effect is produced first of all by the Christian’s life: when he conducts himself piously, prays often, and does not participate in evil deeds. The mere presence of such a person already does much good. The mood of those around him is dissolved by his virtues; evil is ashamed before righteousness.

But apart from his pious life, let the Christian also benefit those with him by his words. “Whoever does and teaches, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

Living among the families of benefactors and in constant contact with them, he has every opportunity to exert a beneficial influence upon them. Let the “spiritual sword”—the word of God—manifest its power here as well; let the spiritual plaster be skillfully applied to the wounds of human souls. In despair, let the Scripture be recalled that speaks of God’s great mercy toward the repentant. In carelessness, remind them of God’s justice and the eternal punishments for unrepentant sinners. In luxury and revelry—the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In temptations to carnal sin—the saying of the Lord: “Whoever looks at a woman…” and so on. If he notices in the benefactor’s family a striving after gain, let him bring the words of the Lord: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19–20). The Christian may add that the passion for gain is the source of many evils. From it arise offenses, quarrels, lawsuits. For, as the Apostle says: “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).

If a quarrel arises in the house, let the Christian bring the Gospel words: “Everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:22), and “Do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Ephesians 4:26). If the offense drags on into the next day, remind them of Christ’s words: “If you do not forgive men their trespasses from your hearts, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:15). If worldly gossip and idle talk go on in the house, the Christian should first refrain from participating himself, and then teach that such things do not lead to anything useful and do not elevate us morally. “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33). And again: “Every idle word that men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36). By speaking of others’ sins, we only increase our own: “With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged” (Matthew 7:2). If a noisy, merry worldly celebration is held in the house, let the Christian remind them of Christ’s words: “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). And again: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (1 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Exodus 32:6). “And they perished in that day about three thousand men” (Exodus 32:28).

In all such cases the Christian recalls the corresponding words of Holy Scripture, thereby weakening and diminishing evil. Let him enrich the tastelessness of life with spiritual conversation; let him fill the emptiness of souls with the fear of God and love. By sharing his spiritual content, he at the same time increases his own spiritual wealth and enriches his own reservoir.

How precious it would be if one of us not only stood firm himself, but also gave support to others—who could support the weak, heal the sick, raise up the fallen, bring back the erring. How valuable such a person is in our time! How great he would be before God! Such a one would be like an apostle; he would be the mouth of Christ. “If you separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as My mouth,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 15:19). It must be said that serving the salvation of one’s neighbor is a virtue extraordinarily great. Neither fasting, nor prayer, nor anything else can compare with it. Even almsgiving is lower than it. “Even if he distributed countless riches to the poor,” says Chrysostom, “you would not do as much by converting one soul.” Nothing can be compared to a soul—not even the whole world (Homily 10, p. 28). And if someone converts and saves not one, but several, how much greater and holier is his work!

Knowing and remembering all this, therefore, let us strive, brethren, to be worthy of the calling of “Christian.” Let us be Christians not only in faith, but in life as well. While in close contact with the worldly environment, let us have the courage not to be corrupted by it, not to descend from the height of our vows; let us strengthen ourselves against the temptations surrounding us, and let us steadfastly go forward along our path to the victorious end—until we can say: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Timothy 4:7–8).

And while living under the eyes of our benefactors, let us bring them benefit through moral edification, and above all through our own life, so that the words of Christ may be fulfilled in us: “Let your light so shine before men…” (Matthew 5:16).

source

On February 8, 2025, the 300th anniversary of the death of the Russian Emperor Peter the First was commemorated. At his tomb, Metropolitan Barsanuphius of St. Petersburg and Ladoga of the Russian Orthodox Church officiated a memorial litany. The service was attended by the Governor of St. Petersburg Alexander Beglov, Chairman of the Gazprom Board Alexey Miller, representatives of the Government and Legislative Assembly, public organizations, as well as the cultural and business communities of the Northern capital.

In 2022, Russia celebrated his jubilee — the 350th anniversary of the birth of the first emperor. Festive events are reportedly planned in various cities across the country. The center of the celebrations was St. Petersburg, which Peter himself founded and to which he transferred the capital in the 18th century. However, many forget that Peter’s reign became one of the darkest pages in the history of Russian culture, the Russian Church, and Russian tradition. Behind the panegyrics in honor of the first Russian emperor lies the tragedy of the Russian people, who under Peter were divided into a higher caste and the rabble, and were forced into the Procrustean bed of “Dutch,” “English,” and “German” customs. While central television broadcasts about the “brilliant” reforms of Peter I, let us discuss the little-known whims of the emperor that left an indelible and tragic mark on Russian history.

Plundering the Population

The ideas of the reforming tsar were essentially carried out at the expense of plundering the country’s population. For this purpose, the institution of “profit-makers” (прибыльщики) was created — a special position, institution, and entire financial department; the duty of a profit-maker, according to the decree, was “to sit and procure profits for the sovereign,” i.e., to invent new sources of state revenue. Starting from 1704, one after another, levies were introduced: land tax, measured and weighed taxes, collar tax, hat tax and boot tax — from branding collars, hats, and boots; cart tax from cab drivers — a tenth of the hire; garden tax, haymaking tax, leather tax — from horse and calf hides; bee tax, bath tax, mill tax — from inns, house rentals, rented corners; ice-hole tax, ice-breaking tax, cellar tax, watering tax, chimney tax — from stoves; arrival and departure taxes from river vessels, firewood tax, food sales tax, watermelon tax, cucumber tax, nut tax, and “other petty various levies,” as the list concludes. Taxes appeared that were difficult for even the Moscow taxpayer — already accustomed to previous levies — to comprehend, or that directly outraged him.

V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Not only lands and trades were taxed, but also religious beliefs; not only property, but also conscience.” In particular, Peter I also ordered a census of Old Believers for the purpose of “imposing a poll tax on schismatics, and a double one compared to the Orthodox.” Established in 1715–16, it continued until July 20, 1782, when Catherine II permanently abolished the double tax on Old Believers. According to researchers, the profit-makers showed great ingenuity. From the list of taxes they invented — the “profits delivered,” as they said then — we see that they organized a general roundup of the common people, especially small industrialists, artisans, and workers.

As a number of historians write, under Peter the country’s population not only did not grow but even declined. In the book by historian M. V. Klochkov (1911), data are cited showing a 19.5% decrease in the number of taxable households from 1678 to 1710. According to Klochkov, the reasons for the “emptiness” of households were as follows: 20% of owners were taken into recruits and for labor, 35% fled, 30% died, 15% left for various reasons. In his book on Russian culture (1898), historian P. N. Milyukov writes that “immediately after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, Russia’s population was one-fifth larger than during Peter’s time.” According to Milyukov, at the end of the 17th century, Russia had 16 million people, and by the end of Peter’s reign (1725) — about 13 million, i.e., the country lost 3 million people due to Peter’s activities. Some consider these figures exaggerated, but one thing is clear: the population during Peter’s reign was in extremely dire straits.

Promotion of Tobacco

The future emperor, who spent the best days of his youth in the German Quarter (now Lefortovo), built in 1652 for the settlement of foreigners, probably began smoking long before his trip to Holland. It is known that his first friends were avid smokers — the Scottish general Patrick Gordon and the Swiss François Lefort. Apparently, by that time the young tsar was already a passionate smoker, for already in February 1697 the tsar issued a decree permitting the sale of tobacco:

“To sell it openly in the rooms at taverns.”

The famous diplomatic mission known as the “Grand Embassy” began somewhat later; the tsar arrived in Europe several months after legalizing tobacco. His passion for everything foreign blinded the tsar; already during his first meetings with European politicians and businessmen, Peter promised to grant every preference in the matter of spreading tobacco smoking and the tobacco business in Russia. A rather curious report from the secretary of the British Embassy in The Hague to higher authorities in London has been preserved:

“The King met incognito with the Muscovite Tsar in Utrecht. The immediate benefit we are trying to derive from this is that he allow us to import tobacco into his domains.”

Peter’s visit to London ended not only with receiving numerous gifts but also with the signing of a principal agreement on the supply of English tobacco to Russia. The principal terms of the contract were agreed upon by the end of February. The English received a tobacco monopoly in Russia for a term of two to seven years and agreed to pay 4 kopecks for each pound of tobacco imported into Russia. By September 1699, one and a half million pounds of tobacco had been completely legally imported into Russia.

From this moment, one can speak of large-scale tobacco narcotization of Russia. Tsar Peter not only set an example by smoking but also demanded that his close associates, as well as all state dignitaries and military personnel, smoke a pipe and the Dutch “rool” (cigar), or simply sniff the powder from a snuffbox. A few years later, in 1705, realizing the profitability of the tobacco business (and essentially, the population of Russia was becoming tobacco-dependent), Peter established a state tobacco monopoly for sale.

The All-Joking Synods

In addition, tobacco was used during pseudo-religious ceremonies at the so-called All-Joking Synods — riotous feasts and orgies organized by order of the sovereign. Thus, tobacco was used to fumigate the “worshippers” during the “consecration” of the new palace of Peter’s close associate Franz Lefort, which took place on January 21, 1699. Franz Lefort’s palace was “consecrated” in honor of the pagan god of drunkenness, Bacchus. The ritual performed was a mockery of the Orthodox rite of consecrating a building. Instead of sprinkling the building with holy water and censing with incense, the participants carried bowls of wine, mead, beer, and vodka and censed with tobacco.

The rite was led by Peter’s friend — “Prince-Pope” Nikita Zotov, who bore the title “Most Joking and Most Holy Patriarch Kir-Ebi of Presburg, Zayauzsky, from the Great Mytishchi to the Mudishchi.” Instead of a cross at the head of the procession, the “Prince-Pope” had two crossed smoking pipes.

Historian Andrei Shcheglov describes this sad phenomenon as follows:

“Peter the First was the personal creator and inspirer of the ‘All-Joking Synod.’ Beyond historical understanding remains the question of why a man raised in the traditional Christian spirit could suddenly become an open subverter of Christianity. He began his studies quite traditionally with the Book of Hours, Psalter, Gospel, and Apostle, learning all the church services and singing. Most likely, the corrupting influence on the young Peter was exerted by his first teacher, Nikita Moiseevich Zotov, a clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz and later an active participant in the blasphemous ‘all-joking’ affairs.

The ‘Most Extravagant, All-Joking, and All-Drunken Synod,’ as a mocking parody of the Christian Church, existed for no less than thirty years. The structure of the synod blasphemously copied the entire church hierarchy. The synod included ‘deacons,’ ‘archdeacons,’ ‘priests,’ ‘sacristan,’ ‘bishops,’ including ‘metropolitans,’ as well as ‘deaconesses,’ ‘archi-abbesses,’ and ‘princess-abbesses,’ etc. The synod had its own prayers, most of which are lost and preserved only in private correspondence of the ‘synod members.’

Special vestments were sewn for the participants of the ‘synod,’ which also represented a parody of the attire of Christian clergy: for example, instead of an episcopal panagia, they wore a flask of wine, and on the mitre of the ‘Prince-Pope’ was depicted Bacchus (the Roman depiction of the ancient Greek god of winemaking, Dionysus). The composition of the permanent participants in the ‘synod’ of unrestrained revelry numbered from 80 to 200 people, the ‘unceasing abode’ of jesters and fools.” Interestingly, a real bishop, also a friend of Peter — Theophan Prokopovich, locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne — attended this blasphemous gathering.

The Intoxication of the People

The Russian writer and ethnographer Ivan Gavrilovich Pryzhov (1827–1885) collected numerous facts about how Peter I encouraged the alcoholization of Russian society. He notes that the 18th century begins with the nationalization of distilling and the appearance of a huge number of taverns integrated into the state system. Eating houses, which replaced inns, were given over to tax farming. Now it came to posting inns. In 1704, it was ordered to inventory posting inns in Moscow; but in the same year, a new decree was issued:

“All posting inns are to be registered to the Great Sovereign and, after valuation, given over to tax farming, and the owners are to be given money for those inns… according to the valuation.”

The approaching general tax farming for wine in 1705 was preceded by tax farms for fisheries, salt, and tobacco. In 1708, private distilleries in the Moscow uyezd were destroyed.

In 1707, throughout the Pomorie region, at parish churches, church clerks, and among all sorts of people, distilling vessels, cubes, cauldrons, and boilers were ordered to be registered; in general, private distilling was ordered to be destroyed with every severity, so that “through side thieving secret sales there would be no hindrance or loss to the sovereign.” The sworn men (fiscals, tax collectors) reported that with the seizure of the vessels in the Russian volosts, the drinking treasury received “no small replenishment.”

In 1705–1708, in the volosts and villages, drinking collections — where they amounted to from 100 to 1000 rubles — were given over to tax farming to people of merchant rank. The tax farmers, also called burmistry, were deprived of the right to produce wine themselves (strong drink — ed.), and had to buy it from the treasury, i.e., of state manufacture.

Thus, for the sake of replenishing the treasury, Peter and his successors contributed to increasing the number of taverns and the sale of alcohol.

Pryzhov writes that such a policy of Peter led to the fact that in the Great Russian guberniyas, where formerly in ancient times people made do with beer and kvass, now they drank only vodka, and terrible drunkenness appeared. The historian notes that the holiday of Yarila, almost unknown until the middle of the 18th century, now suddenly appears as a drunken holiday in the guberniyas: Tver, Kostroma, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Ryazan, Tambov, and Voronezh. On May 30, 1765, on Monday of Peter’s Fast and on the last day of the Yarila celebration in Voronezh, barrels of wine stood on the square, and drunks lay about.

Taverns Were Usually Built Near Volost Administrations

Taverns were ordinarily erected near volost administrations so that those who came to volost meetings would get drunk. The researcher points out:

“Often these gatherings are convened not for business, but at the instigation of the tavern keeper, and not a single gathering takes place without drunkenness, and such drunkenness is all the more harmful because here it is not a private individual who gets drunk, but an administrative assembly vested with authority!… Among the Great Russian people, little by little a new rule of life took shape: if you don’t drink, then there’s no point in living in the world.”

The Church as the Department of “Orthodox Confession”

In scholarly literature there exists the established term “Nikon-Petrine church reform.” And it is no accident. It implies that the reform begun under Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich — the “correction” of liturgical books and rites — culminated in the systematic restructuring of church institutions during the time of Emperor Peter Alexeevich.

Hegumen Kirill (Sakharov) reflects on this topic:

“Under Peter, the Russian Church (the New Rite, Synodal Church — editor’s note) was turned into a part of the Russian state, and the Synod essentially became a state rather than a purely ecclesiastical institution. ‘Department of Orthodox Confession’ — that is exactly how the Great Russian Church was officially named at that time. Previously the Church had held its own honored place in the state; now everything changed, which directly affected its authority. In the 19th century F. Dostoevsky wrote that the Russian Church was in a state of paralysis. In many cases, as Smolich wrote, church decisions were aimed not at purely ecclesiastical needs but at the interests of the state and the emperor. At first Peter established a Spiritual College alongside the other collegia, but later he nonetheless renamed it the Most Holy Governing Synod. At the same time he directed: ‘Appoint a good officer to this institution, this college, so that he may keep watch over the bishops.’

The influence of Protestantism was evident. As is well known, Peter traveled through Europe for a year and a half. Upon returning and learning of the streltsy revolt, he personally chopped off the heads of the streltsy. It seems that about one and a half thousand streltsy were killed, and Peter involved dignitaries in this slaughter in order to bind them with complicity in blood. This event was reflected in the well-known painting by Surikov, ‘Morning of the Streltsy Execution.’ Church administration was reformed according to the Protestant model. The Spiritual Regulation, drawn up by Bishop Theophan (Prokopovich) — a native of Little Russia, from Kiev, who had studied in the West — was adopted as a legislative act. In order to study in the West in Catholic schools, one had to renounce Orthodoxy, which our Little Russians did. Then they returned to Orthodoxy, but the fact of renunciation of the faith remained. Incidentally, according to the canons, one who has renounced the faith may receive communion only on his deathbed, at the end of his life. Yet these people who studied in the West became bishops.”

Peter the First as the Image of the Antichrist

Among a significant portion of the Russian people there arose not only rejection of Peter I’s reforms but also of his very person. Stories circulated that the tsar had been substituted during his journey to Holland. Manuscripts left by the emperor show that he had very poor command of the Russian language. They contain a multitude of Dutch and English words, and the handwriting itself resembles the scrawl of an unhealthy person. Reading these papers is so difficult that scholars have been unable to translate all of them into proper Russian for a hundred years. Nowadays Peter’s handwriting is being deciphered with the help of artificial intelligence and IT technologies. The head of the Federal Archival Agency (Rosarkhiv) and member of the Presidium of the Russian Historical Society, Andrei Artizov, noted that the publication of the written legacy of the first Russian emperor is an example of work far from completion. He believes that in the Russian Federation there are only a few people capable of interpreting the emperor’s records, and even their interpretations remain highly questionable.

It is therefore no coincidence that among a part of the Old Believers and believers in general, Peter was perceived as the Antichrist. This was spoken of in many writings of the time. The works of Grigory Talitsky (presumably an Old Believer) gained the greatest fame. He wrote about the coming of the last times and the arrival in the world of the Antichrist, under which he truly understood the tsar; he also wrote other letters rebuking the emperor, advising the people to withdraw from him, not to obey him, and not to pay taxes. He gave copies of his appeals to his friends and like-minded people to read; he also expressed these views in oral conversations with various persons — for example, with Bishop Ignatius of Tambov, who, listening to his speeches, wept, wept also while reading what was written in the notebooks, and kissed the latter. A similar conversation took place with Prince I. I. Khovansky, who likewise responded sympathetically to his words. Talitsky called Moscow Babylon and the sovereign the Antichrist, saying: “What kind of tsar is he — he himself tortures people.” Grigory Talitsky and his associates were sentenced to execution by suffocation; for this they were roasted in smoke for 7–8 hours.

Persecution of Old Belief

“Old Belief was declared outright war,” historian Kirill Mikhailov believes. The Synod adopted the text of an oath for priests, by which they were obliged to seek out schismatics and report them to the authorities. Old Believers were forbidden to hold any public offices. Their marriages were declared invalid. A special “Office for Schismatic Affairs” was created under the Synod, which had the right to inflict punishments ranging from severe bodily harm to exile to hard labor and manufactories.

Vice-President of the Synod Archbishop Theophan Prokopovich wrote about Peter’s attitude toward Old Believers: “He knew what darkness and blindness afflicted our schismatic false brethren. Truly unparalleled madness, thoroughly soul-destroying and pernicious! And how great is the multitude of poor people who are seduced and perish by those false teachers!”

Torture methods of “converting” Old Believers were also employed. In addition to the Supreme Decree of 1722, according to which priests were required to report to the authorities all “premeditated villainies against the Church and the state” revealed to them in confession — including conversion to Old Belief — the Synod issued a “Regulation” stating:

“There is no better sign by which to recognize a schismatic” than by forcibly communing him” [quoted from: 7, 94].

Thus, during Peter’s reign, church sacraments were turned into instruments of torture and execution. A certain “gag” was even invented, with the help of which Communion could be poured into an Old Believer through clenched teeth — a practice described in detail by the Old Believer historian Ivan Filippov. Fines were introduced for Old Believers’ failure to attend confession and Communion in the churches of the ruling Church, special penalties for wearing beards, for the right to perform rites, and even mandatory contributions to the official clergy. It was forbidden to accept complaints and petitions from them.

Historian Gleb Chistyakov also recounts anti-Old-Believer historical forgeries fabricated at the direct order of the tsar:

“The locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) of Ryazan, and Archimandrite Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod (later archbishop), in collaboration and on the advice of Tsar Peter I — a notorious inventor capable of any deception for the sake of his cause — fabricated forged acts of a fictitious Kievan Council of 1151 that supposedly condemned the two-fingered sign of the cross, processions sunwise, and other ancient Russian traditions.

The ‘discovery’ of this historical fact was decided to be attributed to the already deceased Archbishop Dimitry of Rostov, who nevertheless enjoyed great authority in the Synodal Church as the compiler of the menaion collections ‘Lives of the Saints.’

According to historian P. P. Pekarsky, Peter I greatly liked the idea of the hierarchs close to him. In his notebook the tsar noted: ‘Write a book about hypocrites and expound the beatitudes (David’s meekness and so forth), that it is not as they think, and append it to the service books, and in the preface reveal that it was the work of the Rostov man and his companions’ [1].

Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) sent the learned monk Theophylact on “historical inquiries” to the libraries and ancient repositories of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. There, after prolonged and meticulous searches, Theophylact “found” the Acts of the “Kievan Council of 1151.” In these “Acts” it was stated that the two-fingered sign of the cross, the double alleluia, and other ancient Russian and ancient Byzantine rites were invented in the 12th century by a certain heretic named Martin the Armenian.”

The Mournful Results of Peter’s Reign

Contrary to the numerous television segments glorifying the 350th anniversary of Peter, in reality many of the outcomes of his reign were lamentable.

One of the last documents to critically examine the activities of Peter I was the resolution adopted by participants of the Round Table on Issues of Old-Rite Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, dated May 25, 2022:

“Under Peter, Russia acquired internal social and moral illnesses such as the alienation of the elite from the main population of the country, cultural-civilizational dependence on foreign influence, and rapid secularization. Having opened itself to the West in the 18th century, Russia began to receive from there not only the fruits of Western culture and knowledge, but also ‘dangerous ideas based on the denial of Christian heritage and moral relativism.’ Within Russia itself, destructive forces of God-fighting and destruction began to ripen. Following the Gospel principle ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ (Matt. 7:16), one must acknowledge: less than two centuries after Peter, the Orthodox Russian Empire he founded came to a monstrous revolution in its consequences, to the spiritual catastrophe of the 20th century.

Such were the fruits of the hasty and in many ways violent secularization in the Western spirit, which continue to affect our life today — both within the country, in the persisting divisions of society, and in foreign policy — in the difficult relations with the collective West. In the spiritual realm, ‘Peter’s path’ — anti-traditionalism, license in all things, and imitation of the Protestant structure of the Church — has proven itself to be the ‘wide gate’ (Matt. 7:13) leading to catastrophes and tragedies.”

Literature:

[1] Pekarsky P. P. Science and Literature in Russia under Peter the Great. St. Petersburg, 1862. Vol. 1. p. 401.

source

By Andrey Shcheglov.

In what follows below, there will be no direct reference to the modern “heroes” of Old Ritualism. Considering their intellectual and spiritual level, it is shameful to speak of them en masse, and even more so to subject them to analysis. Those who understand what is being discussed need no explanation; accordingly, those who need an explanation are better off not receiving one. For the uncomprehending, as well as for the important people “in the Old Believer cause,” this is empty noise.

Our task, in the most general terms, is to survey the contemporary spiritual ruins of what was once justly and proudly called “ancient Orthodoxy” (“Old Belief,” “Old Ritualism”).

Let us begin, perhaps, by saying that we must stop deluding ourselves with optimistic illusions. All this apparent—and now grown to indecent proportions—“successful” external bustle: the restoration of what was previously destroyed, the gilding of domes, the countless and meaningless inter-confessional and scholarly “meetings” where “Christians” appear as ridiculous caricatures at someone else’s merry farce—all of this is utterly worthless from the point of view of Christ’s Faith.

It must be understood that the pompous, delirious statements of the same professional “Old Believers,” constantly scurrying across television and radio channels, proclaiming “the opening of the treasures of Old Belief to the world,” evoke nothing but rejection and contempt. In reality, these pompous incantations serve as a cover for inner spiritual emptiness and their own material interests, which they alternately pass off with varying success as some sort of “Old Believer spirituality.”

The issue here is not the usual reproaches and discussions of the base deeds of these people (Who among us is without sin?), but rather that for these figures, God has either remained somewhere in the inaccessible, radiant past, or at best is supposed to appear at the end of time, in some indefinite future—while in the present, they can easily go about their petty dealings. And it is this stillborn, mundane, and vulgar notion of theirs that they attempt to present as a still-living phenomenon, which for them has already ceased to be the greatest mystery.

All their discourse about Faith resembles the attempt of animals that have suddenly taken it upon themselves to judge the essence of Man. No amount of their cunning, vindictiveness, malice, or desire to put themselves on display will help here. But let us leave them be—they have already found their happiness in the form of material well-being and satiated tranquility. And it is utterly uninteresting what dark winds howl in their empty heads!

The main difficulty lies in the fact that the majority views the current state of affairs “from the outside,” as indifferent external observers, whereas the problem itself can only be understood “from within.” The majority of “ancient Orthodox” people completely fail to see the avalanche of destructive processes taking place before their eyes, when the normal, lawful Christian order is being destroyed, and the current spiritual “leaders” falsify the highest understanding of life, its actions, and true knowledge.

This spiritual “ignorance,” in the final analysis, leads to the refusal of any internal or external spiritual struggle. Only a few are capable of seeing the full vertigo of the fall. These “pastors,” administrative leaders, and the passive “flock” sing hymns to their own past, choking on the vomit of their own exceptionalism, while trying to deceive themselves and others with the phantom of a spirituality that no longer exists. For them it is already unknown that they have descended from the spiritual heights attained by former Christians into the world of materialistic reality and have become an integral part of it.

The very phenomenon of “ancient Orthodoxy” was an attempt, under the banner of Christ, to organize resistance to humanity’s unrestrained slide into the yawning abyss. Outwardly turned toward the past, “ancient” Christianity became a new concept of spiritual ideals of courage and dignity in the stale atmosphere of various purely human ideologies that gave birth to the modern world.

Against the backdrop of the faceless mass-man, this phenomenon signified a spiritual feat of fidelity to the Christian duty. In the “Old Believers” there was always the ability to clearly and sharply distinguish the essential from the secondary—unlike the mechanical (worldly) man, who represents the extreme form of degeneration.

We now find ourselves in a world of ruins. And here there is only one question: are there still people who have held firm amid these ruins? And what must they do—what can they still do today? Has that spiritual state been preserved in these “remnants” which could serve as an example for resistance to the Antichrist? Are there still people who prefer a harsh and dangerous life, who continue to wage spiritual battle even knowing that the external struggle has already been lost?

One would like to hope that there remain people in whom fidelity to Christ is stronger than material fire, who by their very existence affirm the idea that it is precisely the sense of honor—not vulgar moralizing—that defines the essential difference between human beings and mere physiological creatures. What matters is not the quantitative unification of people bound by ritual, but the qualitative state. Yet this state can be achieved only through quiet transformation taking place in the depths of the human soul. First of all, this change occurs within oneself; then it manifests in a few individuals; and only in this case can the prerequisites of true order be established outwardly, in opposition to the destructive forces of the modern world.

We must reach such a state that the type of Christian we are describing becomes immediately recognizable—so unmistakable that one cannot confuse him with others—so that at first glance it can be said: “This is one of ours,” a person who refuses any compromise with the world of things.

Today we find ourselves in far worse conditions than previous Christians, when everything was clear and definite: here are “ours,” and there are “the others.” Now everything is intertwined, and at times it is extremely difficult to distinguish what ought not to be from what is true. Our own spiritually formless “leaders” live by the principle: “First fill your belly, preserve your own hide, and only then seek the truth”; or: “These are not the times when one can afford to hold an opinion different from the currently dominant principle”; and finally: “Who’s forcing you…?”

And it is precisely to this mentality that we must firmly oppose a different principle—this is not our path! Our existence does not depend on bustling, scheming quasi-ecclesiastical operators and spiritual politicians, but on people capable of living and acting according to Christian principles. Such people may be poor or rich, workers or entrepreneurs, theologians, engineers, peasants, or even politicians. But such a person must necessarily understand the inner differences between a clear, courageous, ordered world and the standardized, conformist, vulgar gray life in which empty “morality” reigns supreme.

We must attain such a spiritual state that we can look with contempt upon the stupefying bonds of the collectivist and mechanical system, upon any ideology that establishes false “social” values in place of spiritual values that reside solely in the divine order.

It is important to see in life the interconnection of causes and effects, the essential ideal foundation hidden beneath the chaotic movement of various opinions and temptations. We must grasp that all of this is merely diverse levels of one and the same spiritual disease, each of which inevitably leads to the next in the general cycle of decomposition. The beginning of this process was the rupture with authentic Christian tradition and its replacement with false surrogates that lead to empty and ghostly individual freedom. This is the path to fragmentation and disunity instead of the conscious desire to be part of a genuine and hierarchical spiritual unity.

The Christian personality finds itself confronted by countless “multitudes” of opposing individuals drawn into the kingdom of quantity, the natural series of numbers, the world of quantitative masses that have no other god besides all-consuming spiritual and material consumption. To stand firm in this chaos, it is necessary to understand that one cannot make a deal with the forces of destruction. Any attempt to settle matters peacefully with these forces is equivalent to surrender—defeat today and final annihilation tomorrow. Spiritual principledness is the readiness, when the time requires it, to step forward outwardly with all the uncorrupted forces still remaining.

We see how our society is gradually being squeezed, as if by iron tongs, in the grip of an alien and hostile force. This force is no longer the one that once confronted us with visor raised; the attack no longer proceeds by violent and coercive means. A Christian society that has lost the high Christian ideals within itself opens its gaping spiritual void to consumption and profit—and from this comes all our present primitivism, mechanicity, mustiness, and bestiality, which explains the appearance of scurrying clowns who now determine the direction of our church institutions. This danger is far more serious than direct violence; it is akin to the Trojan Horse. Evil now acts more cunningly, and changes in our customs and general worldview occur imperceptibly—and thus the situation is completely different from what it once was. In the name of this spiritual “relaxation” we have already practically abandoned all our ideals, so that perhaps no external intervention will even be necessary to seize the abandoned and discarded pearl of Truth and finally place it in a stinking cesspool.

It is from this spiritual blindness that our entire material demonism arises, because the worldly factor has become primary and decisive. The gathering of all interests and values revolves around the level of consumption, which with its last strength covers the Christian rite. Is there a way out of this gloomy circle? But this is a question no longer addressed to people.

Given such weakness in both internal and external forces, it is unlikely that we will quickly rid ourselves of the smug, senile swindlers in our church institutions. Our task is to overcome our isolation and fragmentation, to create a special spiritual atmosphere under whose influence we can acquire a new life characterized by fidelity, devotion, and service. This will help us surmount the grayness and insincerity of our present condition. What unites us is not the rite, but the power of our hidden intentions on the path to Truth. This is the foundation, the point of departure that unites people who remain faithful to Christian principles and are therefore capable of bearing witness to the Supreme Authority and the Supreme Law born of Truth.

There is now no other way: among our “ancient Orthodox” ruins, a movement must begin toward the restoration of the original principles and ideas. We must resist the slide toward the animal, primitive principle within us that seeks to reduce our entire existence to the biological level. We know that our true Self opposes this, desiring to remain conscious and independent. For this, first of all, we must become aware of that dark and lowest part of our soul that is increasingly gaining the upper hand over us. What is needed is an exact and impartial assessment of our decrepit state—and this, in turn, will help us reject our own seductive mask, reflected in the mirror of distorted being. In this case we will not merely seem, but truly exist; at the same time we must silently do our work in harmony with the command resounding from the heavenly heights. Only then will empty, sluggish, and false existence vanish into non-being.

The spirituality of which we speak has no need for the cheap and worthless, deceitful moralizing imposed upon us, through which the “domestication” of the Christian as an animal takes place. It is in the creation of this spineless “flock” that the hypocritical essence and goal of the modern modernist “church” lie—the very embrace into which we are striving with all our might. In this case, what is sufficient for us is a pure turning to the Holy Ghost and to Christ as the unclouded evident reality of Divine Reality, while any genuine church “institutions” may vanish into desolation and emptiness. Inner cohesion and correct awareness will make it possible to withstand the final victory of chaos and destruction masquerading as practical materialism, which is thriving comfortably in the “church” milieu.

In the form in which our “administrative” puppets offer us “Christianity,” it is dead and cannot serve as a point of departure upon which genuine spiritual freedom can be attained. All they can offer is aesthetically wretched ritualism and primitive piety, at best reducing the Church to social and charitable service. All of this turns the Church into something insipid and dull, deforming the personality and giving birth to intolerance toward any form of life. The people who have created this state of affairs are not titanic villains, but petty, cynical, bastard ecclesiastical politicians possessed of the simplest drives and interests tied to the satisfaction of purely physical needs and the pursuit of sensual pleasures. These “characters” do not even realize that they are easily manipulated by global forces of destruction that clearly understand their actions and goals. All the “correct” words of our “spiritual leaders” are pure verbal fornication. They do not care about any “noble ideal”; they are immersed in worldly routine and delirious with their own importance. Their actions are logical absurdity from the standpoint of the Christian Church and Christian Canons; therefore they are heralds of the final decline and degeneration.

On the other side stands an infinitesimally small number of people who differ from the former as witnesses to a different inner disposition, to other orders of lawfulness and authority granted by the Christian Idea and firm devotion to it. For such people, only the Kingdom of Heaven can be the true homeland. Whether they will succeed in withstanding final destruction and remaining unshaken in Truth—this is again a question not addressed to people. It will become possible only when we preserve God; only then will He be always and everywhere, here and now. Sensing the living presence of God within ourselves, we find in Him a point of support, the center of the world, and as a result we see the only path worth following. Only the sacred fire blazing within us is capable of incinerating the phantom, motley world that plays false images around us. Having embarked on this most difficult path, a person takes a great risk: if he proves unequal to his original intention, that flame will consume him to the foundations—he will simply dissolve into the general mass and become tame. But if he endures, he will acquire the greatest strength, for he will be able to discern divine meanings in the fleeting, senseless world.

Our Faith gives us the understanding that earthly life is a trial, an interconnected battlefield not only of human but also of spiritual forces, which can very conditionally be designated as the forces of Good and the forces of Delusion, of Chaos. And here each person possesses the freedom to make his personal choice—on whose side he will stand. In either case he steps beyond the mere physiological animal state. In the first case, the path leads upward to the Divine Principle that transcends every human measure; conversely, the other path drags downward to the subhuman. In everything, what matters is precisely our inner predisposition, not the construction of ideological schemes or the donning of pious masks upon foul visages. In reality, the right of choice confirms the dominion of the sacred principle of justice, which establishes—“To each his own” (Suum cuique).

By T.A. Oparina, Novosibirsk.

Calculations regarding the date of the end of the world or the final falling away to the Antichrist in 1666 were extraordinarily widespread in Old Believer literature and have not lost their relevance in it even to the present day. Let us attempt to trace the sources of Old Believer theories.

The sacred date was obtained by adding two numbers named in the Apocalypse: 1000 (Rev. 20:3,7) and 666 (Rev. 13:8). Despite the apparent simplicity of the calculation and the possibility of its independent and parallel emergence, the date of the end of the world in 1666 did not gain widespread acceptance in all Christian traditions. It acquired the greatest significance in English Reformation literature, partly in Greek, as well as in Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox literature. Meanwhile, in Russia time was reckoned from the creation of the world, and the commonly used date for the end of the world was “the eighth millennium.” The concept based on chronology from the Nativity of Christ was most likely borrowed.

Apocalyptic numbers attracted authors throughout Christian history and received specific interpretations in various traditions. The number 666 was deciphered by Christian writers as the name of the Antichrist. When constructing the date 1666, the “number of the beast” was interpreted as the date of the “last times,” which is not entirely usual.

The number 1000 (Rev. 20:3,7) had an even more complex exegesis. In the prophecies of the Apocalypse, it speaks of the “binding” of Satan for a thousand years. The biblical text describes the events of the Second Coming of Christ, when, after the final battle at Armageddon, the victorious Christ will lock Satan away for 1000 years and establish an earthly kingdom of the righteous (the first resurrection). The second resurrection in the Apocalypse is understood as the bodily resurrection of sinners who appear at the Last Judgment. When the thousand-year date is applied to the future Second Coming, it served as the foundation for chiliastic (millenarian) teachings about the establishment of the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth between the first and second resurrections of the dead.

In the atmosphere of the approaching end of the world (the onset of the 6th millennium from the creation of the world), Blessed Augustine sharply criticized chiliastic teachings. He achieved the condemnation of chiliasm by creating the doctrine of the two cities-kingdoms.

One of the founders of Catholic theology carried out the demythologization of the Apocalypse, introducing a historical approach. Blessed Augustine linked the Apocalypse’s account of the 1000 years to the earthly life of Christ, His first coming. In his interpretation, the events of the Apocalypse describing the thousand-year kingdom belong to the past, not the future. In doing so, he removed the chiliastic understanding of this number, which was fixed by Christian canon. The idea of the “binding” of Satan during the period of Christ’s first coming underlies the dogma of the Descent into Hell, confirmed by the iconographic formula.

In contrast to earlier interpretations, Blessed Augustine put forward a spiritualistic understanding of the words of the Apocalypse. The thousand-year kingdom of Christ on earth, in Augustine’s interpretation, has already arrived, and the radiance of Christ’s glory in the Church has already begun. In his exegesis, Christ bound Satan at the moment of the first coming, as a result of which the Christian Church (the City of God) appeared on earth. The Church is a projection of the heavenly into the perishable world and will exist for 1000 years, which must be understood as an analogy of eternity.

In the Byzantine tradition, Basil the Great similarly interpreted the thousand-year kingdom as the Christian Church. At the same time, in the works of most Greek authors, the thousand-year kingdom was identified with the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople was understood as the kingdom of God on earth, indestructible until the end of the world. Thus, in the Catholic tradition the number 1000 was interpreted as the Church; in the Byzantine (with the coincidence of the boundaries of church and state) — as the state.

A consequence of the spiritualistic approach was a categorical rejection of determining the date of the end of the world. But in reality, this canonical postulate did not eliminate eschatological calculations. Despite the spiritualistic interpretation of the apocalyptic date, the approach of the year 1000 in the reckoning from the Nativity of Christ provoked eschatological fears in the West. The year 1000 became one of the dates of the end of the world, universally expected in Western Europe. The prophecy found reflection, for example, in Scandinavian sagas and French literature. Eschatological moods served as one of the ideological reasons for the Crusades, when Muslims were perceived as forerunners of the Antichrist, from whom it was necessary to liberate the Lord’s Sepulchre. The triumph of Christians in the Holy City would mean the establishment of the thousand-year kingdom on earth, the new Jerusalem.

In the Christian East, this period was also characterized by a revival of eschatological fears, but with reference to a different date — 6500 from the creation of the world. It is not excluded that Western teachings also gave impetus to the development of eschatological moods in the Eastern Christian world. Thus, the Baptism of Rus’ took place on an eschatological wave, which was reflected in Russian monuments of the initial period.

A new impetus to the development of prophecies related to the apocalyptic numbers 1000 and 666 was given by Protestantism. Orthodox Protestants, turning to “1000,” interpreted the number within the Augustinian tradition. For Lutherans and Calvinists, the thousand-year kingdom had already come and passed. But in Martin Luther’s version, Satan was released from prison. In his opinion, Satan began to act again after being imprisoned between the years 1000 and 1300. In addition, Martin Luther linked the release of Satan from the thousand-year captivity with the schism of the Church. A similar interpretation is characteristic of the Puritan Englishman Bale and the author of the commentaries on the Geneva Bible (1603). They believed that the appearance of Satan occurred during the pontificate of Sylvester II (999–1003). Radical Protestants (Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, “Fifth Monarchy Men”) revived medieval chiliasm.

A number of authors combined the numbers 1000 and 666. The number 1666 appears in the works of the Frenchman Richard Roussat and the Jesuit of the Collegium Romanum in Rome, the Dutchman by origin Cornelius a Lapide (Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen).

England played a special role in the development of concepts about the number 1666. From the emergence of Puritanism (1550s) until the Restoration (1660), England became the main center for the development of eschatological themes. The Reformation of Henry VIII, the persecution and flight of Puritans whose texts were printed in Holland, gave impetus to the development of chiliastic teachings.

One of the first English texts to point to the fatal date was a 1610 pamphlet interpreting the predictions of the Old Testament Third Book of Ezra. Combining the prophecies about the world kingdoms from the Ezra codex with the numbers of the Apocalypse, the treatise predicted terrible events in 1666.

In Orthodox literature, similar views developed in some Greek texts. George Koresios addressed the interpretation of the apocalyptic “1000.” In the spirit of the Augustinian tradition, he did not tie the number to a strictly limited time period.

Constructions involving the number 666 are found among Greek authors influenced by Protestantism. An example can be the works of Zacharias Gerganos, whose Catechism (Wittenberg, 1622) and Commentary on the Apocalypse, surviving in manuscript in the Oxford Library, were written under strong influence of Lutheran ideas. In his works, the apocalyptic number 666 was deciphered as “the Pope.” The interactions between Gerganos and the author of another pro-Protestant (in this case pro-Calvinist) Catechism — Constantinople Patriarch Cyril Lucaris — are unknown. What is certain is that their work occurred during the same period and was closely connected with the English tradition. One can very cautiously suggest that through the mediation of Cyril Lucaris, who taught in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1594 to 1597 (in Ostrog and Vilnius, where he was rector of the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit), and later became the de jure head of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis, the transfer of Calvinist calculations into Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox literature could have occurred. Ukraine and Belarus, being on the border of the Western and Eastern Christian worlds, easily absorbed Western influences.

In the 1620s, the prophecy about the number 1666 appears in the literature of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis. A developed teaching about it is presented in the fundamental anti-Catholic work of Zacharias Kopystensky, “Palinodia.” The text appeared around 1622. In the preface to “Palinodia,” a logical scheme of successive fallings away to the world of the Antichrist is constructed. Zacharias Kopystensky combined variations on the theme of the numbers 1000 and 666, the theory of the pentarchy, ideas of the apostasy of the Western Church, and the “Russian” chosenness by God.

The number 1000 acquired enormous significance for the Orthodox theologian. Zacharias Kopystensky interprets it in the Augustinian tradition as something already accomplished and proceeds from the position of the “binding” of Satan for 1000 years at the moment of the first coming. However, the Ukrainian author perceives “1000” not as an analogy of eternity, but as a past and time-limited period. Zacharias Kopystensky writes about the release of Satan in the year 1000 from the Nativity of Christ, which finds echoes in Protestant texts. Reproducing the interpretation of Protestant authors, he proves that, after the expiration of the magical number 1000, the released Satan was able to interfere in human affairs and subjugate those least steadfast in faith — from Zacharias Kopystensky’s point of view, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.

In Zacharias Kopystensky’s interpretation, from the year 1000 Satan established himself in Rome. The connection between the year 1000 and the activity of the Roman popes was noted by many Ukrainian and Belarusian writers. Similar Protestant views are also characteristic of the author of the marginal notes in the Ostrog Bible. The so-called “Volhynian freethinker” commented on chapter 20 of the Apocalypse in a similar manner: “for a thousand years Satan was bound… and now… he is unbound and in Rome. And from Rome… he extends his power, commanding them as he wishes and whatever he wishes. And they obey him and bear his seal upon themselves.” These assertions corresponded to the widespread theory in Protestant and Ukrainian Orthodox traditions of the Roman pope as the Antichrist.

Thus, Zacharias Kopystensky applied the number 1000 in anti-Latin polemic. He explained the division of the Christian Church into Catholicism and Orthodoxy by the triumph of the Antichrist in Rome from the year 1000 of the Nativity of Christ. The Ukrainian author linked the unity of the Christian world to the absence of an “active” Satan. The released Satan, in Zacharias Kopystensky’s understanding, brought about the schism of the Church.

The schism, in the interpretation of all Orthodox authors, began with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed. In Zacharias Kopystensky’s version, the introduction of the filioque was carried out by Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) and protested by Constantinople Patriarch Sergius II. The decisive conflict and breaking of contacts, followed by the schism of the Church, thus fell in his interpretation on the year 1000. In the spirit of Greek anti-Latin texts, Zacharias Kopystensky interpreted the schism of the Christian Church as the “falling away” of the Catholics from the true faith. From the moment of the division, in his account, the Roman bishops were deprived of all the legitimate privileges of members of the Christian community and relegated to the rank of those to whom the number 666 — the number of the “beast” (Rev. 13:18) — applied. Using an ancient eschatological prophecy, he explained that in the year 1000 there occurred not the conquest of the world by the Antichrist nor the end of the world, but only the subjection to Satan’s power of one region — the Roman Church.

Further, Zacharias Kopystensky introduced a new interpretation, turning to events of the East Slavic Church. Looking back to the idealized past, he emphasized the fact of the Baptism of Rus’. The episode of the Baptism of Rus’ by Prince Vladimir acquired special significance in the “Palinodia” as proof of the importance of the East Slavic Church within the system of the universal Church. Probably reproducing the eschatological subtext of the Baptism, Zacharias Kopystensky introduced it into the course of world history by employing the theory of the pentarchy and chronological calculations. In his version, the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy disrupted the harmonious existence of the Christian Church, whose unity was conceived as the mutual agreement of the five sees.

By rounding the dates of the schism and the Baptism of Rus’, Zacharias Kopystensky arrived at the eschatologically significant date of 1000. In the preface to the “Palinodia” he created an original eschatological concept based on a mystical (in his understanding) coincidence: in the apocalyptic year 1000, when the end of the world was universally expected, there occurred not only the schism of the Christian Church but also the Baptism of Rus’. For Zacharias Kopystensky the coincidence of the apostasy of the Roman see and the Baptism of Rus’ was not accidental. In his interpretation it meant that Rome had fallen away from the true faith, but Rus’ had entered the Church, taking Rome’s place in the pentarchy. The Baptism was conceived as a messianic act.

Next, Zacharias Kopystensky turned to the following apocalyptic number, “666.” The addition of the two dates yielded the year 1666 and defined for the Ukrainian author new stages in the path of the Antichrist’s advance. Zacharias Kopystensky broke the number down into successive stages: 1000–1600–1660–1666. The well-known Ukrainian theologian identified almost every one of them with a church schism. According to the logic of his reasoning, the Antichrist, having established himself in the Catholic Church after the schism, in the year 1600 launched a new assault on the true faith — and specifically on that part of the Christian world which preserved the heritage of the baptizer of Rus’ — the Kiev Metropolis. This method of revealing the symbolic meaning of the number was facilitated by the approximate coincidence of the dates 1600 and 1596. Zacharias Kopystensky saw a new mystical indication of the inner meaning of the events unfolding before his eyes. In his interpretation, the signing of the Union of Brest (1596) between the Catholic and the Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox Churches determined the next “falling away” — the apostasy of the Uniates.

Zacharias Kopystensky explained the conclusion of the Union of Brest as the machinations of the Roman pope-Antichrist and perceived it as an event of cosmic scale. In his understanding, the fate of the world now depended on the confrontation between the Uniates and the supporters of Orthodoxy. Obviously, in the event of the further preservation of the union, he implied the intervention of heavenly forces. According to biblical prophecies, the Second Coming would begin for Christ to save His persecuted chosen ones, pursued by the Antichrist. Undoubtedly, Zacharias Kopystensky saw the last community of true believers on earth in the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis. According to the prophecy of the “Palinodia,” the further development of events connected with the Antichrist would occur in 1660 and, finally, in 1666. These dates denoted the next steps of falling away. In the text of the “Palinodia” they had no specific historical anchors. Exactly what would happen in the final year, 1666 — the end of the world or the earthly incarnation of the Antichrist — Zacharias Kopystensky did not specify precisely. His scheme could be interpreted in either direction.

Similar ideas about successive fallings away were developed in his writings by one of the most radical Ukrainian-Belarusian publicists, Ivan Vyshensky. He spoke of the apostasy of the Uniates, who by their reckless actions had placed the fate of the world in jeopardy. In the works of Ivan Vyshensky it was asserted that, thanks to several fallings away, the Antichrist was already triumphing over the world, and the end of the world and the hour of reckoning for those who submitted to Satan were near. However, Ivan Vyshensky cited no specific numbers.

The works of Zacharias Kopystensky and Ivan Vyshensky exerted considerable influence on Russian publicistic literature through the Muscovite polemical printed compilations: the “Kirillova Kniga” (Moscow, 1644), which included a letter of Ivan Vyshensky, and the “Kniga o Vere” (Book of Faith, Moscow, 1648), which transmitted the ideas of Zacharias Kopystensky.

Between 1632 and 1643 the text of Zacharias Kopystensky was reworked by an unknown Ukrainian author (Hegumen Nafanail?) into a work that received its title from the first chapter: “Vera i uchenie otkuda izydi” (“Faith and Teaching Whence It Came Forth”) — the “Kniga o Vere.” The “Kniga o Vere” gained wide circulation in the manuscript tradition of Ukraine and Belarus. It is most likely that the Ukrainian author also composed the final, 30th chapter, “On the Antichrist,” whose origin has long been debated among scholars. The chapter consisted of authorially edited paraphrases of the preface to Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia.”

Apparently, when creating — roughly in the 1630s–1640s — an eschatological concept, the author of the article “Sermon on the Antichrist and on the End of the World” took as his foundation Zacharias Kopystensky’s judgments concerning the possible appearance of the Antichrist (or the end of the world) in 1666. The ideas of Zacharias Kopystensky are recorded in the section both in the form of direct quotations from the “Palinodia” (for example, “concerning him [the Antichrist] the number six hundred sixty-six of the man of the Antichrist, which whoever knows, but in those years, 1666, clearer forerunners of him but not himself will be shown”), and in the form of authorial rephrasing: “And Saint John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse in chapter 20 writes of the binding of Satan for a thousand years and then of his loosing. The devil returns to his former beloved place, where he wished to be from heaven. And from that time he infected the West with a heavy pestilence. You may understand more about this in chapter 21. After the thousandth year, when the six-hundredth year was coming to an end, the apostasy and seduction of those calling themselves Uniates from the holy Eastern Church to the Western Church became manifest. Concerning this see chapters 23 and 24. And upon the fulfillment of the years of the number 1666, a worse evil, or the Antichrist himself, will appear, for which, whoever lives to see those times, prepare yourself for a terrible war with the devil himself; the time also approaches for the end of the world and the terrible judgment.” Obviously this chapter was compiled last, since it contains references to the chapters of the main text. Besides Zacharias Kopystensky, the author referred to the eschatological constructions of the Greek (Constantinople Patriarch Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos) and Ukrainian (Stefan Zizania) authors. The biblical prophecies cited by the author of the “Kniga o Vere,” as in the “Palinodia,” are extraordinarily actualized. The universal catastrophe is perceived not so much as a distant, infinitely remote outcome of world development, but as a real and imminent event: “since we have come very near to the end of the world.”

The Ukrainian manuscript of the “Kniga o Vere” reached Russia before 1644, when its text, originally in the “simple language,” was translated into Church Slavonic in Moscow. It is not excluded that the treatise arrived in Russia in the same year and was sent by the head of the Ukrainian-Belarusian Church. In 1644 a representative of Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, the elder Anthony, was in Moscow. During the negotiations he apparently requested the recently published “Kirillova Kniga” (Moscow, 1644). Five copies of the “Kirillova Kniga” were sent from the Printing House to the Ambassadorial Chancery for the elder Anthony.

The envoy of the Kiev Metropolitan found himself in Russia during the stormy debates concerning the possibility of uniting the Russian ruling house with a non-Orthodox dynasty. Tsar Michael Fyodorovich planned to conclude a dynastic marriage between his daughter Irina Mikhailovna and the Danish prince Valdemar. Peter Mohyla was involved in these disputes. At the request of the Russian court, he acted as mediator in negotiations with the Moldavian hospodar Vasile Lupu, who constantly provided financial support to Constantinople Patriarch Parthenios. With the help of Peter Mohyla, the Russian government hoped — as later became clear, unsuccessfully — to obtain from the Constantinople Patriarch confirmation of the canonicity of mixed marriages.

In the unfolding disputes the “Kirillova Kniga” was actively used. It is not excluded that in this context Peter Mohyla, having familiarized himself with the sent “Kirillova Kniga,” forwarded to the sovereign another theological compilation of similar theme — the manuscript of the “Kniga o Vere.” One may speculate that the “Kniga o Vere” was sent in 1644 and perhaps used in the debates with the pastor of the Danish prince Valdemar. Traces of the influence of the “Kniga o Vere” can be discerned in the second, most significant letter of Patriarch Joseph to the prince.

In any case, the text brought from the Kiev Metropolis was published four years after its translation and already under a new ruler of Russia. Obviously the initiative for publication came from the circle of the young Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich. As the deacon Fyodor testifies, the publication of the “Kniga o Vere” in 1648 occurred “through the efforts” of the sovereign’s spiritual father, Stefan Vonifatyev. In the printed codex the connection of the “Kniga o Vere” with the debates concerning Valdemar is noted. During publication an additional chapter was inserted into the collection, not listed in the table of contents and without its own numbering — “From the Dispute with the Latin Chaplain.” It represented a brief excerpt from the second letter of Patriarch Joseph to the Danish prince. The text was evidently added to the “Kniga o Vere” at the last moment.

In the publication of the 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere,” the Russian translator (editor?) apparently subjected only certain phrases to revision. Assuming the chapter was of authorial origin, in Moscow only one fragment was added to this section: “That after a thousand years from the incarnation of the Word of God, Rome fell away from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year, the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church; and they gave him a charter of submission at the full will of the Roman pope; this is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. Guarding against this, it is written: when 1666 years are fulfilled, may we not suffer from the previous causes, but through repentance appease God.” Ascending to the preface of Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia,” this fragment in the printed version implied a certain detachment from the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in acknowledging the accomplished “falling away” of them to the kingdom of the Antichrist (“the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church…”).

The meaning of Zacharias Kopystensky’s statements in the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth differed substantially from the way they were perceived in Russia. Zacharias Kopystensky, by criticizing the leaders of the Uniate movement — who in his opinion had placed the existence of Christianity and the world as a whole in jeopardy — sought to purify and improve the piety of the Kiev Metropolis. In Russia his constructions were reinterpreted, and the struggle between apostates and the “chosen” implied by the author was discarded. The Kiev Orthodoxy was stamped with the seal of “falling away” under the power of the Antichrist, accomplished as a result of the Union of Brest. Whereas in Zacharias Kopystensky’s interpretation the Antichrist was to appear in the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth thanks to the actions of the Uniates, in the “Kniga o Vere” the triumph of the Antichrist on earth depended on the decline of piety in the Muscovite state. By repeating the stages of the Antichrist’s advance named by Zacharias Kopystensky, an impression was formed of the irreversible change and corruption of Kiev’s piety.

In general, the prophetic 30th chapter — “Sermon on the Antichrist and on the End of the Age” — in the printed codex reproduced the preface to the “Palinodia.” However, when employing Zacharias Kopystensky’s calculations, one intermediate number was omitted in it — 1660. In the version of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” Zacharias Kopystensky’s theory acquired a tripartite form (1000–1600–1666). Thus, the published “Kniga o Vere” formulated the theory of three fallings away, the third of which referred to a future time.

In the version of the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” compared with the constructions of Zacharias Kopystensky, the element of uncertainty in the fulfillment of the predictions about the number 1666 is strengthened. In the collection published in 1648, the fateful year appeared closer than in the Ukrainian source. In the printed variant, the moment of warning against an unrighteous life predominates. Failure to observe Orthodox norms on the eve of the kingdom of the Antichrist (which had already extended its power over the Kiev Metropolis) could, in the view of the Russian editor, lead to the loss of piety in Russia and to the end of the world in 1666. The proximity of the fateful year did not allow the editors of the printed “Kniga o Vere” to speak definitively about what would happen in 1666. The 30th chapter served more as a warning that deviation from the rules of Christian life could entail terrible consequences in that year.

The prophecies of Zacharias Kopystensky were published at the Moscow Printing House several years before the church-ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon, which provoked a schism in the Russian Church, epidemics of plague, and the Russo-Polish War. Expectations of the end of the world, conditioned in Russia at the beginning of the century by the events of the Time of Troubles, gained a new momentum by the middle of the century. The schism of the Russian Church occurred on an eschatological wave. The opponents of the reforms perceived their course in an eschatological perspective.

One of the main interpreters of the reforms as the embodiment of predictions about the coming of the end of the world was the first leader of the Old Believers — Ivan Neronov. From 1645, having become protopope of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square, he distinguished himself among other pastors by his vivid sermons (a genre that had been forgotten in Russian church life). It can be assumed that his instructions, which attracted the attention of all Moscow and were posted on the walls of the church, were in tune with the ideas of the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere”: the strengthening of Christian ethics in the atmosphere of the approaching “last times.” It should be taken into account that Ivan Neronov, through his activity, carried on the tradition extending from the Time of Troubles, with its pronounced eschatologism, to the Old Belief. Probably the eschatological theme was a through-line in his work. But if initially it sounded as a warning, a fear of the triumph of the Antichrist in the fateful years, a call to avoid the destruction of faith through personal ascetic effort, then after the reforms he spoke of the embodiment of the worst omens. From the very beginning of the reforms, the theme of the end of the world became dominant in his writings. Already in his first letters Ivan Neronov formulated the main points of criticism of the reform: eschatological prophecies and the comparison of events occurring in the Russian Church with the Union. Ivan Neronov identified Nikon’s actions with the conclusion of a union, which in his reasoning testified to the machinations of the Antichrist. The introduction of a “union” on Holy Rus’ signified for Ivan Neronov the approach of the Last Judgment. In 1652 (the year Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne) Ivan Neronov wrote to Stefan Vonifatyev: “may Rus’ not suffer today as the Uniates have.” However, Ivan Neronov’s warnings were not accompanied by any calculations.

Such calculations appeared in the writings of the second major author of the initial period of the schism — Spiridon Potemkin. He was the first among the Old Believers to turn to the prophecies about the number 1666 long before the fateful year, when they had not yet become relevant to the Old Belief. He succeeded in connecting this highly authoritative date with his own eschatological expectations. Spiridon Potemkin, a native of Polish Smolensk who received his education in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was undoubtedly well acquainted with the conclusions of the works of Ukrainian-Belarusian polemicists. Most likely, Spiridon Potemkin drew directly on the work of Zacharias Kopystensky for his prophecies. He believed that the incarnation of Christ and the “binding” of Satan conditioned the creation of the Church on earth: in Word 3 — “In the midst… that is, between the two comings of Christ, the Lord created His Church thus… so firm, so unyielding and immovable… never to err.” The Church is unchangeable, and any reformation leads to falling away. These began in 1000.

For Spiridon Potemkin, just as for Zacharias Kopystensky, “1000” acquires special significance. He highlights it, accompanying it with expressive epithets: “O most blessed thousand years!”; “O longed-for holy thousand years!” Spiridon Potemkin addressed the apocalyptic thousand in every letter, two of which are specifically devoted to the interpretation of verses 1–3 of chapter 20 of the Apocalypse: Word 4 — “On the fulfillment of the Church and on the binding of Satan and again on his loosing and on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”; and Word 6, named at the same time as an interpretation of the Psalm — “On the Wisdom of God which built herself a house and established a sevenfold pillar.”

Spiridon Potemkin several times raises the theme connected with “1000” of the first resurrection, which should have testified to the revival of chiliastic ideas directly from the biblical text: “O longed-for holy thousand years!, in which our enemy died, and we came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years… How could we reign with Christ a thousand years, when we were born. And now only, to reign with Christ 1000 years.” As noted, in the text of the Apocalypse the first resurrection, after which the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth arrives, is the resurrection of the righteous. The concept of the “first resurrection” is important: through it Spiridon Potemkin realizes the special role of the opponents of the reforms, introducing the theme of chosenness: “The Wisdom of God reveals to us… which in a thousand years, which the Spirit of God called the first resurrection, when Satan was bound”; “On this thousand years the Holy Spirit of God called the first resurrection, saying that blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection; over such the second death has no power… But do not be troubled about this, for every believer can have part in that first resurrection, except those who have fallen away from the true faith.” Spiridon Potemkin does not clarify whether the 1000 years refer to the future reward of the righteous or to the past, to the first coming of Christ. From his text it is not entirely clear with which coming of Christ the apocalyptic number is connected. Most likely, for Spiridon Potemkin the first resurrection has passed, but at the same time the future participation in it of all fighters against Nikon’s innovations is the core of the narrative. In any case, he does not further develop the chiliastic complex of ideas laid down in the Apocalypse, but moves on to the scheme of Zacharias Kopystensky.

Strictly following Zacharias Kopystensky in his interpretations, though without referring to him, Spiridon Potemkin identifies the biblical number with the year 1000 from the Nativity of Christ and the schism of the Church. Describing the apostasy of Catholicism, Spiridon Potemkin consistently uses the apocalyptic image of “the stars that fell” and the calculations of Zacharias Kopystensky. In Word 1 he wrote: “After the completion of 1000 years [the serpent] leaped out of the abyss, and with his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, which is the falling away from the faith of the church stars, and gave his power and throne to the motley beast.” He returns to this interpretation in every letter. In Word 5: “After the completion of a thousand years and after the loosing of the crafty Satan, the enemy of Christ’s Church, how he persecutes her worse than before, how with his tail he drew away the third part of all Christianity.” In Word 2: “Let all know… that the Romans fell away from the faith in the last times near the coming of the Antichrist… After the completion of 1000 years he is loosed according to Scripture for a short time to deceive the nations. And immediately leaping out of the abyss, he drew with his tail, with the Roman popes, the third part of the church stars and cast them to the earth, that is, under his feet, to rule over them”; in Word 7: “Behold the prophecy of the fall of Rome, that he will be cut off… Satan… ascended to the church heaven and with his tail drew the third part of the church stars and cast them to the earth. And at that time Rome fell away from the Christian faith and transgressed Christ’s teaching… and received from the black serpent his power and his throne and great authority and called himself the vicar of Christ.”

Undoubtedly, Spiridon Potemkin was a supporter of the idea of the Roman pope as the Antichrist, so popular in the literature of the Kiev Metropolis. He wrote: “that all may worship the motley beast, that is, the Roman pope”; “with his tail, the Roman popes”; [the serpent], “who nested in the West.” In his interpretations the “serpent” — the Antichrist — established himself on the papal throne from 1000.

The subsequent fallings away in Spiridon Potemkin’s interpretation were conditioned by the second apocalyptic number — 666. Posing the question “What contains the wall between the two comings of Christ?”, he pointed to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse: “For the Holy Spirit speaks in the Revelation of the Theologian. If anyone has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Concerning this we ought to ask even those who are considered teachers, if they are from God, that they reveal this mystery to us… if they have understanding, let them count.” Spiridon Potemkin consistently breaks down the sum of the two apocalyptic numbers.

The second falling away of the center of the true faith to the world of the Antichrist in Spiridon Potemkin’s view was the conclusion of the Union of Brest: In Word 1: “After the completion of six hundred years again he cunningly contrived, by the working of evil, a second falling away from the faith of the church stars.” In Word 7: “After this in six hundred the devil taught Ragoza the Uniate with his companions to rise up against the mind of God and the words of Christ… That same Ragoza with his companions, to their own destruction, renounced the ‘true’ one by the working of Satan… and for that reason wars and strifes and hatred arose in the Polish and Lithuanian lands for many times.”

Most importantly, the number 1660, which remained uninterpreted in the “Palinodia,” Spiridon Potemkin connected with events of Russian church history. He called the patriarchate of Nikon the third falling away. Spiridon Potemkin identified the year of the prophecy with Nikon’s enthronement (rounded from 1653) and the Moscow local council of 1660, which removed Nikon from his see although without depriving him of his rank. In Word 1 he supposed: “And again after the completion of sixty years the enemy cunningly contrived a third falling away from the faith of the church stars.” Spiridon Potemkin, like Ivan Neronov, identified Patriarch Nikon’s reforms with the establishment of a union on Rus’. Characterizing Nikon’s supporters, Spiridon Potemkin said: “that they may be gathered into one union, that is, into the Roman union, for it, inflamed in the Roman apostasy, has not yet been quenched even to this day.” Probably, emphasizing the continuing onslaught of the Roman pope-Antichrist, he narrated about the acute religious conflicts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which in his opinion had passed also to the Muscovite Tsardom. In his understanding, the persecution of the Uniates against the Orthodox of the Kiev Metropolis proved identical to the actions of the Muscovite secular authorities toward the Old Believers.

Spiridon Potemkin did not live to see the fateful year 1666 and could not specifically predict its events. He died in 1665, on the eve of the number indicated in the “Palinodia,” and wrote indefinitely in Word 1: “As for what comes after six years we do not know.” But he was convinced that terrible cataclysms, still unknown to him, would be connected with that year: “The fourth falling away has not yet been revealed and whether it will be soon according to what has been foretold, but in any case it will be according to Scripture, which is 1666” (Word 7).

Overall, Spiridon Potemkin, recreating the scheme of Zacharias Kopystensky, spoke of four stages of falling away: 1000–1600–1660–1666. He filled the notions of the coming of the “last times” with symbolic dates drawn from Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia,” linking them to concrete events. Clearly working with the text of the “Palinodia,” he gave due credit to the printed “Kniga o Vere” and highly valued it. Thus, he includes it in the list of important books rejected and forbidden by Patriarch Nikon, though in his account this did not correspond to reality: “If some say that Patriarch Nikon does not accept the Kirillova Kniga, they lie. For Nikon accepts it with love in many places. And not only Cyril does he accept, but he accepts the Stoglav and accepts the Book of Faith. This is attested by the Skrizhal, his book.” Spiridon Potemkin gathered the main block of eschatological prophecies, selected the circle of quotations used by later Old Believer authors. He introduced the prophetic calculations of the Ukrainian authors. It was precisely in his texts that the union of Russian and Ukrainian ideas about the coming end of the world took place. His “Book” in many ways determined the further development of Old Believer eschatological teachings.

It should be noted that during the period when Spiridon Potemkin was developing his variations on the theme of the number 1666, similar calculations were also characteristic of Western Christianity. In that year, the end of the world was expected in a number of regions of Europe. As the fateful number approached, authors from various traditions turned to it more and more frequently. The greatest interest in the number 1666 manifested itself in the polemical literature of England, where many Reformation authors linked the fateful number to the course of the revolutionary war, and the number 666 to the name of Oliver Cromwell. The end of the world in 1666 was predicted for him, though he did not live to see it (he died in 1658). In most English texts, the reading of this date also assumed the sequential breakdown of the apocalyptic number into 1600–1660–1666. After the end of military operations in 1660, theories about the number 1666 lost their relevance, although the “Great Plague” of 1665, the comet of 1665, and the almost apocalyptic Great Fire of London in 1666 rekindled the moods that had begun to fade.

Prophecies concerning the number 1666 are also found in the Greek author Anastasios Gordios. In his treatise the number 666 is identified with the Roman pope, and “1000” with the division of the churches. Thus, in his works the apocalyptic “1000” is interpreted as the subjection of Rome to the power of the Antichrist. For him, however, the thousand-year kingdom lasted from the time the Apocalypse was written (around 100 AD) until the schism (1054).

In Portugal, a year before the fateful number, the work of António Vieira was published, threatening the end of the world in 1666.

In anticipation of the fateful year, the French Catholic priest Isaac Peyer (1596–1676) turned to the exegesis of the Apostle Paul’s epistles concerning the “last days.” Among other signs of the Last Judgment, the Apostle Paul (Rom. 9:27) spoke of the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. In 1642 Isaac Peyer went to Palestine as the place of the future Second Coming and the “new world.”

The connection between apocalypticism and Jewish messianism was even more clearly reflected in the movement of Sabbatai Zevi, thanks to which expectations of the end of the world in 1666 swept across the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A year before the predicted date, one member of the Jewish community declared himself the Messiah who would bring liberation and deliverance from dispersion to the Jewish people. As scholars have demonstrated, Sabbatai Zevi borrowed the number 1666 not from Kabbalistic, but from Christian literature. Messianic moods in the Jewish milieu had been strong since the mass pogroms of Bogdan Khmelnytsky, which fell precisely on the eschatological year of Jewish literature — 1648. The surviving members of the communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth saw in Sabbatai Zevi the fulfillment of prophecies about the acquisition of the Promised Land on the Day of Judgment. Sabbatai Zevi’s preaching attracted a significant number of followers; having gathered them, he attempted to return to the Holy City. Sabbatai Zevi set out for Jerusalem, which in his version was to be given to him as the king of the Jews. The ruler of Jerusalem, the sultan, ordered the rebel arrested. In captivity Sabbatai Zevi converted to Islam, and later was executed.

The Sabbatean movement had considerable resonance in the Christian world, to which the role assigned to the Jews in Christian New Testament and medieval literature contributed in no small measure. As noted, in the epistle of the Apostle Paul it was said that the Jews would be convinced of the truth of Christ the Messiah at the end of world history. Sabbatai Zevi’s actions did not fit the scheme fixed by Christian canon: he converted to Islam, not Christianity. But there existed another interpretation of the role of the Jews in eschatological teaching: the establishment of Jewish power in Jerusalem signified the coming of the Antichrist. Therefore, the powerful movement of Sabbatai Zevi for possession of Jerusalem was perceived by Christians as a sign of the imminent end of the world. It reinforced the predictions of the end of the world in 1666.

In the Orthodox literature of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the response to the Sabbatean movement was the work “The True Messiah,” created by the well-known Ukrainian author Ioannikii Galiatovskii. The refutation of Sabbatai Zevi’s prophecies was written in 1667, published in Kiev in the “simple language” in 1669, and in Polish in the same city in 1672. Ioannikii Galiatovskii’s main argument was the dogma of the Incarnation: in Christianity the only Messiah of the prophetic books can be interpreted solely as Jesus Christ. The work, for the first time in Orthodox anti-Jewish literature, introduced arguments of “chimeric” antisemitism from Polish literature of similar theme (blood libels, abducted and murdered Christian infants, as well as other ritual murders, desecration of the host, conspiracies against Christians). In 1669 Ioannikii Galiatovskii sent the publication to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich, and in 1670 personally brought it to Moscow. The work gained circulation in Russia.

The course of Sabbatai Zevi’s actions was followed not only in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The vicissitudes of the movement were described in detail in numerous Western European newspapers and pamphlets. One such pamphlet was also quoted by Ioannikii Galiatovskii. For example, the Sabbatean movement also influenced English eschatology.

Western newspapers about Sabbatai Zevi also reached the Muscovite state. Here, since the first half of the 17th century, there existed the practice of translating news letters, newspapers, and pamphlets in the Ambassadorial Chancery, which received the name Kuranty (Courants). The information was reported to the Boyar Duma and the sovereign. Kuranty containing news about Sabbatai Zevi and his prophecies of the end of the world in 1666 clearly aroused interest and were preserved in the Ambassadorial Chancery. Several pamphlets were translated at once. Although the Kuranty were intended only for an extremely narrow circle, it was not uncommon for such translations to pass into the popular milieu and spread as clandestine leaflets. The mechanism of such a transition, though on a different text, has been traced by S. M. Shamin. It is unclear whether this happened with the Kuranty about Sabbatai Zevi. What is certain is that they became known to the elite of society and, most likely, were read to the sovereign. It can be assumed that Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich followed the course of events concerning Sabbatai Zevi, took an interest in them, and listened to the rumors circulating in Europe.

It is difficult to say to what extent the tsar — during whose reign, and perhaps with whose participation, the “Kniga o Vere” was published — believed the prophecies about the number 1666. In any case, he did not wait and was not afraid to convene in the foretold year the Consecrated Church Council, which was called upon to resolve two problems destabilizing society: the absence of a head of the church and the presence of powerful opposition. The Council of 1666–1667, which became a kind of Orthodox analogue of an Ecumenical Council, put an end to the inter-patriarchal period and gave an assessment of the Old Belief. Nikon was finally removed from his see and deprived of his rank, while the Old Believers were anathematized, removed from church jurisdiction, and placed outside the law.

Undoubtedly, after the council eschatologism in the Old Believer milieu developed with increasing intensity. The prophecies about the number 1666 were seen as having been fulfilled. The teaching of Spiridon Potemkin proved to be in demand. It was assimilated by Old Believer literature on the expanding wave of expectations of the end of the world.

The first to take up the constructions of Spiridon Potemkin was his spiritual son, one of the most educated Old Believer authors — Deacon Fyodor Ivanov of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral. According to the work “On the Questioning of the Unholy Authorities by the Hierodeacon Fyodor,” while in confinement he posed to the judges a series of questions concerning the exegesis of verses 1–3 of chapter 20 and chapter 13 of the Apocalypse: “Tell me: why was Satan bound for 1000 years? …And what did Christ accomplish in the Church during that time, while the enemy of the Church lay bound in the abyss? And why was he loosed for a short time, to deceive the nations?… Tell me, what is the beast, and what is his number?” The authorities, as the text indicates, could find no answer to these prophecies, and they increased the punishment of Fyodor, who knew their meaning, while concealing him from his flock. Fyodor himself in this work merely referred to the letters of his teacher: “There were also the words of the God-wise elder Spiridonion against the opponents of the Church, written with heavenly philosophy, exceedingly useful to the Church.”

The answers are presented in another of his works: “Letter to a Monk.” Deacon Fyodor believed that before the coming of Christ the world was engulfed by the vices of the once God-chosen Jewish people, who thereby violated the covenant with God. The corruption of faith is described in extraordinarily emotional terms: “For when Satan was not bound before the coming of Christ, he brought the whole universe into idolatry and made even the chosen Jewish tongue and the land empty of piety. But Christ… abolished his deception [Satan’s] by His first coming to earth.” The appearance of Christ and His victory over Satan in Deacon Fyodor’s exposition marked the removal of sin and the approach of humanity to God. In his explanation, Christ at the moment of the first coming bound Satan, thereby establishing the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom of Christian piety, the kingdom of the saints, in the eyes of Deacon Fyodor is the Christian Church of the times of the apostles, martyrs, and then the Ecumenical Councils: “And after the binding of Satan and after Christ’s ascension into heaven, the saints and martyrs appeared for Christ, pouring out their blood… and with it they cleansed the whole earth of the piety of the apostolic teaching. And then Christ established the seven Ecumenical Councils… and by these holy Ecumenical Councils Christ filled His holy Church with dogmas sent down from heaven.” His reasoning fully accords with the teaching of Blessed Augustine.

At the same time, Deacon Fyodor, repeating Spiridon Potemkin, and the latter the biblical text, linked the thousand-year kingdom to the first resurrection: “And this thousand years Scripture called the first resurrection.” Unlike the text of the Apocalypse, Deacon Fyodor perceives the first resurrection — of the righteous — as having already occurred. It can be assumed that similar views were characteristic of his teacher as well. In this case Deacon Fyodor merely expounded them in detail. According to his reasoning, the first resurrection has already touched the righteous — the saints of the Christian Church (apostles, martyrs, fathers of the Church). They have risen, are in paradise, and the second death does not touch them: “Blessed and holy, he says, is he who has part in the first resurrection; over such the second death has no power.” Those Christians who preserve the original tradition of the thousand-year kingdom also become partakers of the first resurrection and, consequently, immortality in paradise: “And if anyone even now holds to that transmitted faith, he has part in that first resurrection with those saints.”

In Deacon Fyodor’s exposition, the circle of adherents of the thousand-year kingdom and, accordingly, participants in the first resurrection constantly narrows. The Christian Church loses its supporters as a result of fallings away. While reconstructing the history of the Christian Church, Deacon Fyodor follows his teacher.

The earliest texts of Deacon Fyodor connected with this problematics can evidently be found in the work “Answer of the Orthodox,” composed in the Pustozersk prison on behalf of the four leaders of the Old Belief, including Avvakum and Lazar. According to N. S. Demkova and L. V. Titova, the “Answer of the Orthodox” reflects Deacon Fyodor’s preparatory materials for the council of 1666–1667. In the “Answer of the Orthodox,” Deacon Fyodor, in accordance with the logic of his teacher, deciphered the apocalyptic numbers. Reproducing Word 1 “On the Cross” of Spiridon Potemkin, he wrote: “After a thousand years from the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ancient serpent, Satan, was loosed for a short time to deceive the nations, as it is said in the Revelation of the Theologian, chapter 20. And when, leaping out of the abyss, he came to his former place, to the West, where he had been cast down from heaven, there with his tail, that is, with the Roman pope, he drew away the third part of the stars of heaven, that is, the Orthodox from the faith — from the church heaven — and cast them to the earth, that is, to carnal wisdom, which is called enmity against God, according to the apostle. And that Satan made the Roman kingdom in the West, where his throne is, the mother and receptacle of all heresies and the source of all impiety.”

The next stage of falling away for Deacon Fyodor was the Union of Brest: “And when the Scripture was fulfilled, and the present time revealed the mystery in the Revelation of the Theologian. According to the number of the beast 600, after the Roman apostasy, then Little Rus’ fell away from the faith, those who are called Uniates.” It should be emphasized that in the writings of Deacon Fyodor the emphasis in the evaluation of the events of the Union of Brest noticeably shifts. This corresponded to the interpretation fixed in the printed version of the “Kniga o Vere.” If the Ukrainian theologians Zacharias Kopystensky and Spiridon Potemkin fiercely fought against the union and defended the rights and piety of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis, in Russia the boundary between the Kiev Uniate and Kiev Orthodox metropolises was erased. The fact of the conclusion of the Union of Brest in Russia imprinted a mark of impiety on Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodoxy in the eyes of Russian society. Therefore it is not surprising that Deacon Fyodor, repeating the words of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” spoke of the falling away of all “Little Rus’.” Moreover, he extended the apostasy of the Uniates to Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodoxy even more explicitly than in the collection. In his version the theory of fallings away recognized the Kiev Orthodox Church as subject to the world of the Antichrist.

Deacon Fyodor described the further path of the Antichrist by textually reproducing the reasoning of Spiridon Potemkin, and spoke of the number 1660: “And thereafter, when sixty years had passed [after 1600], then God, permitting Satan to complete his work, alas, with his tail he drew away our Great Russian Tsardom through Nikon.” Deacon Fyodor repeated the assertion of Spiridon Potemkin (and Ivan Neronov) regarding the identity of the Union of Brest and the Russian church-ritual reforms. In the indicated fragment of the “Answer of the Orthodox,” the description of the Antichrist’s advance ends at the number 1660, as in Spiridon Potemkin. The resulting scheme was 1000–1600–1660.

In another fragment of the “Answer of the Orthodox” a tripartite scheme is also presented, but one that already includes the stages 1000–1600–1666. It is probable that the use of these three stages goes back to the printed “Kniga o Vere.” Yet the author relied in this case on the texts of Spiridon Potemkin. Here he repeated Word 7 of Spiridon Potemkin. Deacon Fyodor summarized: “First, when after 1000 years, upon the loosing of Satan from the abyss, Rome fell and corrupted the Creed by adding ‘and from the Son,’ and thereafter composed many other heresies. Second, the Uniates, when after 1000 years they fell away from the faith, according to the number of the beast 600 was fulfilled, then likewise they corrupted their Creed, united with the Latins, and eradicated the ‘true’ one, as we said above concerning Meletius, Bishop Smotrytsky.”

Deacon Fyodor appealed to the scheme of Spiridon Potemkin with a noticeable difference. He lived through the fateful year 1666 and filled the vacant stage of the final falling away, falling on that year, with a description of the events that had occurred: “And thereafter, when it came and was fulfilled according to the number of the beast, after 600 years, 66 — oh woe and alas — in Great Russia corruption of the faith arose more cunningly and more wisely than the former….” Thus, Deacon Fyodor linked the last stage with the council of 1666–1667. In another work he emphasized the prophetic gift of his teacher, who, in his opinion, had foretold the conflicts of the council of 1666–1667: “Father Spiridonion was a prophet; what he said concerning the apostate council came to pass exactly.”

In the “Letter to a Monk,” Deacon Fyodor combined the two tripartite schemes, creating a four-part theory of fallings away. In this work Deacon Fyodor again reproduced Word 1 of Spiridon Potemkin, but now with the addition of the next stage of 1666: “After the completion of 1000 years Satan was loosed from his prison for a short time, that he might again deceive the nations.” Further: “And when, leaping out of the abyss, he drew with his tail the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. The serpent is to be understood as Satan, his tail as the Roman pope, the stars as the peoples of the faithful, heaven as the firmament of the Church. For then Satan with his tail, the heretical pope, drew away the third part of the universe, the Roman kingdom with all the Western lands, from the right Christian faith and cast them to the earth, that is, to earthly wisdom; Satan subjected them under his feet and walks upon them, and works his will in them as he wishes… And thereafter, whoever has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” And the continuation: “When 600 years were fulfilled after the Roman fall, then the peoples of Little Russia fell away to the Roman Church from the Eastern Church of Christ… And when after that sixty years were fulfilled, then in Great Russia a great confusion arose among us, and likewise the falling away was accomplished… And after six years following the sixty, I think, the complete torment of the Antichrist has already begun.”

In the “Letter to a Monk,” Deacon Fyodor formulated the final version of the theory of four accomplished fallings away: 1000 — the division of the churches; 1600 — the Union of Brest; 1660 — Nikon’s reform and the council concerning him; 1666 — the council against the Old Believers.

He repeats it in the “Letter to His Son Maxim”: “All this came to pass that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. For after a thousand years Rome fell away, as the Book of the True Faith says. And after 600 years Little Rus’ fell away to Rome.” Echoing the “Answer of the Orthodox,” he characterizes the church changes made by the Uniates: “Again when in Little Russia those Uniates fell away from our right faith to the accursed Roman pope, the Kiev Metropolitan Ragoza with his companions, then they too altered their old books according to the new desires of their apostasy. From their Creed the apostate bishop Meletius Smotrytsky removed the ‘true’ one.”

Continuing to reconstruct the picture of the fallings away, Deacon Fyodor in the “Letter to Maxim” again pointed to the reform of Patriarch Nikon: “And after sixty years Great Russia was transformed into various impieties and many motley things.” Deacon Fyodor fully shared the assertion of Spiridon Potemkin (and Ivan Neronov) regarding the identity of the Union of Brest and the Russian church-ritual reforms. He compared the religious persecutions in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (and in the Roman Empire in the times of early Christianity) with the situation in the Muscovite Tsardom: “And in Rome at that time and in Little Russia there were many martyrs for the old piety of the faith, who suffered unto death from their apostates. So too here, in Great Rus’, concerning the transformation of the faith now everyone knows… And many likewise suffered here for the old Orthodoxy from the new apostates with all manner of deaths everywhere.” In his explanation the Old Believers are the direct continuators of the early Christian, and then the Ukrainian, martyrs for the faith. But their sufferings surpass all previous ones, and the Second Coming, bringing salvation to the chosen, is already near: “And after six years by their wicked assembly a great persecution and torment will be raised against the faithful, such as has never been anywhere. And after this the Lord will avenge the blood of His sons and will take vengeance and render retribution to the enemies according to Scripture.”

For Deacon Fyodor the predicted dates had been embodied in real events. The prophecies had come true, Deacon Fyodor reasoned, and the last stronghold of Orthodoxy — Moscow — had been drawn into the kingdom of the Antichrist. He clearly summarizes this in the famous phrase from the “Letter to Ioann Avvakumovich”: “There will be no other falling away anywhere else: for it has happened everywhere; the last Rus’ is here.” In the situation of the final, total falling away, the legacy of the Christian Church before the division, that is, the thousand-year kingdom of the saints, is preserved only by the community chosen by God — the Old Believers. They thus become participants in the first resurrection.

It should be noted that in the “Letter to a Monk” Deacon Fyodor, having repeated the constructions of Spiridon Potemkin, considered it necessary to refer them to the version of the printed 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere.” The latter, however, used different phrasing and spoke of three stages. In the “Letter to All the Faithful” Deacon Fyodor confirms the authority of the “Kniga o Vere”: “Seek no more than this [the 30th chapter of the Book of the True Faith] and do not be wise about yourselves.”

Thus, even in the works of Deacon Fyodor a reorientation of authorities occurred from the texts of Spiridon Potemkin to the printed codex of the “Kniga o Vere.” Later, in the writings of other Old Believer authors, direct appeal to the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” where nothing was said about the number 1660, закрепило the use of the tripartite version of the theory of fallings away. In almost all interpretations the reading of the fateful number assumed its sequential breakdown: 1000–1600–1666. It is possible that the authors needed to reconcile the concept of fallings away with the complex of ideas widespread in Old Believer texts of Moscow as the Third Rome. There was, and could not have been, any theory of the Third Rome in Spiridon Potemkin: this concept was never accepted in Ukraine and Belarus. In Russia, however, and especially among the Old Believers, it occupies an important place in the system of eschatological and historical views. Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that the stage of 1660 drops out in the constructions of Old Believer authors. All the more so after 1666 it no longer carried the same semantic load as in the texts of Spiridon Potemkin, for whom 1660 was the last of those that had come to pass. After the passage of several years, when all the prophecies had clearly been embodied, the last stage, in the opinion of the Old Believers, became the foretold 1666.

Having concentrated the eschatological constructions on the number 1666, Old Believer authors begin to expand the circle of witnesses to it. Already Deacon Fyodor sought to rely on broader authorities. In the “Letter to Ioann Avvakumovich” he strengthens the argumentation and introduces additional names. In addition to the Apocalypse and the “Kniga o Vere,” Deacon Fyodor uses the text of pseudo-Hippolytus, which he was probably well acquainted with from the Sobornik (Moscow, 1647): “And their apostasy is indicated by the Holy Spirit, the True One, in the Apocalypse, chapter 13, according to the number of the beast 666, and the Book of the True Faith, chapter 30, and Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome.”

A follower of Deacon Fyodor, the monk Avraamii, actively used the theory of fallings away, often repeating a similar block of arguments. In his famous petition to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich he exactly reproduced the questions to chapters 20 and 13 of the Apocalypse presented in Deacon Fyodor’s “Questioning of the Authorities.” But he did not answer them, remarking meaningfully: “And concerning this I will keep silence and sprinkle with tears.”

Evidently the answer to the questions was the work of Avraamii “On the Roman Apostasy,” textually connected with Deacon Fyodor’s “Letter to a Monk.” It may have come down without introductory phrases. In the surviving text the narrative begins immediately with the falling away in 1000: “Before this, about 1000 years from Christ [Rome] fell away from the faith. It is written there [in the Book of the True Faith]. Thereafter this too is recalled. And in our most radiant Russian land up to these times the all-cunning enemy has often looked in, plotting to tear us away from the right faith. But God did not permit it then, since the Scripture and the number of the beast 1666 had not yet been fulfilled.” “And when the Scripture was fulfilled and the present time revealed the mystery in the Revelation of the Theologian, according to the number of the beast 600 was fulfilled after the Roman apostasy, then Little Rus’ fell away from the faith, those who are called Uniates.” Further Avraamii reproduced from the “Letter to a Monk” the fragment about Patriarch Nikon: “And thereafter, when sixty years came, then God permitting Satan to complete his work, alas, he drew away our Great Russian Tsardom with his tail through Nikon.”

In other cases the monk Avraamii formulated his views on the changes occurring in the Russian Church with the help of exact quotations from the “Kniga o Vere.” In the “Letter to the God-Lover” and in the “Letter to His Spiritual Daughter (Boyarynya Morozova)” he gave an almost exact reference to the printed collection: “And the time of him [the Antichrist] is at the fulfillment of this number [666]. Concerning this the compiler of the Book of the True Faith writes clearly and says: That after 1000 years from the incarnation of the Word of God Rome fell away with all the Western lands from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year the inhabitants of Little Rus’ fell away from the faith and gave the Roman pope a charter of submission in all things. And this is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. And then Lithuania fell away from the faith. Guarding also our Muscovite state he wrote: when 1666 years from the incarnation of the Word of God are fulfilled, then it behooves us also to be on guard, lest we suffer likewise as the Romans and Lithuania.”

It can be noted that the monk Avraamii, even more than Deacon Fyodor, increases the number of authorities. In addition to the Apocalypse, the “Kniga o Vere,” and pseudo-Hippolytus, he draws on the works of Irenaeus of Lyons. In his reading Irenaeus of Lyons interpreted the number 666 as a temporal extent: “Saint Irenaeus clearly tells us concerning this number [666], that this number signifies all the years from Adam until the destruction of the beast.” Pseudo-Hippolytus, in his exposition, narrated the descent of Christ into hell and the end of the world in 1666: “Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, interprets [chapter 20 of the Apocalypse] that Satan was bound for 1000 years from the entry of our Lord Jesus Christ into hell, and he says: when 1000 years come from the Lord’s entry into hell, and after those thousand years, when the number of years 666 is fulfilled, and thereafter he said, there will be the consummation and the prophets will come to earth.”

All these numerous testimonies, in his exposition, were fulfilled in the book correction of Patriarch Nikon: “And this number was clearly and manifestly fulfilled in 1666, for in that year Nikon the destroyer issued his heretical Service Books, and commanded that the holy former Service Books, by which our fathers served and pleased the Lord God, be cast out of the church as if they were unfit.”

The monk Avraamii tragically marveled at the authorities’ recklessness in discarding the predictions of the “Kniga o Vere”: “and knowing, they did not fear; Satan through his vessel Nikon destroyed the faith in that year.” “The number was fulfilled.” Most importantly, the monk Avraamii appealed to these chronological calculations in order to answer his followers who had asked questions about the end of the world that had not occurred in 1666. He urged his spiritual children to “take courage and be established in the truth,” foretelling that in approximately twenty years Christ would descend to earth to save His chosen ones and punish the tormentors.

Indeed, the Old Believers, having taken the number 1666 as the foundation of their eschatological theories, initially found themselves in a difficult situation. According to the canon, the triumph of the “prince of this world” would be short-lived and last three and a half years. After that, the Second Coming of Christ and the subsequent end of the world were to take place. Having acknowledged that in 1666 the final falling away had occurred and the world had been completely engulfed by the Antichrist, they saw that in 1669 the end of the world had not come. Obviously, it then followed to understand either that the kingdom of the Antichrist would last longer than three and a half years and perhaps for an indefinite time. The solution was found in the affirmation of the theory of a spiritual or “dismembered” Antichrist.

The number 1666 does not disappear from Old Believer literature; on the contrary, with the development of eschatological teachings, it becomes increasingly important. Nikita Dobrynin (Pustosvyat) also appealed to it, seeing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere”: “For we clearly see that everything written there is coming to pass.” In his address to the sovereign he quoted the printed “Kniga o Vere” verbatim: “And we, Sovereign, fear lest we too fall away from the true faith and perish in soul, as the Romans did. For in the Book of the True Faith (chapter 30, folio 272) it is written thus: It behooves all Orthodox always to keep this in memory and to attend to it, that after a thousand years from the incarnation of the Word of God Rome fell away with all the Western lands from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year after the thousand, the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church and gave the Roman pope a charter of submission in all things. This is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. Guarding against this, it is written: when 1666 years are fulfilled, may we not suffer any evil from the previous causes, but through repentance appease God… And again, Sovereign, in the same chapter, on folio 271, it is written: After the thousandth year, when the 595th year was approaching, the apostasy and seduction of those called Uniates from the holy Eastern Church to the Western Church became manifest. And upon the fulfillment of the years of the number one thousand six hundred sixty-six, it behooves us also to be on guard against these causes, lest we suffer any evil, but to witness the fulfillment of the previously spoken Scriptures.”

The Borisoglebsk priest Lazar expanded the circle of authorities when appealing to the number 1666. In addition to the “Kniga o Vere” and pseudo-Hippolytus, he drew on the texts of Methodius of Patara. He pointed out that in the work of Methodius of Patara the number was deciphered as numerous names of the Antichrist, whereas in Hippolytus, in his reading, it signified not only the name but also the time of the Second Coming: “And if anyone has understanding and wisdom, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, 666. Hippolytus says that in this number many names are found… Thus speaks Saint Hippolytus, not having the present or the future, but the number of years reduced to a sum. Therefore, he says, it is the number of years and the number of a man and the number of the beast, for in those years such things are to arise, and from that time Orthodoxy will be greatly shaken.” Thus, Lazar perceived fragments from the text of pseudo-Hippolytus as an indication of the council of 1666–1667. Following Ivan Neronov, Spiridon Potemkin, and Deacon Fyodor, Lazar identified Patriarch Nikon’s church-ritual reform with the Union of Brest: “and therefore it behooves us also to beware of these [nets of the Antichrist], lest we suffer the same as the Belarusian authorities and Metropolitan Mikhail Ragoza with his companions.”

Avvakum also wrote about the fallings away, but the theory did not become the subject of special elaboration for him. Even when commenting on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, he avoided turning to chronological constructions.

The prophecies concerning the year 1666 received numerous interpretations and became part of oral tradition. Theological constructions about the number 1666 took the form of rumors or clandestine leaflets. Probably among the rumors recorded in written sources was the work named by Deacon Fyodor “The Book of the Eagle from the Books of Ezra,” now unknown. From Deacon Fyodor’s description it is clear that the work combined the prophecies of the Third Book of Ezra and the number 1666. Deacon Fyodor asserted that Patriarch Nikon had read “The Book of the Eagle” and that “that Eagle drove him from Moscow.” Besides Deacon Fyodor, “The Book of the Eagle” was noted by Yuri Krizhanich. He devoted special sections in his treatise “Interpretation of Historical Prophecies” to the analysis of the teachings about 1666 in the “Kniga o Vere” and in “The Book of the Eagle from the Books of Ezra.”

Overall, elaborations concerning the number 1666 circulated in various strata of Russian culture in the middle and third quarter of the 17th century. Published in the middle of the century in official book culture, the prophecies gradually became firmly established in the sphere of democratic literature and, above all, Old Believer literature.

There were special reasons for the popularity of theories about the number 1666 among Old Believer authors. However, the testimonies of the “Kniga o Vere” were not assimilated by Old Believer literature immediately. The conceptions concerning the number 1666 were accepted into the Old Believer tradition thanks to the elaborations of Spiridon Potemkin, who was familiar with the prophecies even in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and apparently from the source of the “Kniga o Vere” — Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia.” He was the first to speak of the predictions before 1666. After the council of 1666–1667 the relevance of the prophecies became obvious, and the works of Spiridon Potemkin became in demand. Deacon Fyodor introduced them. The monk Avraamii quoted both the works of Deacon Fyodor and the printed “Kniga o Vere.” Nikita Dobrynin (Pustosvyat) relied only on the printed version. It can be said that after Deacon Fyodor, early Old Believer authors mainly referred to the printed version of the “Kniga o Vere.” The printed collection enters the number of foundational, extremely significant authorities. It should be noted that almost all the named authors of variations on the number 1666 paid cruelly for their constant reminding of the authorities of the fulfilled predictions from the “Kniga o Vere,” published in the only printing house in Russia with the blessing of the tsar and the patriarch. All of them, with the exception of Spiridon Potemkin, who was close to the court and died a natural death, were burned at the stake or beheaded.

In the subsequent Old Believer tradition the number 1666 is drawn into the most diverse constructions. It can be asserted that there is almost no Old Believer work whose author does not appeal in one version or another to the number 1666. Nevertheless, this date goes back to the Ukrainian-Belarusian tradition and finds parallels with Western European, primarily Reformation, conceptions. But in Russia, unlike the Western tradition, the prophecy remained in literature even after the fateful year had passed. While in the West after 1666 variations on it disappear from book culture and oral tradition, becoming an example of an unfulfilled end of the world, in Russia this theme is preserved and actualized. Old Believer teachings about the sensory Antichrist, the spiritual Antichrist, the idea of the changing face of the Antichrist, dates of the end of the world derived from this number — all are connected with conceptions of the number 1666. The theory of fallings away in its tripartite version became the central point of Old Believer literature. Its foundation is the position concerning the last falling away from the faith, which has been continuing from 1666 to the present day. For the Old Believers, in 1666 the course of history came to an end.

source